Shall Mr Vacula Make a Misstep in the Capital of Eire?

[Linus]

You have to send a formal request to Lsuoma. He is easily distracted so send several and keep going until he does it.

Someone also told me if you click on it 1,000 times it starts to work. You could try that.

You have to press [ctrl/alt] then [delete] and then right-click the button to make it work.

http://www.anyclip.com/movies/happy-gilmore/sprinklers/

Damn you, I need a pee now.

To give you some history, people used to ask for an edit button with the usual 'No and stop asking!!!!!!!!!!' Eventually we got an edit button a month or two back. Of course there was no claim it would actually do anything.

Now it makes sense. Thanks for filling me in.

[Mykeru]

High fives, peeps! I just got banned by John W. Lofty-Ass for disagreeing with him. For framing arguments as logical proofs. For being silly. For making a typo. (It's all one in the same in Lofty-Land.)

http://www.skepticink.com/debunkingchri ... imination/

Did he block access or otherwise can that page?

Who knew it was possible? Justin's zen butthurt apparently destroyed Septic Kink.

Probably just moving to FTB

[HoneyWagon]

This was just posted about CONvergence (SkepchickCon)
Any thoughts?


http://i.imgur.com/gfYKFed.png

Here are the panel speakers:
http://ow.ly/i/2wSPo

LOL
Her are all the panelists:
http://lanyrd.com/2013/skepchickcon/sckpgr/
Same old, same old.

[Mykeru]

This was just posted about CONvergence (SkepchickCon)
Any thoughts?


http://i.imgur.com/gfYKFed.png

Here are the panel speakers:
http://ow.ly/i/2wSPo

I wouldn't believe PZ Myers if he claimed I was typing this right now.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Oh, and what the hell is the US government thinking? Perscuting Snowden across the entire globe, even arranging for the Bolivian presidential plane to not be able to refuel on US-aligned countries because they thought he was aboard the plane... just because the guy revealed they were spying on their own people?

Jesus fucking Christ. We all love to talk shit about how PZ Myers and his friends are a bunch of hypocrites, but they have nothing on Obama. The US government either think they are in 1960 and the Russkies are going to invade anytime now, or they are the laziest, most pathetic whinning losers with access to weapons of mass destruction in the world.

I also find it funny as I assumed this was an open secret. It is known that governments do NOT have to access servers to get data. They intercept it at the local exchanges although of course this may not work for encrypted messages. They've been able to do that since telephones were invented. The main cable(s) to the US from Europe is via the UK so of course it's tapped into. Also, in the UK at least, there are tens of thousands of data requests granted every year and there is no way they are all considered with any level of care. It's well known allies spy on each other and always have. Finally, how the hell do people think that terrorists get caught if it is not by spying like this?
spying
What concerns me is not the access to data but how it may be used. Not even now but in the future if we find ourselves with more totalitarian governments. Imagine what would happen if people with the mindset of some at Ftb/A+ got into power?

anyone thinking 'oh, my country would NEVER do that' is delusional. If they have the technical ability, they are. It's what intelligence services do. The trick that no one gets is rather than pretending it doesn't happen, or driving such programs into ever deeper realms of classification is to bring them into the light so they can have actual governance. But instead, we pretend the world is something other than it is, and so we get these regular spasms over Echelon, TIA, and now this.

I understand why the US gov wants to squish Snowden, but this shit about it being the duty of other governments to extradite the guy to the US for revealing secrets about the way the US gov contravenes laws with abandon is a bit rich.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Did you read the original article he's trying to satirize? (note: none of this is helped by the twin facts that Elam is an angry man fuming at his perceived powerlessness at the hands of eeeeebul wimmin, and that he's a shitty writer.) But, if you haven't, you should.

Elam is an angry man fuming at his perceived powerlessness at the hands of the law and a society influenced by feminists. An important distinction, not that that makes him much more palatable.

[Badger3k]

I was a seeker, but every religion I checked out didn't make sense when you really thought about it. There were things I liked in Bahai, Buddhism, and Taoism, but I just couldn't really believe in any of them.

I'm considerably fond of Taoism - you've got to love a belief system that seems to consist mainly in lessons on how silly it is to have beliefs.

I really like it - it bothers me a bit that it seems to advocate inaction at its core - but I think that's only because of its wide perspective.

It's been a long time since I considered Taosim, and reading the philosophy, but I don't think inaction is entirely correct. From what I understood, the concept was more about acting in concert with the flow of things. In some cases, inaction is the correct course, but in others taking action "naturally" would be the right action. Taking action without thinking of it, sort of like letting the universe take it's own course. Unless I'm confusing it with one of the other Eastern philosophies, which is entirely possible - it's been about 10 years and I haven't concerned myself with such things in that time.

[Wonderist]

Aneris, I posted a reply to you in this thread: viewtopic.php?p=107655#p107655

[Parody Accountant]

Belief - n. - a proposition that one holds to be true

I'm with Steve in these beliefs, except the robots, instead they're clearly gnomes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF7d-HdjBvE

Great video. Laughed hard more than once.

Since we're on the subject of belief... I believe that 3rd wave feminism started on this elevator.

[youtube]bKyNkjRumqY[/youtube]

[AbsurdWalls (again)]

This was just posted about CONvergence (SkepchickCon)
Any thoughts?


http://i.imgur.com/gfYKFed.png

Here are the panel speakers:
http://ow.ly/i/2wSPo

LOL
Her are all the panelists:
http://lanyrd.com/2013/skepchickcon/sckpgr/
Same old, same old.

Is that an evolutionary psychology panel with zero evolutionary psychologists on it?

[Skep tickle]

The reason why men double over in pain is because when you get hit in the nuts it hurts in your lower abdomen. Like the pain is transferred or connected somehow. But I suppose YMMV.

It seems like the shock travels all the way up the plumbing. At least when I've been nutted. Not just the nuts, but all the way up to the bladder.

I'll see your bladder, and raise you "all the way around to the fucking kidneys".

The pain felt elsewhere is "referred pain". It's similar to pain from angina or a heart attack being felt in the jaw and/or left arm. There are lots of other examples, including inflammation in upper abdomen causing shoulder pain (gallbladder -> R shoulder, spleen -> L shoulder), stone in ureter causing pain in vulva or scrotum, etc.

My assumption re the nastiness of the experience has been that they're visceral organs - essentially, "internal" organs even though they're (normally) located "outside" the abdominal cavity. As such the sensations aren't the sharp precisely located pains as when skin, muscle, & bone are injured.

This writeup seems reasonable, also refers to the sheer # of nerves:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31182/wh ... rt-so-much

[Badger3k]

That's *an* elevator...but is it *the* elevator?

Heretic - You doubt the Holy 'Stache? This is The Elevator! The Stache doth not lie - nay, it cannot lie! Anyone who says differently is a heretic who belongs to the demons at the hell of A+.


Never doubt the Stache!

[Badger3k]

This was just posted about CONvergence (SkepchickCon)
Any thoughts?


http://i.imgur.com/gfYKFed.png

Here are the panel speakers:
http://ow.ly/i/2wSPo

LOL
Her are all the panelists:
http://lanyrd.com/2013/skepchickcon/sckpgr/
Same old, same old.

Is that an evolutionary psychology panel with zero evolutionary psychologists on it?

But, you do know that evolutionary psychology is not a science, it is a pseudoscience, so why should they have someone who knows the subject? There is nothing to know, of course, so everyone and no one is an expert. That's why the Sainted Becca of the Elevator can pronounce it all shite, and dismiss all criticism as the hatred of misogynists.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Apparently Morsi broke the promises he made.

I wish I lived in a country where the people spontaneously deposed their president for breaking promises.

Broken promises are business as usual in most democracies. The difference is that Egypt doesn't have a tradition of democracy and whoever took power after the revolution had a duty to meet obligations to the disparate groups that put them there, because it was blindingly obvious that this would happen otherwise.

[Wonderist]

Stunt Whisperer, I replied to you in this thread: viewtopic.php?p=107663#p107663

[LurkyLurkyLurker]

I wonder how PZ would react if a panel on evolution had no biologists?

[welch]

What's belief have to do with things you can verify? I don't "believe" in IPv4 or SNMP. (IPv6 on the other hand...<inside joke>) They are things that exist and work in a specified way, and I can verify them. belief has nothing to do with that, in fact, it's actually harmful for dealing with reality. The current capital of England requires zero belief, regardless of what city that actually is. I can spend a small amount of time to verify what that is from multiple authoritative sources.

I don't believe I have a dog laying about 2.5m from me. I can look and see she's there. If I were to walk over and verify this by touching her, she would have the physical characteristics of what we call a dog. There's zero belief involved with that. So is the horrifying fact that my coffee mug is empty.

This is where such discussions get, from my POV, weird. You used something that requires zero belief whatsoever as an example of belief. Why would you even do that? I'm unsure what it shows.

You cannot know that that is a dog, unless you verify the conditions set for each taxonomic rank. I guess this would involve tests that might leave you with little more than a warm, somewhat slippery doormat once you'd finished. And, of course, your coffee mug is not "empty", not even if it is in a vacuum.

It is empty of coffee, and regardless of what else may be in that space, no coffee = empty. But that is a semantic distinction.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

This was just posted about CONvergence (SkepchickCon)
Any thoughts?


http://i.imgur.com/gfYKFed.png

Here are the panel speakers:
http://ow.ly/i/2wSPo

Good to see that they have Stefunny forming a sort of sexual-desire-killing barrier between Laden and the hotchick on the far right.

[Aneris]

Dropping this here, more for me for later viewing (and some might find interesting).

#cornwell
#evopsych

[youtube]_0oOJcocvUg[/youtube]

[welch]

This was just posted about CONvergence (SkepchickCon)
Any thoughts?


http://i.imgur.com/gfYKFed.png

Here are the panel speakers:
http://ow.ly/i/2wSPo

LOL
Her are all the panelists:
http://lanyrd.com/2013/skepchickcon/sckpgr/
Same old, same old.

Wow...those must be the pre-eminent evolutionary psychologists on the planet.

[welch]

I wonder how PZ would react if a panel on evolution had no biologists?

The crying would be epic.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

What's belief have to do with things you can verify? I don't "believe" in IPv4 or SNMP. (IPv6 on the other hand...<inside joke>) They are things that exist and work in a specified way, and I can verify them. belief has nothing to do with that, in fact, it's actually harmful for dealing with reality. The current capital of England requires zero belief, regardless of what city that actually is. I can spend a small amount of time to verify what that is from multiple authoritative sources.

I don't believe I have a dog laying about 2.5m from me. I can look and see she's there. If I were to walk over and verify this by touching her, she would have the physical characteristics of what we call a dog. There's zero belief involved with that. So is the horrifying fact that my coffee mug is empty.

This is where such discussions get, from my POV, weird. You used something that requires zero belief whatsoever as an example of belief. Why would you even do that? I'm unsure what it shows.

You cannot know that that is a dog, unless you verify the conditions set for each taxonomic rank. I guess this would involve tests that might leave you with little more than a warm, somewhat slippery doormat once you'd finished. And, of course, your coffee mug is not "empty", not even if it is in a vacuum.

It is empty of coffee, and regardless of what else may be in that space, no coffee = empty. But that is a semantic distinction.

I jumped into this discussion halfway through, but if I understand it I think that most of these points boil down to semantics. I can't explain it to well (so FLOOSH me) but these arguments always seem to regress to the infinitesimal; and so there is always one asshole willing to take the "my cup is empty" argument, or whatever it may be, one step further than it was intended (and perfectly well understood by all), so that we're all left highstepping in a muddy bog.

[welch]

It looks like the problems at SIN have resolved. I left this on Loftus'. We'll see how he takes it.

he also ignores the reality for millions that Atheism isn't some thing they came to after a life of being a theist, but rather, just how they grew up. It's no more a deliberate decision for them than liking a sunny or rainy day.

I see this "atheism is a deliberate decision made via reasoning blahblah" amongst the converted, who, after arriving at atheism only after some form of journey, seem to think there is no possibility that there was an indigenous population.

It is entirely possible, and indeed, millions of people are, to be an atheist just because that's how they were raised. This statement:

Atheism is based on evidence and reasoning that it’s probable no supernatural beings exist.

may be true for many people, especially in the USA, but as put forth by loftus, with the implication that this is how ALL atheists are, is just bullshit.

[Badger3k]

Wow...those must be the pre-eminent evolutionary psychologists on the planet.

And just look at how diverse they are!

[Bhurzum]

Good to see that they have Stefunny forming a sort of sexual-desire-killing barrier between Laden and the hotchick on the far right.

The pungent reek of old sweat, lavender and rotten kippers will do that.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

CLARIFICATION: the "asshole" in my previous post was ME.

[welch]

You cannot know that that is a dog, unless you verify the conditions set for each taxonomic rank. I guess this would involve tests that might leave you with little more than a warm, somewhat slippery doormat once you'd finished. And, of course, your coffee mug is not "empty", not even if it is in a vacuum.

It is empty of coffee, and regardless of what else may be in that space, no coffee = empty. But that is a semantic distinction.

I jumped into this discussion halfway through, but if I understand it I think that most of these points boil down to semantics. I can't explain it to well (so FLOOSH me) but these arguments always seem to regress to the infinitesimal; and so there is always one asshole willing to take the "my cup is empty" argument, or whatever it may be, one step further than it was intended (and perfectly well understood by all), so that we're all left highstepping in a muddy bog.

As long as it means my cup has coffee in it, I'm fine with drinking it in a muddy bog. (i'm a bit single-minded with coffee. Like a heroin addict, only with more societal approval and less cops up in my grill.)

[AndrewV69]

I trained in Silat (bela diri), which is great for guerilla fighting or street defence, but not so good in sport fighting. I spent my first and only kick boxing fight worrying about hurting my opponent, i.e. restricting myself to bludgeoning attacks rather than breaking joints or stoving in his larynx.

I do not know how to fight without hurting someone myself, and seeing as it does not take much for me to see red (pinkish misty actually) I avoid fights. I do not even spar.

My preference is to just shoot you at 100+ yards. That seems to work quite well.

[welch]

Wow...those must be the pre-eminent evolutionary psychologists on the planet.

And just look at how diverse they are!

They are CLEARLY different shades of fishbelly white.

[Badger3k]

It looks like the problems at SIN have resolved. I left this on Loftus'. We'll see how he takes it.

he also ignores the reality for millions that Atheism isn't some thing they came to after a life of being a theist, but rather, just how they grew up. It's no more a deliberate decision for them than liking a sunny or rainy day.

I see this "atheism is a deliberate decision made via reasoning blahblah" amongst the converted, who, after arriving at atheism only after some form of journey, seem to think there is no possibility that there was an indigenous population.

It is entirely possible, and indeed, millions of people are, to be an atheist just because that's how they were raised. This statement:

Atheism is based on evidence and reasoning that it’s probable no supernatural beings exist.

may be true for many people, especially in the USA, but as put forth by loftus, with the implication that this is how ALL atheists are, is just bullshit.

About the only quibble might be your last - I'd say it "may be true for some people" as opposed to many. I've seen more online atheists who don't come to it through reason or skepticism, at least not by general skepticism - i.e., they are skeptical of a lot of things, not just religion. I think many come to atheism from emotional reasons that are justified by some rational/skeptical arguments afterwards. Just an opinion, and that may be because those who are emotionally vested may be the more vocal ones.

[welch]

I trained in Silat (bela diri), which is great for guerilla fighting or street defence, but not so good in sport fighting. I spent my first and only kick boxing fight worrying about hurting my opponent, i.e. restricting myself to bludgeoning attacks rather than breaking joints or stoving in his larynx.

I do not know how to fight without hurting someone myself, and seeing as it does not take much for me to see red (pinkish misty actually) I avoid fights. I do not even spar.

My preference is to just shoot you at 100+ yards. That seems to work quite well.

One day, people will be able to have a discussion about martial arts, or fighting styles, without someone using some variation of "I just shoot the fucker, hur-hur."

Today however, is not that day.

[Linus]

Whenever the whole subject of veganism comes up I always recommend The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith. It explores the reasons why people adopt extreme vegetarianism(moral, health, environmental) and why those reasons are wrong. She's an ex-vegan herself and has been physically assaulted and shouted down by groups of vegans when on speaking tours.
I apologize if I've been belaboring this.

Any mention of the Weston A Price Foundation is a red flag;
http://www.theveganrd.com/2010/09/revie ... -myth.html

The reasons for diet are way too OT to deal with here, but Messing hints at some of the issues in that review.

I've got a pdf copy of the book open. Am skimming the bibliography. Some references that immediately struck my eye:

-5 (URL) references to wikipedia entries
-1 (URL) reference to "Google Answers"
-2 (URL) references to Weston A Price articles
-5 (URL) references to articles on mercola.com, which describes itself as "The World's #1 Natural Health Website"
-1 (URL) reference to an article on a site called "Beyond Vegetarianism"
-1 (URL) reference to an article on "Bill's Excellent Blog"
-1 (URL) reference to a skeptic.com article
-1 (URL) reference to an article(?) @ http://hometown.aol.com/xcolumn/myhomepage/
-1 (URL) reference to faqs.org
-A bunch of references to other pop health/science books
-Several references to anti-porn feminist writings, including Andrea Dworkin (no idea how this fits in??)

Oh and I found this fun passage:

That endless struggle for power results in men committing brutal and violating acts as a matter of course. Psychological profiles of rapists have found “that they are ‘ordinary’ and ‘normal’ men who sexually assault women in order to assert power and control over them.” We need to be questioning ordinary, normal men and masculinity. Battering is the most common violent crime in the US, committed once every fifteen seconds. It’s one of the leading causes of injury and death to women in the US. A Canadian survey found that four out of five female undergraduates had been victims of violence in a dating relationship. The World Health Organization estimates that “one in four women will be raped, beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime, sometimes with fatal consequences.” Anything happening on this scale is clearly normal, a part of everyday life, the behavior into which a global culture of male dominance is socializing men as a matter of course.

The real brilliance of patriarchy is that it sexualizes acts of oppression. For the perpetrators, violation and brutality lead to arousal. In any other circumstance, the same acts would be recognized as hateful. Witness Abu Ghraib. When men are stripped, put in postures of submission, and then photographed, the power is obvious, the oppression clear, and the world is outraged. Meanwhile, women and girls are bought, sold, raped, and displayed as a matter of course, and the world can’t get enough. There are entire countries balancing their budgets on sex trafficking.

Keith, Lierre. The Vegetarian Myth. p. 261

I don't think this is the book for me.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Perhaps it's like adult attention deficit disorder: having that diagnosis "excuses" one from bad behavior. I hear the ADD self-diagnosis from students and colleagues all the time. If students have an official diagnosis of ADD, they get extra time on exams, a separate quiet room for exam-taking, etc. Faculty with ADD have been relieved of teaching duties, allowed to "work" from home most of the time, etc.

Unlikely. The diagnosis is so stigmatised that Psychiatrists can avoid making it even when they think it applies. It would make as much sense as declaring yourself a leper.

[Badger3k]

Wow, I finally got to read the rest of Loftus' post. This stopped me - it's supposed to be a rational argument? Sounds more like an emotional appeal - or, damn, the fallacy assumes the conclusion, perhaps?

What we know is that the motivations for discrimination have to do with religious beliefs, as well as the lust for power and greed. Since atheists can eliminate religious beliefs as a motivation then they have to take seriously that power and greed are not good motivations either. And if they will reason consistently to conclude that a society that doesn’t discriminate against others is a better one for everyone, then they ought take an anti-discriminatory stance.

Why do they have to take seriously the notion that power and greed are not good motivations? I can agree with it, but I don't see how that logically follows. Maybe he's not trying to actually lay out his argument, just stating his conclusions, but like the feminism is directly because or atheism argument, he seems to be assuming his conclusions. It does assume a lot of other factors, too, such as the idea that a society that doesn't discriminate is better - better for whom? I know some who conclude that their self-interest is better served by keeping others down. I don't agree, but there are arguments like that. Maybe my first conclusion, that he isn't actually attempting to make the argument is correct for this post, just giving his conclusions.

Plus, maybe power and greed aren't the only motivations for discrimination. Demonization of the other is quite common in human society, as well as plain disgust, or ignorance, or fear...a whole buttload of reasons that people can give for making their decisions.

[Metalogic42]

Loftus must be doing something absolutely retarded. His blog just went back up, then down again. While it was up, I noticed that the most recent article was his Susan Blackmore article from the 28th. Now the front page of SIN is working, but his blog isn't, and the front page shows his most recent article as one from June 21.

....and now the whole site is down again.

[Badger3k]

It's still up for me, and after reading the comments, I can see that I was wrong - instead of just giving his conclusions, Loftus seems to think that he made an actual argument. WTF?

[AndrewV69]

I used to sometimes, when faced with a smug or condescending form of 'dear', call the person 'antelope' in return. They never got the joke though (dear sounds like being called a deer), so I stopped doing it.

That made me laugh. Perhaps if you replied with "cupcake"?

[welch]

About the only quibble might be your last - I'd say it "may be true for some people" as opposed to many. I've seen more online atheists who don't come to it through reason or skepticism, at least not by general skepticism - i.e., they are skeptical of a lot of things, not just religion. I think many come to atheism from emotional reasons that are justified by some rational/skeptical arguments afterwards. Just an opinion, and that may be because those who are emotionally vested may be the more vocal ones.

I think it's semantics at that point, given that "many" and "some" have no intrinsic value other than "more than two" (which would be a couple). Either way, Loftus is projecting like a tree growing off the side of a cliff here.

[Metalogic42]

It's still up for me, and after reading the comments, I can see that I was wrong - instead of just giving his conclusions, Loftus seems to think that he made an actual argument. WTF?

Maybe my browser is fucked up then. Oh well.

[16bitheretic]

There's people spending a holiday listening to a panel with PZ, Svan, Greg Laden and Amanda Marcotte giving an evopsych talk? I think I'd have more intellectual stimulation by sticking firecrackers up my ass and lighting them.

[Dave2]

Wow...those must be the pre-eminent evolutionary psychologists on the planet.

Does anyone know if this panel is being recorded?

I for one would really love to know what was said.

One of the panel members is a neuroscientist I believe, and she therefore might actually have a fair grasp of what it is to take a psychological perspective and what is or isn't representative of evolutionary psychology.

And if I didn't know PZ's shtick I'd think it'd be a good idea to have an evolutionary and/or biology type on the panel because it's interesting and pertinent to point out where evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology converge and differ.

And if I didn't know Laden's shtick I'd think it'd be a good idea to have an anthropology type on the panel because evolutionary psychology relies heavily on anthropological study and the search for human universals.

But given the reaction of Laden, Zvan (OK I think she's only a mod here, but still) and PZ to Rebecca's Evolutionary Psychology talk - which was all the way execrable - I really don't see them doing much more than repeating a bunch of the same misrepresentations and faulty canards.

But I really would love to see a transcript or recording of the talk.

[welch]

Wow, I finally got to read the rest of Loftus' post. This stopped me - it's supposed to be a rational argument? Sounds more like an emotional appeal - or, damn, the fallacy assumes the conclusion, perhaps?

What we know is that the motivations for discrimination have to do with religious beliefs, as well as the lust for power and greed. Since atheists can eliminate religious beliefs as a motivation then they have to take seriously that power and greed are not good motivations either. And if they will reason consistently to conclude that a society that doesn’t discriminate against others is a better one for everyone, then they ought take an anti-discriminatory stance.

Why do they have to take seriously the notion that power and greed are not good motivations? I can agree with it, but I don't see how that logically follows. Maybe he's not trying to actually lay out his argument, just stating his conclusions, but like the feminism is directly because or atheism argument, he seems to be assuming his conclusions. It does assume a lot of other factors, too, such as the idea that a society that doesn't discriminate is better - better for whom? I know some who conclude that their self-interest is better served by keeping others down. I don't agree, but there are arguments like that. Maybe my first conclusion, that he isn't actually attempting to make the argument is correct for this post, just giving his conclusions.

actually, greed can be an awesome motivation. Unbounded greed can be bad, but what I call "enlightened greed" is actually pretty damned good one. For example, I like money. I know that the better my employer does, the more money I get, so, I do my best to help them make money so I get more of it. Greed, like most things, does not have to be a zero-sum game. Loftus, like all too many people has an overly simplistic view of this. Same thing with power.

Plus, maybe power and greed aren't the only motivations for discrimination. Demonization of the other is quite common in human society, as well as plain disgust, or ignorance, or fear...a whole buttload of reasons that people can give for making their decisions.

Loftus is basically trying to make angels out of atheists to increase SIN's and therefore his standing with certain groups.

[Badger3k]

Nevermind, it's down again. Feh.

[Badger3k]

About the only quibble might be your last - I'd say it "may be true for some people" as opposed to many. I've seen more online atheists who don't come to it through reason or skepticism, at least not by general skepticism - i.e., they are skeptical of a lot of things, not just religion. I think many come to atheism from emotional reasons that are justified by some rational/skeptical arguments afterwards. Just an opinion, and that may be because those who are emotionally vested may be the more vocal ones.

I think it's semantics at that point, given that "many" and "some" have no intrinsic value other than "more than two" (which would be a couple). Either way, Loftus is projecting like a tree growing off the side of a cliff here.

True, but some implies a smaller number or percent while many implies more. Otherwise agree with you on the projection part.

[Linus]

One day, people will be able to have a discussion about martial arts, or fighting styles, without someone using some variation of "I just shoot the fucker, hur-hur."

Today however, is not that day.

[Lsuoma]

Belief - n. - a proposition that one holds to be true

I'm with Steve in these beliefs, except the robots, instead they're clearly gnomes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF7d-HdjBvE

Great video. Laughed hard more than once.

Since we're on the subject of belief... I believe that 3rd wave feminism started on this elevator.

[footube]bKyNkjRumqY[/footube]

[youtube]xlbDHejQFV4[/youtube]

[AndrewV69]

One day, people will be able to have a discussion about martial arts, or fighting styles, without someone using some variation of "I just shoot the fucker, hur-hur."

Today however, is not that day.

Lol.

However, as I have actually have had real life experiences of people who gave a really good impressions of trying to kill me, and seeing as I have actually been banned from from a marital arts club, I am going to stick with what I know best.

And that includes not getting into a fight in the first place.

[Wonderist]

There was one non-registered poster who told you to repent. And fuck that, and Euclitwat too. Anyway, I am well-pleased by his making his "me me me me me me me me me I will demonstrate my technique" posts in another forum and dropping a link.

As long as you get what you want, right Apples? As long as Apples is well-pleased. ;)

[AndrewV69]

There's people spending a holiday listening to a panel with PZ, Svan, Greg Laden and Amanda Marcotte giving an evopsych talk? I think I'd have more intellectual stimulation by sticking firecrackers up my ass and lighting them.

Sounds like that would really get your attention.

[karlaporter]

Does anyone else have the overwhelming urge to kick someone squarely in the crotch when they call you "dear"?

Which would be why I'd never do it to you or anyone else I actually respect.

Oh, I'm sure. I just saw it being used and had that urge :D

At least I'm an equal opportunity crotch kicker. I don't pander to any gender 'cuz it hurts no matter what :D

I'm not a fan either, but I usually let it go except for some probable eyeball rolling.

[Whig]

This was just posted about CONvergence (SkepchickCon)
Any thoughts?


http://i.imgur.com/gfYKFed.png

Here are the panel speakers:
http://ow.ly/i/2wSPo

I think I saw Richard Sanderson on twitter saying that there would be some kind of walkout on the event hashtag.

[Mykeru]

Dropping this here, more for me for later viewing (and some might find interesting).

#cornwell
#evopsych

[pootube]_0oOJcocvUg[/pootube]

Very good, engaging and approachable speaker.

Sent you a PM on that.

[TheMan]

I was a seeker, but every religion I checked out didn't make sense when you really thought about it. There were things I liked in Bahai, Buddhism, and Taoism, but I just couldn't really believe in any of them.

I'm considerably fond of Taoism - you've got to love a belief system that seems to consist mainly in lessons on how silly it is to have beliefs.

I really like it - it bothers me a bit that it seems to advocate inaction at its core - but I think that's only because of its wide perspective.

It's been a long time since I considered Taosim, and reading the philosophy, but I don't think inaction is entirely correct. From what I understood, the concept was more about acting in concert with the flow of things. In some cases, inaction is the correct course, but in others taking action "naturally" would be the right action. Taking action without thinking of it, sort of like letting the universe take it's own course. Unless I'm confusing it with one of the other Eastern philosophies, which is entirely possible - it's been about 10 years and I haven't concerned myself with such things in that time.

Wu Wei:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei

[KiwiInOz]

I trained in Silat (bela diri), which is great for guerilla fighting or street defence, but not so good in sport fighting. I spent my first and only kick boxing fight worrying about hurting my opponent, i.e. restricting myself to bludgeoning attacks rather than breaking joints or stoving in his larynx.

I do not know how to fight without hurting someone myself, and seeing as it does not take much for me to see red (pinkish misty actually) I avoid fights. I do not even spar.

My preference is to just shoot you at 100+ yards. That seems to work quite well.

One day, people will be able to have a discussion about martial arts, or fighting styles, without someone using some variation of "I just shoot the fucker, hur-hur."

Today however, is not that day.

Pity.

It is fascinating to look at different styles and see how they approach similar issues.

[BarnOwl]

Perhaps it's like adult attention deficit disorder: having that diagnosis "excuses" one from bad behavior. I hear the ADD self-diagnosis from students and colleagues all the time. If students have an official diagnosis of ADD, they get extra time on exams, a separate quiet room for exam-taking, etc. Faculty with ADD have been relieved of teaching duties, allowed to "work" from home most of the time, etc.

Unlikely. The diagnosis is so stigmatised that Psychiatrists can avoid making it even when they think it applies. It would make as much sense as declaring yourself a leper.

I had no idea the diagnosis of BPD was stigmatized, but I can see why now. I'm still gobsmacked by the statistics for its prevalence. I guess the only Cluster B personality disorders that I know I've encountered are NPD and histrionic PD, and neither diagnosis seems to be particularly stigmatizing (and I'm not sure whether a person with NPD or HPD would actually accept that there is anything wrong with their behavior anyway).

Psychopathology is part of a course I'm team-teaching now - obviously it is not my area of expertise at all. There will be a lecture next month on personality disorders, by a psychiatrist who's apparently an expert in that area, and I'll be very interested to hear it. We also have a teaching case (based on a real one) on a patient with BPD.

Speaking of leprosy, there's an excellent article by Rebecca Solnit in a recent Harper's Magazine, entitled "The Separating Sickness: How leprosy teaches empathy." It's a history of the Carville Home (the clinic is now in Baton Rouge) and of leprosy treatment in the US and elsewhere.

[AndrewV69]

The real brilliance of patriarchy is that it sexualizes acts of oppression. For the perpetrators, violation and brutality lead to arousal. In any other circumstance, the same acts would be recognized as hateful. Witness Abu Ghraib. When men are stripped, put in postures of submission, and then photographed, the power is obvious, the oppression clear, and the world is outraged. Meanwhile, women and girls are bought, sold, raped, and displayed as a matter of course, and the world can’t get enough. There are entire countries balancing their budgets on sex trafficking.

Keith, Lierre. The Vegetarian Myth. p. 261

I don't think this is the book for me.

I found myself asking "Is the above passage really in a book titled "The Vegetarian Myth"? " So I downloaded a copy and and yes the passage is there.

http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Foo ... n_Myth.pdf

Interesting.

[KiwiInOz]

There's people spending a holiday listening to a panel with PZ, Svan, Greg Laden and Amanda Marcotte giving an evopsych talk? I think I'd have more intellectual stimulation by sticking firecrackers up my ass and lighting them.

And you'd probably go viral on YouTube.

[Pitchguest]

I used to sometimes, when faced with a smug or condescending form of 'dear', call the person 'antelope' in return. They never got the joke though (dear sounds like being called a deer), so I stopped doing it.

Too bad 'sweetheart' is already taken. (Sweet 'hart'.)

[Aneris]

Dropping this here, more for me for later viewing (and some might find interesting).

#cornwell
#evopsych

[pootube]_0oOJcocvUg[/pootube]

Very good, engaging and approachable speaker.

Sent you a PM on that.

Thanx! She's also on board of Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. I thought she actually was a Evo Psych, then looked for it, but couldn't find it (so she probably is not), but found the obscure video instead.

[welch]

There's people spending a holiday listening to a panel with PZ, Svan, Greg Laden and Amanda Marcotte giving an evopsych talk? I think I'd have more intellectual stimulation by sticking firecrackers up my ass and lighting them.

it'd definitely be more sexy.