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

[AndrewV69]

I wasn't objecting to that, you dumb cunt, but your un-evidenced assertion that this happens via X-chromosome replacement events.

I'm entirely on board with the idea that psychological tendencies are the subject of evolution in humans, and that's exactly why I wish you wouldn't spout so much ignorant shite about it.

You do realize that it is more likely to be with the X chromosome because otherwise we would not have "manly women" ever.

What other mechanism besides genetics could possibly account for this evolution in behaviour?

Also are you going to get really upset if I point out that Y chromosome replacement events are a better scenario for the type of temporary purges I was talking about?

Anyway, just to clear the air and make sure we are on the same page, when I say a "Y chromosome replacement event" in practical terms that means we are talking about the wholesale slaughter of every single male you can find in the existing population, followed by rape plus murder of any female unwilling to accept the new regime.

[Cunt of Personality]

And to clarify:

1) yes, I'm wearing my band's shirt. Only clean one I had

2) it's a 40 pounds yield composit bow

3) I don't hunt, I do target practice for fun

4) the arrow in the ground is not a ridiculous shooting mistake, that's how we dot it when we have no carquois.

5) since there were many pics posted lately, I thought this would be as good a time as another to show off.

6) well, that's it...

I know someone that hunts chamois with a bow in Haute-Savoie. He assures me that it's more "humane" than using supersonic lead, but I've declined various invitations to accompany him on a trip since I'm not entirely convinced that it isn't just confirmation bias.

I prefer to shoot inanimate objects too.

[Jan Steen]

<snip>

Haven’t read all of the rather convoluted exchanges between you and Wonderist, but I think you’re making some sort of category or false dichotomy error there with your “Proven liars can’t [be honest people]”. While that might be intrinsically true – sort of like asserting people who have had sex can’t be considered virgins, I think you’re trying to imply that everything that a “proven liar” says is in fact a lie as well. Which, of course, doesn’t hold any water at all. And which is analogous to the paradigmatic case of asserting that because one has seen that some swans are white they can conclude that all swans are white – the problem of induction.

But I sort of wonder if you insist that anyone who has ever told a lie can’t be considered “an honest person” whether you yourself have ever told a lie.

And likewise with your implication that since Carrier is, you claim with maybe some justification, “dishonest about A+ and the A/S community” that he must also be “dishonest in his scholarly work”. While there might be some justification that in some areas of “his scholarly work” he has exhibited some dishonesty, although one might wonder whether that characterization is based in any case on a disagreement with his conclusions, I think it is a stretch to insist that all of it is similarly marred.

Con men thrive on people such as Steersman. Next he will tell us that the Book of Mormon may well be what it claims it is, even though it was revealed to the world by a convicted con artist.

(No, not everybody who has ever told a lie is a liar or is constantly lying. In the same way, not everybody who has ever made a racist remark is a racist. But those who deliberately and consistently propagate lies and false rumours in blog posts, interviews and conference talks do qualify for that title.)

And for the record, I would love it if someone could prove that Jesus never existed in any way.
A priori I am sympathetic to Carrier's work as a biblical historian. But I am more interested in what is actually true than in what I would like to be true. A purported 'proof' of the non-historicity of Jesus that contained falsehoods would be worthless to me.

Incidentally, this is part of why true peer review (as opposed to the Carrier variety) is so important.

[Metalogic42]

And to clarify:

1) yes, I'm wearing my band's shirt. Only clean one I had

2) it's a 40 pounds yield composit bow

3) I don't hunt, I do target practice for fun

4) the arrow in the ground is not a ridiculous shooting mistake, that's how we dot it when we have no carquois.

5) since there were many pics posted lately, I thought this would be as good a time as another to show off.

6) well, that's it...

I know someone that hunts chamois with a bow in Haute-Savoie. He assures me that it's more "humane" than using supersonic lead, but I've declined various invitations to accompany him on a trip since I'm not entirely convinced that it isn't just confirmation bias.

I prefer to shoot inanimate objects too.

It's more humane in that it's more difficult; any given animal chosen at random is less likely to die from a hunter with a bow than from a hunter with a gun. However:

http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/ ... Fp44Bw.jpg

This is a "broadhead" - different than the narrow, unbladed tips commonly used in target practice. It's designed to cut, not to pierce the thick bone of a skull. The idea when hunting with a bow is to pierce the animal's heart and cause it to bleed out. If the shot isn't perfect, this can sometimes take quite awhile.

[sacha]

entertainment break

[youtube]njOtlxSJFyA[/youtube]

[sacha]

I meant we could kick English ass even when sick! It was stupid, humorous chauvinism.

Damn, Steers, you could probably add a zero at the end of your score!

hahaha!

[bovarchist]

FYI, my glowing review of Dr. Carrier's physics paper:

http://skeptischism.com/atheismneat/201 ... coherence/

I sense there's an amazingly funny joke in that final equation; alas I just don't have the maths.

[AndrewV69]

Ugh. On 2 separate blogs talking about threats and violence against gay men, some woman chimes in with a "homophobia is really about misogyny. They take something terrible that happens to gay men and make it all about themselves.

Hmmmm.

Well they may have a point. If say the threats and violence is caused by a feeling of outrage that a man could ever dare to look at them the same way they look at woman. I think we could safely infer misogyny from that.

[bovarchist]

entertainment break

njOtlxSJFyA

There's something Uncanny Valley about that ;)

[welch]

BTW, there may be an incoming Mabus episode soon.

tease

[welch]

And to clarify:

1) yes, I'm wearing my band's shirt. Only clean one I had

2) it's a 40 pounds yield composit bow

3) I don't hunt, I do target practice for fun

4) the arrow in the ground is not a ridiculous shooting mistake, that's how we dot it when we have no carquois.

5) since there were many pics posted lately, I thought this would be as good a time as another to show off.

6) well, that's it...

I know someone that hunts chamois with a bow in Haute-Savoie. He assures me that it's more "humane" than using supersonic lead, but I've declined various invitations to accompany him on a trip since I'm not entirely convinced that it isn't just confirmation bias.

I prefer to shoot inanimate objects too.

I hate that. It's not more "humane", it may even be worse, since an arrow kills by making the target bleed to death. Guns may actually be MORE humane since there is at least a chance of a quick death, not running with a big painful piece of carbon composite sticking out of you until you fall down and die.

[dogen]

FYI, my glowing review of Dr. Carrier's physics paper:

http://skeptischism.com/atheismneat/201 ... coherence/

I sense there's an amazingly funny joke in that final equation; alas I just don't have the maths.

It's Bayes' theorem - perhaps the only equation that Prof. Carrier knows, or needs to know.

After all, when all you have is a screwdriver, everything looks like a nail...

:lol:

[Cunt of Personality]

It's more humane in that it's more difficult; any given animal chosen at random is less likely to die from a hunter with a bow than from a hunter with a gun. However:

http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/ ... Fp44Bw.jpg

This is a "broadhead" - different than the narrow, unbladed tips commonly used in target practice. It's designed to cut, not to pierce the thick bone of a skull. The idea when hunting with a bow is to pierce the animal's heart and cause it to bleed out. If the shot isn't perfect, this can sometimes take quite awhile.

I've seen and used all the equipment and spent many many hours discussing it with him over many bottles of mystery liquid, but it's simply the case that I'm unconvinced - I don't accept that it's a peaceful tranquil death.

I find it easy to believe that the pain would be less than the massive trauma caused by a rifle round if it doesn't cause near instant death, but the probability of a slow death seems much higher. How do you quantify the suffering involved. Lots of pain for a short time vs. less for much longer.

I probably will go as an observer some time - to see for myself.

[welch]

FYI, my glowing review of Dr. Carrier's physics paper:

http://skeptischism.com/atheismneat/201 ... coherence/

“It should be a simple matter for a physicist”, Carrier assures us, to predict the result of every entanglement in the universe by factoring certain attributes of massless bosons (not to be confused with lightweight former bosuns.)

BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Jan Steen]

FYI, my glowing review of Dr. Carrier's physics paper:

http://skeptischism.com/atheismneat/201 ... coherence/

I can understand that you are impressed by Carrier's insights in Quantum Field Theory and Relativity. Who wouldn't be? And all done without recourse to mathematics! Who needs mathematics? Such details can be filled in by any halfway competent physicist.

But you will be even more impressed when you learn that Carrier is also an expert in Artificial Intelligence. Read this and be bowled over:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3195

And this stunning display of raw intellect is not all. He is also a world class scholar on esthetics, ethics and scotch, among many other things. Truly a uomo universale, if there ever was one. He makes Leonardo da Vinci and Leibniz look like toddlers.

[Cunt of Personality]

I hate that. It's not more "humane", it may even be worse, since an arrow kills by making the target bleed to death. Guns may actually be MORE humane since there is at least a chance of a quick death, not running with a big painful piece of carbon composite sticking out of you until you fall down and die.

Exactly how I feel about it, but try selling that line of reasoning to someone who's father hunted with a bow, just like his father before him.

[welch]

It's more humane in that it's more difficult; any given animal chosen at random is less likely to die from a hunter with a bow than from a hunter with a gun. However:

http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/ ... Fp44Bw.jpg

This is a "broadhead" - different than the narrow, unbladed tips commonly used in target practice. It's designed to cut, not to pierce the thick bone of a skull. The idea when hunting with a bow is to pierce the animal's heart and cause it to bleed out. If the shot isn't perfect, this can sometimes take quite awhile.

I've seen and used all the equipment and spent many many hours discussing it with him over many bottles of mystery liquid, but it's simply the case that I'm unconvinced - I don't accept that it's a peaceful tranquil death.

I find it easy to believe that the pain would be less than the massive trauma caused by a rifle round if it doesn't cause near instant death, but the probability of a slow death seems much higher. How do you quantify the suffering involved. Lots of pain for a short time vs. less for much longer.

I probably will go as an observer some time - to see for myself.

Well, if you're hunting bear, a bow can be the safer way to do it. No loud noise associated with the pain to invite the bear to maul your stupid ass to death.

[welch]

I hate that. It's not more "humane", it may even be worse, since an arrow kills by making the target bleed to death. Guns may actually be MORE humane since there is at least a chance of a quick death, not running with a big painful piece of carbon composite sticking out of you until you fall down and die.

Exactly how I feel about it, but try selling that line of reasoning to someone who's father hunted with a bow, just like his father before him.

Meh. I bowhunt, it's a way to get meat you don't normally have access to. That's about it.

[dogen]

FYI, my glowing review of Dr. Carrier's physics paper:

http://skeptischism.com/atheismneat/201 ... coherence/

I can understand that you are impressed by Carrier's insights in Quantum Field Theory and Relativity. Who wouldn't be? And all done without recourse to mathematics! Who needs mathematics? Such details can be filled in by any halfway competent physicist.

But you will be even more impressed when you learn that Carrier is also an expert in Artificial Intelligence. Read this and be bowled over:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3195

And this stunning display of raw intellect is not all. He is also a world class scholar on esthetics, ethics and scotch, among many other things. Truly a uomo universale, if there ever was one. He makes Leonardo da Vinci and Leibniz look like toddlers.

[youtube]18ulbI9k5eA[/youtube]

(audio sync is off, dunno why)

[AndrewV69]

Marcotte tweezes off the distinction of accusation to show false rape claims with malicious intent are even rarer than the 2-8% statistic. Which makes me wonder if it's ever occurred to her how hugely improbable it is that 2 of the 3 men in her regular clique (Myers, Thibeault, Laden) have been falsely accused of rape. I mean gosh, I thought the Duke Lacrosse case made it clear institutional patriarchy will protect cis-het white boys no matter what they do.

Well the various studies are all over the map apparently.

A selection of findings on the prevalence of false rape allegations. Data from Rumney (2006).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_acc ... .282006.29

The low end claims 1.5% and we have one that claims 90%. So if you are a Feminist you go with 1.5% and if you are a MRA you go with 90%.

Problem?

[Linus]

I got 18. I seem to suck at Asperging...

I scored 9. I'm even suckier at it.

I also got 9. A lot of the questions were pretty vague.

[sacha]

And to clarify:

1) yes, I'm wearing my band's shirt. Only clean one I had

2) it's a 40 pounds yield composit bow

3) I don't hunt, I do target practice for fun

4) the arrow in the ground is not a ridiculous shooting mistake, that's how we dot it when we have no carquois.

5) since there were many pics posted lately, I thought this would be as good a time as another to show off.

6) well, that's it...

I know someone that hunts chamois with a bow in Haute-Savoie. He assures me that it's more "humane" than using supersonic lead, but I've declined various invitations to accompany him on a trip since I'm not entirely convinced that it isn't just confirmation bias.

I prefer to shoot inanimate objects too.

I hate that. It's not more "humane", it may even be worse, since an arrow kills by making the target bleed to death. Guns may actually be MORE humane since there is at least a chance of a quick death, not running with a big painful piece of carbon composite sticking out of you until you fall down and die.

definitely less "humane". A fast death is far preferable.

[sacha]

entertainment break

njOtlxSJFyA

There's something Uncanny Valley about that ;)

it goes away about 2:13 when he starts to have fun

[AndrewV69]

I find it easy to believe that the pain would be less than the massive trauma caused by a rifle round if it doesn't cause near instant death, but the probability of a slow death seems much higher. How do you quantify the suffering involved. Lots of pain for a short time vs. less for much longer.

I probably will go as an observer some time - to see for myself.

Well, if you want to go "humane" I lean towards a firearm myself. I strongly suspect that bleeding out from an arrow is not exactly a "peaceful tranquil death" myself.

Anyway, what range does your friend shoot at? Does he use fast light arrows or heavy and slow ones? If it were me I would go for getting in close and using heavy and slow arrows.

But I am really not interested in "sport" and/or chasing a wounded deer. In practical terms all I want is the meat with the least amount of fuss. I am fine with someone else hunting the deer so I do not have to either.

Just make sure the deer is dead before you get too close to it. I hear a good way to do this is to poke the deer in the eye with a stick from a safe distance to make sure.

No offence meant, but I laugh every time I hear of a wounded/dying deer killing/fucking up the hunter. It is just my sense of humour. Nothing personal at all.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Ugh. On 2 separate blogs talking about threats and violence against gay men, some woman chimes in with a "homophobia is really about misogyny. They take something terrible that happens to gay men and make it all about themselves.

Did she go by "Madama B" by any chance?

[Jan Steen]

http://i.imgur.com/otii9uo.jpg

Dr. Richard Carrier

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

No killing for me, thank you very much. I'm reluctant to even kill a mosquito. Not that I'm a hippy or kumbaya or buddhist. I just disaprove of killing.

[Linus]

Welch, I've just noticed your new avatar. Could you change it, please, as it could offend some of the folk here who identify as female. Or pangender. Or transvestexual. Or who are primarily male, but do a bit of hoovering on the weekend.

Look, it's just downright offensive, okay? I know you don't mean to offend anyone, but sometimes we have to look at our actions from a global, toti-inclusive, non-homogeneous, pan-normative perspective, where intellect is a societal construct, and the opinions of dumbfucks are treated as gold amongst silt.

Shit, I think the mask slipped a little at the end there.

You're such a dickhead.

[Cunning Punt]

Just to follow up. Had this poor college student/waitress pleaded too poor to pay the fine, the judge very well may have listened to her and given her a break, community service, waived or reduced the fine. Debtor's prisons are illegal in the US. About the only thing a judge would not have permitted is for her to continue driving without getting her car registered.

This is my take-away from the referenced article:

I recognize my culpability, I respect all the people who made my horrible experience possible were only doing their jobs. But the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, and the resounding impact of my consequences doesn’t seem fitting – I didn’t hurt, threaten, or violate another person’s rights.

Fuck Off. I'm sick this naive and simplistic view of personal rights - a common way of thinking here in the good ol' USA.

Your rights end where mine begin. Registration of cars is for a reason. It's an indicator of the roadworthiness of the vehicle. Obviously a very imperfect one, but... if your tags have expired, it's possible that your car is not roadworthy, thereby potentially endangering my life and the lives of people I care about when they drive on the road. So it does violate others' rights. Now you can argue about whether enforcing up-to-date tags on a car is the best way to ensure cars are not dangerous to others, but some kind of enforcement of rules is necessary because some of us are lazy, dumb or whatever (and all of us are lazy dumb or whatever sometimes).

That's the problem with libertarians - they don't get that like it or not they live in a society with other people.

Sigh... and I better also say that strip searching and all that other shit that person went through is wrong or someone will think I approve.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

No killing for me, thank you very much. I'm reluctant to even kill a mosquito. Not that I'm a hippy or kumbaya or buddhist. I just disaprove of killing.

Says the guy with an array of skeletons in his avatar.

Maybe they all died of natural causes?

[windy]

I wasn't objecting to that, you dumb cunt, but your un-evidenced assertion that this happens via X-chromosome replacement events.

I'm entirely on board with the idea that psychological tendencies are the subject of evolution in humans, and that's exactly why I wish you wouldn't spout so much ignorant shite about it.

You do realize that it is more likely to be with the X chromosome because otherwise we would not have "manly women" ever.

So you think that a gene for a female phenotypic trait has to be on the X chromosome and its alleles must have complete penetrance? Fuck, how do you read GNXP for so long and still have such a poor grasp of genetics?

What other mechanism besides genetics could possibly account for this evolution in behaviour?

Also are you going to get really upset if I point out that Y chromosome replacement events are a better scenario for the type of temporary purges I was talking about?

I might get somewhat annoyed, tends to happen when I see my field of science mangled by cretins. Creationists, Watson, Laden, you, same difference.

You can Gish gallop all you want, but all I'm doing is pointing out that YOU made a positive claim about a particular mechanism causing the evolution of a trait, in the absence of any evidence.

[deLurch]

Registration of cars is for a reason. It's an indicator of the roadworthiness of the vehicle.

Most states don't do any kind of inspections anymore. All it does for us is if your car is involved in an auto accident and you skip out, we can track the vehicle back to the owner. That and taxes, some of which gets put back into the roads we drive on.

Obviously a very imperfect one, but... if your tags have expired, it's possible that your car is not roadworthy,

Too much of a stretch for me.

Sigh... and I better also say that strip searching and all that other shit that person went through is wrong or someone will think I approve.

Two questions:
1. If someone fails to show up for court, what actions should the state take to even get to the point of getting the person in a room to work on resolving their problem? Right now the standard response is they get an arrest warrant and hauled off to jail until a bail bond hearing is set in order to arrange conditions to ensure that this person DOES show up to court.

2. When someone goes into a holding cell in a group jail with other inmates for whatever reason, are you saying that a strip search should not be done? All it takes is one good shanking of an innocent person or an overdose for those responsible of the inmates to feel very uncomfortable about this. I could understand a strip search perhaps not being necessary if everyone had their own jail cell a la Mayberry, but that just isn't practical.

[Cunt of Personality]

Anyway, what range does your friend shoot at? Does he use fast light arrows or heavy and slow ones? If it were me I would go for getting in close and using heavy and slow arrows.

Close up. It's not for sport - he likes to have as little contact with the world at large, including supermarkets.

[Badger3k]

Registration simply is the end of the other two things your car needs. When we do it here, you have to have your car inspected and show proof of insurance. It seems to be a way of making sure that both things are taken care of, and for getting the state money (I've been told) for the upkeep of the roads. More cars = more traffic = more need for repairs, etc.

Probably the money just goes into a general fund, but I've never looked into it. I would imagine that most states follow similar patterns, but I've only owned a car in two states and haven't looked it up, so I could be wrong.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Ramadan: I loath it!

[Matt Cavanaugh]

FYI, my glowing review of Dr. Carrier's physics paper:

http://skeptischism.com/atheismneat/201 ... coherence/

But you will be even more impressed when you learn that Carrier is also an expert in Artificial Intelligence. Read this and be bowled over:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3195

LMAO! I only guessed about the airplane part.

[Bill the Cat]

I know someone that hunts chamois with a bow in Haute-Savoie. He assures me that it's more "humane" than using supersonic lead, but I've declined various invitations to accompany him on a trip since I'm not entirely convinced that it isn't just confirmation bias.

I prefer to shoot inanimate objects too.

It's more humane in that it's more difficult; any given animal chosen at random is less likely to die from a hunter with a bow than from a hunter with a gun. However:

http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/ ... Fp44Bw.jpg

This is a "broadhead" - different than the narrow, unbladed tips commonly used in target practice. It's designed to cut, not to pierce the thick bone of a skull. The idea when hunting with a bow is to pierce the animal's heart and cause it to bleed out. If the shot isn't perfect, this can sometimes take quite awhile.[/quote]
Bolding mine. I remembered pictures going around on the subject some time ago. Google be a wonderful thing.

Full story here... http://ssqq.com/archive/stupidity%20arrowhead.htm

As for the warning - no trigger on a bow - but you do nock an arrow...
http://ssqq.com/archive/images/arrowhead01.jpg

http://ssqq.com/archive/images/arrowhead04.jpg

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Oh and McEwen thinks Anthony Weiner is a sexual predator and that sending dick pics even to a consenting woman of 22 is tantamount to rape because of the "power differential" she couldn't really consent.

I was accused of practicing "Psychic Abuse."

[Wonderist]

This is not to argue with Blunderist, but to demonstrate that he is indeed obtuse, lazy and intellectually dishonest, as I claimed.

1) He [Carrier] is known to be dishonest about A+ and the A/S community. Why would he suddenly not be dishonest in his scholarly work?

Theists believe in gods, an obvious fairy tale. How can we trust anything they say at all about reality? Can you not see the fallacy? Have you heard of compartmentalization? If not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmen ... chology%29

Theists can still be honest people. Proven liars can’t. That’s a significant difference. Blunderist is being obtuse here. QED.

Obtuse: "Have you ever lied? That makes you a proven liar." ~ Ray Comfort

Try again, Jan. You're proving *yourself* obtuse.

2) He falsely inflates the academic credibility of his work by pretending that his Jesus book is properly peer reviewed (by four self-selected ‘major professor’ who can’t be named, of whom two failed to respond), and by pretending that peer review amounts to a seal of approval.

Can you quote him on that? I've never heard him say peer review is an automatic seal of approval, only that it's a necessary *pre-requisite* for honest research. He disagrees with *most* peer-reviewed mainstream scholars on Jesus' historicity; I can hardly see why you'd think he sees peer-review as a seal of approval. It so obviously isn't.

Also, I've not heard the claim that he's 'pretending' that his book was peer reviewed. Do you have a source for that? And if 'two failed to respond', doesn't that mean that two didn't? As in, at least two responded that they did review his book? As in, it *was* peer reviewed? Need more specifics on this claim. Do you have links?

This has all been discussed and demonstrated, with links, in this thread. Blunderist is too lazy to read the fucking thread before he comments. QED

Wonderful! Then *you* providing said link to said demonstration should be a *snap*! The onus of the burden of proof is on the one who made the claim. You made the claim. The onus is on you.

You are attempting to shift the burden of proof. This is a fallacy. If you continue down this road, you'll be showing yourself to be intellectually dishonest by continuing to use fallacious reasoning to try to influence people.

4) He is a horrible writer.

Irrelevant. You're welcome to that critique, it's just irrelevant to the question of Jesus' historicity or whether he claimed Verenna is anything other than a student.

Since I never suggested that Carrier being a horrible writer has any bearing on the content of his work, this is a pure, unadulterated straw man argument of Blunderist’s. Strawmanning is intellectually dishonest. QED.

Holy psychological projection, Batman! I never said you "suggested" it was relevant. I simply said it *is* irrelevant. You are the one trying to stick words in my mouth, even when you quote me directly, you have to invent an interpretation that simply is not in the words you quote. You are the one guilty of straw-manning here.

You wrote your problem with Carrier includes that he's a bad writer. That *is*, in fact, irrelevant to the two main charges you made against him, *regardless* of whether you 'suggested' or didn't suggest, of which I made no comment. It is simply *not relevant* to the earlier charges you made against him. I noted that fact. Period. *You* invented some sort of straw man argument you thought *I* was making.

Intellectually dishonest == you. The funny thing is that *everyone* can read what I wrote because you quoted it, and the quote and your imagined straw man argument simply *do not match*. Perhaps you might want to actually read what I write before you attempt to hack away at it.

What is Blunderist’s ‘technique’? It’s a pyrotechnic display of general ignorance, straw men, red herrings, non sequiturs and false equivalences. He calls this technique ‘evidence chicken’. I call it bullshitting. He is no better than Oolon.

Speaking of ***evidence*** Jan, where is your evidence that Ricard Carrier: a) ever claimed that Verenna was anything more than a student scholar, rather than a 'serious scholar' (which you have yet to define, by the way; said definition will be a crucial component of your argument of course), or b) falsely claimed that his book (I'm assuming you mean Proving History, but I suppose you might mean his upcoming one On the Historicity of Jesus Christ) was peer-reviewed when in fact it wasn't?

Still waiting for the evidence. I call, by the way. Let's see your cards. :popcorn:

(To onlookers: It is simply unacceptable that so-called 'skeptics' should willy-nilly throw around serious accusations against other people based on personal dislike or political animosity or whatever superficial reasons they might have. This is the *same* type of behaviour that RW used against Stef McGraw, that many people used against Monopod Man, that people regularly use against bigger names like Dawkins, Harris, Shermer, etc. I have no particular interest in defending *Carrier* here; my interest is in *confronting* rumour-mongering directly, where it occurs. I also stood up against rumour-mongering against EllenBeth Wachs here: http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... ularism-2/ I didn't have to do that; she can stand up for herself, and so can Richard Carrier. But the *behaviour* of spreading around unsupported claims about other people is something that occurs *within* the so-called 'skeptic' communities. *That* is what I find despicable and worth confronting. That is my motivation for speaking up about this here.)

[sacha]

Just make sure the deer is dead before you get too close to it. I hear a good way to do this is to poke the deer in the eye with a stick from a safe distance to make sure.

No offence meant, but I laugh every time I hear of a wounded/dying deer killing/fucking up the hunter. It is just my sense of humour. Nothing personal at all.

too many apologies in that sentence above:

No offence meant
It is just my sense of humour
Nothing personal at all.

I love when that happens. payback's a bitch.

it's "sport", right? can't always win.

[sacha]

No killing for me, thank you very much. I'm reluctant to even kill a mosquito. Not that I'm a hippy or kumbaya or buddhist. I just disaprove of killing.

oh I so want to go there...

[Stunt Whisper]

Hey, Australia - you is our BITCHEZ!!!

Doubtful.

[bhoytony]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

[Wonderist]

You can't beat the The Technique, it is invincible.

http://www.aplacetolovedogs.com/wp-cont ... y-dog2.gif

Sure you can. Just continuously respond to him in a patronizing, treacle-y sweet manner. "Yes dear, of course you're right"

He tends to quietly fuck right off when you do that. What, he's going to argue? Sure, you're being a patronizing cock about it, but you're "agreeing" with him. At worst, he blathers on and on to naught but himself. He's remarkably easy to manipulate that way, even when many other people tell him he's being manipulated.

Could be a useful 'technique'. I may give it a try.

You could try that, of course. Unfortunately, I had already predicted welch's response before he fell into it: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=334&p=106276#p106276

That technique will "win" you arguments in the "who has the last word" sense, but anyone who thinks you can actually articulate a point in a clear, concise manner is either hallucinating or has never actually read a fucking thing you've written. Have you ever noticed a lot of people reply to you with mumbles or the equivalent thereof?

Yes I have. That's because they don't have anything better than flames, and I'm immune to flames. Pretty soon, you will be reduced to either ignoring me, blowing a gasket, or mumbling yourself. Or, you know, you could actually engage in productive conversation.

Are you also going to try to stick with the win-lose paradigm? The fourth alternative, to engage in reasonable dialogue, is a much more productive, win-win scenario. But that's entirely up to you. I leave that ball in your court, to see what you'll do with it.

[Jan Steen]

<snip>

(Here is my chance to practice this new debating technique I just learned from Welch.)

Yes dear, I'm sure you know best, sweety.

(By the way, have Blunderist and Oolon ever been seen together?)

[Gumby]

Good gawd, it just never shuts up.

[bhoytony]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0f2y3bWEZ1qhpcl4.jpg

[Wonderist]

And for the record, I would love it if someone could prove that Jesus never existed in any way.
A priori I am sympathetic to Carrier's work as a biblical historian. But I am more interested in what is actually true than in what I would like to be true.

Given that you're more interested in what is actually true, are you not concerned with the possibility that you could be wrong? In which case, wouldn't it be in your own best interests to try to support your claims against Carrier rigorously, rather than reacting with a knee-jerk against someone who challenges your claims? In the Evidence Chicken thread (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29840), a real-live creationist showed up and challenged one of my claims. I didn't just say, "Oh you're a creationist, you're pathologically dishonest and obtuse blah blah blah." I did the work and plopped down a solid case thoroughly disproving what he claimed, supporting my own claim, and challenging him to further support his claim. Crickets in response. Let the *evidence* decide who's right and who's wrong, not ad hom accusations and other fallacies.

Imagine if the tables had been turned, and *I* was the creationist. By following the same procedure, of checking the evidence to make sure I had my story straight with reality, I would rapidly have discovered I was in over my head. I would have seen I was wrong.

No amount of bickering back and forth with insults and chest thumping could have accomplished that. Only by appealing to the evidence can you bypass all that schmuckery.

[AndrewV69]

So you think that a gene for a female phenotypic trait has to be on the X chromosome and its alleles must have complete penetrance?

Well to be precise it does not actually have to be. But my bet is that it probably is.

Fuck, how do you read GNXP for so long and still have such a poor grasp of genetics?

Dunning Kruger effect? I dunno. What is your guess?

I might get somewhat annoyed, tends to happen when I see my field of science mangled by cretins. Creationists, Watson, Laden, you, same difference.

Oh I suspect I have a better grasp that that lot. Enought to have more fun with it at any rate.

You can Gish gallop all you want,

Now where have I done a gish gallop? Let me refresh your memory:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... h%20Gallop

"a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bullshit in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it."

but all I'm doing is pointing out that YOU made a positive claim about a particular mechanism causing the evolution of a trait, in the absence of any evidence.

You could have asked for a cite instead of getting your knickers in a twist, and then I could have responded that I did not have any, and offered to go have a look.

Then I would not have been tempted to troll you (it could still happen if you keep this up though).

[bovarchist]

Ophelia is now acknowledging that she didn't realize that the woman was arrested for failure to appear, not expired tags. OMG, you mean she went off half-cocked without knowing what the fuck she was talking about? Say it ain't so!

[Wonderist]

<snip>

(Here is my chance to practice this new debating technique I just learned from Welch.)

Yes dear, I'm sure you know best, sweety.

(By the way, have Blunderist and Oolon ever been seen together?)

I see. You chose mumbling. Oh well. Perhaps you'll reconsider some time. In the mean time, what onlookers observe are honest questions asking you to back up your claim with evidence, and you mumbling in response. Not very impressive.

[Jan Steen]

http://i.imgur.com/HSibcS4.jpg

[ianfc]

Sometime for Phil from [url]ttp://blog.ted.com/2013/06/26/bob-mankoff-picks-his-11-favorite-new-yorker-cartoons-ever/[/url]
http://tedconfblog.files.wordpress.com/ ... knife1.jpg

[Linus]

I have a hard time taking someone [Carrier] seriously as an intellectual when they think they've proven that science can determine moral values and gotten around the is/ought problem somehow.

[Apples]

<bypass all that schmuckery.>

Even if someone can argue persuasively that 2 + 2 = 4, if he's proven to be a socially retarded forum-version of Star Wars kid, it's no "fallacy" to dismiss him with prejudice.

[AndrewV69]

Anyway, what range does your friend shoot at? Does he use fast light arrows or heavy and slow ones? If it were me I would go for getting in close and using heavy and slow arrows.

Close up. It's not for sport - he likes to have as little contact with the world at large, including supermarkets.

Interesting person.

BTW I was just curious. Seeing as I used to hunt for sport I am not in a position to criticize him anyway.

[Wonderist]

http://i.imgur.com/HSibcS4.jpg

I'll take that as a 'fold'. Chicken. :P

[Wonderist]

<bypass all that schmuckery.>

Even if someone can argue persuasively that 2 + 2 = 4, if he's proven to be a socially retarded forum-version of Star Wars kid, it's no "fallacy" to dismiss him with prejudice.

The fallacy is to dismiss the argument by dismissing the person and without providing a counter-argument.

[Lsuoma]

I hate that. It's not more "humane", it may even be worse, since an arrow kills by making the target bleed to death. Guns may actually be MORE humane since there is at least a chance of a quick death, not running with a big painful piece of carbon composite sticking out of you until you fall down and die.

Exactly how I feel about it, but try selling that line of reasoning to someone who's father hunted with a bow, just like his father before him.

Meh. I bowhunt, it's a way to get meat you don't normally have access to. That's about it.

Roofies, dude...

[Steersman]

I meant we could kick English ass even when sick! It was stupid, humorous chauvinism.

Thanks for the elaboration. Although the joke seems to depend on the context of a long and glaringly evident history of battles between the two countries. Something that not everyone is going to be all that aware of – check your privilege … ;-)

Damn, Steers, you could probably add a zero at the end of your score!

:-) I win! I win! ....