Bleeding from the Bunghole

[Supertroy]

It's very interesting in my view because the historicity of Jesus, or lack of, is in my opinion a hugely powerful weapon against Christianity.

But by that token you run up against a very human response. To wit: with all of this horseshit, there must be a pony in there somewhere. People will always assume that there's a founder, even when it's an assumption not really founded on anything.

Wich is why even though I'm a huge devotee of Bob Price, I think his Christ mythicsm has it all ass backwards. Because once you start off with "Jesus didn't exist", you start the whole game with an uphill battle in most minds.

You're better off showing how much of what is assumed to be about the historical Jesus to be attributable instead to the Christ of Faith, and IMO there's very little that isn't directly attributable to the Christ of Faith and very little that can unambigiously be attributed to a historical Jesus. (Seriously - an execution by the Romans and a subordinate linkage to John the Baptist are pretty much it). Once you've taken that step and shown that most of what we think we know about the man has its roots firmly in mythologizing, there just ain't much to form a picture of the historical character.

TL;DR, you're better off showing that we can't know much about the man, than you are arguing whether he existed or not.

[Supertroy]

The SJW feminists can just use this handy slogan to help men and women decide if it's actual rape or just a traumatic experience.

"If you don't have a dick in you, it's not rape."

Do strap-on's count?

[Early Cuyler]

Look, it's pretty simple to me. What you are saying is that if you aren't a "thought leader", i.e. getting the most press, you don't count in terms of defining a movement or group.

Well, as I've said, I think there's an enormous difference between being a thought leader of a movement and that person getting the most press.

Thought leaders on libertarianism:

Ron Paul
Elon Musk
Satoshi Nakamoto
Reason Magazine
Gary Johnson
Chicago School of Economics
Randy Barnett
Mark Cuban
Peter Thiel
Volokh Conspiracy
Tyler Cowen
Steven Landsburg
Thomas Sowell
Glenn Reynolds

Friedrich Hayek
Milton Friedman
Ayn Rand
Ludwig Von Mises
Lew Rockwell
CATO

...

Why no Penn Jillette?
Derp derp derp?

3 pages of discussion of Libertarianism and not one mention of Murray Rothbard??

This is an ignorant dicussion so far.

[James Caruthers]

The SJW feminists can just use this handy slogan to help men and women decide if it's actual rape or just a traumatic experience.

"If you don't have a dick in you, it's not rape."

Do strap-on's count?

Can a woman wear one?

Then of course not!

[bhoytony]

God I was no fan of that crew (professional losers leeching off the skeptic/atheist community), but Kasey was smarter and hotter than literally *everyone* at Skepchicks and FfTB combined.

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

Well, that's Margaret Downey with them and I think she's hotter than the lot of them put together.
(especially when she wears the nurse's uniform. I am such a sexist bastard aren't I?)

[jjbinx007]

Haha, Ed Brayton, one of the co-founders of FTB and therefore one of the chief fat fucks responsible for all the horrid, scammy and nasty advertising that site pumps out, is now complaining that Facebook sometimes advertises scams.

I think he's just jealous that he didn't think of it first.

[VickyCaramel]

It's very interesting in my view because the historicity of Jesus, or lack of, is in my opinion a hugely powerful weapon against Christianity.

But by that token you run up against a very human response. To wit: with all of this horseshit, there must be a pony in there somewhere. People will always assume that there's a founder, even when it's an assumption not really founded on anything.

Wich is why even though I'm a huge devotee of Bob Price, I think his Christ mythicsm has it all ass backwards. Because once you start off with "Jesus didn't exist", you start the whole game with an uphill battle in most minds.

You're better off showing how much of what is assumed to be about the historical Jesus to be attributable instead to the Christ of Faith, and IMO there's very little that isn't directly attributable to the Christ of Faith and very little that can unambigiously be attributed to a historical Jesus. (Seriously - an execution by the Romans and a subordinate linkage to John the Baptist are pretty much it). Once you've taken that step and shown that most of what we think we know about the man has its roots firmly in mythologizing, there just ain't much to form a picture of the historical character.

TL;DR, you're better off showing that we can't know much about the man, than you are arguing whether he existed or not.

Agreed. Although is somebody like Carrier can put forward a myth theory which is better supported with evidence, which can gain some traction, then it will certainly undermine their case.

It's not just the New Testament that can be undermined, we have a whole book to take a pop at.

As Hector Avalos has pointed out, there is good reason for Christians to actually accept the truth and write off the old testament as myth, because it allows them to write off much of the nasty shit that they have so much trouble explaining away. So you can put them up against the ropes and offer them a way out. The result is a much diluted form of Christianity (many or most Christians consider much of the old testament as myth already).

I think it is the same with the Jesus myth, They may well decide to believe that there was a founder who was a wise man etc, but you help them to water it down. I think of it as the Church of England effect.

[Cabal]

*delurks*

Hello and fuck off everyone - have been lurking here and on FTB for a while and thought it was about time I joined the party - loving some of the recent discussions about what constitutes feminism and the historicity of Christ, and the general level of FTB critique

(although I don't think I'll be weighing in on that last one much, it feels like a bad soap opera that I'm several seasons behind on)

I used to argue online about creation/evolution and Christian apologetics, but that seemed to change for me when Elevatorgate came along and gender issues got its tendrils wrapped around me, and I'm always glad to come across forums where it's a bit easier to discuss these things.

Keep up the good work! ;)

C

[debaser71]

It's very interesting in my view because the historicity of Jesus, or lack of, is in my opinion a hugely powerful weapon against Christianity.

But by that token you run up against a very human response. To wit: with all of this horseshit, there must be a pony in there somewhere. People will always assume that there's a founder, even when it's an assumption not really founded on anything.

Wich is why even though I'm a huge devotee of Bob Price, I think his Christ mythicsm has it all ass backwards. Because once you start off with "Jesus didn't exist", you start the whole game with an uphill battle in most minds.

You're better off showing how much of what is assumed to be about the historical Jesus to be attributable instead to the Christ of Faith, and IMO there's very little that isn't directly attributable to the Christ of Faith and very little that can unambigiously be attributed to a historical Jesus. (Seriously - an execution by the Romans and a subordinate linkage to John the Baptist are pretty much it). Once you've taken that step and shown that most of what we think we know about the man has its roots firmly in mythologizing, there just ain't much to form a picture of the historical character.

TL;DR, you're better off showing that we can't know much about the man, than you are arguing whether he existed or not.

Or you can start off saying jesus is a myth and let the person you are talking to tell you that jesus was a man. This way you allow the other person to think it through for themselves. YMMV....and that's fine.

[VickyCaramel]

God I was no fan of that crew (professional losers leeching off the skeptic/atheist community), but Kasey was smarter and hotter than literally *everyone* at Skepchicks and FfTB combined.

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

Well, that's Margaret Downey with them and I think she's hotter than the lot of them put together.
(especially when she wears the nurse's uniform. I am such a sexist bastard aren't I?)

Not really, I think i would quite like to see her in a nurses uniform too.

[free thoughtpolice]

Haha, Ed Brayton, one of the co-founders of FTB and therefore one of the chief fat fucks responsible for all the horrid, scammy and nasty advertising that site pumps out, is now complaining that Facebook sometimes advertises scams.

I think he's just jealous that he didn't think of it first.

Are you telling me I didn't really win all that cool stuff from those pop-ups fromlogging in to FTB? :evil:

[Supertroy]

Or you can start off saying jesus is a myth and let the person you are talking to tell you that jesus was a man. This way you allow the other person to think it through for themselves. YMMV....and that's fine.

I would guess it depends on what your goal here is - I've been in discussions where doing that stops discussion completely and re-routes everything through an unhelpful lense of what "the majority of scholars say".

While I do agree that's a dodge to discussing your arguments as to why you think Jesus didn't exist, it's such a standard move in the Jesus debate, I would think that mythicsts would have realized that and worked out a way to avoid it.

And I can't really think of a whole boatload of situations where a derailment of the discussion into what scholars think is helpful.

[Parody Accountant]

God I was no fan of that crew (professional losers leeching off the skeptic/atheist community), but Kasey was smarter and hotter than literally *everyone* at Skepchicks and FfTB combined.

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

Well, that's Margaret Downey with them and I think she's hotter than the lot of them put together.
(especially when she wears the nurse's uniform. I am such a sexist bastard aren't I?)

Not really, I think i would quite like to see her in a nurses uniform too.

Sorry for potential TMI: I like big tits. Like, imagine 'wayyy too big'. Now add more. It wasn't always like that for me, for several years I had no preference. Then I dated (and married) a large-chested woman. Game over. Inner-'breast man' discovered.

I'm curious. Did it work like that for others, or for 'ass-men'?

[VickyCaramel]

Or you can start off saying jesus is a myth and let the person you are talking to tell you that jesus was a man. This way you allow the other person to think it through for themselves. YMMV....and that's fine.

I would guess it depends on what your goal here is - I've been in discussions where doing that stops discussion completely and re-routes everything through an unhelpful lense of what "the majority of scholars say".

While I do agree that's a dodge to discussing your arguments as to why you think Jesus didn't exist, it's such a standard move in the Jesus debate, I would think that mythicsts would have realized that and worked out a way to avoid it.

And I can't really think of a whole boatload of situations where a derailment of the discussion into what scholars think is helpful.

I usually start with "There is absolutely no evidence what-so-ever that Jesus ever existed". At which point they can't wait to prove me wrong... They then bring forth all the usual junk which I refute while throwing a few additional items into the mix.

Whenever I hear that "the majority of scholars say", I counter with "The majority of Christian scholars are Christian, so they would say that".

[Supertroy]

I think it is the same with the Jesus myth, They may well decide to believe that there was a founder who was a wise man etc, but you help them to water it down. I think of it as the Church of England effect.

Well yeah, that's the goal either way, which is why I find the whole Christ Mythicsm debate beside the point.

Of course I'm not coming at this from a scholarly position and trying to get my ideas accepted, but rather from a position that wants to engage with believers and get them to be more nuanced in their thinking WRT to Jesus, what he is supposed to have done, and the reliability of the gospel accounts.

Because in my experience, the "Scholars say Jesus existed" is both an appeal to authority and a buttressing claim to the gospels being "eyewitness accounts". Defusing what is meant by "scholars say" and introducing the dichotomy between the Christ of faith and the historical Jesus, is usually more effective towards that end than just asserting that Jesus was a made up figure, because then people just tend to lump you into the "village atheist" category. Emphasizing the difference between faith and what we think we can know (and subsequently demonstrating how much there is in the former and how little there is of the latter) avoids being consigned to the "moon landing was a hoax" box in the mind of a believer.

Like debaser and Mao said "YMMV, let a million bajillion flowers bloom" or something. I may have fucked up the quote.

[Supertroy]

I usually start with "There is absolutely no evidence what-so-ever that Jesus ever existed". At which point they can't wait to prove me wrong... They then bring forth all the usual junk which I refute while throwing a few additional items into the mix.

Whenever I hear that "the majority of scholars say", I counter with "The majority of Christian scholars are Christian, so they would say that".

We're not too far off here - and in fact I'm personally agnostic on whether he existed or not, I just think that any information we might be able to glean out of this is so twisted by years of myth making that the man has retreated so far behind the stained glass that forming a picture of who the historical man was is more an exercise of isogesis than it is an exercise in history.

My main point is one of tactics. Which I now realize puts me in wonderist territory, so I probably shut the fuck up now.

[VAXherd]

This is why somebody like Rebecca Watson is still around, she knows how to communicate, she knows how to talk the language of the people she is talking to.

RW: "I was soooooo drunk last night. Now my head feels two feet wide and my mouth is like bad asphalt. Hee hee hee."
Audience: "Preach it sister! But not so loudly, please."


They could do better:

[youtube]h-KDSxqJ_0o[/youtube]

[Supertroy]

Sorry for potential TMI: I like big tits. Like, imagine 'wayyy too big'. Now add more. It wasn't always like that for me, for several years I had no preference. Then I dated (and married) a large-chested woman. Game over. Inner-'breast man' discovered.

I'm curious. Did it work like that for others, or for 'ass-men'?

Is it really an issue of liking big tits, or is it just an issue of liking the tig ol bitties attached to your wife? I recently celebrated my ten year anniversary with my wife, and I realized this is not the woman I married a decade ago. All the things that physically attracted me to her have long since changed (as they should, time waits for no one), but that doesn't mean I don't relish the opportunity to make the beast with two backs with her.

Hell, I still beg for it. It's that we've forged a connection over the years that feeds back into what I consider sexy. Perhaps that's the case with you?

[JudgeFudge]

What's more destructive IMO is an Erhman style deconstruction of the central themes of gospels, the source issues, the dilution of any central theme by editorial input; simply the impossibility of actually deriving anything of compelling and structured value. The devil truly does lie in the detail.

Ehrman though has a blind spot for a Historical Jesus, as do most Theologians.

Shit, not long ago coming to the conclusion that the Patriarchs were myths was considered whacky. If memory serves, Thomas Thompson got his PhD thesis on the subject rejected by Ratzinger on the grounds that the Catholic University couldn't award a degree based on such an idea; he had to submit the same thesis to Temple University in order to get his PhD. Yet the book based on that Thesis changed the academic consensus.

I note that in an age not long ago, Albright could wander around looking for the OT Patriarchs in the 2nd Millenium BC and be considered a serious academic. Now it's just Mazar and Evangelicals still walking that line.

Letting theists get around our open flank into the unknowns of the origins and purpose of the universe is fucking crazy when we can utterly destroy them on morality and history which tend to be the reasons people believe in the first place. Doing anything else is just mental masturbation.

This!!

I find that most people - including the educated ones - simply accept the view that Jesus was a real person, god or not, as a given, having never encountered any kind of challenge to his historicity. Making Christians fight on historical grounds puts them at a disadvantage, it gets them out of philosophy and into reality.

I note that Hitchens primarily used history to knock down Christian claims, rather than pulling apart unverifiable Neo-platonism based woo. Fascism, the Holocaust, Thomas Moore, etc. One thing that stood out is that Hitchens demolished the status Holy Figure - Mother Theresa, whose name is a byword for sacrifice and charity. I bet you Hitchens blew more minds - and perhaps changed them - by taking on that sacred cow head on.

It's important not to leave a worldview unchallenged, otherwise it will win by default, even if it's weakly grounded.

[Supertroy]

One thing that stood out is that Hitchens demolished the status Holy Figure - Mother Theresa, whose name is a byword for sacrifice and charity. I bet you Hitchens blew more minds - and perhaps changed them - by taking on that sacred cow head on.

It's important not to leave a worldview unchallenged, otherwise it will win by default, even if it's weakly grounded.

Or he made himself a lightning rod for criticism that ultimately shut him out of the discussion and raised barriers in the minds of those he should have been reaching. I'm not 100% certain which. (I suspect it's a little of column A and a little of column B)

Which is probably getting a little to close the the cleavages from the last great schism in Atheism/Skepticsm, the accommodationist wars, so I'll just let it go and say that one should always consider who you're selling to before you formulate your sales pitch.

[Parody Accountant]

Sorry for potential TMI: I like big tits. Like, imagine 'wayyy too big'. Now add more. It wasn't always like that for me, for several years I had no preference. Then I dated (and married) a large-chested woman. Game over. Inner-'breast man' discovered.

I'm curious. Did it work like that for others, or for 'ass-men'?

Is it really an issue of liking big tits, or is it just an issue of liking the tig ol bitties attached to your wife? I recently celebrated my ten year anniversary with my wife, and I realized this is not the woman I married a decade ago. All the things that physically attracted me to her have long since changed (as they should, time waits for no one), but that doesn't mean I don't relish the opportunity to make the beast with two backs with her.

Hell, I still beg for it. It's that we've forged a connection over the years that feeds back into what I consider sexy. Perhaps that's the case with you?

I'm sure love would conquer whatever age brings. I get what you're saying, and agree that I too would be satisfied with her as we grow.

HOWEVER. I no longer notice a 'beautiful woman with pretty face'. I'm only distracted by large-chested women when in a public setting! Now I'm not going to gawk and drool, and I even get annoyed at how my brain works in this regard... but it's just become my thing, I suppose. Another indicator of my change: I now tend to seek out very large chested women when fapping and frothing on the internet. It seriously was never like that before!

So yes and no.

[Supertroy]

HOWEVER. I no longer notice a 'beautiful woman with pretty face'. I'm only distracted by large-chested women when in a public setting! Now I'm not going to gawk and drool, and I even get annoyed at how my brain works in this regard... but it's just become my thing, I suppose. Another indicator of my change: I now tend to seek out very large chested women when fapping and frothing on the internet. It seriously was never like that before!

So yes and no.

Well that's kind of what I was after, but again it's a feedback loop. Okay, my turn for the TMI - my wife over the last decade has put on a few pounds and of course she's ten years older. So when I'm fapping and frothing myself, what do I look for? Lets just say that I've done more than my share of searches at YouPorn that have the words "chubby milf" in there. Back when I was single? Not so much chubby or milf. That just wasn't my reality then. It is now, so it's what influences my desire in fantasies.

Or maybe I just always wanted to jerking to chubby miles and being married to one makes it easier for me to acknowledge what a sick sick puppy I am? IT ARE A MISSTERY!

[Supertroy]

Fucking auto-correct, stepping all over my punchlines. We need to dig up Steve Jobs, shove 1.21 Gigawatts up his ass and make him fix it before he can go on to his eternal rest.

[Parody Accountant]

<snip>

So yes and no.

Well that's kind of what I was after, but again it's a feedback loop. Okay, my turn for the TMI - my wife over the last decade has put on a few pounds and of course she's ten years older. So when I'm fapping and frothing myself, what do I look for? Lets just say that I've done more than my share of searches at YouPorn that have the words "chubby milf" in there. Back when I was single? Not so much chubby or milf. That just wasn't my reality then. It is now, so it's what influences my desire in fantasies.

Or maybe I just always wanted to jerking to chubby miles and being married to one makes it easier for me to acknowledge what a sick sick puppy I am? IT ARE A MISSTERY!

Thanks for sharing. Now I think it's more like what you were saying, rather than awakening a slumbering sexual preference. That's strangely refreshing to discuss. I'll probably refrain from talking about it with the wife though. "You see, babe? All those times I accidentally peeked? It's because I love you." :lol: ;)

[Supertroy]

I'll probably refrain from talking about it with the wife though. "You see, babe? All those times I accidentally peeked? It's because I love you." :lol: ;)

That's probably for the best, it never really went over that well with the missus in my experience. I was only jerking it because she reminded me of you might sound good in your head but it will never sound good in hers......

[TedDahlberg]

Or maybe I just always wanted to jerking to chubby miles and being married to one makes it easier for me to acknowledge what a sick sick puppy I am? IT ARE A MISSTERY!

[youtube]FAzBa3QSpUY[/youtube]

[bhoytony]

Well, that's Margaret Downey with them and I think she's hotter than the lot of them put together.
(especially when she wears the nurse's uniform. I am such a sexist bastard aren't I?)

Not really, I think i would quite like to see her in a nurses uniform too.

http://www.margaretdowney.com/nohotlink/teller.jpg

P.S. I think she is over sixty years old if you can believe that.

[AndrewV69]

<snip>
I'm curious. Did it work like that for others, or for 'ass-men'?

Is it really an issue of liking big tits, or is it just an issue of liking the tig ol bitties attached to your wife? I recently celebrated my ten year anniversary with my wife, and I realized this is not the woman I married a decade ago. All the things that physically attracted me to her have long since changed (as they should, time waits for no one), but that doesn't mean I don't relish the opportunity to make the beast with two backs with her.

Hell, I still beg for it. It's that we've forged a connection over the years that feeds back into what I consider sexy. Perhaps that's the case with you?

Well, as much as I enjoy looking at tits I am really an ass man myself. Experience has shown me that (and true story) I really do not care if her tits sag down to her knees once the bra comes off. What I really do not like are Frankentits. If a woman wants to do something with them to make them plump out a bit I have no problem with that, but blown up and skin stretching balloons really turn me off big time.

Girls, do not do that.

Anyway, I would imagine that the emotion/mental "connection" business is a key component to wearing "wife goggles" and a guy is a lot less likely to stray if he is wearing them.

There is a lot of blather about oxytocin and the health benefits for women from semen for example :

In fact, the results aren't a complete surprise because semen does contain several mood-altering hormones, including testosterone, oestrogen, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinising hormone, prolactin and several different prostaglandins. Some of these have been detected in a women's blood within hours of exposure to semen.

One last thing though. According to the "Manosphere" most women apparently like being bossed around when it comes to sex, so the fastest way to make a woman dry up and have her vajayjay snap shut faster than a clam is to "beg for it" and generally behave like a whingy kitchen bitch.

Guys, do not do that.

That plus they like the idea that they man is so overwhelmed by the uncontrollable lust they inspire in the man that "no" is not an acceptable answer.

One way to do that apparently, is to rip your shirt off without undoing the buttons.



(Note: Usual disclaimers about advise you read on the internet from J.Random.Personages of dubious provenance. Use at your own risk and assume all responsibility and any/and all liability is on your own haid).

Not to mention that YMMV.

[Supertroy]

Well, as much as I enjoy looking at tits I am really an ass man myself. Experience has shown me that (and true story) I really do not care if her tits sag down to her knees once the bra comes off. What I really do not like are Frankentits. If a woman wants to do something with them to make them plump out a bit I have no problem with that, but blown up and skin stretching balloons really turn me off big time.

Girls, do not do that.

Asses are also easier to stare at without getting nailed for it. Call it a modified SJW position on ogling, it's okay to do it, just not so okay to do it that the person on the other end is made to feel put out because of it. Because then they cover up, and that sucks for the rest of us.

It's kind of like what I said the other day when I saw a guy driving a 2013 Challenger with "MILF HUNTER" across the top of his front windshield. I guess it's okay to be that way, but advertising it is just crass.

My tongue is only partially in cheek here.....

[Aneris]

It's from this essay:

Sensationalist whiskey-dick in the works of Laden

Y. Ellenbeth Hendricks
Department of Evolutionary Psychology, University of California



1. White-knightings of absurdity

SNIP

That one post represents more and better scholarly work than RW has ever done. (Not to mention more effort.) At the very least, you deserve a PhD. in the completely real and not at all made-up field of WomynGender Studies. Prepare to accept your full-time, tenured teaching position at a college whose student body is 90% female, but still holds nightly Take Back the Night rallies to prevent Bob, the school's sole heterosexual male student, from offering a woman a glass of wine.

I tweaked the automated PoMo generator to churn out Atheist Plus / SJW nonsense instead. I laughed like a bastard at dozens of 'essays' it crafted.

Try it yourself!

1) Copy the entire text of my script.
2) Paste it here
3) Click 'Dada'

It seems like Spiderman pops in at exactly the right time, just when it starts to get boring. (Watson recently attributed a Voltaire quote to Spiderman, fyi).

Brilliant. And Shared.

Did you know they have a comment generator? And I always wondered why so many of their comments are so similar.

Dear Newbie,
Belonging must be earned. We are committed to only admit indidiuals into our group that learn and play by our rules. Sometimes it might seem like distrustful hazing, and sometimes we might appear very harsh to newcomers. And that is true. Belonging must be earned. But we recognize that it became a little too difficult lately for new commenters to become part of the group. In addition to lurk (“shut up and listen”) and read each and every valuable comment carefully, we came up with a tool that should help you, Dear Newbie and future Horde member, to ease in and attune yourself to our customs. We proudly present the “Commentariat Conform Comment Paste” (CCCP).

The CCCP
The tool gives you various options to customize your comment. Normally, you can copy and paste all comments generated into any comment thread at FreeThoughtBlogs or SkepChick or the Atheism Plus forum, regardless of topic (comments about sexual assault certainly do fit into politics, of course).

Instructions
Choose which user you would like to emulate. Is it the harsh Selective Rationalityâ„¢ of Nerd of Redhead, or do you prefer the axe-murder brutal truth of a Caine, Fleur Du Mal? You then find a number of checkboxes that are mostly self-explanatory.
The “legacy swears” checkbox includes randomly references to porcupines, rusty-knives, cupcakes and fire-deaths. The Social Justice Point selector generates various stories dependent of setting. The victim-perpetrator buttons next to it influence your story. On the lower settings (1—4), the story is about a sexist anecdote you quickly condemn. If you chose the “victim” setting, you experienced or witnessed some sexism. If you selected “perpetrator”, the sexism came from you and you now quickly condemn your old ways as false (higher points always includes praise for the Commentariat in learning that e.g. rape is false). On the medium social justice points scale (5—8), you confess your own sexist thinking. There are no medium “victim” stories. The highest settings (9—11) will portray you either as a victim or as a perpetrator of sexual violence, which you of course condemn. It automatically includes some sentences that praise the role of the Commentariat in becoming your New You™. Don’t worry about users demanding that you go to the police, or that you should be reported to the police. You can safely use all stories generated by the generator no matter how extreme they appear, nobody will demand enabling prosecution.

After you hit submit, the CCCP presents you with a story you can paste into the comment box e.g. at Pharyngula, where you can further customize a little (we suggest to leave it as it as in your first few comments, you can later gradually write your own comments in the same manner in a more free-form fashion).

See you soon on the Good Sideâ„¢

This message is Official FreeThoughtâ„¢ and approved on all platforms associated with the Commentariat:
Ophelia Benson, Christopher Benton, Dr. Richard Carrier, Meldoy Hensley, Greg Laden, Amanda Marcotte, PZ Myers, Jason Thibeault, Rebecca Watson, Stephanie Zvan

http://i.imgur.com/20acTRr.jpg

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

(Watson recently attributed a Voltaire quote to Spiderman, fyi).

LINK?

[Aneris]

None of that is an accomplishment of feminism. And if you want to attribute things to feminism that were accomplished before feminism even existed, why not just claim that fire and everything was an invention of feminism? [other comment] Yes, sigh. Let's be not so picky about labels. Let's claim that humanism is just a form of Christianity. Sigh.

it would make as much sense as stating that it only counts under <stupid-assed narrow definition that you can't even live up to much less everyone else>

Verlagekasper etc. might want to start here and get your basic facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femin ... cs/#WhaFem

I actually did come across individuals who claimed that religious atrocities and co were reducible to general stupidty or gullibility, i.e. belief system had nothing to do with it. Which is just the nonsensical inversion of the idea that feminism did nothing and it could be reduced to something else.

Also see the state of societies that still have largely “pro-life” views and look at feminist movements that e.g. changed the attitudes somewhere in the 1970ties in Europe. If you are German, Verlagekasper, you might want to educate yourself here. Feminism did nothing is like claiming Atheist Movements did nothing (in 30 years), or that LGTBQ did nothing to change the situation. The Zeitgeist is not some magic force that does its work all by itself.

Every social movement is probably in some way embedded into its time and culture. Hardly anyone sits at their desk and out of nowhere comes up with the completely new idea nobody has ever heard of and then somehow convinces the masses. There is some interaction with the times and culture, either because it's extremely opposite so that it is some kind of revolting or it is a kind of refinement or improvement of some idea that already floats around in people's heads. You don't need to go full Hegel to appreciate the interplay of such thesis to antithesis situations, or thesis-antithesis to synthesis situations.

[Service Dog]

Skepchick correction: it was not Spiderman who overturned our table at Dragon*Con (as previously reported), but rather Voltaire.


https://www.facebook.com/KeepVoltaireAtDragonCon

[mordacious1]

(Watson recently attributed a Voltaire quote to Spiderman, fyi).

LINK?

Yeah, but that was, "With great power comes great responsibility", which is often wrongly stated as coming from Uncle Ben. Voltaire did say something similar of course, but the phrase (with subtle variations) goes back further than that. This, compared with Watson's other blunders, is small potatoes.

[Parody Accountant]

Has anybody tried an excerpt or a short essay from the SJW generator script as a reply at FTB/skepchick yet? PM the link if you do (so they don't zap it for being mentioned here).

[Skep tickle]

(Watson recently attributed a Voltaire quote to Spiderman, fyi).

LINK?

Yeah, but that was, "With great power comes great responsibility", which is often wrongly stated as coming from Uncle Ben. Voltaire did say something similar of course, but the phrase (with subtle variations) goes back further than that. This, compared with Watson's other blunders, is small potatoes.

ConcentratedH2O, OM - she said this in the video clip from 6/2011 that's been recently posted here - she dissed a detractor who had (as I recall) emailed her & closed his communication with "With great responsibility comes great power" - the coup de grace in her takedown of his communication was that he had quoted a comic book character (Spiderman).

So people are pointing out that while Spiderman spoke that line, it predates Spidey and is usually attributed to Voltaire.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stan_Lee

WITH GREAT POWER THERE MUST ALSO COME - - GREAT RESPONSIBILITY!

• Amazing Fantasy #15 (August 1962) - The first Spider-Man story.
• In later stories and adaptations, including the 2002 movie, this has appeared as "With great power comes great responsibility."
• The saying pre-dates Amazing Fantasy; We can attribute the earliest usage of the phrase "With great power comes great responsibility" to Voltaire, albeit in French. (Voltaire. Jean, Adrien. Beuchot, Quentin and Miger, Pierre, Auguste. "Å’uvres de Voltaire, Volume 48". Lefèvre, 1832) A UK Member of Parliament implied in 1817 that a variant of it was already a cliché. (Thomas C. Hansard, ed (1817). Parliamentary Debates. p. 1227. Retrieved on February 6 2010. "He should, however, beg leave to remind the conductors of the press of their duty to apply to themselves a maxim which they never neglected to urge on the consideration of government —" that the possession of great power necessarily implies great responsibility.") The sentiment is also found in Luke 12:48: "from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked" (NIV).

[Brive1987]

*delurks*

Hello and fuck off everyone - have been lurking here and on FTB for a while and thought it was about time I joined the party - loving some of the recent discussions about what constitutes feminism and the historicity of Christ, and the general level of FTB critique

(although I don't think I'll be weighing in on that last one much, it feels like a bad soap opera that I'm several seasons behind on)

I used to argue online about creation/evolution and Christian apologetics, but that seemed to change for me when Elevatorgate came along and gender issues got its tendrils wrapped around me, and I'm always glad to come across forums where it's a bit easier to discuss these things.

Keep up the good work! ;)

C

Fuck off and lurk moar

Don't worry about the regulars, I've discovered they don't know anything either.

:greetings-waveyellow:

[Skep tickle]

ConcentratedH2O, OM - she said this in the video clip from 6/2011 that's been recently posted here - she dissed a detractor who had (as I recall) emailed her & closed his communication with "With great responsibility power comes great power responsibility" - the coup de grace in her takedown of his communication was that he had quoted a comic book character (Spiderman).

So people are pointing out that while Spiderman spoke that line, it predates Spidey and is usually attributed to Voltaire.

Oops. FTFM.

[Bourne Skeptic]

Steer got the boot from A+

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 336#p92363

They can't seem to grasp the concept that there are different perspectives other than there own.

[Steersman]

Steers got the boot from A+

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 336#p92363

They can't seem to grasp the concept that there are different perspectives other than their own.

Fucking incredible isn’t it? I’ve sent an e-mail to the administrators, taking a shot or two at the moderators in passing, but I doubt that will have much effect. But, FWIW, this was a comment I had planned in response to Ellie Murasaki:

You're proposing something so utterly absurd that it shouldn't be surprising that nobody's taking it seriously.

Nobody? Really? You’ve surveyed the entire population and you’re prepared to stake your reputation – such as it is – on that decidedly specious claim? You might wish to ask Jason Thibeault about these comments of his on the idea:

If it's to protect people from false rape accusations, that might be workable. I don't think it's particularly savory to record people's intimate encounters without informed consent ….

If this is to protect victims, it would not likely help, because they would be very unlikely to turn on an app before being raped if their intention was NOT to have an intimate encounter. Either it would be on-all-the-time, recording all your audio, or you'd have to intentionally trigger it.

Does that look to you like a categorical rejection of the idea? In addition, I’ve so far spoken to, or e-mailed, several ex sex-workers, the first of whom thinks it might be a good idea if the cost was low enough.

You honestly think the rape wouldn't have happened? You don't think that he would have gone back to the bar and found someone else to have sex with will she nill she?

But the point is that Anni herself wouldn’t have been raped. And if all of the patrons in the bar had similar applications then none of them would have been raped either.

The "firm insistence" bit, you'll note, is for after the fact, for getting the survivor of rape to stop victim-blaming herself. Which Anni needs to do.

True – I’ll concede that point. But my response was generally to the argument that telling a rapist – at least some of them – not to rape is probably as effective as King Canute telling the tides not to come in. Rapists gonna rape, thieves gonna rob.

But if you would actually read Anni’s tale a little more closely, instead of letting your prejudices get in the way, you would notice that she is most definitely not absolving the rapist, only accepting a bit of responsibility for how the evening turned out.

But I notice that “Sun Countess” did eventually come back with a couple of at least semi-credible arguments. Too bad she is unable to see that being recorded might actually qualify as “an alarm that reminds the rapists out there that they should quit raping people."

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Thanks for the Spidey info, SkepTickle and others.

[Verklagekasper]

None of that is an accomplishment of feminism. And if you want to attribute things to feminism that were accomplished before feminism even existed, why not just claim that fire and everything was an invention of feminism? [other comment] Yes, sigh. Let's be not so picky about labels. Let's claim that humanism is just a form of Christianity. Sigh.

it would make as much sense as stating that it only counts under <stupid-assed narrow definition that you can't even live up to much less everyone else>

Verlagekasper etc. might want to start here and get your basic facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femin ... cs/#WhaFem

I actually did come across individuals who claimed that religious atrocities and co were reducible to general stupidty or gullibility, i.e. belief system had nothing to do with it. Which is just the nonsensical inversion of the idea that feminism did nothing and it could be reduced to something else.

Also see the state of societies that still have largely “pro-life” views and look at feminist movements that e.g. changed the attitudes somewhere in the 1970ties in Europe. If you are German, Verlagekasper, you might want to educate yourself here. Feminism did nothing is like claiming Atheist Movements did nothing (in 30 years), or that LGTBQ did nothing to change the situation. The Zeitgeist is not some magic force that does its work all by itself.

If you cared to read the links meant for my education yourself, you would have noticed that the definition of feminsim isn't carved in rock. Scholars argue whether early activists should be called feminists or rather protofeminists. You swallowed the feminist movement's narrative that feminsim is about equal rights. You ignore the cognitve dissonance arising from the fact that from 1970s, the time when the term "feminism" became known to a broad public, feminism was never about equal rights but all along about bullshit like patriarchy, privilege, blah. The toxic bunch of today has nothing in common with early activits. That they are commonly put under the same label is the result of propaganda lies repeated so often that you started believing them. But there is no sense in giving movements so different or even contradicting another the same name. It would be reasonable to call early activists feminsts and current activists female supremacists. But since the latter occupied the term, one might just call, as mentioned, early activists protofeminists.

[Cunning Punt]

God I was no fan of that crew (professional losers leeching off the skeptic/atheist community), but Kasey was smarter and hotter than literally *everyone* at Skepchicks and FfTB combined.

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

Well, that's Margaret Downey with them and I think she's hotter than the lot of them put together.
(especially when she wears the nurse's uniform. I am such a sexist bastard aren't I?)

I am so totally in agreement with you there. Not about you being a sexist bastard, although if you post here then obviously you are.

[Tribble]

Then there is this quote where she sees "people", but reads it as "guys" and the victims as women.

Confusing factor 1: There are people who want sex, and are not resigned to just hang around and wait till it is offered.

That’s not a “confusing factor,” it’s a long-discredited victim-blaming bullshit talking-point. Rape is RARELY, if ever, about pent-up sexual desire; it’s mostly about anger, resentment, and, yes, power. Remember, not all women were dressing or acting provocatively prior to being raped, and not all rapes are by guys whom the victim had teased or blown off before. (And, in fact, a lot of rape victims weren’t even in the “sexy” or “sexually available” categories at all — they were old women, prepubescent girls, invalids, nuns, middle-aged housewives attacked unprovoked by strangers in their homes, etc.)

So please cut this crap about guys just not wanting to wait for sex — it’s a deliberate diversion.

Who ever wrote the quote is an idiot. Rape is mostly about sex. Something like 80% of female victims are young women between 16 and 24. Most male rapists are young men between 16-28 which are the peak testosterone years. By the time a woman hits 30, her chances of being raped drop like a stone as she's no longer at peak sexuality and the young men who commit most of the rapes just aren't as interested in these older women. Further, as testosterone drops in the late 20s, the rape-rate for the male population drops.

Further supporting 'sex-drive-as-motivator' back when surgical castration was still performed, the sex offender recidivism rate dropped to 5%. That's versus the 70% for non-castrated sex offenders. Once again showing testosterone sex drive is the primary factor in sex offense, not some weird 'power and patriarchy' crap that should not, under the magical sky fairy of Patriarchy, be diminished.

And, of course, most rapists (before they're 'reeducated' to why they rape are clear -- it was sex they were after and the rape was the 'last recourse.' Well, except if feminist literature. But most of those men were post-reeducation. Prior to re-education, sex (according to some researchers) was the primary motivation (in all or part) in the vast majority of cases (Ellis, Smithyman, others)

See:

Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (Bradford)
A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. (Thornhill and Palmer)

And there are lot more actual scientific studies on why people rape. An none of these studies will be found in the silly-assed feminist literature that starts out with assumption that it's patriarchy and concludes 'women are pure victims and men are shyte.'

[Cunning Punt]

I'm stunned and amazed that Steersman got to 32 posts on A+ :lol: Not many people make it that far! I thought your suggestion about the phone app was pretty dumb, but you still rock!

[another lurker]

Ayup, rape is a reproductive strategy. A way of cheating, essentially. Spread your genes with none of the responsibility that goes along with it.

Also, I do believe that once brothels were opened in Japan after WW2, the # of rapes went down significantly.

The issue with this is that some feminists take 'rape is natural' to mean 'OMFG YOU ARE SAYING RAPE IS GOOD'. Uh no. Clearly, it's a reproductive strategy, but it's a BAD ONE. Just like arranged marriages with 12 year old girls are bad - sure, a 12 year old can get pregnant, but the pregnancy will be extremely unhealthy for her and the infant and will result in higher maternal and infant mortality rates.

[Lsuoma]

I'm stunned and amazed that Steersman got to 32 posts on A+ :lol: Not many people make it that far! I thought your suggestion about the phone app was pretty dumb, but you still rock!

iRape?

[Parody Accountant]

I'm stunned and amazed that Steersman got to 32 posts on A+ :lol: Not many people make it that far! I thought your suggestion about the phone app was pretty dumb, but you still rock!

iRape?

iDefame

[AndrewV69]

Steers got the boot from A+

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 336#p92363

They can't seem to grasp the concept that there are different perspectives other than their own.

Fucking incredible isn’t it? I’ve sent an e-mail to the administrators, taking a shot or two at the moderators in passing, but I doubt that will have much effect. But, FWIW, this was a comment I had planned in response to Ellie Murasaki:

<choppity chop>

Muahahaha! Ahahahaha! Bwahahahah! Ahahahahahaha!

Steers ... you went to A+ and ... and ... Ahahahaha! Metaphorically speaking your arse never dipped below six feet on the horizontal before your corpus tore the door off it's hinges on your way out.

I am going to die right now .... Ahahahahah!

[Aneris]

<snip>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femin ... cs/#WhaFem
<snip>

If you cared to read the links meant for my education yourself, you would have noticed that the definition of feminsim isn't carved in rock. Scholars argue whether early activists should be called feminists or rather protofeminists. You swallowed the feminist movement's narrative that feminsim is about equal rights. You ignore the cognitve dissonance arising from the fact that from 1970s, the time when the term "feminism" became known to a broad public, feminism was never about equal rights but all along about bullshit like patriarchy, privilege, blah. The toxic bunch of today has nothing in common with early activits. That they are commonly put under the same label is the result of propaganda lies repeated so often that you started believing them. But there is no sense in giving movements so different or even contradicting another the same name. It would be reasonable to call early activists feminsts and current activists female supremacists. But since the latter occupied the term, one might just call, as mentioned, early activists protofeminists.

Not even wrong, but also no rebuttal. No single individual is the arbiter of how a movement is properly called. Traditions often split up and then develop into very different directions, where each branch likes to declare itself as the true successor, or in a more minimal form, who declares prerogative of interpretation over the label. We deal with the very same issue in our community, too. Like elsewhere some decide they rather pick a different label and leave the old one to nonsense trends (like Atheism Plus), while others try to retain the old meaning (which isn't static as it may seem, but is actually another tradition that moves forward). Five hundred different Feminisms do not magically make feminism disappear, much like 38,000 christian denominations do not make Christianity disappear. Of course, you are free to label the "wrong type" from your position differently and maintain that feminism was done in 1971, though that doesn't change the fabric of reality, but just shifts some concepts around.

[James Caruthers]

I'm stunned and amazed that Steersman got to 32 posts on A+ :lol: Not many people make it that far! I thought your suggestion about the phone app was pretty dumb, but you still rock!

iRape?

Or maybe we should take the feminist position and instead develop a virus that hacks into every smartphone registered to a man, and every two hours it makes a loud beeping noise and reminds the man not to rape women.

And we shall call this great invention...

iRapist

[Brive1987]

Great so now PZ flies across the country to read his book of blog posts. Has he nothing new to add?

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

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments

[welch]

it would make as much sense as stating that it only counts under <stupid-assed narrow definition that you can't even live up to much less everyone else>

Verlagekasper etc. might want to start here and get your basic facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femin ... cs/#WhaFem

I actually did come across individuals who claimed that religious atrocities and co were reducible to general stupidty or gullibility, i.e. belief system had nothing to do with it. Which is just the nonsensical inversion of the idea that feminism did nothing and it could be reduced to something else.

Also see the state of societies that still have largely “pro-life” views and look at feminist movements that e.g. changed the attitudes somewhere in the 1970ties in Europe. If you are German, Verlagekasper, you might want to educate yourself here. Feminism did nothing is like claiming Atheist Movements did nothing (in 30 years), or that LGTBQ did nothing to change the situation. The Zeitgeist is not some magic force that does its work all by itself.

If you cared to read the links meant for my education yourself, you would have noticed that the definition of feminsim isn't carved in rock. Scholars argue whether early activists should be called feminists or rather protofeminists. You swallowed the feminist movement's narrative that feminsim is about equal rights. You ignore the cognitve dissonance arising from the fact that from 1970s, the time when the term "feminism" became known to a broad public, feminism was never about equal rights but all along about bullshit like patriarchy, privilege, blah. The toxic bunch of today has nothing in common with early activits. That they are commonly put under the same label is the result of propaganda lies repeated so often that you started believing them. But there is no sense in giving movements so different or even contradicting another the same name. It would be reasonable to call early activists feminsts and current activists female supremacists. But since the latter occupied the term, one might just call, as mentioned, early activists protofeminists.

tl;dr -

"Feminism is only what I say it is when I say it is, nothing more and nothing less. If i change what I say it is, there was no change, it was always thus, therefore, feminism has never done any good in the world, because my definition of it prevents that from being a possibility."

[welch]

I'm stunned and amazed that Steersman got to 32 posts on A+ :lol: Not many people make it that far! I thought your suggestion about the phone app was pretty dumb, but you still rock!

iRape?

Or maybe we should take the feminist position and instead develop a virus that hacks into every smartphone registered to a man, and every two hours it makes a loud beeping noise and reminds the man not to rape women.

And we shall call this great invention...

iRapist

It'll show up on android first. The app as stated would break the sandbox, so Apple'd reject that in a micro-heartbeat. Then promptly ignore the screaming. They're quite good at ignoring people. Warms the cockles of my cold, dead heart when they ignore the demands of nerds.

[Steersman]

I'm stunned and amazed that Steersman got to 32 posts on A+ :lol: Not many people make it that far!

:-) I think most of those were within the first 6 months of inception, maybe well before the dogma solidified.

I thought your suggestion about the phone app was pretty dumb, but you still rock!

Thanks, although I’m curious why you think the phone app idea was a dumb one. As mentioned xxxild of YouTube fame – a fairly vocal supporter of sex-worker rights – thought it might be of some value if the price was right. And while Al Stefanelli was pretty noncommittal, he did go so far as to say the idea was a good one. And even Thibeault seemed to think it credible enough to provide some cogent criticisms of some weak points.

[bovarchist]

I'm stunned and amazed that Steersman got to 32 posts on A+ :lol: Not many people make it that far! I thought your suggestion about the phone app was pretty dumb, but you still rock!

iRape?

iBone

[Badger3k]

Great so now PZ flies across the country to read his book of blog posts. Has he nothing new to add?

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

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments

That sounds like a deepity - "we're all alone together, and that means you aren't alone at all" - if we're all alone, then we're not together, so that's a bit stupid. I gather the idea is that we are "alone" from this heavenly father (or mother, or other) figure, but since we have humans, and other animals, we're not alone at all. Only a sociopathic misanthrope who lives like a hermit in the deep wilderness may be alone, and while we may feel alone at times, we're not. We're surrounded by people, and by many different life forms.

I guess it would be better to say "you think you're alone, but you're not - we have each other" or something like that. Maybe not poetic, but it sounds better to me - less pretentious maybe?

[Steersman]

Steers got the boot from A+

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 336#p92363

They can't seem to grasp the concept that there are different perspectives other than their own.

Fucking incredible isn’t it? I’ve sent an e-mail to the administrators, taking a shot or two at the moderators in passing, but I doubt that will have much effect. But, FWIW, this was a comment I had planned in response to Ellie Murasaki:

<choppity chop>

Muahahaha! Ahahahaha! Bwahahahah! Ahahahahahaha!

Steers ... you went to A+ and ... and ... Ahahahaha! Metaphorically speaking your arse never dipped below six feet on the horizontal before your corpus tore the door off it's hinges on your way out.

I am going to die right now .... Ahahahahah!

:-) I regret that I have but one ’nym to give for the cause. :-)

Maybe it won’t have died in vain if it helps to lead others to question the stupidity, bigotry, and dogmaticism in that benighted neck of the woods. And I find it rather amusing that that post has acquired 143 page views so far, presumably most as a result of people here going over to check it out. Maybe that will cause a review of my banning, although I certainly won't hold by breath.

But interestingly and encouragingly, some black man – Bennie Crouch in one of Ashley Miller's posts – didn’t think much of AtheismPlus’ “Glossary” regarding racism. And there was a link here recently to another blog post of someone who was very critical of AtheismPlus. The brand name is looking a little tarnished; there's hope yet. :-)

[Steersman]

<snip>
Or maybe we should take the feminist position and instead develop a virus that hacks into every smartphone registered to a man, and every two hours it makes a loud beeping noise and reminds the man not to rape women.

And we shall call this great invention...

iRapist

It'll show up on android first. The app as stated would break the sandbox, so Apple'd reject that in a micro-heartbeat. Then promptly ignore the screaming. They're quite good at ignoring people. Warms the cockles of my cold, dead heart when they ignore the demands of nerds.

Which "app" are you referring to? If the one I've suggested then why do you think it would "break the sandbox"? And if so then what modifications would you suggest so that it wouldn't do that?

Also, you might want to check your recent post - "Shocked, shocked I tell you" - where I've made a related comment.

[16bitheretic]

Too much to catch up on, but I will say this: Steersman actually lasting for 32 posts on the A+ forum is quite the accomplishment! He probably caused quite an uproar in their super secret members-only hidden section of the board. The fainting couches must be full.

Also, gotta love the A+theism forum's pretentious MODERATOR NOTICE boxes. Those moderator fucks have always power tripped like a North Korean dictator all over that site, but those gigantic purple signs with extra large text are fucking hilarious. "Look at me, wavin mah e-peen around! Check your privilege!"