Bleeding from the Bunghole

[John D]

Cole Porter's "I Hate Men" from Kiss Me Kate ... haha.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYw86-TM91Y

[Parody Accountant]

http://i.imgur.com/XN0UYyH.png

CLICK FOR UNEDITED

An example of definition twisting and reality shifting by Submor (dingbatsplaining to Richard Carrier how he is a rape apologist):

It is clearly possible for a person to be raping someone without knowing it is rape. In the most charitable interpretation possible, this descriptor can apply to scenario B. Even if the sex began consensually, as soon as the victim decided they were uncomfortable with having that sex, it became rape, regardless of whether or not it should be criminally prosecutable (which is a secondary and irrelevant consideration to this point). Yes, that means the perpetrator may not have known their victim wanted them to stop, but that doesn’t make it not rape.

This was just in my twitter feed.

Guess how that conversation went. The SJW did not consider the Submor version of rape (above)

[Huehuehue]

http://i.imgur.com/XN0UYyH.png

CLICK FOR UNEDITED

An example of definition twisting and reality shifting by Submor (dingbatsplaining to Richard Carrier how he is a rape apologist):

It is clearly possible for a person to be raping someone without knowing it is rape. In the most charitable interpretation possible, this descriptor can apply to scenario B. Even if the sex began consensually, as soon as the victim decided they were uncomfortable with having that sex, it became rape, regardless of whether or not it should be criminally prosecutable (which is a secondary and irrelevant consideration to this point). Yes, that means the perpetrator may not have known their victim wanted them to stop, but that doesn’t make it not rape.

I actually wrote a response as to why this is just so wrong. But what's the point? This guy clearly has some made-up definition of rape, based not on questions of consent but ones of comfort.

I mean, I sometimes wonder what education such individuals have. Yes, let's pretend that there's a magic disconnect between law and society, no overlap there. Brb, going to Oliver Wendell Holmes' grave to inform him that, in fact, law is not a window by whidh we can see society's changing moral standards, nope, they're just magically separate.

The level of cray is mind-blowing. This reminds me of an exchange I once had on twitter. Someone said that asking someone for coffee in an elevator can be assault [in the criminal sense]. I pointed out to them that this would be impossible, as there is no reasonable apprehension of imminent physical force. And mesn rea would be impossible. They then said "whether or not it is actionable in court does not matter".

REALLY?

"This is assault!"
"No, it's not within the criminal law."
"That's irrelevant!"

:doh:

[Service Dog]

haha... Maybe it IS a gang.

Tropes against Neuro-atypical Clowns:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Juggalo

Tropes against Juggalos in Videogames!
http://www.faygoluvers.net/v5/wp-conten ... 09c9mY.jpg

Evidence of Slymepit/Juggalo gang ties:

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/rftmus ... day-15.jpg

[bovarchist]

Has anybody read this shite by Alex Gabriel* on FTB?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness ... tradition/

It's not just the standard retarded "shite" you'd expect from FTB, it's also completely fucking illegible Oolonesque-stream-of-conciousness-too-good-for-a-proof-read style retarded "shite".

*BTW, this is Alex Gabriel.
http://weknowmemes.com/generator/upload ... 247194.jpg
I did not Photoshop this image in any way, I can't work out whether or not he's wearing a fake nose-glasses-disguise and yes, I am making fun of his appearance.

I'm suddenly craving a Quarter Pounder.

[Lsuoma]

IT is bigger than sysadminnery and programming, surely?

Where do you see jobs like solutions architects, or UX designers, or IT project managers, ops or accessibility and content specialists?

Yes, it is not all Sysadmin and Programming. The other jobs you mentioned can be filled with by people more closely aligned with what society as a whole considers to be fairly normative, and even in Operations you can find areas like Problem and Change Management.

Not to mention that there are even Capacity Planning and Performance specialists that can successfully impersonate human beings.

Let us say though that some sectors of IT tend to be disproportionately populated by people with strong anti-social tendencies, and if you are in any way "normative" you risk your sanity with prolonged exposure and contact.

Look, people like myself Lusoma and Welsh are considered sane, stable, sensitive, nuanced, diplomatic, compassionate and caring by comparison in certain quarters.

Just saying.

Are you kidding? I love that part. I consider it entertainment. Kick open a staff meeting and let the games begin. I would bring popcorn to staff meetings if it wouldn't be so damn obvious.

[youtube]2Z8pgV74_Hw[/youtube]

[bovarchist]

Completely off topic but have you ever read Stephen King's "IT"?

multiple times. Fucking great book. The movie sucked except for the terrifyingly brilliant idea to make Tim Curry be Pennywise. Fucker scared the shit out of me.

Not to mention the decision to cast New Westminster as Derry. Ah, how it brought back my childhood...

[bovarchist]

Welch said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 32#p132932):

multiple times. Fucking great book. The movie sucked except for the terrifyingly brilliant idea to make Tim Curry be Pennywise. Fucker scared the shit out of me.

Yes, the movie was quite a disappointment. By-the-by, the movie was shot in the small city where I live, just a couple of blocks down the main street, and also just up the hill from where I live, and a couple of other locations near by. For me, it is quite interesting to see how much the city has changed -- I didn't live here at the time it was shot.

/just sayin

One thing I liked about the movie was the casting of John Ritter. Not counting his role in the Waltons, I always enjoy seeing him in anything (anything serious/dramatic) other than that horrific Three's Company, or whatever that dreadful, dreadful not funny comedy show was called. He was actually a fairly good actor, given the chance.

Three's Company is a lot better than people give it credit for. There's a reason why Lucille Ball so prominently endorsed the show in its later years. It's every bit as much a classic as I Love Lucy, and John Ritter is a big part of the reason why. The guy was a brilliant physical comedian, and had great verbal delivery as well.

[bovarchist]

TP said:

... nearly every Stephen King adaptation is a pile of wank (except The Shining, The Running Man and Misery)....

Don't forget the Shawshank movie; that was brilliant. What did you think of the Green Mile, or Carrie?

Shawshank and Green Mile. I forgot about them and I'll definitely give you those but I thought Carrie was overrated toss. I tell you what I also forgot: Salem's Lot. That was a pretty shit-your-pants-scary film I thought.

My Stephen King shit list (that I can think of) runs like this:
TommyKnockers
IT
Under The Dome
Cujo
Christine
The Mist
the Stand (wasn't so bad as far as made-for-TV goes but utterly shit compared to the book)
1408
Thinner
DreamCatcher (shit book though)

Don't forget Stand By Me.

[John Greg]

Yes, odd that I would forget that one as I like it and I just watched it a couple weeks ago.

[Bourne Skeptic]

A slow day and the pit turns into a combination of Oprah's book club and At the movies.

Next we'll be discussing how All in the family exposed bigotry in American culture.

[VAXherd]

What do you honestly think the reaction of the officers would be in real life?

The honest answer is that I would be a laughingstock. Ordinary men understand that we will be held responsible for our actions, and excuses don't count. Thunderf00t didn't dwell on male responsibility, because it's not in dispute.

But getting assaulted while drunk on the street is another matter. So is getting raped if passed out from alcohol or raped because my dress provoked your uncontrollable lust.

One of the problems with "teach men not to rape" is that you have to deal with two ideas:

• "Intentional rape." Which is a criminal act where all of the meaningful blame is on the perpetrator.
• And "misunderstandings and mistakes during consensual sex." Where, if blame must be assigned at all, it's a case-by-case issue.

Emotionally, we all feel that there should be an air-gap between those two. But in practice no two people would put the gap in exactly the same place.

If women uphold their half of the responsibility for misunderstandings and mistakes (along with men), and take sensible precautions to protect themselves against criminal acts, the total amount of harm will be minimized as will the disagreement about which is which.

"Don't tell me how to dress. Tell men not to rape," is Not Helping with either.

[free thoughtpolice]

bjartefoshaug1.JPG

(120.67 KiB) Downloaded 299 times

Here is a my half assed attempt at a Bjartetoon.

[ROBOKiTTY]

Has anyone else read Brain On Fire: My Month of Madness by Susannah Cahalan. She was a young reporter on the NYT who suddenly started seeing and hearing things, having paranoid delusions and went rapidly downhill from there. She started having seizures and ended up catatonic in a psychiatric ward. Nobody could diagnose her problem. Luckily one of the few doctors who had experience of the condition examined her and realised she had autoimmune encephalitis and her own body was attacking her brain.
She lost her short term memory at one point and a lot of the book is based on her medical records and hospital videos etc. It's fascinating.

I read Cahalan's book in one night. I couldn't put it down. The brain, our bodies, are really freaky mysteries. I couldn't stop Googling the tumors which are typically responsible for her behavior. Monster tumors. Sometimes they have eyes and teeth and hair. That's some freaky ass shit.

Great book. I highly recommend it, for whatever my recommendation is worth.

I just picked this up the other day and finished it in record time. It was a fascinating read. :animals-cat:

[Parody Accountant]

http://i42.tinypic.com/55qkwj.jpg

[free thoughtpolice]

Completely off topic but have you ever read Stephen King's "IT"?

multiple times. Fucking great book. The movie sucked except for the terrifyingly brilliant idea to make Tim Curry be Pennywise. Fucker scared the shit out of me.

Not to mention the decision to cast New Westminster as Derry. Ah, how it brought back my childhood...

Quite often when the heroes on Stargate stepped through the Gate I would get flashbacks of being transported to an abandoned gravel pit in Surrey BC!

[clownshoe]

IT is bigger than sysadminnery and programming, surely?

Where do you see jobs like solutions architects, or UX designers, or IT project managers, ops or accessibility and content specialists?

I quite like Condell - we've got fairly similar views on most things and I share a lot of his frustrations with the left. Like him (and I believe Hitchens), I had a political shift to the right because I did not like the left's response to various cultural challenges - e.g. Rushdie.

We call the architets, UX designers, project managers, and topic specialists "fucktards with no clue what they're doing".

All the UX designers I've worked with are not Technologists, they are a waste of money with vague skills that add little value to projects. If your developers can't turn out descent looking GUIs with good workflow, hire an ACTUAL Creative Designer to create a design brief and make your developers stick to it and THINK about how people will actually use thing they're developing.

Sorry, this UX shit has gone far enough. To me it's just another buzzword that'll disappear up it's own arse in a few years.

[rayshul]

True about the vague IT titles - I just listed the titles of the people in IT on my linked in, but depending on where you are, their jobs would be quite different.

So, a wee bit of background on why I think this way. In my teens I was living with a chick and we both got into IT in the same way - we did the same experimentations, poked the same wee computer thingies. Initially I went into building computers/IT hardware support shit and she went into basic help desk for an internet company. I moved into web management, accessibility and then quality assurance and project management, she went into programming, then sysadminnery, and we both wound up in management. She's still in management, I'm now interested in business transformation (through IT).

So I've generally found IT gives you a pretty good range of shit you can do, no matter where you start.

[Badger3k]

A slow day and the pit turns into a combination of Oprah's book club and At the movies.

Next we'll be discussing how All in the family exposed bigotry in American culture.

I think Archie Bunker did have a fedora...

[Bourne Skeptic]

A slow day and the pit turns into a combination of Oprah's book club and At the movies.

Next we'll be discussing how All in the family exposed bigotry in American culture.

I think Archie Bunker did have a fedora...

http://www.screeninsults.com/images/all ... unker2.jpg

[Badger3k]

yep

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-_vlW2PO0PE/T ... hiehat.jpg

But, since he was in several shows, that may be a different series - couldn't tell from the conversation at that site.

[Badger3k]

ninja'd :P

[mikelf]

Welch said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 32#p132932):

multiple times. Fucking great book. The movie sucked except for the terrifyingly brilliant idea to make Tim Curry be Pennywise. Fucker scared the shit out of me.

Yes, the movie was quite a disappointment. By-the-by, the movie was shot in the small city where I live, just a couple of blocks down the main street, and also just up the hill from where I live, and a couple of other locations near by. For me, it is quite interesting to see how much the city has changed -- I didn't live here at the time it was shot.

/just sayin

One thing I liked about the movie was the casting of John Ritter. Not counting his role in the Waltons, I always enjoy seeing him in anything (anything serious/dramatic) other than that horrific Three's Company, or whatever that dreadful, dreadful not funny comedy show was called. He was actually a fairly good actor, given the chance.

Three's Company is a lot better than people give it credit for. There's a reason why Lucille Ball so prominently endorsed the show in its later years. It's every bit as much a classic as I Love Lucy, and John Ritter is a big part of the reason why. The guy was a brilliant physical comedian, and had great verbal delivery as well.

John Ritter stole the show, IMHO, in "Bad Santa."

[youtube]wVWk6IfRuEE[/youtube]

[justinvacula]

Brave Hero Radio reporting live and on-the-scene from FFRF conference to start in about an hour. I'll be joined by Justin Schieber of the Reasonable Doubts podcast:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bravehero/ ... -reporting

Join the chat!

[bovarchist]

So what's the story with Melody and Roseanne, anyway?

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

TP said:

... nearly every Stephen King adaptation is a pile of wank (except The Shining, The Running Man and Misery)....

Don't forget the Shawshank movie; that was brilliant. What did you think of the Green Mile, or Carrie?

Stand By Me. Amazing.

[AndrewV69]

So what's the story with Melody and Roseanne, anyway?

Possibly this?

[Hemisphere]

UKIP - racist, anti-science, pro-rich, anti-regulation, uber nationalist. Just add Christianity and you've got yourselves a Tea Party.

[free thoughtpolice]

Bjartetoons episode 2

[windy]

Actually, Condell merely despises the EU, and the Political Class. I wouldn't vote for UKIP due to their isolationism (their stance on Syria was the last straw).

Really, you prefer intervention in favor of these guys? :?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... eport.html

The new study by IHS Jane's, a defence consultancy, estimates there are around 10,000 jihadists - who would include foreign fighters - fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda.

Another 30,000 to 35,000 are hardline Islamists who share much of the outlook of the jihadists, but are focused purely on the Syrian war rather than a wider international struggle.

There are also at least a further 30,000 moderates belonging to groups that have an Islamic character, meaning only a small minority of the rebels are linked to secular or purely nationalist groups.

[James Caruthers]

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/opinion ... privileges

Somebody linked to this? Yeah, I read through and if true, PZ is fucked.

This is not to say that every statement of opinion is protected. If a statement implies some false underlying facts, it could be defamatory. For example, stating that "in my opinion, the mayor killed her husband" is not likely to be a protected opinion. Couching false statements of fact as opinion or within quotes from other sources generally won’t protect you either. Nor will trying to cover yourself by saying that a politician “allegedly” is a drug dealer, or that your neighbor said the politician “is a drug dealer,” or that in your opinion, the politician is a drug dealer. A reader may well assume you have unstated facts to base your conclusion on, and it would be a defamatory statement if the implied facts turn out to be false.

All opinions that rely on underlying facts, however, are not necessarily outside the opinion privilege. If you state the facts on which you are basing your opinion, and the opinion you state could be reasonably drawn from those truthful facts, you will be protected even if your opinion turns out to be incorrect. For example, if you were to say "In my opinion, Danielle is failing out of school" it would likely lead your readers to assume that there are some unstated facts you relied on to draw your conclusion. Such a statement would not be protected, as the privilege does not protect back door entry of facts as "opinion" through innuendo. On the other hand, if you state "In my opinion, Danielle is failing out of school because she is a blond and the only thing I ever see her do at the library is check Facebook," this provides the reader with the information you are basing the opinion on, and allows the reader to come to his own conclusion.

PZ never stated the "facts" upon which he based his conclusion that Shermer is a rapist. He just said, "my friend-of-a-friend told me Shermer had nonconsensual sex with her" and then mentioned an unrelated situation third-party account (from a different woman) of Shermer refilling a woman's wine glass. This story, it was later revealed, had been witnessed by others who claim the 2nd woman is not telling the truth. PZ's legal defense (what I have seen on FTB) seems to be "A trusted friend told me and I have no reason to belief she is lying."

"It's just my opinion, but Michael Shermer is a rapist" or "Michael Shermer may not be a 'legal' rapist, but he's still a rapist" are defamatory statements which do not have the protection of the 1st Amendment. If PZ is telling the truth, he doesn't have to worry in court. Otherwise, he's fffffuuuuckked.

[TheYellowShark]

It's even more straightforward than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Pu ... ._v._Butts

"The decision held that, while news organizations were protected from liability when printing allegations about public officials under the Supreme Court's New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision (1964), they may still be liable to public figures if the information they disseminate is recklessly gathered and unchecked."

In other words, when printing allegations about a public OFFICIAL, the claimant has to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly published false information. However, when printing allegations about a public FIGURE, the standards are much lower.

In addition, Minnesota is one of the only states with criminal defamation laws. PZ should be quite frightened.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/opinion ... privileges

Somebody linked to this? Yeah, I read through and if true, PZ is fucked.

This is not to say that every statement of opinion is protected. If a statement implies some false underlying facts, it could be defamatory. For example, stating that "in my opinion, the mayor killed her husband" is not likely to be a protected opinion. Couching false statements of fact as opinion or within quotes from other sources generally won’t protect you either. Nor will trying to cover yourself by saying that a politician “allegedly” is a drug dealer, or that your neighbor said the politician “is a drug dealer,” or that in your opinion, the politician is a drug dealer. A reader may well assume you have unstated facts to base your conclusion on, and it would be a defamatory statement if the implied facts turn out to be false.

All opinions that rely on underlying facts, however, are not necessarily outside the opinion privilege. If you state the facts on which you are basing your opinion, and the opinion you state could be reasonably drawn from those truthful facts, you will be protected even if your opinion turns out to be incorrect. For example, if you were to say "In my opinion, Danielle is failing out of school" it would likely lead your readers to assume that there are some unstated facts you relied on to draw your conclusion. Such a statement would not be protected, as the privilege does not protect back door entry of facts as "opinion" through innuendo. On the other hand, if you state "In my opinion, Danielle is failing out of school because she is a blond and the only thing I ever see her do at the library is check Facebook," this provides the reader with the information you are basing the opinion on, and allows the reader to come to his own conclusion.

PZ never stated the "facts" upon which he based his conclusion that Shermer is a rapist. He just said, "my friend-of-a-friend told me Shermer had nonconsensual sex with her" and then mentioned an unrelated situation third-party account (from a different woman) of Shermer refilling a woman's wine glass. This story, it was later revealed, had been witnessed by others who claim the 2nd woman is not telling the truth. PZ's legal defense (what I have seen on FTB) seems to be "A trusted friend told me and I have no reason to belief she is lying."

"It's just my opinion, but Michael Shermer is a rapist" or "Michael Shermer may not be a 'legal' rapist, but he's still a rapist" are defamatory statements which do not have the protection of the 1st Amendment. If PZ is telling the truth, he doesn't have to worry in court. Otherwise, he's fffffuuuuckked.

[Tapir]

....and then mentioned an unrelated situation third-party account (from a different woman) of Shermer refilling a woman's wine glass. This story, it was later revealed, had been witnessed by others who claim the 2nd woman is not telling the truth.

Can you elaborate on this?

I remember laughing at the 'corroborative' account of this woman's terrible wine-refilling ordeal but I didn't realise it had been shot down.

[windy]

*BTW, this is Alex Gabriel.
http://weknowmemes.com/generator/upload ... 247194.jpg
I did not Photoshop this image in any way, I can't work out whether or not he's wearing a fake nose-glasses-disguise and yes, I am making fun of his appearance.

I'm suddenly craving a Quarter Pounder.

You know what they say about big noses... that's got to be one big Mac.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Oh, I just realized that you could probably use EvoPsych to validate some of the Liberal Idealistic notions of human goodness and cooperation. But Peezus and Co. don't believe in EvoPsych!

Oh, the irony!

How is that irony? One can believe in thing A without believing in thing B even if B "could be used to support A". I don't see how that's ironic.

Nor am I sure what it means to "believe in EvoPsych". EvoPsych is not a true/false claim. Unless you mean the idea that the brain evolved over time which I don't think anyone who believes in evolution would deny.

Nor am I sure what it would mean to "validate" "notions of human goodness and cooperation".

It's Peeze that you need to be telling this to. He and his cronies concoct rationalisations for their dislike of the field. The irony is that they appear to reject thing B BECAUSE they regard it as inconvenient to thing A.

[clownshoe]

True about the vague IT titles - I just listed the titles of the people in IT on my linked in, but depending on where you are, their jobs would be quite different.

So, a wee bit of background on why I think this way. In my teens I was living with a chick and we both got into IT in the same way - we did the same experimentations, poked the same wee computer thingies. Initially I went into building computers/IT hardware support shit and she went into basic help desk for an internet company. I moved into web management, accessibility and then quality assurance and project management, she went into programming, then sysadminnery, and we both wound up in management. She's still in management, I'm now interested in business transformation (through IT).

So I've generally found IT gives you a pretty good range of shit you can do, no matter where you start.

It does indeed, I started as a games programmer, something I'd wanted to do (and had been doing as a hobby)
Turns out the pay is crap, the hours are long, and the benefits minimal.
Living out your childhood dreams.... Word to the wise: Kids, don't do that.

[katamari Damassi]

All I remembered from Carrie is that not much happens for 90% of the film then, in the last 10%, she goes radgie and makes shit fly around to kill people in various ways.
And Carrie's mam played the electric organ in a very religious way.
I watched it a long time ago as a kid and didn't think much of it.

Carrie was pretty camp. It has some great, over the top dialogue.

[katamari Damassi]

All I remembered from Carrie is that not much happens for 90% of the film then, in the last 10%, she goes radgie and makes shit fly around to kill people in various ways.
And Carrie's mam played the electric organ in a very religious way.
I watched it a long time ago as a kid and didn't think much of it.

Carrie was pretty camp. It has some great, over the top dialogue.

[James Caruthers]

....and then mentioned an unrelated situation third-party account (from a different woman) of Shermer refilling a woman's wine glass. This story, it was later revealed, had been witnessed by others who claim the 2nd woman is not telling the truth.

Can you elaborate on this?

I remember laughing at the 'corroborative' account of this woman's terrible wine-refilling ordeal but I didn't realise it had been shot down.

I remember reading from somewhere that a few witnesses had come forward and said what Shermer had actually been doing (he was guest of honor at some event) was buying rounds. Basically, he was paying and the woman's glass was refilled by the waiter. These folks also claimed the woman was seriously drunk and acting weird or something.

BUT... I just googled around and can't find the source. So you are free to consider that particular part of my post a total lie, because I don't have a source in front of me to give you. It would be unfair of me to hold ol' Peezus to standards I don't hold myself to. I thought the info went through Mr. Deity or that Shermer fundraiser page. Not sure though.

[Brive1987]

Re Popehat.

What exactly is a statement of fact? You are a rapist, appears to be one. You are a liar .. ? You are an immoral advantage taking douche bag? You are a bad person? What type of fact does the statement have to refer to? This could get quite postmodern.

Also is it really true that a blogger doesn't own their comments? Myers SOP is to dangle the raw meat and watch the horde go into an abusive frenzy with minimal self input. It appears this is effective gaming if what Popehat said is true. :-(

[Brive1987]

SoylentAtheist

2. So you went to London with your family and they are sleeping in until 11.00am. I guess you didn't have anything specific planned, because I bet your family is somehow capable of getting their own asses up, showered, dressed and out the door for school & work 5 out of the 7 days of the week. Make specific plans.

Alas your second bullet was tragically off on both points. ;)

[James Caruthers]

I noticed this as I was looking for that source on the Shermer drinking thing, which I still can't find. Oh well, it's not like that incident was so damning even if it were true. Anyway, some words of wisdom from the ever-brilliant Dr. Carrier:

Rick Bodiker

September 18, 2013 at 9:02 am (UTC -7)

Reply

I think it’s worthy to note that a couple of the fundamental precepts of both our criminal and civil legal systems is the right to face ones accuser and the right cross examine said accuser. When the accuser is anonymous this denies an accused party of fundamental rights that level the field and which are especially important in a matter in which there exists no physical evidence, only personal accounts of events.

83.1
Richard Carrier

September 19, 2013 at 1:12 pm (UTC -7)

You seem to be ignoring the whole first section of my article you are commenting on, and the linked discussions of the reality of different standards at different levels of analysis.

Case in point: we are not trying to jail Shermer, or even sue him, so what the standards are for criminal justice or civil torts is irrelevant here. We are not claiming to know what he did with that kind of certainty. We are further down the rung of levels of certainty. Those different levels are explored in the links I gave. Go read them.

Likewise, you are confusing anonymous with unnamed sources. Those are not the same thing. Indeed I explain this in the article you are commenting on, with links. So you don’t appear to have actually read the article you are commenting on.

Moreover, you evidently didn’t read any of the comments above where we have already discussed how Shermer could find out what he needs to in order to give his account of events. Shermer has simply chosen not to.

Which leaves things where my article says they are.

So telling the entire FTB and Skepchick news network "this man had non-consensual sex with a woman, in fact, probably several women" translates to "we are not trying to jail Shermer, or even sue him. We are not claiming to know what he did with that kind of certainty." And apparently, what they do want is for Shermer to "find out what he needs to in order to give his account of events." To who? And account of what? Doesn't that assume something happened? Can anyone doubt that the first thing these pillocks would do with any statement he gave them would be to publish it a dozen times across three or four ad-supported websites and a half-dozen vlogs, followed by overlong dissections, which all start and end with the conclusion that Shermer rapes every young woman?

Carrier is, in a way, demanding Shermer waive his 5th Amendment privileges in order to incriminate himself in front of FTB, and that doing anything less is somehow a bad thing. You can be damn sure Carrier doesn't follow his own line of reasoning when a cop pulls him over on his way to work. Or does he tell "his version of events" when the cop asks him if he knows what the speed limit was, and how fast he was going? :lol:

Carrier sounds to me like a greedy paparazzi bitching because the celebrity is staying shut up in her penthouse instead of flashing her tits in front of his camera. He knows that any statement Shermer could make would be a financial windfall to FTB. Just look at how many articles FTB and Skepchick wrote about Shermer already. FTB and Skepchick are the top results on every search I make which in any way references Shermer and rape (I just made a bunch trying to find that evidence), and it's not just two or three articles popping up. Each of these SJWs had to get in with their commentary about Shermer, and of course they all run ads and pop-ups. Big business in rape accusations, big business.

Childermass
September 13, 2013 at 10:54 pm (UTC -7)

Unless Shermer is arrested or taken to court then the discussion of law might a bit academic. There is another question that should greatly concern us and is probably more relevant here. It is not what the law can or should do, but rather what the response of the freethought community itself should be.

If the community comes to the consensus that Shermer is acting towards women during functions of our community in a way inconsistent with the values we wish to be associated with then the community has the right to treat him as _persona non grata_ and cease to invite him to events. And then there is the question of how we come to such a consensus.

[youtube]0yDrtNEr_5M[/youtube]

[bovarchist]

So what's the story with Melody and Roseanne, anyway?

Possibly this?

I honestly can't bring myself to sympathize with a side. Roseanne and Melody are perfectly matched in nuttiness.

[SoylentAtheist]

SoylentAtheist

2. So you went to London with your family and they are sleeping in until 11.00am. I guess you didn't have anything specific planned, because I bet your family is somehow capable of getting their own asses up, showered, dressed and out the door for school & work 5 out of the 7 days of the week. Make specific plans.

Alas your second bullet was tragically off on both points. ;)

Ouch. Tough ones huh. You could order a singing telegram at 6AM in the morning. Or get a noisy shit flinging monkey to wake them up each morning.

What if you got a dog, and trained him to wake them up at 6AM, and as soon as he got them out of the bed & into the kitchen he got a treat.

[Dick Strawkins]

He's like a social justice superhero!

http://i.imgur.com/njS1fo7.jpg

Did someone call Alex Gabriel SJW?

[feathers]

Did someone call Alex Gabriel SJW?

Makes the W a double-Meâ„¢

[Za-zen]

Will wonders never cease? My comment survived the purgatory of moderation and now basks in the glory of Dr. Carrier's blog.
Good on you Richard!
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3718/9953 ... 1296_o.png

Well played Sir!
Did he delete your comment?

This needs to be entered into the pyt hall of fame. The beauty of Carrier's ego, displayed in all its glory, as he actually considers this blatant piece of piss take, to be a kosher. Parsehole, you have been elevated from being full of shit, to a master troll,in one bound.

[DownThunder]

So what's the story with Melody and Roseanne, anyway?

Possibly this?

I honestly can't bring myself to sympathize with a side. Roseanne and Melody are perfectly matched in nuttiness.

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE VICTIM!

[Tony Parsehole]

Will wonders never cease? My comment survived the purgatory of moderation and now basks in the glory of Dr. Carrier's blog.
Good on you Richard!
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3718/9953 ... 1296_o.png

Well played Sir!
Did he delete your comment?

This needs to be entered into the pyt hall of fame. The beauty of Carrier's ego, displayed in all its glory, as he actually considers this blatant piece of piss take, to be a kosher. Parsehole, you have been elevated from being full of shit, to a master troll,in one bound.

*takes of top hat and bows very low*

[Tony Parsehole]

Did anybody watch the I.T. Crowd Final Episode last night?
It had a white, millionaire businessman telling black inner-city kids to......"Check your privilege!"...... I thought it was funny anyway.

[Tony Parsehole]

He's like a social justice superhero!

http://i.imgur.com/njS1fo7.jpg

Did someone call Alex Gabriel SJW?

Caption Time!

"Quick! Somebody is being socially unjust on the internet!"

[Tony Parsehole]

bjartefoshaug1.JPG

Here is a my half assed attempt at a Bjartetoon.

Nothing to say. Just needed repeating.

[Tony Parsehole]

Larger version (800x999) here if you want it.

http://i.imgur.com/EV8vkU2.jpg

FAAAAACKING HELL! You've taken it up a notch! Are you making these images from scratch now?

[bovarchist]

He's like a social justice superhero!

http://i.imgur.com/njS1fo7.jpg

Did someone call Alex Gabriel SJW?

Caption Time!

"Quick! Somebody is being socially unjust on the internet!"

Would you like decries with that?

[The Burger King]

Joe Rogan talks with Stefan Molyneux about Atheism plus feminism and more specifically PZ Myers accusing Michael Shermer of being a rapist.

The Joe Rogan Experience with Stefan Molyneux

[Service Dog]

So what's the story with Melody and Roseanne, anyway?

Possibly this?

I get this part: Roseanne vs. Lindy West. That's in reference to Roseanne's tweets opposing Lindy West debating comedian Jim Norton on TV-- on the topic of comedians telling rape jokes. Roseanne said Lindy & Jezebel were pushing for censorship, Lindy denied it (while simultaneously promoting the #FBrape campaign to censor rape jokes on Facebook). And Roseanne said Jezebel's business model was to exploit hatred of women by baiting misogynist comments to draw pageviews.

And I get Roseanne vs. Transwomen SJWs-- that's in reference to Roseanne saying a person with a penis shouldn't be allowed into a schoolgirls' student sauna/ just because they "identify" as female.

But Melody also tells Roseanne "you promote rape culture"... what's that in reference to?
Anything in particular?
Or is it just an all-occasion, one-size-fits-all accusation?

[LurkerPerson]

Who cares, really. Roseanne is certifiably a nutbag, Hensley is a whiny drama-manufacturer. Their reasons for their outbursts are irrelevant.

[Gumby]

Larger version (800x999) here if you want it.

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/EV8vkU2.jpg[/img]

FAAAAACKING HELL! You've taken it up a notch! Are you making these images from scratch now?

He always seems to take things to the next level doesn't he?

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... f75d17.png

[Robbie]

Joe Rogan talks with Stefan Molyneux about Atheism plus feminism and more specifically PZ Myers accusing Michael Shermer of being a rapist.

The Joe Rogan Experience with Stefan Molyneux

Go to about 2hrs 13mins in for the relevant part.

[Tony Parsehole]

Larger version (800x999) here if you want it.

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/EV8vkU2.jpg[/img]

FAAAAACKING HELL! You've taken it up a notch! Are you making these images from scratch now?

He always seems to take things to the next level doesn't he?

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... f75d17.png

Parsehole's 'shops
http://blog.iwantoneofthose.com/wp-cont ... r_c5_1.jpg