Bleeding from the Bunghole

[sacha]

did Skeptickle dress as a zebra at her fancy dress party? then why the heels and sparkles?

[sacha]

or was Skeptickle the zebra dressed as a human?

[Bourne Skeptic]

I'm not opposed to tasers per se, but I'm opposed to how they're used. Some cops seem to think tasing people is appropriate whenever they're resisting arrest or perfectly following their instructions. And their departments almost always seem to back up uses of excessive force. There was another recent case I recall where they raided some obese guy's house in the middle of the night looking for weed and a taser killed him. They either found no weed or like maybe 1 gram. The "don't tase me bro" guy should not have been tased either. And this one's a youtube classic:

[youtube]sqbmasNeOmM[/youtube]

But it's important to be skeptical in both directions when it comes to reports of police brutality. During OWS in particular I noticed a tendency for people to see police brutality even when it wasn't there. Like the UC Davis pepper spray incident. When I first saw a clip of that I totally thought the police were in the wrong, but then when I learned more and saw more footage I completely changed my mind and decided the cops did nothing wrong. There's too many people out there who will virtually always side either with or against cops no matter the situation.

I tend to side with the cops in all of these cases. Even in that video. You just don't front off with police officers. You just don't do it. Not even in that passive-aggressive "but I'm just asking a question, Officer" way. If you really feel you have a legitimate beef with the ticket, then you take it to court and dispute it. You don't argue about it with the cop, and you CERTAINLY NEVER get out of your car and approach the cop. Didn't Breaking Bad teach us anything?

The cop told him(at 2:00) to get out of the car.

If you "tend to side with the cops in all of these cases" you have a bias, if you didn't you'd judge each case on it's own merits.

[another lurker]

Definitely cuter than RW:

[youtube]9hBpF_Zj4OA[/youtube]

[bovarchist]

Walt's biggest flaw -- or at least, the one most responsible for his downfall -- isn't his ego, it's his loyalty to Jess. Character after character warns him that Jess is a loose cannon, and they're all right. Jess is responsible for everything that goes wrong. He's Gilligan. Jess is the reason things went wrong with Gus. Even Krazy 8 warned Walt about him. Walt has opportunity after opportunity to cut Jess loose, and if he had done so, things would have worked out fine.

One problem I have with the show though, they never really explain how two such highly competent and capable people like Walt and Skyler could have ended up in such dead-end lives to begin with. If Walt is such a genius chemist, why couldn't he just get another job in another lab after leaving Grey Matter? That's never really explained. And Skyler is apparently also very good at what she does. Can't she get any work as a bookkeeper? What leads these two[/] to settle for being housewife and high school teacher? It's like, over and over, the characters are only as smart as the writers need them to be at any given moment.

[bovarchist]

I'm not opposed to tasers per se, but I'm opposed to how they're used. Some cops seem to think tasing people is appropriate whenever they're resisting arrest or perfectly following their instructions. And their departments almost always seem to back up uses of excessive force. There was another recent case I recall where they raided some obese guy's house in the middle of the night looking for weed and a taser killed him. They either found no weed or like maybe 1 gram. The "don't tase me bro" guy should not have been tased either. And this one's a youtube classic:

[youtube]sqbmasNeOmM[/youtube]

But it's important to be skeptical in both directions when it comes to reports of police brutality. During OWS in particular I noticed a tendency for people to see police brutality even when it wasn't there. Like the UC Davis pepper spray incident. When I first saw a clip of that I totally thought the police were in the wrong, but then when I learned more and saw more footage I completely changed my mind and decided the cops did nothing wrong. There's too many people out there who will virtually always side either with or against cops no matter the situation.

I tend to side with the cops in all of these cases. Even in that video. You just don't front off with police officers. You just don't do it. Not even in that passive-aggressive "but I'm just asking a question, Officer" way. If you really feel you have a legitimate beef with the ticket, then you take it to court and dispute it. You don't argue about it with the cop, and you CERTAINLY NEVER get out of your car and approach the cop. Didn't Breaking Bad teach us anything?

The cop told him(at 2:00) to get out of the car.

If you "tend to side with the cops in all of these cases" you have a bias, if you didn't you'd judge each case on it's own merits.

You're right, I didn't hear the instruction to get out of the car.

But how do you conclude from my comment that I have a bias? I do judge each case on its own merits. And end up tending to side with the cops. That says something about the cases, not about my biases. Or is it also bias to say I tend to side with scientists over creationists?

[mordacious1]

This is why cops get nervous when you don't follow their orders during a traffic stop:

[youtube]-L8wPiUxVU0[/youtube]

[Bourne Skeptic]

[youtube]sqbmasNeOmM[/youtube]


I tend to side with the cops in all of these cases. Even in that video. You just don't front off with police officers. You just don't do it. Not even in that passive-aggressive "but I'm just asking a question, Officer" way. If you really feel you have a legitimate beef with the ticket, then you take it to court and dispute it. You don't argue about it with the cop, and you CERTAINLY NEVER get out of your car and approach the cop. Didn't Breaking Bad teach us anything?

The cop told him(at 2:00) to get out of the car.

If you "tend to side with the cops in all of these cases" you have a bias, if you didn't you'd judge each case on it's own merits.

You're right, I didn't hear the instruction to get out of the car.

But how do you conclude from my comment that I have a bias? I do judge each case on its own merits. And end up tending to side with the cops. That says something about the cases, not about my biases. Or is it also bias to say I tend to side with scientists over creationists?

No, because scientific facts easily discount creationism.

If a judge "tended to side with the cops in all of these case" he/she would be biased, just as a judge that tended to side with the person that was tasered in all of would also be biased.

When you said "I tend to side with the cops in all of these cases." you stated your bias.

[welch]

Well, I'm ignoring PZ's piss-poor take of Thunderf00t's latest, but I did see Miri write this piece of shit, I mean, blog post claiming to be some sort of good advice : stop telling harassment and assault survivors to go to the police.

One point in particular:

Third, going to the police is not effective. It’s just not. So you’re giving me advice that is not helpful. The stories of what happens to women who report harassment or assault to the police are plentiful and really sad. Yes, sometimes it works out well. But generally, either nothing happens, or the women get revictimized by the police. (Sometimes, the police also do this.)

I have been sexually assaulted and sexually harassed and threatened with rape and death. At no point have I seriously considered reporting any of these things to the police. I am not an irresponsible or uninformed person, so please trust me when I say that I have good reasons for not even considering the police as an option.

Bolding is mine, and all I can say is, Yes, Miri, yes you are both of those things. But if it keeps the victim points coming in, keep avoiding any involvement with the authorities, since blogging about it is doing so much to help. :doh:

It is absolutely correct to say going to the police may fix nothing.

But not going to the police guarantees that outcome.

[Bourne Skeptic]

What do you think would happen to a judge if he/she stated before a murder trial "I usually find defendants that are on trial for murder guilty?"

Would you be confident that the judge was impartial?

[Linus]

I tend to side with the cops in all of these cases. Even in that video. You just don't front off with police officers. You just don't do it. Not even in that passive-aggressive "but I'm just asking a question, Officer" way. If you really feel you have a legitimate beef with the ticket, then you take it to court and dispute it. You don't argue about it with the cop, and you CERTAINLY NEVER get out of your car and approach the cop. Didn't Breaking Bad teach us anything?

All cases? Even tasering someone who's on their back and handcuffed?

In that video the guy said that he wanted to show the officer the location of the speed limit sign and the officer then said "get out of the car" if I heard correctly. So I think he naturally assumed he wanted him to get out to show him the sign. There was no reason to pull out his taser. There was no reasonable belief of threat. The guy was not under arrest. I mean if you're that threatened by saying someone getting out of their car, then don't tell them to get out.

I think the "you just don't front off" attitude is held by a lot of the cops who are overly taser-happy.

<snip>
But it's important to be skeptical in both directions when it comes to reports of police brutality. During OWS in particular I noticed a tendency for people to see police brutality even when it wasn't there. Like the UC Davis pepper spray incident. When I first saw a clip of that I totally thought the police were in the wrong, but then when I learned more and saw more footage I completely changed my mind and decided the cops did nothing wrong. There's too many people out there who will virtually always side either with or against cops no matter the situation.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees with you. They have consistently ruled that the use of pepper spray (or tasers or batons) on citizens who offer no immediate threat to officers or others is a violation of their 4th Amendment rights. Not following an officers order to disperse or move is not a reason to use such force.

Are you actually aware of how that situation went down? First the officers made a couple arrests (I don't know why--whether the arrests were legit or not is a separate issue). Then the protestors surrounded the cops with the intention of not letting them leave unless they released the people they had arrested.

[welch]

Let me flip it around a bit.

Over at /r/MensRights, a small group of people were pretty appalled at how Dean Esmay, an AVFM editor and putative leader in the men's rights movement dressed at a recent rally in Toronto that AVFM and Canadians for Equality (CAFE) had widely posted about:

http://i.imgur.com/obGDh2L.jpg

Come on, Dean you fucktard, if you're a leader and want respect, dress like you want and deserve respect. At a public forum, put on some pants, get a haircut, and consider wearing a suit. Otherwise people will think you're a kook along with your movement.

For which our troubles were rewarded with one of the newer AVFM women belittling us as whiny and telling us our suggestion Dean put on pants and dress the part next time was out of bounds and asinine.

I think it's reasonable to see Pippi Longstocking and think, Rebecca, what the fuck? You're a dippy nut, and so must be Atheism or SkepChickism.

In many ways women like Rebecca are privileged in all the social justice warrior meaning to be able to wear their hair blue, in unkempt clothes, drunk, and still somehow command or demand respect as speakers.

Not many men can get away with that, witness, Bozo, the new FTB kiddy.

You're right, atheism must be bonkers because Rebecca Watson has blue hair. I'll go look for a theistic religion to join post haste. Probably Mormonism, as they always seem to be sharply dressed. I am a reasonable man, after all.

Does the above picture, the picture alone, especially the guy with the microphone in short pants, make you think Men's Rights Activists

a) may be a bit nutty
b) have legitimate issues
c) are represented well by their leaders?
d) exception, I would never impute to a group characteristics based on one photograph of their leaders

e) OMG THE WEE TINY ONE IS SO CUTE, CAN I TAKE HIM HOME?

[welch]

It's because Franc said if Ophelia was a dog she should be put down and because me and Bhoytony wouldn't stop calling people (people, mind you, not just women) "cunts" instead of Damions suggestion of "dimbulbs".

HAHAHAHAHAHA....what a cunt.

I'm going to go with the usual accomodationist bollocks.

Oh dear. Going to be hard to lecture from Olympus if you keep coming down with the proles. Run along holy one, don't become unclean.

[Bourne Skeptic]

What do you think would happen to a judge if he/she stated before a murder trial "I usually find defendants that are on trial for murder guilty?"

Would you be confident that the judge was impartial?

Would you be confident that the judge was impartial unbiased?

[bovarchist]

What do you think would happen to a judge if he/she stated before a murder trial "I usually find defendants that are on trial for murder guilty?"

Would you be confident that the judge was impartial?

I would have no basis to be confident that he was NOT impartial.

[dougal445]

Well it looks like aronra has finally come out as full blown sjw jerk.
just seen him on the all night magicsandwichshow session.
After for ages now, for the most part keeping quite / fence sitting on the subject he comes out with gems like this.

paraphrased.
1) there is only one definition of feminism.
2) there is nothing wrong with atheismplus except the name.
3) atheismplus is inclusive
4) thunderf00t doesn't speak against mra because he's a hero to them.
5) It's as if Tf00t is in pay of mra.

Also interesting Aronra didn't appear while Tf00t was there, even tho he was in the room with Llandra (the wife) who was online.

Colour me disapointed.

[bovarchist]

No, because scientific facts easily discount creationism.

If a judge "tended to side with the cops in all of these case" he/she would be biased, just as a judge that tended to side with the person that was tasered in all of would also be biased.

When you said "I tend to side with the cops in all of these cases." you stated your bias.

No, I stated an outcome. Just as you did, when you said that scientific facts discount creationism.

[Skep tickle]

did Skeptickle dress as a zebra at her fancy dress party? then why the heels and sparkles?

Was it the mention of sparkles (shiny things) that drew our local corvid's attention? :D

I do have some black & white clothing, but that's not what I wore. However, in poking around online, I find that a "zebra dress" is a thing. Who knew? (Besides people who follow fashion, that is.)

[Bourne Skeptic]

What do you think would happen to a judge if he/she stated before a murder trial "I usually find defendants that are on trial for murder guilty?"

Would you be confident that the judge was impartial?

I would have no basis to be confident that he was NOT impartial.

If I was the defendants lawyer I would love that judge. I would have grounds for a mistrial if the verdict was guilty.

[Bourne Skeptic]

No, because scientific facts easily discount creationism.

If a judge "tended to side with the cops in all of these case" he/she would be biased, just as a judge that tended to side with the person that was tasered in all of would also be biased.

When you said "I tend to side with the cops in all of these cases." you stated your bias.

No, I stated an outcome. Just as you did, when you said that scientific facts discount creationism.

When the next motorist gets tasered I already know how you'll "most likely" judge the event.

Because you've said what your bias is.

[mordacious1]

Are you actually aware of how that situation went down? First the officers made a couple arrests (I don't know why--whether the arrests were legit or not is a separate issue). Then the protestors surrounded the cops with the intention of not letting them leave unless they released the people they had arrested.

The courts have ruled that the individuals sprayed/tasered have to be posing an immediate threat to the officers or others. These people were sitting and posing no threat. If they wanted to arrest them for not obeying a lawful order to disperse, then they should have done so. If the crowd then got violent, spray the snot out of them. That's not what happened.

[Linus]

Are you actually aware of how that situation went down? First the officers made a couple arrests (I don't know why--whether the arrests were legit or not is a separate issue). Then the protestors surrounded the cops with the intention of not letting them leave unless they released the people they had arrested.

The courts have ruled that the individuals sprayed/tasered have to be posing an immediate threat to the officers or others. These people were sitting and posing no threat. If they wanted to arrest them for not obeying a lawful order to disperse, then they should have done so. If the crowd then got violent, spray the snot out of them. That's not what happened.

Say a group of people sits in a circle surrounding me and links arms. Then they say they won't let me leave unless I give them my wallet. After a few minutes I warn them that if they don't move I will spray them with a can of mace. They decide to stay put. So I mace some of them and then leave. Who's the asshole in this situation?

Technically maybe the cops didn't follow the proper procedure as the book commands. But the protesters were still the assholes in that situation. And the short version of the video was misleading as fuck.

[deLurch]

[youtube]ACGV-fhZ-xs[/youtube]

Is her hair thinning? 5:38 mark.

[Hunt]

Meyers is feeding off the Thunderf00t again.

He comes up with this beautiful piece of hypocrisy, where he presents imaginary scenarios, tells us what the men's response would definitely be, and then has a go at TF for making up imaginary scenarios.

Seriously, this Meyers cunt is delusional, demential, or has just plain fucking lost it in his desire to get balls deep in some college-aged mermaids.

http://i.imgur.com/hEjpHG8.png

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... underf00t/

It's funny how Myers's wife presents an example perfectly illustrating Tfoot's point, which Myers deftly sidetracks into a reverse gender parallel, which is totally irrelevant to the point. One wonders exactly how that conversation transpired, and whether his wife was actually trying to kick some sense through his thick skull. Prior to this he recounts just how "unfair" risk management is. No shit PZ; life is unfair. That is utterly irrelevant to the point. Because it is unfair that women should take some precautions that men don't, we should not dare encourage them to do so? Once again, as in delayed rape report, PZ et al. seem to have hit upon a philosophy maximally injuries to women.

[James Caruthers]

I feel disgusted that I ever liked The Atheist Experience.

With all the people saying how much they used to love the Atheist Experience and are now bagging on Matt Dilahunty's debating skills, I only have one question to ask. Have none of you see part's of Bill O'Rielly's show? Or other such similar political radio jocks?

It was interesting to me until I started seeing very similar behavior. Cutting out the other person to prevent them from talking or responding, and they just having a hey day 'obliterating' the other person's argument. And that tactic appears good until you happen to give your verbal opponent a chance to respond. And then constantly cutting people off completely and calling them Solipsists. The individual is never given a chance to rebut their accusation.

I saw the same tactics. How can you not compare and contrast that to unfair behavior from those you don't like and at least be a little suspicious of their approach?

Honestly, I think people should be even more wary of agreeing with people who are saying exactly the things you like to hear. Because if you don't you are leaving the barn door to your brain wide open for all sorts of nonsense.

Sure, I noticed this. At first, I chalked it up to bad phone connections (honestly, this was the case sometimes) and a desire to stop callers from "preaching." Cutting someone off is only bad if they were making a point and going somewhere with their argument. I wish journalists on CNN or whatever would cut the audio on some of these asshole politicians who just blather about nothing until the news crew has to break for commercial. Some of these christians on TAE would do the same thing.

But yeah, Matt and others would be really rude to callers, essentially going apeshit the first time a christian caller would invoke a logical fallacy or common christian argument like Pascal's Wager. They'd turn into giant assholes and start ripping into this person who probably had never thought about why PW is stupid (doesn't factor in other religions). Also, they used to disconnect callers and then "refute" them without the caller having a chance to respond. Essentially having to have to last word on everything. Their response to criticism? "Fuck you, it's our show and they are calling us."

I definitely agree that we should be careful of those who agree with us. This is why I don't watch MSNBC or other stations with a clear liberal bias. I find their brand of journalism far too masturbatory.

Seriously though, I was watching some news program about the government shutdown and some Tea Party fuck got up to spout over and over "Obama won't negotiate." The reporter tried to ask him questions (like, "haven't you already bargained on these issues in earlier budget fights?"), but he kept spewing out this rhetoric and claiming a liberal media bias because she was asking him questions. The news room should have cut the fucker's audio if he was going to waste air time like that.

[James Caruthers]

[youtube]URJFmbVS-cc[/youtube]
The line about people "determined to take offense" and the line about "having to trot out liberal credentials." Damn, some of these people are spot-on. "It makes rational discourse almost impossible." Yep, it does. Having to tick off liberal boxes wastes time and helps prevent actual discussion of rape (in a non-SJW feminist-framed perspective.)

Nice to see there's one atheist show that isn't under the control of SJW feminism.

I have to agree about one thing: when it comes to rape, stop using analogies altogether. It makes it too easy for people who want to get offended to take offense.

[Gefan]

It's worse than that.

Walter at a point where he is not quite as obviously intent on becoming a drug king is introduced to a novel (patentable) process of coffee making that everyone who tastes it agrees produces the best coffee they have ever tasted. Ever.

So here are two master chemists + Gus Fring who not only has capital but has a prebuilt distribution chain and they now have access to $100 BILLION dollar market where over 2.25 billion cups of coffee are consumed in the world every day. http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-ab ... 11-11?op=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_coffee

And they don't need loans, they have Gus. And they don't need a distribution chain they have Gus and Pollos Hermanos, and what does Walter do?

He gives up access to this product and shoots the inventor in the face AND to make it worse neglects to steal the idea from him.

It was at this point that I felt Breaking Bad had jumped the shark.

Clearly, Walter was making an heroic statement in support of Social Justice.
No-one ever offered Rebecca Watson crystal meth in an elevator, did they?
Walter had a duty to every woman everywhere to shoot the would-be purveyors of such a dangerous rape-drug, and stick to producing Meth (which rarely enters the lives of lilly-white, well-to-do, under-employed, holders of non-marketable degrees).

[ianfc]

Could be a bit more charitable to these guys, after all they're Canadians

http://i.imgur.com/obGDh2L.jpg

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

It's worse than that.

Walter at a point where he is not quite as obviously intent on becoming a drug king is introduced to a novel (patentable) process of coffee making that everyone who tastes it agrees produces the best coffee they have ever tasted. Ever.

So here are two master chemists + Gus Fring who not only has capital but has a prebuilt distribution chain and they now have access to $100 BILLION dollar market where over 2.25 billion cups of coffee are consumed in the world every day. http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-ab ... 11-11?op=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_coffee

And they don't need loans, they have Gus. And they don't need a distribution chain they have Gus and Pollos Hermanos, and what does Walter do?

He gives up access to this product and shoots the inventor in the face AND to make it worse neglects to steal the idea from him.

It was at this point that I felt Breaking Bad had jumped the shark.

Clearly, Walter was making an heroic statement in support of Social Justice.
No-one ever offered Rebecca Watson crystal meth in an elevator, did they?
Walter had a duty to every woman everywhere to shoot the would-be purveyors of such a dangerous rape-drug, and stick to producing Meth (which rarely enters the lives of lilly-white, well-to-do, under-employed, holders of non-marketable degrees).

The chronology is a bit hazy in my mind, but wasn't Gus in a bind with the Mexican cartel at the time? Or was the Gale/coffee/new lab after their trip to Mexico? I'm in the middle of re-watching the whole show and am just at season 2.

[bovarchist]

The chronology is a bit hazy in my mind, but wasn't Gus in a bind with the Mexican cartel at the time? Or was the Gale/coffee/new lab after their trip to Mexico? I'm in the middle of re-watching the whole show and am just at season 2.

I'm on episode 4-09. Gale is dead, and they haven't done the trip to Mexico yet.

[Gefan]

The chronology is a bit hazy in my mind, but wasn't Gus in a bind with the Mexican cartel at the time? Or was the Gale/coffee/new lab after their trip to Mexico? I'm in the middle of re-watching the whole show and am just at season 2.

No idea. I just saw the "shoulda done for coffee instead of meth" argument. I was introduced to the show a few years back and made it (I think) some way into Season 2. I thought it was good (especially by the standards of American TV outside of Pay Cable) but I had to give up when Jesse(?) hooked up with a girlfriend who was shooting heroin. It's been over twenty-five years since I spent any time around junkies but I still can't even watch that kind of thing.

[Hunt]

It's worse than that.

Walter at a point where he is not quite as obviously intent on becoming a drug king is introduced to a novel (patentable) process of coffee making that everyone who tastes it agrees produces the best coffee they have ever tasted. Ever.

So here are two master chemists + Gus Fring who not only has capital but has a prebuilt distribution chain and they now have access to $100 BILLION dollar market where over 2.25 billion cups of coffee are consumed in the world every day. http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-ab ... 11-11?op=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_coffee

And they don't need loans, they have Gus. And they don't need a distribution chain they have Gus and Pollos Hermanos, and what does Walter do?

He gives up access to this product and shoots the inventor in the face AND to make it worse neglects to steal the idea from him.

It was at this point that I felt Breaking Bad had jumped the shark.

Clearly, Walter was making an heroic statement in support of Social Justice.
No-one ever offered Rebecca Watson crystal meth in an elevator, did they?
Walter had a duty to every woman everywhere to shoot the would-be purveyors of such a dangerous rape-drug, and stick to producing Meth (which rarely enters the lives of lilly-white, well-to-do, under-employed, holders of non-marketable degrees).

If Walter was a SJW he would have immediately switched to creating synthetic heroin, since opioids are anaphrodisiacs.

[Guest]

[youtube]voNs3aHZmQM[/youtube]

I mean, in five years, the White family is going to be completely legitimate.

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

[mordacious1]

Say a group of people sits in a circle surrounding me and links arms. Then they say they won't let me leave unless I give them my wallet. After a few minutes I warn them that if they don't move I will spray them with a can of mace. They decide to stay put. So I mace some of them and then leave. Who's the asshole in this situation?

Technically maybe the cops didn't follow the proper procedure as the book commands. But the protesters were still the assholes in that situation. And the short version of the video was misleading as fuck.

The law (at least in CA and clarified by the 9th Circuit) is very clear when cops can and cannot use pepper spray, tasers and night sticks. In this case, the cops could arrest the protesters but could not shoot, beat, spray or shock them because they were being "assholes". I think the bigger asshole in this situation was the cop because he violated these citizens 4th Amendment rights on the grounds that they wouldn't get out of his way and he didn't want to follow what the law prescribes for dealing with protesters. Your analogy doesn't fit the situation because the law is different for private citizens and cops. The cops are surrounded, they order person X to move, he refuses, the cops arrest him. If he physically resists...then they can spray, taze, etc. (within procedures). The courts have specifically ruled that cops cannot use unreasonable force on peaceful protesters.

[Steersman]

Tony Parsehole said:
"It's because Franc said if Ophelia was a dog she should be put down and because me and Bhoytony wouldn't stop calling people (people, mind you, not just women) "cunts" instead of Damions suggestion of "dimbulbs"."

HAHAHAHAHAHA....what a cunt.

I'm going to go with the usual accomodationist bollocks.

Oh dear. Going to be hard to lecture from Olympus if you keep coming down with the proles. Run along holy one, don't become unclean.

Pit moves kind of fast - guess I must have missed where Lsuoma or Gumby appointed you as enforcer here. You taking lessons from Caine? ....

[Tribble]

I don't know what "nerf" means, so maybe you can tell me what that means or how Esmay looks the part or what you mean by WOW guild.

Some kind of Alderaanian herd animal, I presume.

It's that too. But in this context it was being used as a WoW (MMO) gaming term.

[Tribble]

Plus, since when has that been true?

When is security increased? Usually when women (esp. white women) are subject to battery, not when guys get mugged or beat up. A guy gets hurt, well, he shouldn't have been there, should have learned martial arts, should get a gun, etc. Not to complain when security is increased for the sake of women, as it benefits all, not just women.

If Peezus weren't a lying fuckwit he'd realize that men are victims of violent crime a good deal more than women. Somehow, that doesn't really matter much to ideological a-holes.

How'd he become a scientist? Jonathan Wells did (or at least got the credentials for it), so I can't suppose that it necessarily means a lot. Why is he doing about as much science as Wells does? It's not clear, but I suspect that it's becoming less and less likely that he'll ever be trusted to do real science. Of course he may compartmentalize, but his ideological concerns hardly commend his thinking to anybody who believes that evidence should rule.

He will never get back into science. There are more talented applicants, that more talented and more productive than Myers was, than positions available. Add in he's been out of science for (in his field) for 20 years and he went the 'easy route' with his degree. Nobody will take him on because he's out-dated and has shown the science field he's lazy.

[Tribble]

Are you actually aware of how that situation went down? First the officers made a couple arrests (I don't know why--whether the arrests were legit or not is a separate issue). Then the protestors surrounded the cops with the intention of not letting them leave unless they released the people they had arrested.

The courts have ruled that the individuals sprayed/tasered have to be posing an immediate threat to the officers or others. These people were sitting and posing no threat. If they wanted to arrest them for not obeying a lawful order to disperse, then they should have done so. If the crowd then got violent, spray the snot out of them. That's not what happened.

Say a group of people sits in a circle surrounding me and links arms. Then they say they won't let me leave unless I give them my wallet. After a few minutes I warn them that if they don't move I will spray them with a can of mace. They decide to stay put. So I mace some of them and then leave. Who's the asshole in this situation?

You are. You turned it into a strawman-crime. If they're sitting around you peacefully protesting and you're a police officer you have other means to deal with the situation.

Stupid example.

[Tribble]

I'm going to go with the usual accomodationist bollocks.

Oh dear. Going to be hard to lecture from Olympus if you keep coming down with the proles. Run along holy one, don't become unclean.

Pit moves kind of fast - guess I must have missed where Lsuoma or Gumby appointed you as enforcer here. You taking lessons from Caine? ....

Comprehension failure on your part as he claimed no such thing in his mocking post.

BTW, you're featured as a 'pretentious nym' on Damian's new "Pit Post," never mind he has the pretentious name from The Omen. Whether by choice (nym) or inheritance (his parents):

On a recent post, a fellow calling himself “Steersman” (sounds a bit pretentious to me, but hey, it’s an internet pseudonym) suggested that I was being unfair in the way that I have been sampling the Pit, picking out the worst bits and drawing attention to them. In the interests of statistics and fairness, then, let us sample the pit randomly. - See more at: http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundpro ... Oz704.dpuf

I guess he's trolling for comments from Pitters because while Skeptical Ink started with bang, it is turning into a wimper. Blackford is rarely posint, Maltseva hasn't posted in forever, Damion's turned into a 'holier than thou' asshole and turns many people off with his "I'm better than everyone' attitude, Loftus left, Vacula was kicked-out and it seems like a lot of wind went out of a lot of sails after that.

I think the unnecessary and childish dig tells us everything we need to know about Damian's alleged 'above it all.' Which is to say, he's not. He's just on his own 'drama queen' side where he gets to make free with the behaviors he condemns from his Holy Seat of Superiority.

[Tribble]

I really shouldn't type with cut-up fingers. My lackadaisical editing and spell-checking become downright abysmal...

[James Caruthers]

Wait, why do FTB care what the Pitt does? I thought we were the reactionary assholes and they were the mighty social justice warriors. They should be soaring high above us on their wings of victimhood.

[bovarchist]

Say a group of people sits in a circle surrounding me and links arms. Then they say they won't let me leave unless I give them my wallet. After a few minutes I warn them that if they don't move I will spray them with a can of mace. They decide to stay put. So I mace some of them and then leave. Who's the asshole in this situation?

Technically maybe the cops didn't follow the proper procedure as the book commands. But the protesters were still the assholes in that situation. And the short version of the video was misleading as fuck.

The law (at least in CA and clarified by the 9th Circuit) is very clear when cops can and cannot use pepper spray, tasers and night sticks. In this case, the cops could arrest the protesters but could not shoot, beat, spray or shock them because they were being "assholes". I think the bigger asshole in this situation was the cop because he violated these citizens 4th Amendment rights on the grounds that they wouldn't get out of his way and he didn't want to follow what the law prescribes for dealing with protesters. Your analogy doesn't fit the situation because the law is different for private citizens and cops. The cops are surrounded, they order person X to move, he refuses, the cops arrest him. If he physically resists...then they can spray, taze, etc. (within procedures). The courts have specifically ruled that cops cannot use unreasonable force on peaceful protesters.

IANAL but I suspect that the second they don't do what they're told, the definition of 'unreasonable' changes PDQ.

[tfoot]

I found Myers latest post presuming to lecture me on what is and isnt science a little undignified under the circumstances.

Bear in mind that Im still research active, whereas the last piece of work he published that contained results, conclusions, that sort of thing (eg research science), AND has a citation of any sort was back in 1998.

Calcium signals monitored from leopard frog optic tectum after the optic nerve has been selectively loaded with calcium sensitive dye
Author(s): Dudkin, EA; Myers, PZ; Ramirez-Latorre, JA; et al.
Source: NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS Volume: 258 Issue: 2 Pages: 124-126 DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3940(98)00870-2 Published: DEC 18 1998
Times Cited: 4 (from Web of Science)

Not only that, the man presuming to lecture me (the research scientist) on what is and isnt science is currently scheduled to speak at a pseudoscience-space aliens- conference.

In many ways I would like to see PZ answer the question, what are the factors that affect the probability of a woman being raped, and watch him grudgingly write down the 'pseudoscience' equation I came up with (or v. similar)

[bovarchist]

Comprehension failure on your part as he claimed no such thing in his mocking post.

BTW, you're featured as a 'pretentious nym' on Damian's new "Pit Post," never mind he has the pretentious name from The Omen. Whether by choice (nym) or inheritance (his parents):

On a recent post, a fellow calling himself “Steersman” (sounds a bit pretentious to me, but hey, it’s an internet pseudonym) suggested that I was being unfair in the way that I have been sampling the Pit, picking out the worst bits and drawing attention to them. In the interests of statistics and fairness, then, let us sample the pit randomly. - See more at: http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundpro ... Oz704.dpuf

I guess he's trolling for comments from Pitters because while Skeptical Ink started with bang, it is turning into a wimper. Blackford is rarely posint, Maltseva hasn't posted in forever, Damion's turned into a 'holier than thou' asshole and turns many people off with his "I'm better than everyone' attitude, Loftus left, Vacula was kicked-out and it seems like a lot of wind went out of a lot of sails after that.

I think the unnecessary and childish dig tells us everything we need to know about Damian's alleged 'above it all.' Which is to say, he's not. He's just on his own 'drama queen' side where he gets to make free with the behaviors he condemns from his Holy Seat of Superiority.

FFS I can't be assed to click on all of those links. If my name comes up, let me know.

[Linus]

Say a group of people sits in a circle surrounding me and links arms. Then they say they won't let me leave unless I give them my wallet. After a few minutes I warn them that if they don't move I will spray them with a can of mace. They decide to stay put. So I mace some of them and then leave. Who's the asshole in this situation?

Technically maybe the cops didn't follow the proper procedure as the book commands. But the protesters were still the assholes in that situation. And the short version of the video was misleading as fuck.

The law (at least in CA and clarified by the 9th Circuit) is very clear when cops can and cannot use pepper spray, tasers and night sticks. In this case, the cops could arrest the protesters but could not shoot, beat, spray or shock them because they were being "assholes". I think the bigger asshole in this situation was the cop because he violated these citizens 4th Amendment rights on the grounds that they wouldn't get out of his way and he didn't want to follow what the law prescribes for dealing with protesters. Your analogy doesn't fit the situation because the law is different for private citizens and cops. The cops are surrounded, they order person X to move, he refuses, the cops arrest him. If he physically resists...then they can spray, taze, etc. (within procedures). The courts have specifically ruled that cops cannot use unreasonable force on peaceful protesters.

By saying technically they might have been in the wrong I was already conceding the legal argument to you... I wasn't attempting to make a legal argument in the first place. Although TBH they may have attempted to arrest the people obstructing their ability to exit for all I know. Since their goal was to prevent them from arresting the people they had already placed under arrest, I'm guessing that placing them under arrest would not have changed their decision to not move.

I think my analogy fits fairly well because I was explicitly talking about being an asshole vs not being asshole, which is a separate issue from what's legal vs illegal. For all I know a private citizen using mace in the my hypothetical might be illegal as well. I mean it's using force against someone who is not an imminent threat.

BTW I was NOT saying "they could pepper spray them because they were being assholes". I thought that was obvious... Sorry if I've been unclear. It was only justified (if at all) as a means to leave, not as a form of punishment or retaliation.

Say a group of people sits in a circle surrounding me and links arms. Then they say they won't let me leave unless I give them my wallet. After a few minutes I warn them that if they don't move I will spray them with a can of mace. They decide to stay put. So I mace some of them and then leave. Who's the asshole in this situation?

You are. You turned it into a strawman-crime. If they're sitting around you peacefully protesting and you're a police officer you have other means to deal with the situation.

Stupid example.

Surrounding someone to prevent them from leaving unless they give in to your demands is not "peacefully protesting" IMO. The only difference between the two scenarios is that in the hypothetical one it's not being done to a cop and the demand is different.

What other means are you referring to?

[Ape+lust]

I found Myers latest post presuming to lecture me on what is and isnt science a little undignified under the circumstances.

Bear in mind that Im still research active, whereas the last piece of work he published that contained results, conclusions, that sort of thing (eg research science), AND has a citation of any sort was back in 1998.

Calcium signals monitored from leopard frog optic tectum after the optic nerve has been selectively loaded with calcium sensitive dye
Author(s): Dudkin, EA; Myers, PZ; Ramirez-Latorre, JA; et al.
Source: NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS Volume: 258 Issue: 2 Pages: 124-126 DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3940(98)00870-2 Published: DEC 18 1998
Times Cited: 4 (from Web of Science)

Not only that, the man presuming to lecture me (the research scientist) on what is and isnt science is currently scheduled to speak at a pseudoscience-space aliens- conference.

In many ways I would like to see PZ answer the question, what are the factors that affect the probability of a woman being raped, and watch him grudgingly write down the 'pseudoscience' equation I came up with (or v. similar)

Eh, he's fallen into the worst possible fate. He's become an internet crank, renowned more for his character and bizarre impulses than any work he might do. The degree that he actually matters is inversely proportional to his fame.

[Suet Cardigan]

What do you think would happen to a judge if he/she stated before a murder trial "I usually find defendants that are on trial for murder guilty?"

Would you be confident that the judge was impartial?

Would you be confident that the judge was impartial unbiased?

Judges don't decide whether the accused is guilty or innocent - the jury decides that.

[James Caruthers]

Just wanted to say I finally got around to watching this video. Very nice. Slow golf clap, excellent follow-up.

And it really puts the lie to what Aron said in that video.

[mary (abbie's ilk)]

As for attractiveness, I've dated girls about the same as her (blind dates) and a few on multiple dates. I look for bi-lateral symmetry and reasonable proportions that indicate decent physicality without any probable conformance issues.

You are not a geek, but a nerd. (Who talks like that?)

LOL.

Beauty is makeup and bi-lateral symmetry. I've gone to bed with very beautiful women and woken up next to plain-Jane's. Kate Upton proving my point:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_ ... -upton.jpg

Here's Heidi Klum. She looks like a MAN without makeup! My daughter thinks she looks like Kurt Cobain without facial hair.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_ ... i-klum.jpg


I long ago gave up on the concept of 'beauty.' It's all artificial. I look for bi-lateral symmetry and reasonable proportions, throw in some decent grooming habits, a decent life-style (and eating habits) and then I just don't care.

It's the eye's....we get to do all kinds of cool shit to our eyes... add lines, lashes, color... I in my young, stupid, I need to look cool age once wore emerald contacts to enhance my green iris.. nearly blinded myself several times... not that I've grown up very much...as I can't seem to pass a makeup counter without looking at the newest....

[Apples]

What do you think would happen to a judge if he/she stated before a murder trial "I usually find defendants that are on trial for murder guilty?"

Would you be confident that the judge was impartial?

Would you be confident that the judge was impartial unbiased?

Judges don't decide whether the accused is guilty or innocent - the jury decides that.

Depends on the country, of course. Even in the US, though someone charged with a crime has a right to a jury trial, there are many "bench trials" where the defendant waives s/h/it's right to a jury trial and the verdict is rendered by a judge (presumably because defendant/counsel believes said judge might be sympathetic -- i.e., not like the theoretical judge above). /pedant

[Apples]

Why don’t you – and y’all – post your own pictures, preferably at, say, Skepchicks so that the ladies can make snarky comments about your physiology? Turn-about being fair play, and all that. Unless you disagree of course.

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

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i9woL96KUbs/T ... 00/pat.jpg

[Apples]

I am just surprised that RW looks so unkempt. (This is why I originally said "She looks like shit") I think she is a moralizing nitwit, but she has leveraged her Communications background to create a little base of loving fans. Normally, someone playing this popularity game would focus on quality and a bit of polish. Her latest video is a disaster. Her color is bad... her hair is ratty, her eyes are baggy... bleck. What a piece of shit video. I wonder if she thinks she is so clever and so smart that she doesn't have to pay attention to production values. I would think that anyone blogging and speaking as much as she does would have their shit together. ...

I noticed that Marcotte recently switched her Twitter photo to this shot:

https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/37 ... 33860.jpeg

A bit too glam and raccoon-eyed for my taste.

[Hunt]

PZ's wife's choice to not walk through a parking garage is actually counter to a discussion I had a year or two ago on Butt and Wheels. At that time an opinion like that, which was my recommendation to any women dealing with a known dangerous area, was considered rape culture apology, as was ardently explained to me. I immediately discounted them as nutters, since they were putting ideological principle before the safety of women. I don't see any real difference between their argument then and their objections to Tfoot's opinions now. I just knew then that this was puss-filled abscess that was going to rupture sooner or later. This is exactly the type of situation where left-wing politics makes a face-plant. The commonsense and moral thing to do is place the exigencies of reality and women's safety above politics and ideology. This is where the left becomes immoral. And I'm usually a leftist.

[Service Dog]

...women should take some precautions that men don't...

What are these woman-specific precautions?


Most recommendations for what women should do... are things men already do.

For example, women =sometimes= wear practical shoes so they can run or fight if necessary,
but for men practical shoes are the norm.

[windy]

Walt's biggest flaw -- or at least, the one most responsible for his downfall -- isn't his ego, it's his loyalty to Jess. Character after character warns him that Jess is a loose cannon, and they're all right. Jess is responsible for everything that goes wrong. He's Gilligan. Jess is the reason things went wrong with Gus. Even Krazy 8 warned Walt about him. Walt has opportunity after opportunity to cut Jess loose, and if he had done so, things would have worked out fine.

There's something familiar about this plotline. Our protagonist is a smart, capable guy. A scientist, stuck in an unglamorous teaching job. Whose downfall comes through excessive loyalty to his protégé, a loose cannon.

...Breaking Bad in Morris, MN?

[Jan Steen]

But pzm takes a pretty good shot at Tfoot's rape equation

pzm writ

Thunderf00t has a new video, and it’s the usual nonsense of bad metaphors and vague recommendations and a complete lack of empathy and reason — more mountain lions and wasps, and new comparisons that don’t work.
Here’s the problem I have: he keeps saying that women can do things to reduce their chances of getting raped…and then he trots out a fake equation, like this:
Probability of rape = AxBxCxDxExFxGxH
Where cyan are the factors women control, and red are the factors the rapists control. And therefore he’s only advocating that there are steps you can take to acceptably reduce your risk of rape, not that the rapist is excused.
Can I just say that I really, really despise fake equations? It’s a way to put up a pretense of scientific objectivity, without having to do any actual work in trying to understand the relationship of the variables. Why would you give all of these variables equal weight? Why would you think these are probabilities that are appropriately multiplied together? And most importantly, what the hell are the variables?

PZ evidently doesn't understand basic probability theory. If A, B ... H are the probabilities of independent events, then the total probability of all events occurring simultaneously is indeed simply AxBxCxDxExFxGxH. The 'weight' of the variables is already expressed by their probability values. If the probability of finding a lottery ticket today in the street where I live is 0.0000001 and the probability of winning the lottery is 0.000001 then the probability of me finding a winning lottery ticket in my street today is 0.0000001x0.000001 = 0.0000000000001.

You would think that a scientist like PZ knows this. Maybe he should ask an actual practicing scientist like Nerd of Redhead to educate him.

[Service Dog]

Reading PZ with AdBlocker turned on... is depriving yourself of the full bukkake experience.

http://i.imgur.com/Gkwux0j.png



Probability of rape = AxBxCxDxExFxGxH

"Can I just say that I really, really despise fake equations?" --PZ Myers

PRICELESS

[Tribble]

I found Myers latest post presuming to lecture me on what is and isnt science a little undignified under the circumstances.

Bear in mind that Im still research active, whereas the last piece of work he published that contained results, conclusions, that sort of thing (eg research science), AND has a citation of any sort was back in 1998.

Calcium signals monitored from leopard frog optic tectum after the optic nerve has been selectively loaded with calcium sensitive dye
Author(s): Dudkin, EA; Myers, PZ; Ramirez-Latorre, JA; et al.
Source: NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS Volume: 258 Issue: 2 Pages: 124-126 DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3940(98)00870-2 Published: DEC 18 1998
Times Cited: 4 (from Web of Science)

Yeah, about that. Calcium imaging is very difficult. I'm sure he had some expertise in the area. But what he 'did' in that paper (Xenopus) doesn't really tie into what he did in Zebrafish (ZFIN) which is the model he worked on at OU.

So I tend to think he got 'second author' because he helped the actual researcher (probably a graduate student at the time) with the calcium imaging as opposed to was pursuing an active line of research on his own. Especially as he completely stopped the second he left Temple for UMM but the primary author continued on in the field:

Elizabeth Dudkin received her B.S. in Business Administration from Drexel University and her Ph.D. in Biology and Neuroscience from Temple University. Dr. Dudkin’s research on nucleus isthmi and its role in visual attention in frogs has been published in the Journal of Neuroscience, the Journal of Comparative Neurology, and Brain Research. She has been involved in training undergraduate students to work in a molecular biology lab for several years, and has received funding from the National Science Foundation to send students to work in a research lab at the University of Paris. She is collaborating with Dr. John Tierney and Ms. Nikki DeAngelis, also of Penn State, in an undergraduate research project that tests the biological activities of novel organic compounds. Dr. Dudkin received the Distinguished Teaching Award for Penn State Brandywine in 2005.

Recent Publications:

Dudkin, E.A., J.B. Sheffield, and E.R. Gruberg. Combining visual information from the two eyes: the relationship between isthmotectal cells that project to ipsilateral tectum and to contralateral tectum using fluorescent retrograde labels. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 502(1):38-54, (2007).

Gruberg, E., E. Dudkin, Y. Wang, G. Marin, C. Salas, E. Sentis, J. Letelier, J. Mpodozis, J. Malpeli, H. Cui, R. Ma, D. Northmore, S. Udin. Influencing and interpreting visual input: the role of a visual feedback system, Journal of Neuroscience, 26(41):10368-71. (2006).

Not only that, the man presuming to lecture me (the research scientist) on what is and isnt science is currently scheduled to speak at a pseudoscience-space aliens- conference.

In many ways I would like to see PZ answer the question, what are the factors that affect the probability of a woman being raped, and watch him grudgingly write down the 'pseudoscience' equation I came up with (or v. similar)

I'd say it's impossible to compute that beyond large population figures of lifetime-risk extrapolated from the National Crime Victim Survey because the entire subject has been so poisoned by propaganda that what solid work has been done has been shoved aside for radical-feminist tracts.

[Tribble]

Surrounding someone to prevent them from leaving unless they give in to your demands is not "peacefully protesting" IMO. The only difference between the two scenarios is that in the hypothetical one it's not being done to a cop and the demand is different.

What other means are you referring to?

Have you taken to redefining peaceful protests a' la' FTB and words only mean what I want them to mean? The Courts, using a REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD, are clear that being surrounded by sitting protestors is not a violent protest. You actually have to have VIOLENCE or the REASONABLE EXPECTATION of IMPENDING VIOLENCE to use force.

Reasonable person. Embrace the concept, that way you won't go so far down the wrong path in trying to win a losing argument by playing rhetorical, semantic and fallacious devices.

My comment about your stupid example stands.

[Suet Cardigan]

Reading PZ with AdBlocker turned on... is depriving yourself of the full bukkake experience.

http://i.imgur.com/Gkwux0j.png



Probability of rape = AxBxCxDxExFxGxH

"Can I just say that I really, really despise fake equations?" --PZ Myers

PRICELESS

Aren't the adverts you see based on your search engine use/and or browsing history? Been looking for a mail order bride from the far east, Service Dog?