Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

[DaveDodo007]

:cdc: Clarence,

More importantly did he 'tie me kangaroo down sport' with his mate Rolf? And what about Jake the peg with his extra leg? And seriously what was it with the two little boys and their two little "toys".

The man must be guilty as sin. I'll bet he did the chair leg when he thought the table wasn't watching.

http://i.imgur.com/s9RBYC2.jpg

Nearly all of the men come across a loathsome and insincere to me even when I was a child, that doesn't mean I think they are guilty, due process and the right to the presumption of innocence and all that. They are/were a bunch of Tory wankers. Though I loved Rolf Harris as a kid as he seemed to love entertaining children and I'll hate it if even half of the charges turned out to be true. I think half of my childhood memories would die. It would be like finding out Johnny Ball had a scat fetish or the Banana Splits raped the Sour Grape bunch. :(

[Tony Parsehole]

Is it sad or hilarious that the strawman of the atheist baby-killer, the slippery-slope of pro-choice into straight up advocacy for infanticide, previously existing only in religious social conservative's minds, has slowly become a reality? I don't know if laughter or tears is the best response at this point. Although given that I frequent the pit off and on, obviously laughter.

Like a coffin in the shape of Del Boy's car it's both funny and sad.

[DaveDodo007]

Shit I mean all the men under investigation (Yewtree.) Fucking edit button.

[Za-zen]

Is it sad or hilarious that the strawman of the atheist baby-killer, the slippery-slope of pro-choice into straight up advocacy for infanticide, previously existing only in religious social conservative's minds, has slowly become a reality? I don't know if laughter or tears is the best response at this point. Although given that I frequent the pit off and on, obviously laughter.

Some good ol fashioned jesus home cookin smells good to a lot of not so insane atheists

[dogen]

I'll be interested to see them - I'm afraid I've been spoiled by Miyazaki's artwork. Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is pretty amazing, IMHO.

Be sure to check "Spirited Away", that was my entry into Miyazaki and the reason why I got all his other films as well.

My little 'un loves that film. I do too.
Howl's Moving Castle is pretty cool too. And Porco Rosso.

Saw Howl a few weeks ago. Very good, although gets weird(er) toward the end. I think my fave is still My Neighbor Totoro -- I love its basic humanity.

[Tony Parsehole]

I think a lot of the SJW's are merely taking the most radical pro-choice (I'd even go so far as to say pro-abortion) arguements to their logical conclusions.

They are operating from the Cult 101 playbook: Who is most pure, most extreme, who can say "I told you I was hard-coreâ„¢".

Whether or not it makes sense is not only largely irrelevant, making sense just demonstrates that you're not a true believer.

Is it accurate to say that these psychotic arguments are coming from the type of childless feminists who have more chance of discovering the cure for cancer written on the back of a wining lottery ticket than coming within a mile of an unsheathed cock?

[Tony Parsehole]

Saw Howl a few weeks ago. Very good, although gets weird(er) toward the end. I think my fave is still My Neighbor Totoro -- I love its basic humanity.

Aye. My kid loves that one too. I'm a bit sick of hearing the theme tune though.
♫♪♪♫ Who leaves the seeeeeeeeds? For yooooooou to fiiiiiind? Follow them and you will seeeeee, a treasure theeeeere! ♫♪♪♫

[Dick Strawkins]

Is it sad or hilarious that the strawman of the atheist baby-killer, the slippery-slope of pro-choice into straight up advocacy for infanticide, previously existing only in religious social conservative's minds, has slowly become a reality? I don't know if laughter or tears is the best response at this point. Although given that I frequent the pit off and on, obviously laughter.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure that Zinnia actually wrote her pro infanticide article as a kind of satire - but only later figured out that it was a real position that Peter Singer has advocated.

She doesn't mention Singer at all in the article and asks for Dave Silverman to accept the pro-infanticide atheists:

What I would ask is this: What is American Atheists doing to reach out to pro-infanticide atheists and bring them into the cause of organized secularism?

Her commenters certainly seem to take this as a satire - likening it to Swift's famous 'Modest Proposal' and worrying about how others would react to it:
"I have the strangest feeling most people won’t get it and it will be quote mined to death"

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

And yet now Zinnia is acting as if it was meant as a serious argument all along?

:think:
:snooty:

[LurkerPerson]

I think a lot of the SJW's are merely taking the most radical pro-choice (I'd even go so far as to say pro-abortion) arguements to their logical conclusions.

They are operating from the Cult 101 playbook: Who is most pure, most extreme, who can say "I told you I was hard-coreâ„¢".

Whether or not it makes sense is not only largely irrelevant, making sense just demonstrates that you're not a true believer.

Is it accurate to say that these psychotic arguments are coming from the type of childless feminists who have more chance of discovering the cure for cancer written on the back of a wining lottery ticket than coming within a mile of an unsheathed cock?

Would that it were so. Like a lot of SJW nuttery, the ultimate source is suprisingly academic. And obviously humanities based.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html

[TiBo]

I think a lot of the SJW's are merely taking the most radical pro-choice (I'd even go so far as to say pro-abortion) arguements to their logical conclusions.

When I hear/read these crazy elements in the atheist movement, I wonder if religious have unconsciously hit one of our own blind spots with their suspicion about the morality of atheists. I mean seriously, read and listen to these pig-headed, human-hating eugenics enablers, and then tell me with a straight face that you would entrust these people with *any* moral issue you could think of... "Not worthy of personhood" could be a line coming right out of Dr. Mengele's diaries.

[Aneris]

Is it sad or hilarious that the strawman of the atheist baby-killer, the slippery-slope of pro-choice into straight up advocacy for infanticide, previously existing only in religious social conservative's minds, has slowly become a reality? I don't know if laughter or tears is the best response at this point. Although given that I frequent the pit off and on, obviously laughter.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure that Zinnia actually wrote her pro infanticide article as a kind of satire - but only later figured out that it was a real position that Peter Singer has advocated.

She doesn't mention Singer at all in the article and asks for Dave Silverman to accept the pro-infanticide atheists:

What I would ask is this: What is American Atheists doing to reach out to pro-infanticide atheists and bring them into the cause of organized secularism?

Her commenters certainly seem to take this as a satire - likening it to Swift's famous 'Modest Proposal' and worrying about how others would react to it:
"I have the strangest feeling most people won’t get it and it will be quote mined to death"

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

And yet now Zinnia is acting as if it was meant as a serious argument all along?

:think:
:snooty:

Let's not forget Dana Hunter's embryos-babies as “parasites”, apparently meant straightface. It is not deniable that the Social Justice League is consistent with producting utterly inane ideas on any given topic, and lets not forget that there is strong pushback against Silverman on the mere admission that a secular arguments exist, but none against claiming late unborns were parasites or could be killed off. I take this as an agreement from their side. Suddenly we have that argument they wanted to avoid.

[LurkerPerson]

The blind spot of "we can't possibly be un-moral, we're RIGHT" is common to every single ideology regardless. It is certainly present in atheism. Poiting out that blind spot is the easiest thing ever when standing outside of the construct, as it is with religions for example. A lot harder to see when standing inside it.

[Tony Parsehole]

I think a lot of the SJW's are merely taking the most radical pro-choice (I'd even go so far as to say pro-abortion) arguements to their logical conclusions.

When I hear/read these crazy elements in the atheist movement, I wonder if religious have unconsciously hit one of our own blind spots with their suspicion about the morality of atheists. I mean seriously, read and listen to these pig-headed, human-hating eugenics enablers, and then tell me with a straight face that you would entrust these people with *any* moral issue you could think of... "Not worthy of personhood" could be a line coming right out of Dr. Mengele's diaries.

The religious pro-lifers must think it's Christmas. Now they can point to actual examples of pro-choicers wanting to murder babies.

[Za-zen]

SJW'ism is like the bastard hybrid of Consumerism and Childminds, where each SJW demands complete autonomy, no responsibility to others yet demands every other person fund, feed, facilitate, legislate for, clean up after, simply because the SJW exists

[TiBo]

The religious pro-lifers must think it's Christmas. Now they can point to actual examples of pro-choicers wanting to murder babies.

And they don't even have to lie or misrepresent - it's simply true. The SJWs, the radical leftists in the atheist movement, do infact condone the murdering of babies. This is the unfiltered truth. And it makes me think that the "rift" in the movement isn't nearly as wide as it should be. Never do I want to be mentioned in the same sentence as these people. :hand:

[Tony Parsehole]

I'd love to know who is expected to perform these post natal abortions and how they're supposed to do it.

http://weknowmemes.com/generator/upload ... 304592.jpg

[Za-zen]

The religious pro-lifers must think it's Christmas. Now they can point to actual examples of pro-choicers wanting to murder babies.

And they don't even have to lie or misrepresent - it's simply true. The SJWs, the radical leftists in the atheist movement, do infact condone the murdering of babies. This is the unfiltered truth. And it makes me think that the "rift" in the movement isn't nearly as wide as it should be. Never do I want to be mentioned in the same sentence as these people. :hand:

But the slymepit use bad words, say horrible things, and make pictures!

[Mykeru]

Mowgli and Courtney seem like despicable human beings and probable sociopaths, and their performance on this show makes me want to donate money to a pro-life group just out of spite. Clearly neither of them had ever really given their position much serious thought because, as mentioned, they seemed surprised and unprepared to respond to even the most basic challenges. For example, they first insisted that bodily autonomy was absolute and that women had the right to kill the fetus right up until the moment of birth; but when pressed further at least one of them flippantly changed her mind and conceded that it would in fact be murder if a women kills the fetus five minutes prior to birth. Neither showed any real understanding of the significance or logical implications of their opinion, nor of the sudden change to which she had just agreed.

Mowgli in particular seems like a broken person. This psycho gleefully and proudly believes an unborn fetus has no value or rights up through the point of birth, and at several points she even implied that values/rights are suspect even after birth. On when the unborn becomes a full person, she at one point suggested that full personhood isn't conferred until such time as people can drive and vote. No shit, that's what she actually said. :lol:

To be fair to Mowgli, she did initially claim to agree with Peter Singers stance on abortion - which is philosophically consistent and does allow for infanticide - although I don't think Singer extends it as far as adulthood as Mowgli did at a couple of points.
But if you are going to go down that route you need to face the consequences of this stance regarding very late terminations. Mowgli and Courtney whatsit seemed to want to use the excuse that late term non-emergency terminations were too rare to be worth considering - thus they wouldn't have to answer the question of whether it is OK to abort a viable and healthy 9 month fetus.
I think these types of abortions ARE very rare - which is why the current laws in the US that restrict non emergency abortions at this stage, are quite well accepted, even by most mainstream pro-choice groups.
The other people on the panel made the reasonable point that advocating full term abortions (as Mogli and friend were doing - and as FTB/Secular Woman/Skepchick also seem to be advocating) would be a very bad move politically as this may provoke a backlash that would end up restricting more women from access to safe early terminations.

Allow me to explain how purgatory works:

The second to last level is for people who discuss a topic/article/video without doing copypasta on the linky.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... -_Hell.jpg

The very bottom level, at the sulfurous smelly feet of Lucifer, where you have putrid offal forced down your throat and Oolon up your ass, is reserved for those who never post the linky at all.

Start living right.

[AndrewV69]

How about reading the Wikipedia article you linked to, and then reading the part I quoted and you re-quoted?

How about you re-read http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 78#p170378 ?

Consider me skeptical that Saville had a sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

All I see is a lot of alleged this and alleged that and the whole thing smacks of a hysterical moral panic fed by the newspapers (to possibly sell more newspapers).

Whatever man. Fuck.

[Dave2]

Let's not forget Dana Hunter's embryos-babies as “parasites”, apparently meant straightface.

Whilst it's clearly provocative language I don't see what's technically at fault with it provided the mother doesn't want it - if the mother isn't enjoying being pregnant or anticipating enjoying being a mother then the relationship's one-sided.

So yeah - in such a case - I think it's understandable, if jarring, language.

The mistake they seem to have made to me is to state that all pregnancies are parasitical when presumably they would shy away from saying that to women who are...

1) Fondly anticipating the birth of their child.
2) Upset due to miscarriage.
3) Going for an abortion but feeling conflicted about it.

...and so on.

Seems to me they could cut out most of their troublesome doublethink if they just adopted something like:

"Until it's out of the mother the baby's rights are contingent on her express will."

Mind you I thought the show was all over the place and DPR should have held topics to either practicalities or philosophical principles, as it jumped from one to another and back again repeatedly. There didn't seem to be much point in, say, hogtiechamp asking a question about principles only to be asked to cite precedent before being taken in good faith and so on.

Also, I really like TF and think he generally does a lot to add to the conversation, but I found his attitude off-putting here. That sort of rude hostility is worthwhile in a vid to the likes of Rebecca Watson because she doesn't sincerely engage anyway. But when two ideological opponents are willing to talk I just think it sets the barriers up to leap in with calling them names and setting up rather obtuse scenarios such as stabbing a pregnant woman. Of course people will object to stabbing a pregnant woman. If he'd framed it like "I cause a woman to abort without her consent but with no physical harm to herself - is that a crime" it might have produced a more interesting conversation.

[dogen]

I'd love to know who is expected to perform these post natal abortions and how they're supposed to do it.

http://weknowmemes.com/generator/upload ... 304592.jpg

Jules knows:

say-waah.png

(224.1 KiB) Downloaded 139 times

[Tapir]

http://i.imgur.com/PhCG17o.jpg

[AndrewV69]

Anyone else remember Marietta Higgs?

I had forgotten all about that one to tell the truth. But the point is made I think when you get a media circus it can be very difficult to sort out what the fuck happened.

[Sulman]

...proudly believes an unborn fetus has no value or rights up through the point of birth, and at several points she even implied that values/rights are suspect even after birth. On when the unborn becomes a full person, she at one point suggested that full personhood isn't conferred until such time as people can drive and vote. No shit, that's what she actually said. :lol:

I think you're describing a personality disorder, which I would speculate is extremely common among SJW's.

[AndrewV69]

AndrewV69 is a Jimmy Savile Truther. What a fucking loon. He sees evil wyminz conspiracies everywhere. He is the male counterpart of the Carrie Poppies of this world.

:o

So busted!!!

[Dick Strawkins]

Mowgli and Courtney seem like despicable human beings and probable sociopaths, and their performance on this show makes me want to donate money to a pro-life group just out of spite. Clearly neither of them had ever really given their position much serious thought because, as mentioned, they seemed surprised and unprepared to respond to even the most basic challenges. For example, they first insisted that bodily autonomy was absolute and that women had the right to kill the fetus right up until the moment of birth; but when pressed further at least one of them flippantly changed her mind and conceded that it would in fact be murder if a women kills the fetus five minutes prior to birth. Neither showed any real understanding of the significance or logical implications of their opinion, nor of the sudden change to which she had just agreed.

Mowgli in particular seems like a broken person. This psycho gleefully and proudly believes an unborn fetus has no value or rights up through the point of birth, and at several points she even implied that values/rights are suspect even after birth. On when the unborn becomes a full person, she at one point suggested that full personhood isn't conferred until such time as people can drive and vote. No shit, that's what she actually said. :lol:

To be fair to Mowgli, she did initially claim to agree with Peter Singers stance on abortion - which is philosophically consistent and does allow for infanticide - although I don't think Singer extends it as far as adulthood as Mowgli did at a couple of points.
But if you are going to go down that route you need to face the consequences of this stance regarding very late terminations. Mowgli and Courtney whatsit seemed to want to use the excuse that late term non-emergency terminations were too rare to be worth considering - thus they wouldn't have to answer the question of whether it is OK to abort a viable and healthy 9 month fetus.
I think these types of abortions ARE very rare - which is why the current laws in the US that restrict non emergency abortions at this stage, are quite well accepted, even by most mainstream pro-choice groups.
The other people on the panel made the reasonable point that advocating full term abortions (as Mogli and friend were doing - and as FTB/Secular Woman/Skepchick also seem to be advocating) would be a very bad move politically as this may provoke a backlash that would end up restricting more women from access to safe early terminations.

Allow me to explain how purgatory works:

The second to last level is for people who discuss a topic/article/video without doing copypasta on the linky.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... -_Hell.jpg

The very bottom level, at the sulfurous smelly feet of Lucifer, where you have putrid offal forced down your throat and Oolon up your ass, is reserved for those who never post the linky at all.

Start living right.

Wasn't it linked earlier?
Just start at the beginning of the slymepit and continue on till the end - you'll be bound to find it.

Alternatively, just watch this:

[youtube]RfWvVgBRH1g[/youtube]

[AndrewV69]

Clarence is a fucking idiot too. Fuck off, you moron.

So I guess you are being serious after all?

[Avalyne]

Would that it were so. Like a lot of SJW nuttery, the ultimate source is suprisingly academic. And obviously humanities based.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html

I read this article. The source is academic, but it's an ethics argument.. word banter. No one actually suggests that the authors want babies killed. The published study is actually posturing for a debate about the ethics of abortion in general, and appears to lay the foundation for a pro-life argument against it. Their hypothesis was a "when taken to it's logical extreme...." point, delivered with a poker face. I would have to agree with that LurkerPerson that this was just a radical move to push the debate. No science or data.. just inflammatory "ethical" debate points. I find this type of thing to be irritating, as it's nothing more than political extremism, thinly veiled as "academic." I'm guessing the authors are sitting back, popcorn in hand, waiting for the show to begin. :popcorn:

[AndrewV69]

That's andrew's schtick. He'll misquote/misrepresent a link or series of links, and then when you point that out, try to make it sound like you didn't really read the thing(s) you just read. Until you basically quote the entire thing with specific highlighting, at which point, he may or may not admit he might not have been completely right.

After a while, you just shrug, I see it as a rather tedious form of trolling myself.

Why bless your heart!!! Your input is valued and I do appreciate your contribution.

[rpguest]

I think a lot of the SJW's are merely taking the most radical pro-choice (I'd even go so far as to say pro-abortion) arguements to their logical conclusions.

Atheism demands infanticide! Come on regreta we know you have it in you.

there can be secular concerns and debate about infanticide -- obviously
that there can be concerns and debate about abortion -- fuck you antiscience misogynist mra pigfucker

[John D]

Liberal/progressive thinkers are really good at walking right into ethical dilemmas. I would say they are as bad as a religious nut. I think the problem comes from thinking there is a logic based solution to ethics. While logic is important, a significant driver to ethics is emotional. While logic will help us accomplish a task, it is our emotions that push us to even try.

I find it a bit of a concern that atheist spokesmen like Dawkins and Shermer look like they are buying into the Singer model of ethics. I think Singer is full of shit myself. I understand his point about "speciesism" but my response to be called a speciesist is a hardy "So what"? The Singer point of view is driven by the idea that there is only one over riding virtue; that greatest of virtues is compassion. This is the bunk idea that Singer's concept is hung on. Most progressive thinkers are stuck on this idea. It is an impossible for them to shake off this brain worm of a meme.

There is a valid and rather practical way to think about compassion. I think of my compassion as being made up of circles. Those closest to me are in my inner circle and include my wife and kids. The next circle are my friends and other family. Further circles include community, country, animals, and all people etc. It is unrealistic to assume I will feel as dedicated to a random cow (in one of the outer circles) as I am to my child. Why would I expect this? This is not how compassion works. Every individual has their own compassion model based on their life experiences and how they feel. Some people have a beloved pet in their inner circle. This is fine. It is totally up to the individual.

There are also models of behavior that we have learned. These models are reinforced through our stories and our life experiences. I call these models virtues. We employ virtues to optimizes outcomes. We have learned that honesty results in trust and that trust can produce harmony (lack of conflict, reduction in violence, etc.). Virtues are behaviors that seek a certain social outcome.

So, the way I see it is that we employ the mental models of ethics to optimize outcomes with a priority set by our circles of compassion. It is not really that hard to understand.

[John Greg]

Tony Parsehole said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 59#p170459):

Fuck me Clazza, do you even proofread?

Tony, while the word "molest" can be stretched to mean rape, that is not its primary, or even secondary or tertiary denotative definition:

1. To disturb, interfere with, or annoy.
2. To subject to unwanted or improper sexual activity.

If somebody is capable of sexually molesting an underage kid they're capable of forcing their dick in somebody.

Nonsense. Groundless nonsense. A pure (FTB trademarked) form of false equivalence or one of those logical fallacies; I never can keep them straight.

As to this luducrous Jimmy Saville rage-hurt argument -- on both sides of the apparent pure black and white ragey moral panic hysterical fence -- wow!

I don't know enough about it to enough to comment with any authority regarding Saville's guilt or lack of, but I can certainly speak to the level of critical thinking, skepticism, and logic being expressed, and man, oh, man, the rest of you are just throwing moral panics and truther denials at each other like so many fanatical fantods and frogs falling from the sky. Both sides here are playing completely fast and loose with critical thinking to a wild degree.

So far TiBo seems to be the only person offering up any sensible comment. To wit:

While independent witnesses are a promise of revealing the truth, it's the trial that has to determine if these witnesses' testimonies fulfill that promise, or not. The police's or the prosecutor's accusations aren't really worth a penny. And even when assuming that these testimonies would've been flawless, they can only attest to single events. If someone is accused to have molested 300 children, and a "flawless witness" testifies to the molestation of 1 child, then what does this testimony say about the other 299 ? While this testimony demands further investigation, it's not nearly sufficient to convict a defendant on these other 299 accounts.

I'd never say that Mr. Savile is "likely to be innocent", the known facts simply forbid me to do so, but it's also unwarranted to say that he did do all the things he's said to have done. That door is closed.

The rest of you are just rage shouting past each other with personal opinions claimed as irrefutable fact and a load of I don't care what anyone who disagrees with me says; I'm right and I know I'm right 'cause I'm right.

Way to go team! :clap:

[AndrewV69]

The tactic with all the other minor celebs they're harassing is the same. Arrest target, announce it in the media. Repeat if necessary. Solicit allegations against target. Once you have enough allegations, no matter how trivial or implausible, take to trial. When pointed out there's no evidence for any of it, point to number of allegations as corroboration. When target gets acquitted, double down. Cynicism grows about all abuse allegations, and victims of abuse get no attention unless there's a celebrity angle. But every man who might have a had a youthful fumble with a girl who might have been younger than she looked now knows he has something to hide from the law.

Oddly enough, they're not going after the likes of Bill Wyman, who it is well-known started a relationship with Mandy Smith when she was 13. They're going after radio DJs and soap actors who aren't fuck-off rich.

Welp, they may not be "rich" but I believe they may have enough assets to not be considered poor either.

Anyway, the part I underlined may or may not be part of the objective but if you are inclined to see things that way it certainly does add fuel to that point of view.

I am certainly under the impression right now that there is some sort of "political" pressure behind Yewtree.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Peezus Christ the Feminist Wire is just chock full of stuff that makes me want to nuke a city.

Suffragette City?

[Dick Strawkins]

Would that it were so. Like a lot of SJW nuttery, the ultimate source is suprisingly academic. And obviously humanities based.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html

I read this article. The source is academic, but it's an ethics argument.. word banter. No one actually suggests that the authors want babies killed. The published study is actually posturing for a debate about the ethics of abortion in general, and appears to lay the foundation for a pro-life argument against it. Their hypothesis was a "when taken to it's logical extreme...." point, delivered with a poker face. I would have to agree with that LurkerPerson that this was just a radical move to push the debate. No science or data.. just inflammatory "ethical" debate points. I find this type of thing to be irritating, as it's nothing more than political extremism, thinly veiled as "academic." I'm guessing the authors are sitting back, popcorn in hand, waiting for the show to begin. :popcorn:

I agree that it is academic posturing rather than a advocacy of a practical policy.
It's also not new - Singer has made this argument for years and it fits in with his 'Animal Rights' philosophy in that it doesn't elevate human life to a higher level than that of other species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

The really ironic point of this entire discussion is that the one big name atheist who is firmly in the Singer camp (and therefore closest to the FTB/SJW position) is Richard Dawkins, who has called Peter Singer the most moral person he has ever met!

[Tony Parsehole]

@John Greg.
When the term "molesting" is used in a conversation about Jimmy Savile being a pedo it's pretty safe to assume that we're not talking about him merely "annoying" somebody.
And I don't buy the false equivalency shite. If somebody is perverted enough to indulge in anything on the spectrum of sexual molestation ,and confident enough that they won't be caught, I doubt they're going to become suddenly moral over raping their victims.

[AndrewV69]

The allegations against Saville are much more than speculation. Independent witnesses have come forward to say they saw him molest children in the past.
It is indeed a pity that he was not prosecuted in the past but he managed to evade prosecution due to two things: the fact that he was a high profile charity advocate, and the fact that he was rich and thus protected by the UK libel laws. As a high profile figure who could have been (rightly!) damaged by claims of abuse, running a story to this effect without cast iron proof (and this was unlikely in most of his cases since he seems to have targeted young children in private locations with no witnesses) would have been judged as libel - with the resulting huge payout and lawyers fees that this tends to incur in the UK.
Not only have numerous people come forward with reports of his abuse of them in the past, independent witnesses testifying to his behavior and past investigations come to light, but his own family members have said they believe the charges.

Well I know how that works too. I believe for charges to have been laid in the first place I believe he would have to have pissed off certain people.

If you are seriously going to try to stick up for him, Clarence, and tell us it's all lies, I think I might have a bridge you can buy an Ogvorbis for you to hug.

Ouch. Perhaps I should go back and re-read before saying this but was Clarence really sticking up for him?

[helenhighwater]

Would that it were so. Like a lot of SJW nuttery, the ultimate source is suprisingly academic. And obviously humanities based.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html

I read this article. The source is academic, but it's an ethics argument.. word banter. No one actually suggests that the authors want babies killed. The published study is actually posturing for a debate about the ethics of abortion in general, and appears to lay the foundation for a pro-life argument against it. Their hypothesis was a "when taken to it's logical extreme...." point, delivered with a poker face. I would have to agree with that LurkerPerson that this was just a radical move to push the debate. No science or data.. just inflammatory "ethical" debate points. I find this type of thing to be irritating, as it's nothing more than political extremism, thinly veiled as "academic." I'm guessing the authors are sitting back, popcorn in hand, waiting for the show to begin. :popcorn:

I agree that it is academic posturing rather than a advocacy of a practical policy.
It's also not new - Singer has made this argument for years and it fits in with his 'Animal Rights' philosophy in that it doesn't elevate human life to a higher level than that of other species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

The really ironic point of this entire discussion is that the one big name atheist who is firmly in the Singer camp (and therefore closest to the FTB/SJW position) is Richard Dawkins, who has called Peter Singer the most moral person he has ever met!

the irony is thick

*chuckle*

[John Greg]

Tony said:

And I don't buy the false equivalency shite. If somebody is perverted enough to indulge in anything on the spectrum of sexual molestation ,and confident enough that they won't be caught, I doubt they're going to become suddenly moral over raping their victims.

Ah. I see. How about:

And I don't buy the false equivalency shite. If somebody is perverted enough to indulge in anything on the spectrum of opposing feminism 101, and confident enough that they won't be called out, I doubt they're going to become suddenly moral over assaulting women too.

:think:

[Lsuoma]

Anyone else remember Marietta Higgs?

I had forgotten all about that one to tell the truth. But the point is made I think when you get a media circus it can be very difficult to sort out what the fuck happened.

My point entirely - this was not about what happened, but about how the fog of media hysteria fucks everything up beyond any sorting out.

Remember Maude Flanders...

[helenhighwater]

Liberal/progressive thinkers are really good at walking right into ethical dilemmas. I would say they are as bad as a religious nut. I think the problem comes from thinking there is a logic based solution to ethics. While logic is important, a significant driver to ethics is emotional. While logic will help us accomplish a task, it is our emotions that push us to even try.

I find it a bit of a concern that atheist spokesmen like Dawkins and Shermer look like they are buying into the Singer model of ethics. I think Singer is full of shit myself. I understand his point about "speciesism" but my response to be called a speciesist is a hardy "So what"? The Singer point of view is driven by the idea that there is only one over riding virtue; that greatest of virtues is compassion. This is the bunk idea that Singer's concept is hung on. Most progressive thinkers are stuck on this idea. It is an impossible for them to shake off this brain worm of a meme.

There is a valid and rather practical way to think about compassion. I think of my compassion as being made up of circles. Those closest to me are in my inner circle and include my wife and kids. The next circle are my friends and other family. Further circles include community, country, animals, and all people etc. It is unrealistic to assume I will feel as dedicated to a random cow (in one of the outer circles) as I am to my child. Why would I expect this? This is not how compassion works. Every individual has their own compassion model based on their life experiences and how they feel. Some people have a beloved pet in their inner circle. This is fine. It is totally up to the individual.

There are also models of behavior that we have learned. These models are reinforced through our stories and our life experiences. I call these models virtues. We employ virtues to optimizes outcomes. We have learned that honesty results in trust and that trust can produce harmony (lack of conflict, reduction in violence, etc.). Virtues are behaviors that seek a certain social outcome.

So, the way I see it is that we employ the mental models of ethics to optimize outcomes with a priority set by our circles of compassion. It is not really that hard to understand.

this has me very intrigued. it is perhaps one of the best morality points i have seen in awhile

i have nothing to add at the moment but i am certainly pondering this intensely.

[CuntajusRationality]

I'd love to know who is expected to perform these post natal abortions and how they're supposed to do it.

http://weknowmemes.com/generator/upload ... 304592.jpg

Sarah.png

(1005.72 KiB) Downloaded 313 times

[Tony Parsehole]

Tony said:

And I don't buy the false equivalency shite. If somebody is perverted enough to indulge in anything on the spectrum of sexual molestation ,and confident enough that they won't be caught, I doubt they're going to become suddenly moral over raping their victims.

Ah. I see. How about:

And I don't buy the false equivalency shite. If somebody is perverted enough to indulge in anything on the spectrum of opposing feminism 101, and confident enough that they won't be called out, I doubt they're going to become suddenly moral over assaulting women too.

:think:

Fuck. Me.
And you're accusing me of a false equivalency? Have you been at those funny cigarettes again?
Opposing whatever the fuck "feminism 101" is is neither perverted nor illegal. It does not follow that opposing "feminism 101" would lead to the illegal act of "assaulting women".
Sexual assault, however, *IS* perverted *AND* illegal. Just like rape.
There isn't some big moral distinction between forcing your dick into an unwilling mouth and forcing your dick into an unwilling vagina.

[welch]

That's andrew's schtick. He'll misquote/misrepresent a link or series of links, and then when you point that out, try to make it sound like you didn't really read the thing(s) you just read. Until you basically quote the entire thing with specific highlighting, at which point, he may or may not admit he might not have been completely right.

After a while, you just shrug, I see it as a rather tedious form of trolling myself.

Why bless your heart!!! Your input is valued and I do appreciate your contribution.

Oh honey, here, have a cookie and run outside and play while the grownups talk.

(he just hasn't been right since the accident, poor little dear.)

[AndrewV69]

logical hole where you brain is, please revisit your argument.

I suspect that emotions are running a bit too high for that right now.

:popcorn:

[welch]

@John Greg.
When the term "molesting" is used in a conversation about Jimmy Savile being a pedo it's pretty safe to assume that we're not talking about him merely "annoying" somebody.
And I don't buy the false equivalency shite. If somebody is perverted enough to indulge in anything on the spectrum of sexual molestation ,and confident enough that they won't be caught, I doubt they're going to become suddenly moral over raping their victims.

The problem with JG's argument (in general, not just the Saville case) is that when you stop stating it in overly complex verbosity, it turns to shit:

"RAPE? Whoa, WHoa, Whoa...I mean, I'll finger little kids and make them give me a handy, maybe a lick of the stick, but RAPE? THAT'S JUST SICK! MY GOD, WHAT KIND OF MONSTER DO YOU THINK I AM!"

When your major defense revolves around atom-thick parsing of "molest" vs. "rape", problem.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Humanism is full of presupposition, it is a belief system. It's also a thin veil of pseudo moral justification for a swathe of politics, mostly centered around nonsense concoctions of why other people deserve your money.

Humanism is the radical idea that humans are people, too. Got a problem with that? :lol:


Seriously, humanists claim it's just about the ability to be ethical and 'good' without guidance from God. When in fact, many humanists start from their a priori prog value set, then work backwards to find 'natural' justifications for it.

AHA's Humanist Manifesto is riddled with this tactic. It starts out well:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies.

But what does this mean?

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.... Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity,

Nature is cruel, in case you all hadn't noticed. Many individuals have no "inherent worth", or at least die rapidly, starve slowly, get eaten painfully, never breed. One of my friend's goats had triplets, and allows only two to suckle -- the doe determined the third kid had no 'inherent worth'. For the greater part of human existence, we emulated & often enhanced that natural cruelty. There's a stronger argument out there, but the humanists ain't making it.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence.

Again, decidedly contra the norm. Baboons are social animals. Sea lions are social animals. And they mistreat the fuck out of each other.

Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community.

Aha! Now we're talking social constructs, not nature or patriarchal science. The leap from 'nature' and 'evolution' to 'progressive cultures' is never explained. ( Sam Harris did such a better job in The Moral Landscape.)

We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

In other words, let's re-engineer the world to look exactly like Piedmont, California.

[Mykeru]

Stephanie Zvan would be a lot happier if she stopped being one of my more devoted followers:

http://storify.com/Mykeru/stephanie-zva ... d-subtweet

[AndrewV69]

If somebody is capable of sexually molesting an underage kid they're capable of forcing their dick in somebody.

By underage do you mean legal or prepubescent? In any event, are you seeing the linkage between the two due to a power differential or some other factor (legal vs moral for example)?

[AndrewV69]

Humanism is full of presupposition, it is a belief system. It's also a thin veil of pseudo moral justification for a swathe of politics, mostly centered around nonsense concoctions of why other people deserve your money.

It is people like you wot cause unrest.

[welch]

Tony said:

And I don't buy the false equivalency shite. If somebody is perverted enough to indulge in anything on the spectrum of sexual molestation ,and confident enough that they won't be caught, I doubt they're going to become suddenly moral over raping their victims.

Ah. I see. How about:

And I don't buy the false equivalency shite. If somebody is perverted enough to indulge in anything on the spectrum of opposing feminism 101, and confident enough that they won't be called out, I doubt they're going to become suddenly moral over assaulting women too.

:think:

Fuck. Me.
And you're accusing me of a false equivalency? Have you been at those funny cigarettes again?
Opposing whatever the fuck "feminism 101" is is neither perverted nor illegal. It does not follow that opposing "feminism 101" would lead to the illegal act of "assaulting women".
Sexual assault, however, *IS* perverted *AND* illegal. Just like rape.
There isn't some big moral distinction between forcing your dick into an unwilling mouth and forcing your dick into an unwilling vagina.

LOL...that's like saying that being a jaywalker means you're also a serial killer, because both are breaking the law.

[Ape+lust]

http://imgur.com/pfOwkhG.jpg

too level :D

Dear Ape+Lust

This is the second graphic of yours I'm totally ripping off for a video. I hope you feel raped.

Love,

Me.

Take what you need brute, just don't call me bossy.

[Ape+lust]

http://imgur.com/jmK5IOC.jpg

[acathode]

and a couple of Attack on Titan manga volumes

Warning. I haven't read them, but I've seen people pick out examples where the Attack on Titan artist isn't that great with regard to anatomy and proportions. And I mean on the human characters. The titans are deliberately drawn disproportionate.

I'll be interested to see them - I'm afraid I've been spoiled by Miyazaki's artwork. Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is pretty amazing, IMHO.

Dunno if you (or anyone else) want more recommendations, but if you read manga, Berserk is pretty much the king of dark fantasy. If you want cyberpunk, anything by Tsutomu Nihei, like Blame!, should be good.
I'd also like to recommend Otoyomegatari and Gunnm (both the original and Last Order), been reading both recently and found them very good, even though they are very different from each other. Otoyomegatari is about a young bride in Turkish Central Asia, being married off in the early 19th century, while Gunnm is a action sci-fi series about the cyborg Alita.

Oh, and Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou, one of the best mangas I ever read, very simple and clean but yet absolutely stunning artwork, and a very slow paced but still interesting story.

[AndrewV69]

Your head was not the holy one Tony

Clarence wrote (My italics)

Even if the guy is guilty of some skeevy teen sexWhat the fuck is skeevy teen sex, I don't think he raped anyonegood for you, i don't know whether you raped anyone, nor can think you haven't, i am agnostic as to whether you are are a raper, but that's irrelevant, what is relevant is if you have been charged with, and found guilty of rape by a legal jurisdiction. Rape is after all a fucking legal term, and what may be rape in one jurisdiction may not be in another, let alone someone not even sexually developed.ooooooh let alone, you just can't fathom it, well that's settled then I can believe he might have molested some people.you're big on this belief thing, aren't you, it seems to make up the most part of you argument, was he proven to have molested persons via due process or not, is the only fucking question that matters

I think the distinction Clarence is groping for is that there is a difference between what Bill Wyman did - have sex with a thirteen-year-old who, despite being legally deemed unable to consent, consented - and what Roman Polanski did - fuck a thirteen-year-old against her will. Both are illegal, and neither are exactly advertisements of good character, but what Polanski did was worse by orders of magnitude. Not really sure it's relevant in the case of Savile, as the allegations against him mostly seem to be about about taking advantage of people who were in no position to resist rather than banging willing underage groupies.

From what I am seeing there appears to be some conflation between all three scenarios not to mention the age differentials.

Which reminds me (going off on a tangent here) of the time I dropped in on an acquaintance in the little town nearest to me (she is 90) and there was a friend of her's there also. After he left she wispered to me that he had a 30 year old girlfriend. Now this guy was 80 if he was a day, but apparently the 50+ year difference between the two of them was some cause for scandal.

So even when it might be legal ... same as 72 year old Pierre Trudeau fucking a 30 year old till she gave him a daughter ... but for some reason it appears to be viewed as not exactly kosher by society as a whole.

[AndrewV69]

Mowgli and Courtney seem like despicable human beings and probable sociopaths, and their performance on this show makes me want to donate money to a pro-life group just out of spite. Clearly neither of them had ever really given their position much serious thought because, as mentioned, they seemed surprised and unprepared to respond to even the most basic challenges. For example, they first insisted that bodily autonomy was absolute and that women had the right to kill the fetus right up until the moment of birth; but when pressed further at least one of them flippantly changed her mind and conceded that it would in fact be murder if a women kills the fetus five minutes prior to birth. Neither showed any real understanding of the significance or logical implications of their opinion, nor of the sudden change to which she had just agreed.

Mowgli in particular seems like a broken person. This psycho gleefully and proudly believes an unborn fetus has no value or rights up through the point of birth, and at several points she even implied that values/rights are suspect even after birth. On when the unborn becomes a full person, she at one point suggested that full personhood isn't conferred until such time as people can drive and vote. No shit, that's what she actually said. :lol:

To be fair to Mowgli, she did initially claim to agree with Peter Singers stance on abortion - which is philosophically consistent and does allow for infanticide - although I don't think Singer extends it as far as adulthood as Mowgli did at a couple of points.
But if you are going to go down that route you need to face the consequences of this stance regarding very late terminations. Mowgli and Courtney whatsit seemed to want to use the excuse that late term non-emergency terminations were too rare to be worth considering - thus they wouldn't have to answer the question of whether it is OK to abort a viable and healthy 9 month fetus.
I think these types of abortions ARE very rare - which is why the current laws in the US that restrict non emergency abortions at this stage, are quite well accepted, even by most mainstream pro-choice groups.
The other people on the panel made the reasonable point that advocating full term abortions (as Mogli and friend were doing - and as FTB/Secular Woman/Skepchick also seem to be advocating) would be a very bad move politically as this may provoke a backlash that would end up restricting more women from access to safe early terminations.

Well, there is the Canadian experience where as I recall technically a woman can have an abortion at any time up to the moment of giving birth (the only issue apparently is finding a member of the medical profession to actually perform one).

Perhaps leaving it up to people to make their own decisions might be for the best? I strongly suspect that Canuks are not unique in posessing some sort of "common sense" morality ... not in this matter at any rate.

[AndrewV69]

The fact that women are responsible for the vast majority of infanticides probably plays a small role there as well. If it is the pruview of the sacred feminine, it's practically a certainty that no guilt or shame should ever be attached, because reasons.

Not surprising seeing as that women as a whole tend to spend more time with their children than men now. If the reverse was in effect would we see similar results?

[Za-zen]

Tigzy's tickle is just too damn funny not to mention again.

http://storify.com/D4M10N/conversation- ... nd-tigzy-j

[Mykeru]

If somebody is capable of sexually molesting an underage kid they're capable of forcing their dick in somebody.

By underage do you mean legal or prepubescent? In any event, are you seeing the linkage between the two due to a power differential or some other factor (legal vs moral for example)?

DISCLAIMER: That these two will go on interminably parsing the subtleties of kiddy-diddling should not be construed as condoning, support of, interest in, or fapping to a mental picture of such activities.

Much.

[jmpea81]

http://imgur.com/jmK5IOC.jpg

Hahaha, genius.