Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[Za-zen]

What a fucking shit-assed argument. You "don't see why a civilian should have access to that... (insert thing here)". You can make this argument about anything. I don't see why people should have access to bungee jumping, or tentacle porn, or popcorn drenched in fake butter. What kind of stupid shit are you talking bro?

I'm talking about the universally-accepted definition of "rights", which tend to end when other people's liberties are threatened.

Bungee jumping and tentacle porn do not threaten my physical integrity and even life like weapons in other people's hands do.

In this sense, framing this discussion in terms of absolute right to carry a penis which serve no other purpose to rape your fellow human beings - irrespective of anyone else's needs - is a travesty, not a right.

I messed with that for you.

[decius]

Exactly. I can own a gun. I just can't shoot someone (with exceptions for self defense). I can own a machete.... I just can't cut someone's hand off with it. I have teeth... I just can't bite off part of your ear! (unless I am Mike Tyson). Please...please...please.... start making sense.

You can own a dog, therefore I should be allowed to keep a pack of wolves and a grizzly bear.

[John D]

The largest killing in a school in Merica was in my home state of Michigan. In the year of 1927 a man blew up a school. He was going to use his Bushmaster rifle... but it was at the shop being cleaned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

[welch]

A vital component to the process. Honkie please, unless you're a lawyer working in that field or a judge, you're not a vital part of shit when it comes to this specific thing.

Tell that to Frederick Douglass.

I can also tell it to a lot of the people who actually know SCOTUS judges. But since F.D.s been dead for a century or so, I can't tell him anything.

But let's see...so now, in an effort to "prove" that somehow, you or I have fuck all direct effect on SCOTUS, you're now referencing famous dead people.

Good job.

[piginthecity]

One wonders how many twitter troll accounts Becky has, and how many times she has sent herself fake rape and death threats using them.

The thing to understand, James, is that these rape and death threats are not fake, they are real.

Allow me to explain -

The threats exist. They exist in the air, or more accurately in the patriarchical ether which is the basis for all matter and they are as real as anything solid. This patriarchical field is maintained and added to by various transmitters such as elevators and the slymepit and moustaches.

Now, the Skepchick, when she is learned enough and steeped in the lore of her sisters, after imbibing various substances, working herself up to the correct emotional state and staring at her computer monitor for six hours straight is able to receive impulses from the patriarchical field which are transmitted from her brain to her fingers and then to twitter. The words produced are not fake threats, they are real threats which come directly from the field, the skepchick being merely the scribe, if you will, faithfully transcribing the very real threats so that others who are less learned might see them too.

[welch]

So because they disagree with you, they're wrong. Awesome.

Cute, but no: they're "wrong" (in the sense that they've demonstrably either misunderstood or willfully misinterpreted the sentence) because of how the English language works.

Despite the fact that the resident semiotician (and robotic feline deity) has indicated that the English language doesnt always work in the manner you describe. As an attorney, I will point out that such constructions as a conditional are annoyingly common in older documents. Moreover, even when not explicitly conditional, it is common in legal interpretation to eliminate a clause as moot if its explanatory rational no longer applies. IOW, we will read something as conditional even if it isnt.

So youre welcome to make an argument why the current interpretation of the 2A is incorrect, but "because of how the English language works" only works if you ignore parts of how the English language works, parts that are particularly relevant to how the English language is used in legal documents at the time the document you are discussing was created.

I'm waiting for him to say he actually knows what the writer of that amendment meant, and how that overrides SCOTUS. Because reasons.

[Old_ones]

(snip)
If your argument amounts to denying assault rifles are deadlier, more accurate on the move and have a higher rate of fire than their other semi-auto counterparts, therefore ideal weapon to a massacrist. you are a fucking ideologue and a tool.

Semi-auto means one shot per trigger pull. This is true if you are talking about an M1 Garand, an AR-15 or a civilian model that is designed for hunting. Assault weapons are also not necessarily "more accurate on the move". The most used assault rifle in history (the AK 47) is notorious for being mediocre in the accuracy department. The most accurate weapons tend to be bolt action rifles - this is the type of rifle a sniper would be using.

Assault rifles are certainly suited to carrying out a massacre; we've seen them in that capacity before. On the other hand, we've seen other types of guns used in that capacity. None of the guns used in the Columbine massacre, for instance, were high powered rifles. The massacrists were carrying a semi-auto pistol (a TEC-9 which is known to have shitty accuracy - on the move or otherwise) a semi auto carbine chambered for pistol ammunition, and two shotguns.

There are gun control measures I would probably be willing to support, but IMO the kind of argument you are posting is not likely to win you much support from people like me. The "argument from the unique and terrible danger of weapons I know nothing about" is probably best kept for preaching to the converted. Or alternately, you could always pick up a book and learn something about the subject you are discussing.

[USMC 0311]

decius, why don't you just admit you're suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect? It's obvious you don't know the slightest bit about the subject you're claiming some kind of knowledge on and you're doing so in the face of ex-military "gun nuts" who know this subject 1,000 times better than you.

That's truly some humbling piece of wisdom. I suppose that is why all armed forces involved in urban warfare carry shotguns around.

Yes they do. US Marines and several other armed forces use shotguns in their entry teams. I got a fair amount of training with a 12Ga when I learned urban warfare at Camp Pendleton's School Of Infantry.

[welch]

Look, I don't give a shit if trench warfare has evolved or basic NATO training has changed over the past 26 years.

I also don't want to be dragged into a pointless "I know more about guns than you, therefore guns are good" non-sequitur.

If your argument amounts to denying assault rifles are deadlier, more accurate on the move and have a higher rate of fire than their other semi-auto counterparts, therefore ideal weapon to a massacrist. you are a fucking ideologue and a tool.

This is why you don't argue point on this. Because they'll (and both sides are included) just keep changing the point until you have had enough. At which point they "win" which was their only care.

[Søren Lilholt]

The whole "trophy-wife" conversation seems point-missing to me. The term "trophy-wife," in my experience, is used to refer to the much younger, attractive (usually not first) wives of older, wealthy men. There may sometimes be the implication that the woman is unintelligent or shallow or a gold-digger, but AFAICT the term essentially describes (and mildly insults) the man, pointing up the fact that he married not so much for love or deep compatibility but because he wants a decoration on his arm that broadcasts the sexual power his success has won him (even though he may be old, ugly, and have a bad personality). In this context, seems like PZ's ironic use of it is quite unremarkable and a poor example of his hypocrisy.

I thought the whole ' Trophy Wife (TM)' thing stemmed from a comment by a creationist that PZ had once slagged off?

Maybe Mr. Strawkins could verify? :think:

[Za-zen]

There is a flaw in the logic of my argument. By the logic i use, a person should have the right to bare a nuke, as long as they don't use it. I've seen the flaw, i know it's there, and no, i don't think we should allow persons to bare nukes.

[welch]

This is so fucking stupid it hurts:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/04/ ... -research/

Researchers at UCLA will return a portion of a $3 million pledge that Clippers owner Donald Sterling made to support kidney research, school officials announced Tuesday.

The university is returning the initial $425,000 payment from the Donald T. Sterling Foundation made earlier this month, and will not accept the balance of the money, calling the comments he made in a recorded conversation “divisive and hurtful,” according to spokesperson Phil Hampton.

...

The school issued the following statement: “Mr. Sterling’s divisive and hurtful comments demonstrate that he does not share UCLA’s core values as a public university that fosters diversity, inclusion and respect. For those reasons, UCLA has decided to return Mr. Sterling’s initial payment of $425,000 and reject the remainder of a $3 million pledge he recently made to support basic kidney research by the UCLA Division of Nephrology.”

3 million dollars that could have done some real good for kidney, gone. All because UCLA wants to play the bullshit 'less racist than thou' / 'most enlightened liberal' game.

sigh

[welch]

A vital component to the process. Honkie please, unless you're a lawyer working in that field or a judge, you're not a vital part of shit when it comes to this specific thing.

Tell that to Frederick Douglass.

And yet, despite Douglass's oratory, it still took a bloody war and an Amendment to reverse the necessary case law.

I wouldnt advise taking up arms against the gov't, but feel free to propose Amendments where you think SCOTUS has gone wrong: agitating for change is a key part of our political process, but welch is right that bellyaching on the internet that cases were wrongly decided is not a vital component of our legal process.

Hence my line about "voting for senators and presidents". You want to have a real effect barring being rich or very numerous? Vote with care.

[Za-zen]

[youtube]qxsQ7jJJcEA[/youtube]

[welch]

Here's how I feel about gun culture in the US: guns are in more abundance in the US than it is in Canada, but the disparity of gun related deaths between the two is through the roof.

When the peacekeepers of the nation is unable to control their impulses, where they immediately reach for their firearm, something is wrong. When a child abuses their toy guns, you take them away. You teach them a lesson of control. It should be the same with real guns. And gun nuts are exactly that: nuts.

I haven't really followed this debate, so forgive me if I'm repeating other peoples' points.

The majority of gun violence in the US is not carried out by "gun nuts" or gun rights activists. Nor is it carried out by assault rifles. It's youths using hand guns in places like like Chicago, Detroit, LA and so on. Also, while it's still high compared to Canada, it's been on a relatively steady decline for the past 30 years or so.

The best way to decrease gun violence IMO would be to end the "war on drugs".

Actually, although not well publicized, the majority of gun deaths are suicides. But that doesn't make for great play on the news, and you can't blame crime/poverty/other convenient things for it. It also removes many of the NRA's talking points. How do you defend against suicide with a gun? Shoot the fucker before they can pull the trigger on themselves?

[Dick Strawkins]

The whole "trophy-wife" conversation seems point-missing to me. The term "trophy-wife," in my experience, is used to refer to the much younger, attractive (usually not first) wives of older, wealthy men. There may sometimes be the implication that the woman is unintelligent or shallow or a gold-digger, but AFAICT the term essentially describes (and mildly insults) the man, pointing up the fact that he married not so much for love or deep compatibility but because he wants a decoration on his arm that broadcasts the sexual power his success has won him (even though he may be old, ugly, and have a bad personality). In this context, seems like PZ's ironic use of it is quite unremarkable and a poor example of his hypocrisy.

I thought the whole ' Trophy Wife (TM)' thing stemmed from a comment by a creationist that PZ had once slagged off?

Maybe Mr. Strawkins could verify? :think:

The origin is a reference to a remark in a joke article on a parody website "BaptistsforBrown2008"
The site is gone now but it's saved in the wayback machine.

https://web.archive.org/web/20071018053 ... a-victory/

It's clearly not a real creationist - its a poe.

[welch]

So because they disagree with you, they're wrong. Awesome.

Cute, but no: they're "wrong" (in the sense that they've demonstrably either misunderstood or willfully misinterpreted the sentence) because of how the English language works.

* Heller interpreted the words "the security of a free state" to mean 'protect your home from burglars', while tacitly ignoring the words "well-regulated";

* Citizens United interpreted "no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" to imply that the civil liberties in the Bill of Rights apply to not just individual citizens, but to non-human entities as well;

* Dred Scott ruled that "citizen" could never apply to a negro slave or former slave;

* Korematsu ruled that "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process" simply didn't count if you were of Japanese descent during a war with Japan;

* In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court found that segregation did not violate "No state shall make or enforce any law which ... shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...."

* Kelo v. New London interpreted the "public use" in " nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation" to include private development.


And the list goes on. It's pedantic to simply wave one's hand and declare all this not up for discussion because these were technically constitutional.

Strawman. no one is saying you can't discuss it. It's your insistence that somehow you're deciding constitutionality that's wrong. You're not. There are 9 people that do so barring an amendment. Unless you are one of those 9, or being generous, work directly for them, you aren't deciding shit.

Unless you've a background in constitutional law, you're not even 'for fun' debating it. You're arguing about which laws you like and do not like.

It's totally up for discussion, but stop acting like that discussion means shit outside of the argument. That is where you're absolutely wrong.

[Søren Lilholt]

There's nowt wrong with an adult getting hammered all day in my eyes. It's not my cup of tea but if it's your cash and nobody else is being affected by your drinking then 'knock yourself out' I say.
Watson may be a drunk but it's her life and her money so it's none of my business.

But....When she CONSTANTLY glorifies her own excessive boozing every chance she gets and then publicly belittles a supposed friend for her own relationship with alcohol then that's a bit fucking rich IMO.

I think you're overlooking one thing - it's OK for Becky to drink too much and behave like a complete cunt to people, because when other people do it, they are not Becky. Don't you see?

[welch]

Seeing Sarah's response to my linking to the relevant stuff, I think she'll be fine:

Sarah said:

I really wouldn't have noticed if it weren't for a few peeps who bring it to my attention. I just came back from doing a talk at TEDx, spending a month traveling since TED proper, and getting my book ready for my appearance at SDCC.

I spent my weekends chilling with new friends like Nathan Fillion: it makes Skepchick and their drama look pretty small.

Feel free to quote me on that

She's hanging with Fillon? Oh my god, a sick Firefly burn.

Watson ain't never gonna heal from that one.

[Søren Lilholt]

The whole "trophy-wife" conversation seems point-missing to me. The term "trophy-wife," in my experience, is used to refer to the much younger, attractive (usually not first) wives of older, wealthy men. There may sometimes be the implication that the woman is unintelligent or shallow or a gold-digger, but AFAICT the term essentially describes (and mildly insults) the man, pointing up the fact that he married not so much for love or deep compatibility but because he wants a decoration on his arm that broadcasts the sexual power his success has won him (even though he may be old, ugly, and have a bad personality). In this context, seems like PZ's ironic use of it is quite unremarkable and a poor example of his hypocrisy.

I thought the whole ' Trophy Wife (TM)' thing stemmed from a comment by a creationist that PZ had once slagged off?

Maybe Mr. Strawkins could verify? :think:

The origin is a reference to a remark in a joke article on a parody website "BaptistsforBrown2008"
The site is gone now but it's saved in the wayback machine.

https://web.archive.org/web/20071018053 ... a-victory/

It's clearly not a real creationist - its a poe.

Nice one.
:clap:

While you're at it, any ideas what happened to my long-lost uncle? :lol:

[Linus]

Maybe you need to learn more about feminism. And are you talking

first wave, second wave, third wave, fourth wave?
sex positive, rad fem, fourth reconstructivist, gender equity, marxist, socialist, libertarian, eco, anarcho-syndicalist feminist, separatist lesbian feminist, black and womanist feminist, chicana, post-colonial, post-modern, french, or ecological humanitarian post-configuration auto-startup anti-climactic post-culmination fifth declension onomopoetic ubuntomatic feminism?

The broad category "feminist" (all feminist subgroups are within the category).

Because I believe in women's equality and women's rights yet none of those groups will have me.

I find it a little hard to believe you've attempted to become accepted by all those groups. But regardless, I don't think being rejected from social or activist feminist groups makes someone not a feminist. Rad fems aren't accepted by most feminists either. Does that make them not feminists?

If the group has kicked you out, refuses to acknowledge you, only repudiates you, then no, you are no longer a member of the group.

If you think they are mistaken, it is likely you who are mistaken, if you think you still adhere to the group's principles yet they have kicked you out and repudiate you, you are likely mistaken on what those principles are, and your definitions differ.

There are groups you can be kicked out of and groups you can't be kicked out of. If I were to become an NRA member and then get kicked out then I would no longer be an NRA member. However if I got banned from the JREF forums and booed out of TAM it wouldn't make me not a skeptic. Or if I got shunned and banned from the Richard Dawkins forums it wouldn't make me not an atheist. Being a skeptic or a liberal or an atheist or an anarcho-capitalist or an animal rights activist or a feminist is not contingent upon group acceptance, as I see it. Being a JREF member or a Democratic party member or a PETA member or a Skepchick or any such specific group is, of course, contingent upon the group not kicking you out and/or denouncing you.

As you point out, Mainstream Feminists are kicking the rad fems out.

But do you consider the rad fems to not be feminists?

Jews for Jesus can have their religious views, but they are not inline with Jewish Theology.

As you pointed out there are a wide variety of feminist ideologies. I don't think not being in line with one or another of these particular ideologies makes one not a feminist.

By your definition, the vast majority MRAs ARE feminists. The vast majority MRAs absolutely believe in equal rights for women.

But it would be silly to consider the mens rights movement to be some branch of feminism.

My definition included a part about sincerely self-identifying as a feminist. I don't think most MRAs consider themselves feminists. If some do, fine. I see no reason why someone can't be both an MRA and a feminist.

I admit my definition may not be shared by everyone and people are free to their own understandings of the term. Basing it group acceptance just seems strange to me.

[debaser71]

baboons pile-on

[debaser71]

lol that was so last page...never mind!

[bhoytony]

I don't lose arguments by fiat,

Yes, you lose them by making shitty arguments, like you're doing now.

You're a fucking dim bulb aren't you decius?

Hang on a minute, "dim bulb"? Is that you Damion, you cunt?

[AndrewV69]

Hasn't anyone there called Fish&Wildlife? It sounds like you have nuisance animals that are verging on becoming a possible danger, especially if you have kids in your hood. They are either getting fed or are otherwise getting food from human activity and the more accustomed they become to close contact with people the more likely something bad will happen.
Wildlife should come in, make sure the food source(s) are removed and can hopefully put the run on the animals without having to cull them.

Up here we call them conservation officers employed by the Ministry of Environment

What I was told was that the last time they were called the residents got a nasty shock because they shot two cougars out of a tree instead of tranq and removal. So many people were pissed off about that no one is inclined to call them in again ever. Right now my neighbours are all friendly. I have a feeling that would change if they found out I had called in the conservation officers.

People put their garbage cans out just before the truck comes. We have the occasional outsider insist that it is his right to put out his garbage the night before, but after having to clean up the resulting mess afterwards four or five times they tend to not do it much after that.

Most people do not have fruit trees in their back yards, but they do grow wild and various natural food sources such as blackberries and salmonberrys are all over the place. Other food sources are rivers which fill up with salmon.

Bears, deer, cougars and other assorted wildlife such as coyotes roam around and live in this area, the subdivision where I live was literally planted in the middle of a wildlife area. For the most part everyone gets along just fine because they are generally just passing through to get to somewhere else.

(We also have wolves, I hear them howling across the water at night some times, and moose much further up ... never seen those myself though. Also Owls and some sort of small cat like a Lynx on occasion)

People around here are not worried about black bears for the most part. You see the brown coloured cub heading up the driveway? That is the only one that is causing some concern.

That was last year, now both are on their own. I did not take the picture. It is impossible for me to take a picture of mamma bear now because ever since that incident when she startled me and I came this >.< close to attacking her with my bare hands, she takes off whenever she sees me now.

The three bears.jpg

(738.45 KiB) Downloaded 195 times

Don't try to confront them for fuck sakes and especially don't fuck around with a spear or anything like that. If the bear doesn't kill you outright you will probably end up with a wounded. dangerous animal running around.
Remember, even a hundred pound yearling has the muscle power of two heavy weight boxers, a 300 pound bear try 6 large strong men and bears are extremely fast when they want to be.

Oh I already know all of this. I might be crazy but I am not ignorant, and I am totes not a Timothy Treadwell either.

If I see a headline "Dumbass Mauled by Bear on Sunshine Coast" and you stop posting here it will be clear you didn't listen to my excellent advice.

If I get mauled it will be my fault. You have to try really really hard to get mauled by a black bear on the Sunshine Coast.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

And yet, despite Douglass's oratory, it still took a bloody war and an Amendment to reverse the necessary case law.

I wouldnt advise taking up arms against the gov't, but feel free to propose Amendments where you think SCOTUS has gone wrong: agitating for change is a key part of our political process, but welch is right that bellyaching on the internet that cases were wrongly decided is not a vital component of our legal process.

Hence my line about "voting for senators and presidents". You want to have a real effect barring being rich or very numerous? Vote with care.

Fuck that shit -- "bellyaching" is exactly what Douglass did.

You two also seem to be conflating:
1) Arguing that the Constitution should be amended, and;
2) Arguing that the SC wrongly interpreted the Constitution.

As part of the political process, I get to argue one or the other, without needing to have passed the bar.

[bhoytony]

There is a flaw in the logic of my argument. By the logic i use, a person should have the right to bare a nuke, as long as they don't use it. I've seen the flaw, i know it's there, and no, i don't think we should allow persons to bare nukes.

But should we allow AndrewV69 to nuke bears?

[Za-zen]

There is a flaw in the logic of my argument. By the logic i use, a person should have the right to bare a nuke, as long as they don't use it. I've seen the flaw, i know it's there, and no, i don't think we should allow persons to bare nukes.

But should we allow AndrewV69 to nuke bears?

Automatic or semi?

[Ape+lust]

If you haven't had a good hard cringe in a while, here's something for you - the comedy stylings of Rebecca Watson. She and her pals Adam, Brian Thompson, and Carrie Poppy do improv sketches and the results are weird and nasty. A couple of samples:

Playa Report - PUA call-in show, guest starring Jamie Kilstein. Non-stop riffs on conning, raping, beating, and killing women (and little girls), because just saying that stuff out loud is funny:

http://traffic.libsyn.com/amateurscient ... IPN004.mp3

Swoonsocket - another sex advice call-in show with the JizzMaster, a smooth Black-voiced operator who leaves ribbons of spunk wherever he goes. Rebecca is his mom. She's been fucking him since childhood and still fortifies him with fresh servings of mother's milk:

http://traffic.libsyn.com/amateurscient ... IPN209.mp3

Her Playa Report announcement on Reddit SRS:

http://imgur.com/lEqxxAs.png

[Mykeru]

To me it comes down to: "my toy collection/hobby/Mad Max fantasy are more important than your safety or that of your kids."

Your kids are more likely to die in a motor vehicle accident. Often with the juxtaposition of alcohol or texting.

You may extrapolate public policy from that as you will.

[Za-zen]

To me it comes down to: "my toy collection/hobby/Mad Max fantasy are more important than your safety or that of your kids."

Your kids are more likely to die in a motor vehicle accident. Often with the juxtaposition of alcohol or texting.

You may extrapolate public policy from that as you will.

ban kids, problem solved

[bhoytony]

There is a flaw in the logic of my argument. By the logic i use, a person should have the right to bare a nuke, as long as they don't use it. I've seen the flaw, i know it's there, and no, i don't think we should allow persons to bare nukes.

But should we allow AndrewV69 to nuke bears?

Automatic or semi?

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

God Bless Septicland

[decius]

The denialists are refuted by history.

This, without assault rifles in the hands of the criminals, could have never happened the way it did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

[ROBOKiTTY]

I was surprised to see the Great SKy KiTTy employ the argument from authority fallacy, and it challenged my faith in omniscient feline automated deities. I lost faith. I despaired. I was angry. Then slowly my faith grew again and I realized that I had been humbled by a greater authority, and it was my time to learn.

Mew? I don't think I argued from authority. I only pointed out that Stollznow has a PhD and I don't, and so I was loathe to criticize her knowledge of the field's history from a second-hand account.

[JacquesCuze]

I realise this has nothing to do with guns or the constitution but...

A new study is out, about male victims of rape (by women). Good article on Slate about it:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... ulted.html

Repeating studies is good and certainly the hall mark of science.

I just find Rosin's "look a new study!" ... "done by a feminist so that makes it true!" funny, because basically Stemple verified what other people had been saying for years.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Strawman. no one is saying you can't discuss it. It's your insistence that somehow you're deciding constitutionality that's wrong. You're not. There are 9 people that do so barring an amendment. Unless you are one of those 9, or being generous, work directly for them, you aren't deciding shit.

I'm done with this pedantic bullshit.

The Constitution was written to be understood by the people. I firmly believe Taney was dead wrong on Dred Scott. Doesn't matter if in 1857 what Taney said was officially constitutional; he was still dead wrong about the meaning of the Constitution.

I believe Roberts was right before he was wrong on obamacare. It's asinine to say I'm allowed to debate these points, but only if I eschew my own understanding of the Constitution. Sorry, but I get to argue: hey, the current nine justices are shit, are wrong, not one of them upholds the Constitution. So let's elect a president who'll nominate, and Senators who'll confirm, new justices who do uphold the Constitution as I personally believe it should be upheld.

[Mykeru]

That's truly some humbling piece of wisdom. I suppose that is why all armed forces involved in urban warfare carry shotguns around.

Yes. Also useful for breaching doors in urban settings.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I think he is so delusional now that it would be very difficult to determine what he actually believes. Does he still believe in evolution?

Peezus thinks neo-darwinism is largely obsolete, and is a fan of epigenetics, methylysation, and neo-lamarckism in general. He rejects evo psych out-of-hand as impossible -- unlike animals, all human behavior flows from a 'black box' of culturally-guided plasticity.

Peezus was going to shatter darwinian orthodoxy with his magnum opus, Evolution Revolution. But whenever he sat down to write it, he ended up fapping to tentacle rape porn. Hence, The Happy Atheist.

[JacquesCuze]

...
If the group has kicked you out, refuses to acknowledge you, only repudiates you, then no, you are no longer a member of the group.

If you think they are mistaken, it is likely you who are mistaken, if you think you still adhere to the group's principles yet they have kicked you out and repudiate you, you are likely mistaken on what those principles are, and your definitions differ.

There are groups you can be kicked out of and groups you can't be kicked out of. If I were to become an NRA member and then get kicked out then I would no longer be an NRA member. However if I got banned from the JREF forums and booed out of TAM it wouldn't make me not a skeptic. Or if I got shunned and banned from the Richard Dawkins forums it wouldn't make me not an atheist. Being a skeptic or a liberal or an atheist or an anarcho-capitalist or an animal rights activist or a feminist is not contingent upon group acceptance, as I see it. Being a JREF member or a Democratic party member or a PETA member or a Skepchick or any such specific group is, of course, contingent upon the group not kicking you out and/or denouncing you.

As you point out, Mainstream Feminists are kicking the rad fems out.

But do you consider the rad fems to not be feminists?

Jews for Jesus can have their religious views, but they are not inline with Jewish Theology.

As you pointed out there are a wide variety of feminist ideologies. I don't think not being in line with one or another of these particular ideologies makes one not a feminist.

By your definition, the vast majority MRAs ARE feminists. The vast majority MRAs absolutely believe in equal rights for women.

But it would be silly to consider the mens rights movement to be some branch of feminism.

My definition included a part about sincerely self-identifying as a feminist. I don't think most MRAs consider themselves feminists. If some do, fine. I see no reason why someone can't be both an MRA and a feminist.

I admit my definition may not be shared by everyone and people are free to their own understandings of the term. Basing it group acceptance just seems strange to me.

If you are kicked out of TAM for sexually assault, then you are a tam-identified-sexual-assaulter.

If Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris or significant numbers of atheist thought leaders say they've examined your philosophy, and god dammit you are no atheist, then, no, you probably are no atheist. If you think you are, you should work on your communication skills. If you still think you are, you need to examine why they say you are no atheist and then tell us about that. But like keys in lava, you may want to let it go.

I think rad fems are feminists, but there are still very many current rad fem thought leaders in academia getting published and recognized as feminists. Should the Mainstream Feminists complete their schism, well, ask me then.

[Satan]

There is a flaw in the logic of my argument. By the logic i use, a person should have the right to bare a nuke, as long as they don't use it. I've seen the flaw, i know it's there, and no, i don't think we should allow persons to bare nukes.

But should we allow AndrewV69 to nuke bears?

Category error.

The proper weapon for hunting Bears is an AMRAAM.

[John D]

It is certainly the obligation of the government to at least make some attempt to pass regulation to ensure safety. Some things are considered just too god-damned dangerous to allow people to own (a nuke for example). There will always be political debate on where to draw the line. So let's look at the debate.............

The SCOTUS has ruled that states can regulate guns for reasons of safety. Most voters in most states do not support more gun regulation. But... there will be a continuing debate. This is the democracy side of the US republic. There is room to compromise the 2nd amendment for reasons of safety and this has been affirmed by the SCOTUS

Here is my point. It is not up the the government to ban something because they don't like it. It can only be controlled if it is a clear risk, and that the risk is severe enough to restrict individual freedom. So... I look at the assault weapons ban this way:

In my mind, the idea of banning assault style weapons is quite silly. Any number of hunting weapons are essentially identical to assault weapons other than how the grips are executed in the design. If the Sandyhook loon didn't have a Bushmaster he would have simply used some fucking semi-auto hunting rifle and still fired his 100+ shots. Any kind of ban on a weapon because of its grips and stock etc., is silly. The reason this kind of regulation keeps coming up is that it scores big with Democratic women.

There is heated and continuing debate on magazine size. Whatever. I am pretty apathetic. I guess you could argue that smaller mags could allow people to try to stop a mass shooter. I doubt this situation comes up very often. It feels like trying to regulate the size of a magazine uses a lot of political capital and gets very little done to actually reduce crime.

So, in summary, there are regs in the US. They are not perfect, but they do keep people from owning a nuke. Any further regs will have a trivial effect on crime. Trying to ban all semi-autos is impossible within my lifetime so I see little point in more regs.

[Southern]

If I get mauled it will be my fault. You have to try really really hard to get mauled by a black bear on the Sunshine Coast.

That's because you didn't want to pay your Bear Patrol tax, you cheapskate.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... A_BJ4rLkCB

[Southern]

There is a flaw in the logic of my argument. By the logic i use, a person should have the right to bare a nuke, as long as they don't use it. I've seen the flaw, i know it's there, and no, i don't think we should allow persons to bare nukes.

But should we allow AndrewV69 to nuke bears?

Automatic or semi?

Dual-wield automatic screwdriver, or one-handed semi-automatic hammer?

[Guest]

[quote=Mykeru]Although I cry bitter tears you weren't able to maintain the original wood stock. I don't like my resin stock on my M1, it's just not right for it and makes it less pretty.[/quote]

I wasn't kidding when I said that the wood stock was appropriated from another construct -- they finished the stock from several different blocks of soft wood that were pressed together which created a something that would fall apart on its own eventually. The nice thing is replacement stocks of superior material (like walnut) and some designs even simulate a full pistol-style grip which as we've learned in this thread will turn a crude 1939 Tula bolt-action into an unstoppable killing machine.

[Linus]

If I get mauled it will be my fault. You have to try really really hard to get mauled by a black bear on the Sunshine Coast.

That's because you didn't want to pay your Bear Patrol tax, you cheapskate.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... A_BJ4rLkCB

Let the bears pay the bear tax. I pay the Homer tax.

[AndrewV69]

Yes they do. US Marines and several other armed forces use shotguns in their entry teams. I got a fair amount of training with a 12Ga when I learned urban warfare at Camp Pendleton's School Of Infantry.

What do they use for loads? 00? slugs?

[Southern]

The denialists are refuted by history.

This, without assault rifles in the hands of the criminals, could have never happened the way it did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

And how exactly does a law banning automatic weapons stop criminals from using them?

Down here, possessing firearms is illegal for 99% of the population, and yet, criminals armed with AK-47 is a pretty common occurrence.

[decius]

Here is my point. It is not up the the government to ban something because they don't like it. It can only be controlled if it is a clear risk, and that the risk is severe enough to restrict individual freedom.

Reasonable steps towards the prevention of grave crime isn't the same as not liking something rather capriciously.

And one's individual freedoms shouldn't infringe upon others'.

If you think this scene should be regarded as acceptable by unarmed passer-bys, you don't have your priorities straight.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QM4GaRfSkMI/U ... GunNut.jpg

[AndrewV69]

Isn't it amazing how real, but unarmed, men such as NatGeo reporters never succumb to nature in the wildest of places, whereas rednecks fall prey to all sort of ferocious beasts in the primitive American countryside?

I believe that simply is not true. Just off the top of my head there was Michio Hoshino.

If I looked I am sure I would find more examples. If you keep doing risky stuff you should not be surprised if one day your luck runs out.

[decius]

Down here, possessing firearms is illegal for 99% of the population, and yet, criminals armed with AK-47 is a pretty common occurrence.

Precisely because they are freely available to non-criminals. Guess why such shootouts never occur in Europe.

[rpguest]

Who is Sara Mayhew and what did she do?

bought cute shoes, was a speaker at TED, is pretty, a reasonably successful artist, and won't kiss watson's or hensley's ass.


So basically, she's the reincarnation of Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot.

and she didnt fund her shoe shopping with a cancer scare?

no wonder she doesnt get along with ftb and skepchick types

[decius]

Isn't it amazing how real, but unarmed, men such as NatGeo reporters never succumb to nature in the wildest of places, whereas rednecks fall prey to all sort of ferocious beasts in the primitive American countryside?

I believe that simply is not true. Just off the top of my head there was Michio Hoshino.

If I looked I am sure I would find more examples. If you keep doing risky stuff you should not be surprised if one day your luck runs out.

Of course the occasional incident happens.

[Guest]

If you think this scene should be regarded as acceptable by unarmed passer-bys, you don't have your priorities straight.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QM4GaRfSkMI/U ... GunNut.jpg

Oh no a condition four weapon EVERYBODY PANIC

[welch]

My argument is simply that entering a public building with the intention to carry out a massacre, given equal dexterity, an assault rifle is by far deadlier than any handgun, rifle or shotgun.

BULLSHIT!!! A shotgun is the perfect weapon to conduct a mass shooting inside a building, much more so than an "assault rifle". It actually has a higher rate of fire (you're shooting 9-12 projectiles with each pull of the trigger), you're more likely to score hits on people since the shot spreads out in a cone and it's .33 caliber soft lead shot does more tissue damage than a .223.

decius, why don't you just admit you're suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect? It's obvious you don't know the slightest bit about the subject you're claiming some kind of knowledge on and you're doing so in the face of ex-military "gun nuts" who know this subject 1,000 times better than you.

Word. If i want to damage or kill a LOT of people in a short amount of time in a crowded area, a sawed-off semiauto with no choke, an extended clip, and square/hex shot is going to do a lot more damage per trigger pull than a single slug will. The shorter barrel of course fucks with the range, but if all you care about is max areal density of shot and your range is "across this room" so 10m or so, that's a non-issue.

Recoil tends to suck more with a shotgun than a .223 or similar, but hey, can't have everything.

now, if you're pulling a Charles Whitman, then a shotgun's totally pants. But for up-close mayhem, shotgun all the way.

[John D]

Here is my point. It is not up the the government to ban something because they don't like it. It can only be controlled if it is a clear risk, and that the risk is severe enough to restrict individual freedom.

Reasonable steps towards the prevention of grave crime isn't the same as not liking something rather capriciously.

And one's individual freedoms shouldn't infringe upon others'.

If you think this scene should be regarded as acceptable by unarmed passer-bys, you don't have your priorities straight.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QM4GaRfSkMI/U ... GunNut.jpg

Ummmm.... so.... I am thinking you are a man with really small testicles. Am I right? Or, are you a woman who likes to debate endlessly about bullshit (cause most women will not carry on a gun debate like this with a bunch of a-holes like us)? So which is it? really.....

[JacquesCuze]

Down here, possessing firearms is illegal for 99% of the population, and yet, criminals armed with AK-47 is a pretty common occurrence.

Precisely because they are freely available to non-criminals. Guess why such shootouts never occur in Europe.

Dropped weapons?

[welch]

decius, why don't you just admit you're suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect? It's obvious you don't know the slightest bit about the subject you're claiming some kind of knowledge on and you're doing so in the face of ex-military "gun nuts" who know this subject 1,000 times better than you.

That's truly some humbling piece of wisdom. I suppose that is why all armed forces involved in urban warfare carry shotguns around.

Dunno about all of them, but the US ground forces have a rather nice selection of shotguns to work with. one advantage is that buckshot tends to not have the "what's behind the target and the wall behind the target" worry of rifles, big handguns and assault rifles.

[decius]

If you think this scene should be regarded as acceptable by unarmed passer-bys, you don't have your priorities straight.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QM4GaRfSkMI/U ... GunNut.jpg

Oh no a condition four weapon EVERYBODY PANIC

So, you like your backyard to look and feel like Kandahar. What is the added value for the unarmed citizens, pray tell.

[John D]

So, you like your backyard to look and feel like Kandahar. What is the added value for the unarmed citizens, pray tell.

Have you ever been to the states? You find one fucking picture of a dude with a pea shooter on the web and your a-hole puckers up. God-damn. You really have no clue do you?

[decius]

Dunno about all of them, but the US ground forces have a rather nice selection of shotguns to work with. one advantage is that buckshot tends to not have the "what's behind the target and the wall behind the target" worry of rifles, big handguns and assault rifles.

Right, but I don't dispute the specialistic usage and so on.