Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[real horrorshow]

Higher education's descent into suck continues: Meet the Cross Examination Debate Association's national champions of 2014.

[youtube]I9ZFoI2oFnI[/youtube]

The debate topic is about presidential war powers, but you wouldn't know it if you weren't told. Part poetry slam, part pro wrestling bravura, part rap battle, and ALL social justice posturing, the "debates" (BIG fucking air quotes) are some of the weirdest, most appalling spectacles I've ever seen. There are no arguments, just SJW rants at top speed, and apparently you get bonuses for how often you can say nigga-nigga-nigga and coin impressive new words ("operationalizing").

Please, please, please tell me that that is something Fox News simply made up. I am neither black nor American, if I were either that would make me give serious thought to killing myself.

Here's the full 4.5hr final debate.

Nope, five minutes was more than enough.

[real horrorshow]

...New Thread Nazis will be after us.

There are no Nazis on The Slymepit. Though I admit I'm waiting for my latest test results.

[Snapfingers]

It's official. I am a registered Humanist Invocationer... Invocationizer....Inovocoture.... giver on Invocations.

Consider joining the club. Can you think of a better way to be "out?"

http://humanist-society.org/invocations ... /#Michigan

Oh my god! Did I just docs myself?

That picture could be our new avatar fad. That is, if "herp-a-derp" hadn't been done to death.

Harvey is a styleicon

[Southern]

Could someone please explain the First Amendment to me in Barney terms -- or even better, by employing Muppets? I'm apparently otherwise incapable of understanding the Constitution.

Oh, and don't forget to repeatedly remind me of my stupidity, else I'll never agree with your interpretation.

Sadly, no Muppets, but this may prove useful:

[youtube]Pl3sgKj6oTQ[/youtube]

Also, since I'm all in for helping a fellow Christian: you are very stupid. And you look like Jen McReight.

[John D]

The church of satan will kill their plans every time.

SCOTUS has disproved a very old cliche'. Having christian-only prayers at these meetings is wrong. OTOH, if you throw in an occasional Rabbi, or Wiccan, or secularist...it's good and does not violate the Constitution. Therefore, several wrongs do make a right.

Could someone please explain the First Amendment to me in Barney terms -- or even better, by employing Muppets? I'm apparently otherwise incapable of understanding the Constitution.

Oh, and don't forget to repeatedly remind me of my stupidity, else I'll never agree with your interpretation.

Are you being sarcastic? In case you are not, here is the language in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You can see the problem with this passage. It is pretty vague. What does it mean for Congress to make no law respecting an establishment of religion? This is the part that gets interpreted over and over.

A very conservative, but also honest, reading would suggest that Congress cannot pass a law declaring the US is a country of a certain religion.

A very liberal, but also honest, reading would suggest that Congress should use no governmental power to favor a certain religion.

So, really, tradition does come into play here. The more liberal justices think that the harm done to minorities is real and should be stopped. The more conservative justices think that traditional should be used as a guide, and that no specific religion is using government to coerce citizens.

Honest and thoughtful people can easily disagree on this. Now, as an atheist I line up with the liberals on this topic...but... I don't think the conservatives are monsters. (Well, maybe Scalia and Thomas are monsters...but not the others)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amen ... nstitution

[Southern]

There are no Nazis on The Slymepit.

Well said, bro. Sieg Heil!

[katamari Damassi]

Here's the full 4.5hr final debate.

Nope, five minutes was more than enough.

I only lasted about that long myself. What was with the breathy delivery of the first two women? Is that an oratorical style or a speech impediment?

[Lapsang Souchong]

I haven't kept up with this board in awhile so I don't know if this has been posted before but here's another example of SJW theory and praxis that I ran across awhile back. There's full video of the incident out there taken by the anti-abortion girl but I happened to run across this YT example and thought the animations were quite amusing. I'm no lover or apologist for the ideas of street preachers or anti-abortionists but why is it that we never see violations of free speech like this reported at Free Thought Blogs?

[youtube]51q2nn5YvPM[/youtube]

[real horrorshow]

Her fans seem to be queing up to kiss her ass. "Your so wonderful. Hes stupid. Your great. Hes a misogynist." Fucking hell what ever happened to scepticism

It is a plausible story. Downtown New York out of some drinking establishments and maybe some dance clubs, drunk men who's standards have dropped like a rick. With the dye job, maybe they thought she was a prostitute. It can't be proved or disproved. So why worry about it.

Horrific video of one of the actual perpetrators:
[youtube]Fa9n7GirhsI[/youtube]

[AndrewV69]

There are no Nazis on The Slymepit.

Well said, bro. Sieg Heil!

Wassail!!!

[acathode]

Honestly, I searched youtube for "CEDA debate", and hell, just watch this stuff:
[youtube]6dTSQAuJNRs[/youtube]
[youtube]gMo7VHeoadQ [/youtube]
Skip to 53:00 in the second vid...
:lol: :lol: :lol:
THIS IS HILARIOUS!!!! I can't stop laughing! Who the hell came up with this?! It's like some sadist found a whole population of Wonderists who desperately craved attention and acknowledgement, and the sadist then told them "You can have all of that! You just need to debate each other... but you only get 3 mins to put forward your arguments!". Then the sadist sat back in his chair, and started eating his popcorn...

It's either that, or someone tried to make debating into some sort of athletic activity where lung capacity and jaw-musculature decide who wins. It's almost as bizarre as race walking.

[Brive1987]

[youtube]CripLDmoSCg[/youtube]

I've only just noticed, but they're singing the first verse over and over. Couldn't they find any German-speaking actors? Full - rather gloomy lyrics here.

The song seems weirdly appropriate for our own Midnight Maururder.

In blizzard or storm,
Or in sun warm and bright,
The day hot as hell
Or bone-chilling be the night,
Our faces may with dust be laid,
But spirits never fade,
No, never fade;
Relentless, our tank
Thunders out on a raid.
With engines a-howling,
Fast as is the wind,
We head for the foe,
Safe, as we're in armor skinned.
Our comrades still behind us roam;
We fight the foe alone,
Yes, fight alone.
We stab through the line
To break the foes backbone.

With tank traps and mines,
Our foe tries to impede.
We laugh at his ruses;
We know he'll not suceed.
And when, in threat, his cannons stand,
Half hidden in the sand,
Yes, in the sand,
We can find our way
Over much safer land.

[AndrewV69]

In other news: Damion says :

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=10007655

Adam Lee basically gets everything wrong in that piece. Even the stuff that he gets right in terms of values and goals, he gets badly wrong in terms of the facts.

Adam is correct that "the atheist movement ought to be trying to appeal to as broad a cross-section of society as possible" but claims that the way to do that is to actively "rid ourselves" of those who advocate for men's rights. This is as close to Orwellian doublespeak as I've ever seen published at Patheos, it has a distinctly self-contradictory sort of flair: "WAR IS PEACE, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, EXCLUSION IS DIVERSITY." You cannot make a movement more diverse by singling out one set of ideas for active suppression, especially if you don’t even know which particular ideas are being espoused by those whom you oppose.

Adam is correct to point out that most of the world’s major religions are historically patriarchal, and that this should be opposed, but he is incorrect to assume that the goal of the men’s rights movement is to reinforce or reinstitute patriarchy in general, along with the “assumption of women’s inferiority and subjection.” This is possibly the least charitable reading of the men's movement that one could hope to make, and it should require at least a few examples to be considered believable.

Adam is correct that atheists "should be talking more about the importance of reproductive choice, racial and gender equality, economic justice and the social safety net" especially to the extent that many of those social problems are actively exacerbated by faith-based nonsense, but he is completely incorrect to assume that the men’s rights movement is against reproductive choice or gender equality. Much of men’s rights literature focuses tightly on the problem of gender inequality in those cases where inequality runs (on average) against men, such as the probability of meeting a violent death in the workplace or on the street.

Adam is correct that “we can’t and shouldn’t tolerate…harassment” but he is incorrect to assume that MRA’s are the ones doing the harassing in the specific examples that he provides. At no point does he trouble himself to show that the people hurling invective are anything other than a random collection of people who were angry about what they read in the tabloid media or saw on FOX NEWS.

[piginthecity]

That debate thing is terrifying. There are actually people who would give a prize for something called 'debating' for that breathless display of incomprehensible garbage.

The notable thing, though, is that those two young women, when they're being natural in the interview are actually articulate and thoughtful and can speak for themselves very well, and can understand the structure of a question and an answer. I would guess that they would be excellent at proper debating if somebody would give them the chance and a bit of guidance in the right direction.

Or is it that I'm missing something ? That somehow that activity that the people organising the competition call 'debating', the rapid-fire delivery of a word salad puncuated by gutteral intakes of breath and devoid of all meaning is somehow actually a valuable training exercise for communication in a way which I absolutely fail to understand.

[John D]

Honestly, I searched youtube for "CEDA debate", and hell, just watch this stuff:

THIS IS HILARIOUS!!!! I can't stop laughing! Who the hell came up with this?! It's like some sadist found a whole population of Wonderists who desperately craved attention and acknowledgement, and the sadist then told them "You can have all of that! You just need to debate each other... but you only get 3 mins to put forward your arguments!". Then the sadist sat back in his chair, and started eating his popcorn...

It's either that, or someone tried to make debating into some sort of athletic activity where lung capacity and jaw-musculature decide who wins. It's almost as bizarre as race walking.

These master-debaters must be working to some kind of judging rubric. They are behaving this way because this is being rewarded by the judges. If the judges didn't like this kind of delivery they would not be rewarded. There are tons of talented speakers, and thinkers among the college students of the world. Surely, if they were judged more for poise, being concise, and delivering brief accurate statements, then that is what they would be doing.

[Mr Radio]

Are you being sarcastic? In case you are not, here is the language in the First Amendment.

He's mad because he went looking for a debate on the 2nd Amendment and I gave it to him (in the forum under this one.) Whenever I wouldn't budge from my position, he got rude and I became rude right back. That's where the whole muppet bit comes from.

[Brive1987]

[youtube]29Mg6Gfh9Co[/youtube]

You do realise that by posting something that references anti-Semitism you've probably started another Holocaust don't you? Or does the fact that the song was written for the film by two Jewish guys take the curse off it?

I've always thought the fact it's a fake song about a bullshit ideology (and therefore was never truly 'believed' by anyone, ever) made it all the more appropriate for mocking SJWs. :D

[decius]

Not to be missed, in little over one hour, Steven Novella and Sean Carroll debating afterlife with top-ranking (still silly) experts for the opposition.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

These college debating societies have morphed into ritualized Gish Gallops. You rattle off as many statements as you can in your alloted time, because for each one your opponent fails to address, you score a point.

John D's daughters, articulating clearly and precisely, would get clobbered in this format.

Insular little social groups are prone to drift into absurdities. Take Saddle Seat, where every single requirement for horse & rider is the exact opposite of sound equitation & horsemanship.

I think these debates should feature a Chanty Binx Round, where the other team gets points for every time they drown you out with "Will youuuu SHUT the Fuck UP?!"

[KiwiInOz]

http://imgur.com/QUsgWVC.jpg

Disturbingly cute.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Also, since I'm all in for helping a fellow Christian: you are very stupid. And you look like Jen McReight.

Thank you, sir. May I have another?

[acathode]

Honestly, I searched youtube for "CEDA debate", and hell, just watch this stuff:

THIS IS HILARIOUS!!!! I can't stop laughing! Who the hell came up with this?! It's like some sadist found a whole population of Wonderists who desperately craved attention and acknowledgement, and the sadist then told them "You can have all of that! You just need to debate each other... but you only get 3 mins to put forward your arguments!". Then the sadist sat back in his chair, and started eating his popcorn...

It's either that, or someone tried to make debating into some sort of athletic activity where lung capacity and jaw-musculature decide who wins. It's almost as bizarre as race walking.

These master-debaters must be working to some kind of judging rubric. They are behaving this way because this is being rewarded by the judges. If the judges didn't like this kind of delivery they would not be rewarded. There are tons of talented speakers, and thinkers among the college students of the world. Surely, if they were judged more for poise, being concise, and delivering brief accurate statements, then that is what they would be doing.

Ok, maybe I was coming across as a bit to harsh on the students who are actually debating, I didn't mean to. Yeah, quite clearly the actual students are only doing what someone thought them to do, the ones to blame are the fuckwits who wrote the rulebook and who judge the participants.

I'm guessing the students know very well how ridiculous the whole thing is, but that they either get into this small subculture where the point isn't to debate, but to win in this very formalized sport-like thing that's called debating, or they get something completely different out of it, like some sort of nice bragging point in their CV that might get them some better job or something.

Still, it's funny as fuck to watch (at least for a few minutes).

[real horrorshow]

In other news: Damion says :

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=10007655

Adam Lee basically gets everything wrong in that piece. Even the stuff that he gets right in terms of values and goals, he gets badly wrong in terms of the facts.

Adam is correct that "the atheist movement ought to be trying to appeal to as broad a cross-section of society as possible" but claims that the way to do that is to actively "rid ourselves" of those who advocate for men's rights. This is as close to Orwellian doublespeak as I've ever seen published at Patheos, it has a distinctly self-contradictory sort of flair: "WAR IS PEACE, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, EXCLUSION IS DIVERSITY." You cannot make a movement more diverse by singling out one set of ideas for active suppression, especially if you don’t even know which particular ideas are being espoused by those whom you oppose.

Adam is correct to point out that most of the world’s major religions are historically patriarchal, and that this should be opposed, but he is incorrect to assume that the goal of the men’s rights movement is to reinforce or reinstitute patriarchy in general, along with the “assumption of women’s inferiority and subjection.” This is possibly the least charitable reading of the men's movement that one could hope to make, and it should require at least a few examples to be considered believable.

Adam is correct that atheists "should be talking more about the importance of reproductive choice, racial and gender equality, economic justice and the social safety net" especially to the extent that many of those social problems are actively exacerbated by faith-based nonsense, but he is completely incorrect to assume that the men’s rights movement is against reproductive choice or gender equality. Much of men’s rights literature focuses tightly on the problem of gender inequality in those cases where inequality runs (on average) against men, such as the probability of meeting a violent death in the workplace or on the street.

Adam is correct that “we can’t and shouldn’t tolerate…harassment” but he is incorrect to assume that MRA’s are the ones doing the harassing in the specific examples that he provides. At no point does he trouble himself to show that the people hurling invective are anything other than a random collection of people who were angry about what they read in the tabloid media or saw on FOX NEWS.

Yeah? Pop over there, announce yourself as a 'Pitter and start agreeing with him. See how fast he can spin.

Remember, only Damion is always right. Other people are wrong most, if not all, of the time. On those rare occasions when other people are right, they are right only insofar as they agree with Damion, who was right first!

Even if you agree with Damion immediately and word for word, Damion is still more right than you!

Disclaimer: Damion reserves the right to throw anyone under the bus at any time it seems convenient to do so.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Are you being sarcastic? In case you are not, here is the language in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

You can see the problem with this passage. It is pretty vague. What does it mean for Congress to make no law respecting an establishment of religion? This is the part that gets interpreted over and over.

The Framers were far from vague when publicily discussing what they hoped the Amdt would achieve. Madison said he "always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.”

Jefferson, in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, declared: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

The intent was clearly not just to ban an official national religion, but to keep government and religion fully separated in all aspects.

Not only are those who argue for a 'strict' interpretation of the clause willfully ignoring the extensive evidence of this intent, they are disingenuous. For, usually in the very next breath, they blurt out, 'anyway, America is a Christian nation.' They barely bother to disguise their full intent to use government to promote their religion.

[Stunt Whisper]

The @atheismplus account is a troll against the atheismplus forum.

Oh you guys.
The Atheism+ Twitter account is a troll account. You should have noticed when you saw who follows it.

There's nothing trollish about it. It doesn't tweet anyone, never pretended to be genuine and most importantly, it astutely echoes the views of the Atheism Plus or Social Justice League folks, but uses overidentification to make the point. Of course, it wouldn't cross their minds that islamophobia was worse than an active islamic terrorist group -- yet, their arguments are often times to this effect.

The official parody Twitter account of Atheism+.
(Sponsored by the official forum of Atheism+ - also a parody - http://atheismplus.com/forums/index.php …).

It also always had the parody in the description, and on top of it only follows Scientology.

Hi Aneris,

Long time reader, first time responder. I agree with your assessment, the nomenclature that I used for the account, specifically "troll", was incorrect - it is in fact a parody as you've surmised. Appreciate the correction. See ya round.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Remember, only Damion is always right. Other people are wrong most, if not all, of the time. On those rare occasions when other people are right, they are right only insofar as they agree with Damion, who was right first!

And, if you happen to have been right first about something, I dunno, like ...

KS-ARREST-3_600px.jpg

(120.9 KiB) Downloaded 259 times

... you're still wrong for being right too soon!

[Mykeru]

I wonder if Elyse shops eBay.

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NjUyWDgyOA==/ ... E/$_12.JPG

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Boxed-Wine-Meta ... 1c3f9f55d2

[Al Stefanelli]

Strictly for your pleasure. Douchebag hat is a bonus....

[youtube]yPO-Zk96AtE[/youtube]

[youtube]Njt7mrelHGs[/youtube]

[youtube]Yxg45CKojp0[/youtube]

[youtube]nwlrtmelW10[/youtube]

[Mykeru]

Strictly for your pleasure. Douchebag hat is a bonus....

Awesome. Wish I could do that. Although I blow a mean "Mary Had a Little Lamb".

You get THE clip:

[youtube]gvKs2VLmVnY[/youtube]

[Brive1987]

PZ has scored himself another speaking gig in the UK. That man is the powerhouse of activism.

He doesn't have to worry about Abbie showing up as a speaker though. The talks in Hebden Bridge. Four and a half hours up in north country from pukka Oxford.

Apparently little Hebden Bridge (pop 4000) is teetering right over the schism.

According to Wikipedia:

Recently the council banned the performance of burlesque at its Picture House cinema, suggesting that it was not an art-form and that it demeaned women. The decision was hotly contested and saw the creation of a petition asking the council to reconsider its decision.[6] There was well-attended town council meeting to discuss the issue. Many townsfolk are opposed to what they see as an authoritarian council.[7] The ban is subject to further review, through procedures which allow for council decisions to be rescinded.[8]

http://i.imgur.com/uUk9pkx.jpg



Looks ...... rustic.

http://i.imgur.com/536eOp5.jpg

[Keating]

Here's their take on the Boko Haram situation:

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=6082

And right out of the gate they're wrong on the basic facts:

Western media has been conspicuously silent on this (and some articles have been disgusting enough to refer to the girls as "brides" given the alleged plans to force the girls into marriage).

The Western media I'm exposed to has been all over it since day one. I'm willing to bet that's how ischemgeek heard about it too.

It should be noted Boko Haram also has a history of attacking boys. Interesting how that attack was shouted loudly in all Western media, unlike these kidnapped schoolgirls. I guess since they killed the boys, the patriarchy doesn't need to spring into action, as that's perfectly fine.

[Aneris]

Not to be missed, in little over one hour, Steven Novella and Sean Carroll debating afterlife with top-ranking (still silly) experts for the opposition.

I hope the experts don't beat too much around the bush. Just recently heard the debate while jogging with Harris, Hitchens, a rabbi and a christan whose names I forgot and in the hour or so I listened nobody mentioned mental conditions, illnesses, accidents and the like that damage the brain tissue and as consequence some "personality" or "soul" gets lost. But in my mind this is quickly a debate killer. How can there be an afterlife when people such obviously are affected by worldy issues. It's not that the soul of someone with dementia or alzheimers just takes some years to slowly fade into the afterlife extra dimension, causing their conciousness and personality to go away slowly. The afterlife idea is such a preposterous nonsense that I am always amazed that it needs debate on such distinguished level at all. Perhaps many people haven't really realized or internalized that we know enough to rule out such propositions.

[Mykeru]

Looks ...... rustic.

http://i.imgur.com/536eOp5.jpg

Nice piss alley. Always scope a place out for the piss alley.

AMIRITE Becky?

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/imag ... to-004.jpg

Doing it wrong.

[Brive1987]

Just recently heard the debate while jogging with Harris, Hitchens, a rabbi and a christan ...

Name dropper. Impressive though.

:lol:

Not as funny as my German though.

[papillon]

Vacula - stop being a pussy with those town hall people.
Submit this to them and tell them that you want it installed and lit up by Christmas.
That'll teach 'em.


http://i639.photobucket.com/albums/uu11 ... 25c8a7.jpg

[decius]

Not to be missed, in little over one hour, Steven Novella and Sean Carroll debating afterlife with top-ranking (still silly) experts for the opposition.

I hope the experts don't beat too much around the bush. Just recently heard the debate while jogging with Harris, Hitchens, a rabbi and a christan whose names I forgot and in the hour or so I listened nobody mentioned mental conditions, illnesses, accidents and the like that damage the brain tissue and as consequence some "personality" or "soul" gets lost. But in my mind this is quickly a debate killer. How can there be an afterlife when people such obviously are affected by worldy issues. It's not that the soul of someone with dementia or alzheimers just takes some years to slowly fade into the afterlife extra dimension, causing their conciousness and personality to go away slowly. The afterlife idea is such a preposterous nonsense that I am always amazed that it needs debate on such distinguished level at all. Perhaps many people haven't really realized or internalized that we know enough to rule out such propositions.

The need arises from pseudoscientific books on near-death experiences becoming instant bestsellers, particularly when authored by medical experts such as tonight's debaters. The public gets misled and attempts at directly rectifying the BS become necessary.

[Aneris]

Just recently heard the debate while jogging with Harris, Hitchens, a rabbi and a christan ...

Name dropper. Impressive though.

:lol:

Not as funny as my German though.

hihi... ok, it dawns on me. No, I didn't went to jogging with Harris and Hitchens, but they were there on my ipod (and I meant that I didn't finish the whole thing yet, next time) ;)

Debate begins now. Btw...

[DaveDodo007]

Mundane Matt is exactly right. This is Real-Life Tumblr.

[youtube]CTOoYxOf92s[/youtube]

Worst Michael J. Fox film ever.

[Brive1987]

Alas so does the working day. Can you let me know if it's saved somewhere?

[Mr Radio]

I wonder if Elyse shops eBay.

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NjUyWDgyOA==/ ... E/$_12.JPG

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Boxed-Wine-Meta ... 1c3f9f55d2

After drinking like a fish in the military, I gave it up when I went into university a few years ago. I've recently allowed myself to sit back with a few drinks while a watch a movie every other weekend or so. Seeing as how my favorite toxin in the Marines was shit like Natty and Keystone Light, I decided that I'm going drink something decent so I began to research wines and settled on a particular brand of Pinot noir, Wente, which is around $22 a bottle. Seeing as how this is the first time I've ever took to drinking wine that wasn't handed to me on an airplane or train gratis, I really didn't know what I was in for -- but I knew one bottle of this stuff wasn't anywhere close in total alcohol content to what I used to pound back nightly in the Marines. It's a very good wine, I really like it, so I finished the bottle and when I woke up in the morning I had a nastier hangover than I ever had with a comparable amount of alcohol from even the shittiest malt liquor.

A few months later I decided that for this particular movie night, I'd rather have Guinness and got myself four pints which is about comparable to a bottle of wine and much cheaper to boot. The next morning I woke up and I felt absolutely fine. So that's what I switched to for movie night. The reason I'm bringing this up is because if a really nice bottle of wine left me with a killer hangover, I can't imagine what it feels like waking up from a cheap boxed variety bender.

[decius]

I think it will be available at IS.

http://intelligencesquaredus.org

[Lsuoma]

Here's the full 4.5hr final debate.

Nope, five minutes was more than enough.

I only lasted about that long myself. What was with the breathy delivery of the first two women? Is that an oratorical style or a speech impediment?

Sounds like Chautauqua preachin' to me...

[decius]

Sigh "I knew that I experienced something", as if it meant anything at all.

The only acceptable piece of evidence would take the form of the idiot retrieving previously unknown independently-verifiable information from what he calls "heaven". All he has is a bunch of hallucinations.

[Badger3k]

In other news: Damion says :

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=10007655

Adam Lee basically gets everything wrong in that piece. Even the stuff that he gets right in terms of values and goals, he gets badly wrong in terms of the facts.

Adam is correct that "the atheist movement ought to be trying to appeal to as broad a cross-section of society as possible" but claims that the way to do that is to actively "rid ourselves" of those who advocate for men's rights. This is as close to Orwellian doublespeak as I've ever seen published at Patheos, it has a distinctly self-contradictory sort of flair: "WAR IS PEACE, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, EXCLUSION IS DIVERSITY." You cannot make a movement more diverse by singling out one set of ideas for active suppression, especially if you don’t even know which particular ideas are being espoused by those whom you oppose.

Adam is correct to point out that most of the world’s major religions are historically patriarchal, and that this should be opposed, but he is incorrect to assume that the goal of the men’s rights movement is to reinforce or reinstitute patriarchy in general, along with the “assumption of women’s inferiority and subjection.” This is possibly the least charitable reading of the men's movement that one could hope to make, and it should require at least a few examples to be considered believable.

Adam is correct that atheists "should be talking more about the importance of reproductive choice, racial and gender equality, economic justice and the social safety net" especially to the extent that many of those social problems are actively exacerbated by faith-based nonsense, but he is completely incorrect to assume that the men’s rights movement is against reproductive choice or gender equality. Much of men’s rights literature focuses tightly on the problem of gender inequality in those cases where inequality runs (on average) against men, such as the probability of meeting a violent death in the workplace or on the street.

Adam is correct that “we can’t and shouldn’t tolerate…harassment” but he is incorrect to assume that MRA’s are the ones doing the harassing in the specific examples that he provides. At no point does he trouble himself to show that the people hurling invective are anything other than a random collection of people who were angry about what they read in the tabloid media or saw on FOX NEWS.

As Cainaji would say "white man speak with forked tongue."

[sinister]

The Radford thread at JREF is starting to read like a Christian apologetics site at this point. They might as well be saying we will get our evidence in heaven, so believe!

[BarnOwl]

PZ has scored himself another speaking gig in the UK. That man is the powerhouse of activism.

He doesn't have to worry about Abbie showing up as a speaker though. The talks in Hebden Bridge. Four and a half hours up in north country from pukka Oxford.

Apparently little Hebden Bridge (pop 4000) is teetering right over the schism.

According to Wikipedia:

Recently the council banned the performance of burlesque at its Picture House cinema, suggesting that it was not an art-form and that it demeaned women. The decision was hotly contested and saw the creation of a petition asking the council to reconsider its decision.[6] There was well-attended town council meeting to discuss the issue. Many townsfolk are opposed to what they see as an authoritarian council.[7] The ban is subject to further review, through procedures which allow for council decisions to be rescinded.[8]

http://i.imgur.com/uUk9pkx.jpg

<snip>

PeeZus Christ! He's still using that same photo? I guess it's part of Reduce - Reuse - Recycle or summat.

In other news, Farley Mowat has died. :(

[DownThunder]

Higher education's descent into suck continues: Meet the Cross Examination Debate Association's national champions of 2014.

[youtube]I9ZFoI2oFnI[/youtube]

The debate topic is about presidential war powers, but you wouldn't know it if you weren't told. Part poetry slam, part pro wrestling bravura, part rap battle, and ALL social justice posturing, the "debates" (BIG fucking air quotes) are some of the weirdest, most appalling spectacles I've ever seen. There are no arguments, just SJW rants at top speed, and apparently you get bonuses for how often you can say nigga-nigga-nigga and coin impressive new words ("operationalizing").

Here's the full 4.5hr final debate.

Judges reaction

63d.png

(303.16 KiB) Downloaded 216 times

[Mykeru]

After drinking like a fish in the military, I gave it up when I went into university a few years ago. I've recently allowed myself to sit back with a few drinks while a watch a movie every other weekend or so. Seeing as how my favorite toxin in the Marines was shit like Natty and Keystone Light, I decided that I'm going drink something decent so I began to research wines and settled on a particular brand of Pinot noir, Wente, which is around $22 a bottle. Seeing as how this is the first time I've ever took to drinking wine that wasn't handed to me on an airplane or train gratis, I really didn't know what I was in for -- but I knew one bottle of this stuff wasn't anywhere close in total alcohol content to what I used to pound back nightly in the Marines. It's a very good wine, I really like it, so I finished the bottle and when I woke up in the morning I had a nastier hangover than I ever had with a comparable amount of alcohol from even the shittiest malt liquor.

A few months later I decided that for this particular movie night, I'd rather have Guinness and got myself four pints which is about comparable to a bottle of wine and much cheaper to boot. The next morning I woke up and I felt absolutely fine. So that's what I switched to for movie night. The reason I'm bringing this up is because if a really nice bottle of wine left me with a killer hangover, I can't imagine what it feels like waking up from a cheap boxed variety bender.

You, of course, are doing it wrong.

http://grizzlygrowler.com/wp-content/up ... 31x300.jpg

If I ever had the urge to throw caution to the wind and kick the living shit out of my acid reflux, that's what I'd do.

I am fully convinced that anyone dumb enough to drink boxed wine, and a red wine (read: hangover before you stop drinking it) are addicted to the immediate punishment for your sins that the stuff affords. They wake up feeling like utter shit, and that somehow cements their suspicions about their relationship to the universe. Thing is: They're right.

I used to figure there were two kinds of drinkers" one that didn't get hangovers or, like me, got them after reading the label. Now I'm pretty sure there are those chasing the damned thing.

[Mykeru]

In other news, Farley Mowat has died. :(

Ah, damn. "The Snow Walker", based on one of his stories, is a fave film of mine.

However, 92 is a damned good run.

[sinister]

Higher education's descent into suck continues: Meet the Cross Examination Debate Association's national champions of 2014.

[youtube]I9ZFoI2oFnI[/youtube]

The debate topic is about presidential war powers, but you wouldn't know it if you weren't told. Part poetry slam, part pro wrestling bravura, part rap battle, and ALL social justice posturing, the "debates" (BIG fucking air quotes) are some of the weirdest, most appalling spectacles I've ever seen. There are no arguments, just SJW rants at top speed, and apparently you get bonuses for how often you can say nigga-nigga-nigga and coin impressive new words ("operationalizing").

Here's the full 4.5hr final debate.

Judges reaction

63d.png

Aaaand there goes my soda. Monitor ruined.

[Mykeru]

hihi... ok, it dawns on me. No, I didn't went to jogging with Harris and Hitchens, but they were there on my ipod

They weren't on your iPod. And my dad isn't a phone.

[real horrorshow]

Whew, OK everybody can relax. The Nigerian schoolgirl kidnapping crisis is as good as over:

Not only is there now a hashtag #BringBackOurGirls

Plus an international pissing contest about who first Twattled said hashtag.

But, there is also a Facebook page. With a devastating four-point stratagy:

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

Little wonder that in the face of this devastating assault by social media slacktavists, the leader of Boko Haram has been reduced to fear-wracked heap of jelly:

http://i.imgur.com/0MKkvSt.jpg

[goldydox]

Oh please, do this.
I have popcorn at the ready.

[sinister]

Oh please, do this.
I have popcorn at the ready.

Oh please, do this! I am sure Patton will be completely saddened by his loss.

[Mr Radio]

You, of course, are doing it wrong.

http://grizzlygrowler.com/wp-content/up ... 31x300.jpg

Bulleit is excellent, and if I have family or company coming in for a few days I'll buy a bottle to share. I reserve my sipping whiskeys for company and social occasions, though. Kicking back with a movie, I gotta go with Guinness.

I used to figure there were two kinds of drinkers" one that didn't get hangovers or, like me, got them after reading the label. Now I'm pretty sure there are those chasing the damned thing.

I tell everyone who has ever told me that they simply "don't suffer hangovers" that they don't get to make such a claim unless they finish at least a 6-pack of Steel Reserve or a bottle of Thunderbird (with no maintenance of water between drinks) and manage to wake up and not beg for an entire bottle of aspirin or the release of death. The problem with this challenge is you first must to make it past the noxious smell and taste of these products.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

http://imgur.com/QUsgWVC.jpg

The dog's cock seems to follow you around the room.

Oh hey, the pug has one, too.

:rimshot:

[Sulman]

Hebden Bridge?

Weird place. Fairly typical small West Riding town that, for reasons not known to me, became associated with the lesbian movement. My dad's from Halifax, and he said Hebden Bridge has been that way for as long as he can remember, so it goes back some time.

[Richard Dworkins]

Oh please, do this.
I have popcorn at the ready.

Why Patton Oswalt? He came out late last year with a vehement rant against rape jokes and "rape culture." And who is the guy dressed like Rebecca Watson in that photo?

[free thoughtpolice]

http://imgur.com/QUsgWVC.jpg

Disturbingly cute.

Not authentic looking, Melody wouldn't ride a doggy with a penis! (look closely at that seeming tuft of hair) :o

[Richard Dworkins]

THIS IS HILARIOUS!!!! I can't stop laughing! Who the hell came up with this?! It's like some sadist found a whole population of Wonderists who desperately craved attention and acknowledgement, and the sadist then told them "You can have all of that! You just need to debate each other... but you only get 3 mins to put forward your arguments!". Then the sadist sat back in his chair, and started eating his popcorn...

It's either that, or someone tried to make debating into some sort of athletic activity where lung capacity and jaw-musculature decide who wins. It's almost as bizarre as race walking.

That is one of the most absurd things I've seen. Was he trying to go through the lyrics of Billy Joel's turgid "We didn't start the fire" in record time? I'm in awe at how idiotic that boy is that he thought somehow doing that would be a good way to make a point.

Is it a joke?