BlueShiftRhino wrote:If that's "lizard seduction," lizard rape must be nasty. Maybe it's time to buy a neck-beared dragon. That's the kind that can also play video-games, right?another lurker wrote:The self medication is probably why the poor man has hallucinated a lizard seducing a wagon.
Beer then wine, feeling fine,SoylentAtheist wrote:Hmmm... so it appears that alcohol absorption rates can cause your BAC to rise from 45 minutes to 3 hours after your last drink. (Typically stated as 1-2 hours, depending on a number of factors, including if you have had something substantial to eat in order to slow down the absorption rate.
And what is the rule of thumb? You metabolize one drink an hour.
Given that it was a scotch party, had she downed her last glass of Scotch instead of simply sipping it, her BAC could have continued to rise. They really should reconsider hard alcohol at conferences. How does that saying go?
Liquor before beer, in the clear.
Beer before liquor, never dicker.
Or Viz and that bloke kissing a bird's arse, for us peasants, m'Lord.Lsuoma wrote:And I SEEM to remember some lizard seducing a wagon of some sort? Can someone help me out here?Hunt wrote:In all honesty, if you happen to be the victim of really bad timing, your introduction to the pit might be full frontal nudity and a guy getting his peenie stretched by a raptor. You may well come away with the "wrong" impression.jugheadnaut wrote: Even though he spent 'almost zero time' here, he says you only had scroll down a couple of inches to find something so offensive, misogynist and crude that you had to click away. In his near zero time, he couldn't find a well-articulated philosophy defending free speech and crude language, and he concluded it seemed to be a place to spew crude invective aimed mostly toward women.
(Shades of Andrew Neil and Private Eye, eh?)
You win most thoroughly ninja'd post of the month! :)austin wrote:Mark Oppenheimer is a mealy mouth little SJW cunt. Listen to this interview and see if you agree.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/mark_oppe ... community/
FTFY.another lurker wrote:BlueShiftRhino wrote:If that's "lizard seduction," lizard rape must be nasty. Maybe it's time to buy a neck-beared dragon. That's the kind that can also play video-games, right?another lurker wrote:The self medication is probably why the poor man has hallucinated a lizard seducing a wagon.
I searched "neck bear dragon" and I got this
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_50Ig_niqpyI/T ... Dragon.jpg
Draw your ownconclusionsreptilian cocks, you sick fucks.
A Hermit simply dismisses it. They all also carefully avoid the ogvorbis reaction (which is the main issue).Jan Steen wrote:It may be helpful for me to point out that ‘neo-feminist/crypto-Marxist ideologues’ is simply a more colourful way of writing ‘Social Justice Warriors’. I don’t think it is far of the mark. Firstly, SJWs are evidently ideologues, secondly, they are clearly a somewhat non-standard brand of feminists, and finally, what theoretical underpinning they have is based on Critical Race Theory and other half baked stuff from Academia that has rather clear roots in Marxist thinking. Since, like most actual roots, the Marxism is somewhat hidden, the term crypto-Marxist seems appropriate.
As regards the takeover attempt, may I remind you of the (in retrospect comical) effort by a large contingent of bloggers and their followers to create the Atheism Plus movement? This aimed to replace the existing atheist movement, which was believed to be a horrible and outdated cabal of old white men. It is amusing to re-read some of the embarrassing rhetoric published on those blogs in connection with A+.
Atheism Plus crashed and burned, and only Dr. Richard Carrier PhD, resident FTB supergenius, still believes it is alive and kicking. PZ Myers and others were initially supportive, but were cunning enough not to play too prominent a role, so that they could wait and see what happened. Poor Jen McCreight took most of the flack, some of which was provoked by the intellectual artillery of the above-mentioned Dr. Richard Carrier PhD (who was quickly denounced by Jen, but by then the damage had been done).
Anyway, the failed attempt taught us one thing: that there is a group of people in the atheist movement who are eager to control it, to push it in a certain direction. This group is what we now call the SJWs.
Understandably, you being one of them, your immediate reaction is denial and ridicule. But the facts are fairly obvious. Since Richard Dawkins is the most prominent representative of the traditional atheist movement, he was given the role of Goldstein, the perpetual enemy. Confirmation bias being what it is, every tweet by Dawkins further enraged the SJWs, until he became the secular equivalent of Satan. Notice for example the morphing and malicious interpretation of “Dear Muslima†by Adam Lee, which I pointed out in my comment.
I rest my case.
Combined with reaction by no other than Elyse...Ogvorbis wrote:The last year that I lived out west, I was offered a summer job babysitting two girls (aged about 4 and 7 (?)) […] Good job for a twelve-year-old […] One day, he asked if I could watch a third girl who was 6 years old. I said, sure. […] I was invited to jointhe sex play. TThe third girl had the 3 year old tied up. The tow older ones were taking turns doing things to her and I joined in. THey didn’t invite me but or maybe they did but that doesn’t matter. I joined in. […later comment …] But I didn’t stop before raping three young girls […] But it would have been even better if I hadn’t raped them, right?
It was explained exactly that it is not about the case itself, but the community reaction.... It was explained that critics did recognoze Oggys age (thats not the issue anyway, but the FtB reaction). Yet, its all ignored and when A Hermit thinks he deals with the issue... what does he do?Elyse wrote:I cannot read through it. [the comments] Now that there are stories of abusers asking victims to tell them it’s okay. Now that the thread has comments telling child abusers that they would let them watch their own kids
:roll:A Hermit wrote:OK, I had to look it up, but apparently here’s what teh person calling themselves Ogvorbis says they did:
That person recognizes that what they did was wrong, even thought they were forced to do it, and regrets it. To the extent that anyone defends Ogvorbis is it for his status as a victim of rape and abuse, not for his victimization of others.“I was raped, repeatedly, by my cub scout leader for a period of about two or two-and-a-half years. I was forced to rape others (including a toddler girl (and I still feel like shit for doing that (yes, I know it wasn’t my fault . . . ))). I was used for child porn. I told once and was informed that I was a liar and then sent to my rapist to apologize and he raped me again to punish me.â€
As far as I can see no one, including Ogvorbis, is saying that what he did wasn’t rape, or is trying to minimize it or to blame the victims. The conversation there is a little more complicated than you’re making it out to be.
But what does this conversation on PZ Myers blog have to do with Adam Lee’s blog anyway? Why do Dawkin’s defenders always try to change the subject when their Dear Leader gets criticized for saying something stupid? Does the fact that other people sometimes say stupid things too make his comments any better? I don’t think so…
He insults the chaos gods because he fears them.Glen_Davidson wrote:Peezus praising mere bigotry:
Oh, poor little man can't handle the Slymepit, so just disses it.Lindsay Beyerstein, who is always great, interviews Mark Oppenheimer about his misogyny piece on Point of Inquiry. It’s a good listen. I was especially amused by his comments about the slymepit — not even worth bothering with — and the faint praise for Penn Jillette — nowhere near as bad as the slymepit.
That refers collectively to the lot of them, Peezus with the others.
Either you deal honestly with critics, or you intellectually cede the argument. Apparently the latter is the best these "bright lights" can do.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Reposting from the arse end of the last page for Jan, Aneris:Aneris wrote:Jan Steen & Phil @ Nugents, awesome (and/or funny) comments. The whole thing about entryism and Atheism Plus, like in 86 was a excellent summary. I find it hard not to instantly recognize the Atheism Plus debacle in it.
A Hermit simply dismisses it. They all also carefully avoid the ogvorbis reaction (which is the main issue).Jan Steen wrote:It may be helpful for me to point out that ‘neo-feminist/crypto-Marxist ideologues’ is simply a more colourful way of writing ‘Social Justice Warriors’. I don’t think it is far of the mark. Firstly, SJWs are evidently ideologues, secondly, they are clearly a somewhat non-standard brand of feminists, and finally, what theoretical underpinning they have is based on Critical Race Theory and other half baked stuff from Academia that has rather clear roots in Marxist thinking. Since, like most actual roots, the Marxism is somewhat hidden, the term crypto-Marxist seems appropriate.
As regards the takeover attempt, may I remind you of the (in retrospect comical) effort by a large contingent of bloggers and their followers to create the Atheism Plus movement? This aimed to replace the existing atheist movement, which was believed to be a horrible and outdated cabal of old white men. It is amusing to re-read some of the embarrassing rhetoric published on those blogs in connection with A+.
Atheism Plus crashed and burned, and only Dr. Richard Carrier PhD, resident FTB supergenius, still believes it is alive and kicking. PZ Myers and others were initially supportive, but were cunning enough not to play too prominent a role, so that they could wait and see what happened. Poor Jen McCreight took most of the flack, some of which was provoked by the intellectual artillery of the above-mentioned Dr. Richard Carrier PhD (who was quickly denounced by Jen, but by then the damage had been done).
Anyway, the failed attempt taught us one thing: that there is a group of people in the atheist movement who are eager to control it, to push it in a certain direction. This group is what we now call the SJWs.
Understandably, you being one of them, your immediate reaction is denial and ridicule. But the facts are fairly obvious. Since Richard Dawkins is the most prominent representative of the traditional atheist movement, he was given the role of Goldstein, the perpetual enemy. Confirmation bias being what it is, every tweet by Dawkins further enraged the SJWs, until he became the secular equivalent of Satan. Notice for example the morphing and malicious interpretation of “Dear Muslima†by Adam Lee, which I pointed out in my comment.
I rest my case.
----
Look at what A hermit does there:
In comment 69, I laud out exactly where I see the problem. It's already fairly annoying to always have to make it throughout, because they otherwise weasel through the cracks too easily. So there is everything one would need. Including a summary quote by Oggy with all vital information...
Combined with reaction by no other than Elyse...Ogvorbis wrote:The last year that I lived out west, I was offered a summer job babysitting two girls (aged about 4 and 7 (?)) […] Good job for a twelve-year-old […] One day, he asked if I could watch a third girl who was 6 years old. I said, sure. […] I was invited to jointhe sex play. TThe third girl had the 3 year old tied up. The tow older ones were taking turns doing things to her and I joined in. THey didn’t invite me but or maybe they did but that doesn’t matter. I joined in. […later comment …] But I didn’t stop before raping three young girls […] But it would have been even better if I hadn’t raped them, right?
It was explained exactly that it is not about the case itself, but the community reaction.... It was explained that critics did recognoze Oggys age (thats not the issue anyway, but the FtB reaction). Yet, its all ignored and when A Hermit thinks he deals with the issue... what does he do?Elyse wrote:I cannot read through it. [the comments] Now that there are stories of abusers asking victims to tell them it’s okay. Now that the thread has comments telling child abusers that they would let them watch their own kids
:roll:A Hermit wrote:OK, I had to look it up, but apparently here’s what teh person calling themselves Ogvorbis says they did:
That person recognizes that what they did was wrong, even thought they were forced to do it, and regrets it. To the extent that anyone defends Ogvorbis is it for his status as a victim of rape and abuse, not for his victimization of others.“I was raped, repeatedly, by my cub scout leader for a period of about two or two-and-a-half years. I was forced to rape others (including a toddler girl (and I still feel like shit for doing that (yes, I know it wasn’t my fault . . . ))). I was used for child porn. I told once and was informed that I was a liar and then sent to my rapist to apologize and he raped me again to punish me.â€
As far as I can see no one, including Ogvorbis, is saying that what he did wasn’t rape, or is trying to minimize it or to blame the victims. The conversation there is a little more complicated than you’re making it out to be.
But what does this conversation on PZ Myers blog have to do with Adam Lee’s blog anyway? Why do Dawkin’s defenders always try to change the subject when their Dear Leader gets criticized for saying something stupid? Does the fact that other people sometimes say stupid things too make his comments any better? I don’t think so…
I can't even remember what this was all about initially, I just like seeing Meyers getting a massage from La-Den.
Wait up Sonny Jim. I don't know if I fall into your frustrated basket but to be clear.BlueShiftRhino wrote:It's my theory that the few Pitters who have suggested that Shermer is guilty of something are just jealous because they don't laid at conferences. But I'm keeping that to myself, at lest until the unfreezing process wears off.Really? wrote:I know some of my SlymePit brethren and sistren have said that recent events have made them think Shermer is likelier guilty than not.
shit
Well known POE account.didymos wrote:http://thoughtcatalog.com/anne-gus/2014 ... -on-women/
I am impressed by Lindy's courage to march straight into GQ and take a job in the belly of the beast. I don't doubt for a second that she'll be willing to take them to task for outrages against feminism such as this.jugheadnaut wrote:So I guess it would be totes not misogynist to tweet "I've seen few things more embarrassing than @femfreq basking in the approval of the baby girls she apparently now panders to full-time".Tony Parsehole wrote:
Oh, I know, punching up/IOWWDI.
Did someone say GQ?Guest wrote:I am impressed by Lindy's courage to march straight into GQ and take a job in the belly of the beast. I don't doubt for a second that she'll be willing to take them to task for outrages against feminism such as this.
I am surprised no one has done an article on Conde Nast's hypocritical interference in online media. They take over Reddit, Reddit goes SJW. Vice Magazine's faux Gonzo hookers n' blow journalism becomes an even less digestible diet of admonishments by Dave Futrelle. The Queen of ALL CAPS LOL Writing at Jezebel is feted as GQ's latest important voice.
Meanwhile, CN's publications continue to pump out a photoshopped slurry of impossibly skinny women, skimpy outfits and and features on stereotypically feminine subjects like makeup and beauty tips, endless diet and exercise features shaming readers into chase the impossible body myth, the fickle baubles of fashion and endless parties and movie premieres - much of which is the sort of content that makes the Jezzies literally vibrate with rage. And that's just GQ. The women's' magazines are much worse.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that they shouldn't manufacture slurry. It's just that they're so quick to blame everyone else for the stink.
House MD, season 8, episode 17: "We Need The Eggs"bovarchist wrote:That rings a bell...are you sure it wasn't The Practice?Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Wasn't there a House M.D episode with some guy in love with a sex doll?
It must have been such a distressing experience for Alison Smith.Brive1987 wrote: I think it is impossible (based on all photo evidence plus her Skeptoid article) that Smith was anything but plastered when she left the party. And I find it unlikely Shermer walked her around and around the block before getting down to it. Really if you were him would you risk her sobering up and realising a) her boyfriend was in the same hotel tapping his shoes and b) A 50 yo was the value proposition?
So if I had to put after tax dollars down, it would be on her stumbling from party to bedroom to elevator to crouched down over the toilet.
But that doesn't mean Shermer wasn't tipsy, wasn't flirted with, wasn't given an apparent green light. It doesn't mean he had sex with a supine corpse like body. It doesn't mean he raped her.
If however it transpires she truly did need a wheelchair for purposes other than wheelies. If she was babbling and squawking at the party per the other mystery witness. Well then we have pretty non-negotiable evidence that (per Nevada law) she wasn't fit to consent. I don't think the law requires you to be literally unconscious. And ergo - rape. We might want to consider it grey rape or something, but I doubt that would be a legal term.
All this is hypothetical. Right now it's anecdote and remains so until or if the witnesses step forward.
I still regard her use of FtB as a mouth piece (effectively three times) to be an outrage. I consider the use of the term "rape" without evidence an ethical affront. I think her inability or lack of interest in marshalling witnesses to be an insult and her desire to enact punishment now but not at the time a miscarriage of natural justice.
But would I give honestly give my daughter a bottle of bourbon and date night tickets with Shermer?
No.
As much as "Believe the Victim" is chanted, I can't help but wonder if maybe the story has become a wee bit embellished each time it's retold. I would guess that it began as "Unable to walk straight" and then in a subtle gesture of reinforcing victim status, it then changes to "needed a wheelchair for mobility". I seriously doubt that a wheelchair was involved however, unless there happened to be one in the hotel room, which sounds odd but I've never been to Vegas let alone stayed in a hotel there. A wheelchair seems like the kind of thing you might need to contact the front desk to receive, because even though I've no doubts they have a few in a storage room somewhere, I highly doubt they'd have one for every room, and at a guess there's more than two hundred rooms in a casino/hotel, as they tend to be significantly larger than a Holiday Inn.subbie1957 wrote:It must have been such a distressing experience for Alison Smith.
Still, two year later, she was writing cheery emails to Shermer inviting him to be a panellist on a workshop about sex and sexuality.
Although she was simultaneously terrified that Shermer would find out her identity, so she had to remain anonymous when talking about how she was raped.
I have only ever once seen somebody so drunk he had to be in a wheelchair to transport him, and he was being wheeled into an ambulance.
Just how much booze had she had?
I could imagine a hotel might loan a wheelchair for a few minutes to wheel some drunk into a taxi.And then the same person who was willing to be quoted about the timeline was also willing to be quoted about the next part – that after he found me in the elevator when I was crying, he took me to my room, but I only stayed there for half an hour and insisted on being taken to the condo I was renting, off Flamingo property, because the idea of staying in the same hotel as Shermer was too much. And, at that point, which is now at least two and a half hours after I left the party, I had to be pushed in a wheelchair to get out of the hotel because I was still too drunk to make it under my own steam.
Rape is such a harsh ring to it, doesn't it? I personally suspect she felt "seriously taken advantage of" until the strict letter of the law was mixed in with two shots of SJ rhetoric by Poppy et al.subbie1957 wrote:It must have been such a distressing experience for Alison Smith.Brive1987 wrote: I think it is impossible (based on all photo evidence plus her Skeptoid article) that Smith was anything but plastered when she left the party. And I find it unlikely Shermer walked her around and around the block before getting down to it. Really if you were him would you risk her sobering up and realising a) her boyfriend was in the same hotel tapping his shoes and b) A 50 yo was the value proposition?
So if I had to put after tax dollars down, it would be on her stumbling from party to bedroom to elevator to crouched down over the toilet.
But that doesn't mean Shermer wasn't tipsy, wasn't flirted with, wasn't given an apparent green light. It doesn't mean he had sex with a supine corpse like body. It doesn't mean he raped her.
If however it transpires she truly did need a wheelchair for purposes other than wheelies. If she was babbling and squawking at the party per the other mystery witness. Well then we have pretty non-negotiable evidence that (per Nevada law) she wasn't fit to consent. I don't think the law requires you to be literally unconscious. And ergo - rape. We might want to consider it grey rape or something, but I doubt that would be a legal term.
All this is hypothetical. Right now it's anecdote and remains so until or if the witnesses step forward.
I still regard her use of FtB as a mouth piece (effectively three times) to be an outrage. I consider the use of the term "rape" without evidence an ethical affront. I think her inability or lack of interest in marshalling witnesses to be an insult and her desire to enact punishment now but not at the time a miscarriage of natural justice.
But would I give honestly give my daughter a bottle of bourbon and date night tickets with Shermer?
No.
Still, two year later, she was writing cheery emails to Shermer inviting him to be a panellist on a workshop about sex and sexuality.
Although she was simultaneously terrified that Shermer would find out her identity, so she had to remain anonymous when talking about how she was raped.
I have only ever once seen somebody so drunk he had to be in a wheelchair to transport him, and he was being wheeled into an ambulance.
Just how much booze had she had?
The wheelchair claim comes from Smith herself, fitst on JREF Forum, then the email she sent to PZ and that he published, so it wasn't a product of "telephone game". Also, this entire story predates EG by at least a few years.Opyt wrote:As much as "Believe the Victim" is chanted, I can't help but wonder if maybe the story has become a wee bit embellished each time it's retold. I would guess that it began as "Unable to walk straight" and then in a subtle gesture of reinforcing victim status, it then changes to "needed a wheelchair for mobility". I seriously doubt that a wheelchair was involved however, unless there happened to be one in the hotel room, which sounds odd but I've never been to Vegas let alone stayed in a hotel there. A wheelchair seems like the kind of thing you might need to contact the front desk to receive, because even though I've no doubts they have a few in a storage room somewhere, I highly doubt they'd have one for every room, and at a guess there's more than two hundred rooms in a casino/hotel, as they tend to be significantly larger than a Holiday Inn.subbie1957 wrote:It must have been such a distressing experience for Alison Smith.
Still, two year later, she was writing cheery emails to Shermer inviting him to be a panellist on a workshop about sex and sexuality.
Although she was simultaneously terrified that Shermer would find out her identity, so she had to remain anonymous when talking about how she was raped.
I have only ever once seen somebody so drunk he had to be in a wheelchair to transport him, and he was being wheeled into an ambulance.
Just how much booze had she had?
I almost wonder, and I know neither Mz. Smith or Mr. Shermer as I'm one of those "unblooded" types and I'm also admittedly quite naive, if maybe Mr. Shermer seeing Mz. Smith in drunken distress, figured it would be safer to get her out of sight so as to prevent another "ElevatorGate" style incident, took her to his room, and then proceeded to lay down in the bed next to her, or if it was a 2-person room, in a separate bed. He may have considered himself something of a leader, and in attempting to be responsible, tried to "lead by example". If he were drunk as well it could also account for the lapse in judgement in not contacting her boyfriend, or he decided not to take her phone to call the boyfriend while Shermer lacked a means of communicating with him. This is however taking and applying an entirely different spin on it, and I've not seen the Shermer response that has been mentioned but has not been linked (recently at least) but clearly he has responded.
To my naive mind, this situation could easily account for her requiring a wheelchair the next morning, her continuing an amicable relationship with Shermer, and still maintain that no crime had occurred. As a result this little story is probably completely and utterly wrong.
I can honestly say that if a wheelchair had been available then most of my friends and myself would have need a wheelchair to move us around. Lots of heavy drinking in my very misspent youth. And I have never been to Vegas. I am not sure if I was 21, in Vegas, at an atheist convention, and booze was on hand that I would have survived the night.subbie1957 wrote:
I have only ever once seen somebody so drunk he had to be in a wheelchair to transport him, and he was being wheeled into an ambulance.
Just how much booze had she had?
Brive1987 wrote: Rape is such a harsh ring to it, doesn't it? I personally suspect she felt "seriously taken advantage of" until the strict letter of the law was mixed in with two shots of SJ rhetoric by Poppy et al.
So I don't think she was terrified by Shermer. And I suspect she feared career blow-back, not a knock on the door in the night.
I think cooperating with an unknown person who wants to take away a semi-conscious person in a taxi would expose the hotel to a lot of liability. There's a lot of ways a "taxi rescue" scenario could end badly for the semi-conscious person, ranging from improper medical care provided by the "rescuer" to the "rescue" actually being a drugging, kidnap & murder. The hotel might face a lawsuit if they cooperated in an incident that ended badly instead of calling for an ambulance and the police. As such, hotels might not be willing to loan a wheelchair to remove a very drunk person.JacquesCuze wrote:I could imagine a hotel might loan a wheelchair for a few minutes to wheel some drunk into a taxi.
I was going to say that "them queer folk" sounds like another old name for fairies, but...ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Beer then wine, feeling fine,
Wine ten beer, feeling queer.
I am probably a shitlord, but this uses "queer" in its old, innocent sense. You know, before Katamari and his filthy brethren came along and ass-raped it into referring to...ahem...do I have to say it?...aww sheeit...them queer folk.
I think that's true for various definitions of Las Vegas Hotel. And perhaps false for others.Satan wrote:I think cooperating with an unknown person who wants to take away a semi-conscious person in a taxi would expose the hotel to a lot of liability. There's a lot of ways a "taxi rescue" scenario could end badly for the semi-conscious person, ranging from improper medical care provided by the "rescuer" to the "rescue" actually being a drugging, kidnap & murder. The hotel might face a lawsuit if they cooperated in an incident that ended badly instead of calling for an ambulance and the police. As such, hotels might not be willing to loan a wheelchair to remove a very drunk person.JacquesCuze wrote:I could imagine a hotel might loan a wheelchair for a few minutes to wheel some drunk into a taxi.
SJWs are far more interested in power than in truth. Finding truth and telling truth are, at the very best, purely incidental to their quest for domination. If telling the truth aids their narratives, they will do it, but if no suitable truths exist, they will fabricate them with such intensity that they will believe their own fabrications to be the truth.JackSkeptic wrote:Whatever belief system I hold, I would reject it as soon as I had to lie to support it. The SJW's are so emotionally wrapped in their own delusions they seem to think lying is a valid way to get to the truth. It's disgusting.
Yes, Smith's friends simply had to explain they were not kidnapping a drugged young woman and the hotel would have been fine with that.JacquesCuze wrote:I think that's true for various definitions of Las Vegas Hotel. And perhaps false for others.Satan wrote:I think cooperating with an unknown person who wants to take away a semi-conscious person in a taxi would expose the hotel to a lot of liability. There's a lot of ways a "taxi rescue" scenario could end badly for the semi-conscious person, ranging from improper medical care provided by the "rescuer" to the "rescue" actually being a drugging, kidnap & murder. The hotel might face a lawsuit if they cooperated in an incident that ended badly instead of calling for an ambulance and the police. As such, hotels might not be willing to loan a wheelchair to remove a very drunk person.JacquesCuze wrote:I could imagine a hotel might loan a wheelchair for a few minutes to wheel some drunk into a taxi.
Also Alison was certainly shit-faced, and presumably had trouble walking, it's not clear she was semi-conscious. Just wild ass guessing, but I could see some Las Vegas hotels or some late night Las Vegas hotel staff members being okay with that.
It's also not clear anyone from the hotel desk saw Alison.
I'm just thinking of the casino trade and how they cater to many many senior citizens.
Beats me though.
It suddenly struck me that we are living in the cyberpunk future where people are known by silly handles. I find that amusing.BaconNutellaFiend wrote:Milo, Internet Aristocrat, Adam Baldwin, and Based Mom
You laugh, but dude, it's Vegas. Tell me what year Vegas went from pretty much anything goes to can't possibly loan a wheelchair for 10 minutes because bankruptcy of hotel.subbie1957 wrote:Yes, Smith's friends simply had to explain they were not kidnapping a drugged young woman and the hotel would have been fine with that.JacquesCuze wrote:I think that's true for various definitions of Las Vegas Hotel. And perhaps false for others.Satan wrote:[.quote="JacquesCuze"]I could imagine a hotel might loan a wheelchair for a few minutes to wheel some drunk into a taxi.[./quote]
I think cooperating with an unknown person who wants to take away a semi-conscious person in a taxi would expose the hotel to a lot of liability. There's a lot of ways a "taxi rescue" scenario could end badly for the semi-conscious person, ranging from improper medical care provided by the "rescuer" to the "rescue" actually being a drugging, kidnap & murder. The hotel might face a lawsuit if they cooperated in an incident that ended badly instead of calling for an ambulance and the police. As such, hotels might not be willing to loan a wheelchair to remove a very drunk person.
Also Alison was certainly shit-faced, and presumably had trouble walking, it's not clear she was semi-conscious. Just wild ass guessing, but I could see some Las Vegas hotels or some late night Las Vegas hotel staff members being okay with that.
It's also not clear anyone from the hotel desk saw Alison.
I'm just thinking of the casino trade and how they cater to many many senior citizens.
Beats me though.
And I can't imagine the hotel being worried about a million dollar lawsuit if a person dies of alchohol poisoning after drinking alcohol on their premises. They have insurance and besides, Smith drunk some of that alcohol somewhere else.
"Based Mom" actually goes by Christina Hoff Sommers. So it's really only Internet Aristocrat (or Jim) using a handle. Milo has one of those ginormous alphabet soup last names. :lol:TedDahlberg wrote:It suddenly struck me that we are living in the cyberpunk future where people are known by silly handles. I find that amusing.BaconNutellaFiend wrote:Milo, Internet Aristocrat, Adam Baldwin, and Based Mom
Carry on.
[.img]http://i.imgur.com/4ipuA8o.jpg[/img]
You are right. "Adam Baldwin" is a silly as fuck name.TedDahlberg wrote:It suddenly struck me that we are living in the cyberpunk future where people are known by silly handles. I find that amusing.BaconNutellaFiend wrote:Milo, Internet Aristocrat, Adam Baldwin, and Based Mom
Carry on.
So you go to the front desk and ask to use a wheelchair for your extremely drunk friend. As a desk receptionist or concierge, do you ask security to take a look at the extremely drunk woman to make sure she doesn't die? Do you call an ambulance because a dead person who drank themselves to death at your hotel (as far as they know) is far worse than an ambulance pick up?Opyt wrote:As much as "Believe the Victim" is chanted, I can't help but wonder if maybe the story has become a wee bit embellished each time it's retold. I would guess that it began as "Unable to walk straight" and then in a subtle gesture of reinforcing victim status, it then changes to "needed a wheelchair for mobility". I seriously doubt that a wheelchair was involved however, unless there happened to be one in the hotel room, which sounds odd but I've never been to Vegas let alone stayed in a hotel there. A wheelchair seems like the kind of thing you might need to contact the front desk to receive, because even though I've no doubts they have a few in a storage room somewhere, I highly doubt they'd have one for every room, and at a guess there's more than two hundred rooms in a casino/hotel, as they tend to be significantly larger than a Holiday Inn.
I think she was probably basing her talk on predictions by Ray Kurzweil:Glen_Davidson wrote:What's the deal, there's a miracle in 25 years that makes robots conscious/sentient?JacquesCuze wrote:She's a sex positive feminist lawyer porn producer at a tedX talking about a future 25 or more years from now where robots and androids are sentient though she has apparently never read any Asimov, Dick, or whomever, or seen Blade Runner or discussed Rachel's rape, or maybe not rape.
I made it about ten minutes in before bailing. She didn't say anything the masters haven't said and said much better.
Does it surprise me a She's a sex positive feminist lawyer hasn't read much SF and considers her take new and fresh?
It does not.
Or some critical mass will be reached?
Since she hasn't a clue how "sentience" is supposed to be achieved, it's clearly a non-issue. Just a bit of sciency nonsense to impress bourgeois know-nothings.
When Kurzweil first started talking about the "singularity", a conceit he borrowed from the science-fiction writer Vernor Vinge, he was dismissed as a fantasist. He has been saying for years that he believes that the Turing test – the moment at which a computer will exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human – will be passed in 2029. The difference is that when he began saying it, the fax machine hadn't been invented. But now, well… it's another story.
"My book The Age of Spiritual Machines came out in 1999 and that we had a conference of AI experts at Stanford and we took a poll by hand about when you think the Turing test would be passed. The consensus was hundreds of years. And a pretty good contingent thought that it would never be done.
"And today, I'm pretty much at the median of what AI experts think and the public is kind of with them. Because the public has seen things like Siri [the iPhone's voice-recognition technology] where you talk to a computer, they've seen the Google self-driving cars. My views are not radical any more. I've actually stayed consistent. It's the rest of the world that's changing its view."
* I know this article post dates the TEDx talk but his book was published in 1990.
- Although computers routinely pass the Turing Test, controversy still persists over whether machines are as intelligent as humans in all areas.
- Artificial Intelligences claim to be conscious and openly petition for recognition of the fact. Most people admit and accept this new truth.
- Reverse engineering of the human brain completed
Yeah, what was Knowle Rohrer thinking?comhcinc wrote:You are right. "Adam Baldwin" is a silly as fuck name.TedDahlberg wrote:It suddenly struck me that we are living in the cyberpunk future where people are known by silly handles. I find that amusing.BaconNutellaFiend wrote:Milo, Internet Aristocrat, Adam Baldwin, and Based Mom
Carry on.
It's like their slacktivism - it lets them feel good, think they are doing something, while actually doing nothing.sinister wrote:I don't think I follow the logic of being black out drunk as being "additional" evidence in a case where the person doesn't remember what happened. I REALLY don't follow the process that says try not to get black out drunk as that may work against you as being rape apology. How does it work out that women are supposed to live in constant fear of rape, but in no way should they take any precautions to prevent it?
I just don't get it, surely they have to understand what they posit as a solution, "teach rapists not to rape," is just farcical from the get-go.
To be fair, I've known quite a few persons who are also tools.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:For now...Tribble wrote:
Three minutes and I bailed. She is, frankly, an idiot. Robots are not 'persons.' They're tools.
I thought it was "did not fail"?DeepInsideYourMind wrote:The phrase is "not even wrong"BlueShiftRhino wrote:bing bing bingjugheadnaut wrote:I think you're being too kind to Gabriel. Isn't he just plain wrong?
You can argue that sexual dimorphisms shouldn't have the social effects that they do or that folks should, at least, minimize those effect, but to say that they don't exist - as does Snarky, as well - is to simply be ignorant.
Tell Gabriel to get back to you when he's pregnant.
So have I (watch this whole clip, it's uber cool)Badger3k wrote:To be fair, I've known quite a few persons who are also tools.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:For now...Tribble wrote:
Three minutes and I bailed. She is, frankly, an idiot. Robots are not 'persons.' They're tools.
I know it's been pointed out to these po-mo idiots time and time again, but they can't have it both ways. There are no sexes, yet there is sexism? How can someone designate that they may be homosexual, or heterosexual, if there are no sexes? They sure seem to want to use the labels they supposedly do not believe in when it helps them. And, to forestall criticism, if there are no biological sexes, the whole concept of gender as a social construct is ludicrous - you can't even begin to formulate a social construct without some defining characteristics to start with. I really hope PZ tries his hand explaining how his biology teaching is inherently flawed and how he plans to correct his students misconceptions about this. Hopefully he doesn't try to do anything with his fish and their sexes. Does fish society determine their gender roles, or are we assign them on a case by case basis?Old_ones wrote:Gabriel's point is a pure tautology. Basically sexually derived phyisiology isn't "male" and "female" because he's redefined those terms to mean something different. It doesn't matter what he wants to label the sexual characteristics resulting from biology. He's still upholding those differences, and thus refuting any substantive point he might have thought he was making.HunnyBunny wrote:As Gabriel has told us,Glen_Davidson wrote:
I thought I'd just add that this bit of shit from Gabriel seems to be carefully crafted to be dishonest while being technically correct.
Of course "man" and "woman" aren't categories in biology, male and female are.
Use of imperfect synonyms to dissemble.
one needs to read his next tweet to understand...
If neither male/female & man/woman are biological categories, what do we call the 98 or so percent of humans born with one or other set of identifiable sex characteristics? Should I henceforth sing I Am Homogamatic, hear me roar when Helen Reddy comes up on my spotify?
The act of having assigned socially constructed attributes to biological catergories does not invalidate the biological labelling. Nor does the whatever actual tiny percentage of failed sexual dimorphism invalidate these categories.
Also, JESUS CHRIST THE FUCKING STUPIDITY!!! Sometimes I'm almost embarrassed for these people.
It is CFI, after all - they've pretty much entered the death spiral of the black hole of idiocy. Hopefully, the death will not be long, drawn out, and painful. I've pretty much written them off for good. It would take a major change of leadership to see them as doing anything worthwhile for secular, skeptical, or rational people.jugheadnaut wrote:He actually talks quite about the Pit, starting at 23:00. He opens by saying he "spent almost zero time on the SlymePit" and describes it as a community of anti-feminists and self-described free speech advocates who don't want their speech curtailed by feminists and 'what they would call' humanists. That's right, we're constantly railing against people we call humanists here. Although I do hear we use the arcane phrase 'social justice warrior' or 'SJW' every now and then. ;) He does give the correct spelling and encourages people to see for themselves, so at least props for that.Glen_Davidson wrote:Peezus praising mere bigotry:
Oh, poor little man can't handle the Slymepit, so just disses it.Lindsay Beyerstein, who is always great, interviews Mark Oppenheimer about his misogyny piece on Point of Inquiry. It’s a good listen. I was especially amused by his comments about the slymepit — not even worth bothering with — and the faint praise for Penn Jillette — nowhere near as bad as the slymepit.
That refers collectively to the lot of them, Peezus with the others.
Either you deal honestly with critics, or you intellectually cede the argument. Apparently the latter is the best these "bright lights" can do.
Even though he spent 'almost zero time' here, he says you only had scroll down a couple of inches to find something so offensive, misogynist and crude that you had to click away. In his near zero time, he couldn't find a well-articulated philosophy defending free speech and crude language, and he concluded it seemed to be a place to spew crude invective aimed mostly toward women.
So, basically, he's making shit up. What percent of the posts here are "so offensive, misogynist and crude" that a normal person would have to click away? Is it even close to 1%, even by a very liberal definition (and maybe 0.1% if Mykeru is blocked ;) )? And what percent of posts are purely crude invective, whether aimed towards women or men. Yes, there is the occasional invective-only rant. But is this more than 1% of the posts here? I don't think any neutral observer would say so.
And Beyerstein asks near the beginning of the SlymePit discussion:
Is she a complete ignoramus on current skepticism/atheism debates? Does she think 'free thought' is defined by what's written on FtB? I guess it's got 'free thought' in its name, so it must be free thought and anyone criticizing it must be against free thought. Is that the level of her thinking? For shame, CFI.What is the SlymePit? Is it entirely geared towards critiquing free thought?
Why do you think most of them don't have real jobs (like most of us think of them) - freelance writer, professional blogger, "journalist", "makes videos", "social commentator" - etc. etc. etc. A lot of them seem to limit themselves in terms of human contact, except for carefully screened and controlled meetings. Considering the problems that they complain about in comments and posts, things that most of us would brush off as unimportant or meaningless, or even imaginary, they see as earth shaking and life-threatening. I'm not sure if the crazy came before the social ineptitude, or because of it.sinister wrote:Every day the SJWs bring new meanings and "insight" in to every day issues which create a complexity I cannot begin trying to evaluate in any meaningful way. If I lived as the SJW says I should, I would hardly be able to make it to work, let alone interact with others in a way i could articulate a single warm greeting. Day to day business logic would take years to enact.Richard Dworkins wrote:Hmm, I always thought that woman was a biological category, referring specifically to post pubescent human females.
I won't begin to guess how they imagine student housing would work. Scholarships would take quantum computing to award... I just see nothing of value gained by redefining every interaction as they do.
[youtube]2ORCnvGnaAM[/youtube]comhcinc wrote:Brive1987 wrote: Rape is such a harsh ring to it, doesn't it? I personally suspect she felt "seriously taken advantage of" until the strict letter of the law was mixed in with two shots of SJ rhetoric by Poppy et al.
So I don't think she was terrified by Shermer. And I suspect she feared career blow-back, not a knock on the door in the night.
This the best analysis of the evidence available that I have seen. It sucks to get used for sex, but that doesn't automaticly make it rape. Maybe Shermer is a douche for doing that and maybe he does it a lot. Do we also call rock stars and movie stars douches for the same thing? I am not looking at that from a right or wrong perspective, just a constant one. Either using your popularity to get sex is douche or it isn't.
Quick joke:
So the other night I was fucking this guy in the ass and he asked for a reach around. I was like "Dude, I'm not fucking gay".
