Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[German LurksBoatsman]

However the point was that while in-group positive biases and out-group negative biases are a psychological reality, racism is a social construct, different in its application from a society to another, and you can't analyze it in a vacuum regardless of historic and social context.

With that I totally agree. Just like to talk about old Romans ;)

Oh, and good luck to those who fell on hard times lately. Been lurking for a long time. I would join but I don't think I would get any work done IRL once I did. Even lurking is a massive (but often worthwhile) time-sink.

Now back to poop and wrestling gifs...

[Steersman]

Deport the lot of them - at least all those who won't piss on the Quran. I wonder how many more of those incidents it will take for Western societies to realize that, as Ibn Warraq rather convincingly argued, Islam is simply and entirely antithetical to central and fundamental principles of democracy.

Should we deport all the fundamentalist Christians, too, or at least all those who won't piss on the Bible? ....

I always find it jarring when Steersman trots out the mass deportation of Muslims. He's usually circumspect to a fault when it comes to sweeping judgments. It's like having a conversation with someone who appears thoughtful and then they start into how the Jews control the media.

Thought I was being quite charitable, to a fault even, and quite circumspect in qualifying my statement with the provisio of pissing on the Quran. ;-)

That said, I do think that countries which have large Muslim immigrant populations should be very careful about their citizenship processes. At very least, a large voting bloc full of medievalists needs to be avoided. It may be necessary at some point to have deportation available as an option not only for extremists but also for those who have shown no effort to assimilate. But it would require a lot more dirty water under the bridge to justify this, and I have trouble coming up with a scenario that could justify true mass deportation without due process.

Generally agree. And I have argued that if deportation is somewhat impractical at the moment then severe restrictions on immigration seems like a workable alternative. However, one might ask how many more 9/11s - "dirty water under the bridge" - do you think it might take to tip your opinions in either of those directions. In addition, you might note that the 1923 population transfers between Greece and Turkey were based on some degree of due process, i.e., it is possible to use the method in a more or less civilized way.

[Old_ones]

Another islamic terrorist attack this morning in France by two guys. So far, it's only been reported that one person was beheaded and their head hung on the factory's gate along with two islamic flags. The terrorists also drove through some gaz containers, probably trying to explode them. One of the suspected attackers has been arrested.

Deport the lot of them - at least all those who won't piss on the Quran. I wonder how many more of those incidents it will take for Western societies to realize that, as Ibn Warraq rather convincingly argued, Islam is simply and entirely antithetical to central and fundamental principles of democracy.

Islam might be antithetical to democracy, but democracy isn't going to win with apartheid politics.

I don't know if you have much interaction with Muslims on a daily basis, but I live in southern Michigan, so I do. A significant minority in my graduate school were Iranian nationals and behind that others from Northern Africa and the middle east. I have lots of friends an acquaintances who are Muslim, and I've even gone to Friday prayer services because I was invited by a couple of undergrads I was working with. I can tell you that I stood out like a sore thumb at that mosque, but no one was hostile or unwelcoming to me. I only have anecdotes on this matter, but in my experience a lot of Muslims are like Christians: they have their weird beliefs and their weird hangups but they generally want to live normal lives (tragic absence of barbecue and booze notwithstanding) and get along with their neighbors. If we start harassing them with weird exclusionary policies like you are proposing we'll only be giving the well intentioned moderates a reason to radicalize.

By all means we should be able to criticize Islam, reject bids to Islamicize our legals systems or government machinery, and target militants, but we are going to win the long war with Islam by "killing it with kindness". We need Muslims to want to function within secular societies, and we need Islamic theocracies to want to continue to do business with us. Eventually our "decadence" will eat away at their piety, and they will start going in the same direction that everyone else in the developed world is already going with respect to secularism and human rights. But we'll be undermining that effect if we start playing into their Jihad narratives by deporting and antagonizing them. No religion that I know of has ever been defeated by this sort of tactic.

[Steersman]

Can we deport steersman if he refuses to say nigger to a large black man?

Yes, and we should deport him to Nigeria.

For the safety of all humankind I think it would be best to pull a Planet Hulk on him.

OMG! Linking to Wikipedia articles! The horror! .... I might suggest cutting back on your posting here as you're obviously picking up some really bad habits ....

[comhcinc]

OMG! Linking to Wikipedia articles! The horror! .... I might suggest cutting back on your posting here as you're obviously picking up some really bad habits ....

I take the time to read them before I post them.

[Billie from Ockham]

I've read about synesthetes who perform mathematical tricks instantaneously because they 'see' numbers arranged spatially.

Also, doesn't Daniel Tammet perceive numbers as having 'personalities'?

Shatterface

Not sure about synesthesia, but one of the remarkable abilities commonly associated with savant syndrome is the ability to solve certain types of math problems near-instantaneously (aka lighting calculating).

Tammet, often described as an autistic savant, says that every positive integer up through 10,000 has its own shape, color and texture - properties that are in some way inherent (in his mind at least). He says he can solve certain problems by combining the shapes in his mind, and seeing the answer in the resultant combined shape and/or in the space between them.

He did a pretty interesting TED talk a while back.

Technically, the example given by Shatterface was not a case of synesthesia, because mathematical knowledge is not sensory and, therefore, can involve multiple sensory domains by default. But, for some odd reason, I didn't take the pedant route in my previous reply. Whether assigning colors or smells to numerical values would really qualify is also somewhat unclear to me. To assign a color or smell to the amount being represented by the number would seem to be a case of synesthesia; to assign a color or small to the concept would not.

In the name of full disclosure, at this point I need to mention that the concept of positive and negative whole numbers has a label that, for some reason, I have difficulty spelling correctly. I try to type I N T E G E R, but it always comes out as N I G G E R. And because my intent is magical and I wasn't trying to insult anybody, I feel perfectly justified in labeling all positive and negative whole numbers as niggers.

[Billie from Ockham]

Crud. Ninja'd twice while typing.

[comhcinc]

Now back to poop and wrestling gifs...

Close as I can get on short notice.

[Kirbmarc]

Curious then that you apparently attempted to take PZ to task for doing precisely that. Using stereotypes to mock or criticize hardly qualifies as racism, particularly if it's clear that one isn't claiming they apply to all members in a group.

My "condemnation" of PZ's "Islamophobia" was clearly sarcastic and done to mock the SJW indignation for "Islamophobia". Maybe you missed the event where I posted Myers' old "Islamophobic" pieces and his Horde attacked them as "racist"?

I have no problems with Old Myers and his posts. It's the New Myers who attacks Charlie Hebdo for "racism" that I dislike.

Incidentally Mohammed was definitely a child molester, since the evidence suggests he had sex with a 9 year old girl. Islam also a huge problem with some of its adherents who justify child rape (it's actually worse than the Catholic Church problem with child molester priests at the moment, at least IMHO).

[Kirbmarc]

By all means we should be able to criticize Islam, reject bids to Islamicize our legals systems or government machinery, and target militants, but we are going to win the long war with Islam by "killing it with kindness". We need Muslims to want to function within secular societies, and we need Islamic theocracies to want to continue to do business with us. Eventually our "decadence" will eat away at their piety, and they will start going in the same direction that everyone else in the developed world is already going with respect to secularism and human rights. But we'll be undermining that effect if we start playing into their Jihad narratives by deporting and antagonizing them. No religion that I know of has ever been defeated by this sort of tactic.

QFT. I have met and befriended many Muslims and most of them aren't observant or particularly fanatic. Many of them actually already don't even follow every prescription of their faith and enjoy booze or even pork.

Only one of them is very observant and he's probably one of the meekest persons I've ever known, not to mention a science fan. The cognitive dissonance is great in him, but he's one of those religious people who doesn't look for God in science or even philosophy and relegates its existence to a pure act of irrational faith. A sort of "credo quia absurdum" guy, and completely inoffensive.

[Steersman]

Another islamic terrorist attack this morning in France by two guys. So far, it's only been reported that one person was beheaded and their head hung on the factory's gate along with two islamic flags. The terrorists also drove through some gaz containers, probably trying to explode them. One of the suspected attackers has been arrested.

Deport the lot of them - at least all those who won't piss on the Quran. I wonder how many more of those incidents it will take for Western societies to realize that, as Ibn Warraq rather convincingly argued, Islam is simply and entirely antithetical to central and fundamental principles of democracy.

Islam might be antithetical to democracy, but democracy isn't going to win with apartheid politics.

I don't know if you have much interaction with Muslims on a daily basis, but I live in southern Michigan, so I do. A significant minority in my graduate school were Iranian nationals and behind that others from Northern Africa and the middle east. I have lots of friends an acquaintances who are Muslim, and I've even gone to Friday prayer services because I was invited by a couple of undergrads I was working with. I can tell you that I stood out like a sore thumb at that mosque, but no one was hostile or unwelcoming to me. I only have anecdotes on this matter, but in my experience a lot of Muslims are like Christians: they have their weird beliefs and their weird hangups but they generally want to live normal lives (tragic absence of barbecue and booze notwithstanding) and get along with their neighbors. If we start harassing them with weird exclusionary policies like you are proposing we'll only be giving the well intentioned moderates a reason to radicalize.

By all means we should be able to criticize Islam, reject bids to Islamicize our legals systems or government machinery, and target militants, but we are going to win the long war with Islam by "killing it with kindness". We need Muslims to want to function within secular societies, and we need Islamic theocracies to want to continue to do business with us. Eventually our "decadence" will eat away at their piety, and they will start going in the same direction that everyone else in the developed world is already going with respect to secularism and human rights. But we'll be undermining that effect if we start playing into their Jihad narratives by deporting and antagonizing them. No religion that I know of has ever been defeated by this sort of tactic.

I can sympathize with at least some parts of your argument. However, I think "apartheid" is somewhat "demagogue-ish" as the criteria isn't a race but a set of rather problematic beliefs; I wonder how you would feel about allowing the immigration of unreconstructed cannibals. Reminds me of having been in the office of my Member of Parliament [MP] and seeing some posters directed at new immigrants pointing out that FGM is entirely verboten: societies have a right, if not a duty, to protect themselves from odious and objectionable behaviours and beliefs ("the thought is party to the deed").

And it seems that your "their weird beliefs and their weird hangups" is "bending over backwards to positively supine lengths" - as Dawkins put it. Maybe arguably but it seems to me that the differences between France and England, on the one hand, and Canada and the US on the other is that the numbers of Muslims is much larger in the first case: ounce of prevention and all that. You may wish to take a close look at Ibn Warraq's Why I'm Not a Muslim for the details.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Well, Steersman would only start with deporting Muslims. Then on to uppity...

[Kirbmarc]

Incidentally I think that most religious people should be encouraged to admit that their choice is a personal lifestyle choice and not a philosophical or scientific position.

The pseudo-philosophical arguments of religious apologists are fuel for ideological campaigns to shape society as religious. Private professions of religions are far less threatening and are basically personal quirks. People who know that what they believe in is an irrational choice that makes them happy usually don't impose their religious beliefs onto others through law or by other means and are often secularists in politics.

They should be our allies, not our rivals. We should encourage religious people not just to question their beliefs but to keep their gods in their private homes, out of science, out of politics and out of philosophy.

[Steersman]

OMG! Linking to Wikipedia articles! The horror! .... I might suggest cutting back on your posting here as you're obviously picking up some really bad habits ....

I take the time to read them before I post them.

Bully for you. And your implication is that I don't?

[comhcinc]

OMG! Linking to Wikipedia articles! The horror! .... I might suggest cutting back on your posting here as you're obviously picking up some really bad habits ....

I take the time to read them before I post them.

Bully for you. And your implication is that I don't?

Yes.

[screwtape]

The ability to do very basic arithmetic without a calculator is an important critical thinking skill because it allows you to quickly test out certain kinds of propositions in your head or on the back of an envelope and frequently discard them before getting into the weeds (e.g. 20% of female college students will be raped). You're right that it's not essential. But being able to do this inline with a discussion or reading an article will save vast amounts of time and frustration.

I do think primary mathematical education is way too heavily skewed to arithmetic and should have more elements of mathematical thinking earlier. There was a hugely misguided attempt to do this in the '60s. I recall when I was in sixth grade around 1977, we briefly covered maybe the sole survivor of this effort which was different bases in numerical systems. That might have been my first introduction to actual mathematics. Interestingly, the motivation behind teaching it was probably to introduce abstract meta-type concepts, but it wound up being of significant practical value when I got into computer programming a few years later.

In the UK that was called 'Modern Math' and I suffered under it from 1969 - 1974. Bases, sets, matrices, Venn diagrams and linear programming instead of geometry and calculus. I don't suppose it harmed me, but then I don't use math for a living. I used Silvanus Thompson's lovely book to teach myself calculus later.

[Really?]

Can we deport steersman if he refuses to say nigger to a large black man?

Yes, and we should deport him to Nigeria.

He really prefers to call that country AfricanAmericania

[AndrewV69]

Another islamic terrorist attack this morning in France by two guys. So far, it's only been reported that one person was beheaded and their head hung on the factory's gate along with two islamic flags. The terrorists also drove through some gaz containers, probably trying to explode them. One of the suspected attackers has been arrested.

Wham Bam Ramadam, thank you Imam!

So many killings in the name of Islam.... And only June 26

Perhaps I am just getting older, but it seems to me that Ramadan comes earlier and earlier each year.

It will be Christmas soon.

That reminds me. I forgot to mention I am not observing Ramadan (this year anyway).

[Oglebart]

Deport the lot of them - at least all those who won't piss on the Quran. I wonder how many more of those incidents it will take for Western societies to realize that, as Ibn Warraq rather convincingly argued, Islam is simply and entirely antithetical to central and fundamental principles of democracy.

Should we deport all the fundamentalist Christians, too, or at least all those who won't piss on the Bible?

I always find it jarring when Steersman trots out the mass deportation of Muslims. He's usually circumspect to a fault when it comes to sweeping judgments. It's like having a conversation with someone who appears thoughtful and then they start into how the Jews control the media.

That said, I do think that countries which have large Muslim immigrant populations should be very careful about their citizenship processes. At very least, a large voting bloc full of medievalists needs to be avoided. It may be necessary at some point to have deportation available as an option not only for extremists but also for those who have shown no effort to assimilate. But it would require a lot more dirty water under the bridge to justify this, and I have trouble coming up with a scenario that could justify true mass deportation without due process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_patrols

[comhcinc]

That reminds me. I forgot to mention I am not observing Ramadan (this year anyway).

Neither am I. I am so not observing it I am only vaguely aware of what it is.

:greetings-clappingorange:

[Steersman]

[.quote="Steersman"]
OMG! Linking to Wikipedia articles! The horror! .... I might suggest cutting back on your posting here as you're obviously picking up some really bad habits ....[/.quote]
I take the time to read them before I post them.

Bully for you. And your implication is that I don't?

Yes.

You're wrong.

[comhcinc]

You're wrong.

I am not wrong. That is my implication.

[Parody Accountant]

You're wrong.

I am not wrong. That is my implication.

now make him divide by zero

[dogen]

In my early internet experiences on bulletin boards services I learned that a lot of people who identify as liberal or progressive are reflexively opposed to any generalization. If you were to say that in general humans have brown eyes, you'd get a dozen "nuh-uh. I have blue eyes and know a lot of people who don't have brown eyes." I think it's an instinct against falling for potentially nasty stereotypes, which I understand. Though generalizations are true about a population, we must regard people as individuals. If it's found that in general, women are more nurturing than men, that shouldn't be used to decide a particular child custody case.

My ex GF was a social worker, and she was saying that sort of shit all the time. Just one example: I noted that with trans*identity, there's a high comorbidity of mental and behavior conditions. (Statement of fact, supported by clinical studies.) She said, nuh-uh -- I know two trans*people, and they are both well-adjusted.

During one those interminable back & forths with her, I stated: to the closest approximation of 1, life on Earth is beetles. She said, nuh-uh.

It's an SJW axiom that: everyone's the same, but everyone is unique.

Indeed. The whole concept of 'privilege' rests on treating every individual as if they were an exact instance of the mean of a population. Totally bogus.

[comhcinc]

You're wrong.

I am not wrong. That is my implication.

now make him divide by zero

I am sure he can quickly google an article that seems to say it's possible then write 5000 words on the subject.

[dogen]

Now back to poop and wrestling gifs...

Close as I can get on short notice.

When is he gonna leap? I've been watching for 15 mins already!

[free thoughtpolice]

That reminds me. I forgot to mention I am not observing Ramadan (this year anyway).

Steersman still wants you deported just to be safe.

[Steersman]

You're wrong.

I am not wrong. That is my implication.

English must be a second language for you.

im·pli·ca·tion
ˌimpləˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated.

[AndrewV69]

I do think primary mathematical education is way too heavily skewed to arithmetic and should have more elements of mathematical thinking earlier. There was a hugely misguided attempt to do this in the '60s. I recall when I was in sixth grade around 1977, we briefly covered maybe the sole survivor of this effort which was different bases in numerical systems. That might have been my first introduction to actual mathematics. Interestingly, the motivation behind teaching it was probably to introduce abstract meta-type concepts, but it wound up being of significant practical value when I got into computer programming a few years later.

Ohhhhh yes I woke up for that one then went back to sleep for the rest. Math was boring for me. Boring, boring boring zzzzzzzz.

But later on when I encountered computers I was in love. Instantly, helplessly, hopelessly in love and it certainly helped me there as my first dumps were in hex and so no problem at all.

[AndrewV69]

I've read about synesthetes who perform mathematical tricks instantaneously because they 'see' numbers arranged spatially.

When I come across people who claim things such as "prime numbers smell different to me," I usually just tell them that I'm not licensed to practice in whatever state that we're in and move on. Quickly. And then kill another kitten.

Whereas I believe them and kind of envy them too.

[comhcinc]

You're wrong.

I am not wrong. That is my implication.

English must be a second language for you.

im·pli·ca·tion
ˌimpləˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated.

Fourth, after America, Southerner, and awesomeness. I can also speak a little yanky, goth, emo, and I can ask where the bathroom is in French but I don't understand what the answer is.

[comhcinc]

But you are still wrong, Steersman.

[feathers]

Ever talk to a woman about color? I know brown, grey, purple, yellow, orange. They know sandstone, puce, something like this:

http://www.geekinheels.com/wp-content/u ... colors.jpg

Once, long ago, I visited a furniture shop with a girlfriend, and left after ordering what I remembered as a dark blue with beige sofa. To my surprise, when we talked about it a day later, she said it had a pattern woven into it. I was really beginning to wonder what I'd missed.

Sure enough, when the thing came months later, I cast a closer look at it and it did have small patches of red thread woven into the blue. Which she'd noticed from a casual distance, without having specifically hawk-like eyes.

I then realised Morse, Columbo, Frost, Taggart and their ilk probably should have been women.

[Billie from Ockham]

Indeed. The whole concept of 'privilege' rests on treating every individual as if they were an exact instance of the mean of a population. Totally bogus.

When in a freakishly charitable mood, I see this a bit differently. At best, the concept of 'privilege' is that a person can be given benefits for being perceived as being a member of a certain group even when there is no evidence that the group in question deserves the benefits (or worse: may deserve costs, instead) and/or there is only weak evidence (such as appearance) that the person is really a member of that group. If it never went further than that, then I wouldn't have a problem with the concept because I've seen like this, myself. However, it rarely, if ever, stops there. Most often, when some accuses someone else of having privilege that are claiming that the group doesn't deserve the benefits and that the person taking the benefits knows this (and might even have fought to get the group these undeserved benefits). Thus, the accusation of privilege - and it really is an accusation in most cases - is quite serious. Even more: it's one of those special accusation that is true until proven false, instead of the other way around.

But, again: the simplest version of 'privilege' is a defensible concept. Unfortunately - and as well (but hyperbolically) expressed by Thunderf00t - [po-mo] feminism ruins everything.

[Billie from Ockham]

Once, long ago, I visited a furniture shop with a girlfriend, and left after ordering what I remembered as a dark blue with beige sofa. To my surprise, when we talked about it a day later, she said it had a pattern woven into it. I was really beginning to wonder what I'd missed.

Sure enough, when the thing came months later, I cast a closer look at it and it did have small patches of red thread woven into the blue. Which she'd noticed from a casual distance, without having specifically hawk-like eyes.

I then realised Morse, Columbo, Frost, Taggart and their ilk probably should have been women.

Just as the upper tail of a distribution can create certain positive beliefs about the entire population, the lower tail can do create the opposite, too. Just about every form of color-blindness is at least an order of magnitude more frequent in males (by which I mean people with a Y chromosome) than females (by which I mean those with no Y chromosome). [This is because society is so powerful that it can each inside your eyes and yank away pigments, if it feels like doing so.] That there are general beliefs about a sex difference in color perception doesn't surprise me. But that doesn't mean that there's any real difference for anyone above, say, the 10th percentile.

[CuntajusRationality]

Bully for you. And your implication is that I don't?

Yes.

You're wrong.

In reference to Novum Organum, you admitted that you had only read "bits and pieces of the Wikipedia summary".

No doubt some of it is tedious – I’ve only read bits and pieces of the Wikipedia summary, and few other references.

You have posted references to your beloved Croom article well over a dozen times, but you have never bothered to actually read it yourself.

No, I didn't read it all. And I think I've said that several times. But I'd read the abstract, and a few of the subsections that supported the points I was interested in. People are entitled to do likewise if they wish.

[fuzzy]

You guys... they released maxi pads for your anus.

Shart pads.

Shart repellant.

[Steersman]

http://i62.tinypic.com/1zb827l.jpg

The point of the above and the correct use of the above is to demonstrate how small (horizontal) differences in the mean can produce large (vertical) differences in the tails.

That's certainly one of the uses. Pinker elaborates on it in some detail:

With some other traits the differences are small on average but can be large at the
extremes [in compared population distributions]. That happens for two reasons. When two bell curves partly overlap, the farther out along the tail you go, the larger the discrepancies between the groups. For example, men on average are taller than women, and the discrepancy is greater for more extreme values. At a height of five foot ten, men outnumber women by a ratio of thirty to one; at a height of six feet, men outnumber women by a ratio of two thousand to one.

Might be interesting to see how those differences in the tails depend on differences in the mean, even for distributions that have the same standard deviations. Which I think Pinker argues is generally not the case for men and women.

That's it. Nothing more. Using it for other purposes is as ignorant as calling inferential statistics "descriptive" and then bitching that they don't tell you cause.

Ipse dixit. Seems kind of arrogant to think that that observation doesn't have further implications that might hold some water. For instance that one might argue "[heights of six feet and more], it's a more of a guy thing". While that graph of mine, and Pinker's exposition are maybe a little vague, maybe the following modification might clarify things:
http://i62.tinypic.com/igvrxv.jpg
Which is saying that 2.275% of the female population is taller than 185 cm [about 73 inches] while 15.861% of the male population is taller than 185 cm. Which again justifies the claim that "[taller than 185 cm], it's more of a guy thing". But the graph can also be interpreted as saying that 2.275% of the female population is taller than 84.139% of the male population. All of which might reasonably be applied to questions of innate abilities such as reading and mathematics, although it might be emphasized or suggested that those abilities are not necessarily straitjackets: that women, as a class, might be better readers is hardly justification for any man to give up on the process.

[feathers]

It's different, not necessarily superior. As a population, men have a superior visual cortex with about 25% more neurons. Men are better with reds.

Thanks, I'll remember that next time I fall for a blonde.




:dance:

[James Caruthers]

Another islamic terrorist attack this morning in France by two guys. So far, it's only been reported that one person was beheaded and their head hung on the factory's gate along with two islamic flags. The terrorists also drove through some gaz containers, probably trying to explode them. One of the suspected attackers has been arrested.

Deport the lot of them - at least all those who won't piss on the Quran. I wonder how many more of those incidents it will take for Western societies to realize that, as Ibn Warraq rather convincingly argued, Islam is simply and entirely antithetical to central and fundamental principles of democracy.

Should we deport all the fundamentalist Christians, too, or at least all those who won't piss on the Bible?

Christianity used to be simply and entirely antithetical to central and fundamental principles of democracy largely until a couple of centuries ago. In 1864 the Pope basically condemned freedom of religion as heretical.

Fundamentalist Christians like those who follow the dominion theology still support theocracy and have some influence on the American Religious Right. More than a few Christians have committed terrorist acts in the name of their religion, too.

I'm all for criticising, mocking and limiting the power of Muslims: no Islamic courts should ever be allowed, no Islamic schools should receive public funding, perpetrators of acts of violence and those who aid and abet them must be severely punished, no intellectuals who spews idiotic SJW pro-Muslim propaganda should be taken seriously by liberals.

Your illiberal proposal, though, is also fundamentally antithetical to central and fundamental principles of liberal democracy, like freedom of religion and of opinion.

Why should we stop at deportation? The brilliant rationale offered by Steers can be extended to any number of additional policies to protect our culture from the Islamic threat. If we can justify removing a citizen's legal and human rights because of what they may or may not believe or the religion they follow, why not extend this to the establishment of special "Islamic camps" where we can keep these people separate from our western population? Why not allow shopkeepers to refuse to sell to Islamic barbarians? Why not allow banks to refuse loans on the basis of Islamic beliefs?

We can establish a universal "piss test" before job interviews, bank loans and at border checkpoints. You can piss on the Koran or you can be arrested as a suspected violent barbarian.

The actions of a few violent people should establish the baseline for how we treat others who share their religion. You need to read more Wikipedia articles until you comprehend this, Kirbmarc.

[Steersman]

[.quote="Steersman"]
Bully for you. And your implication is that I don't?[/.quote]

Yes.

You're wrong.

In reference to Novum Organum, you admitted that you had only read "bits and pieces of the Wikipedia summary".

No doubt some of it is tedious – I’ve only read bits and pieces of the Wikipedia summary, and few other references.

You have posted references to your beloved Croom article well over a dozen times, but you have never bothered to actually read it yourself.

No, I didn't read it all. And I think I've said that several times. But I'd read the abstract, and a few of the subsections that supported the points I was interested in. People are entitled to do likewise if they wish.

Fair enough - more or less: one might reasonably ask where comhcinc qualified his "read" with "all", and whether it is really necessary to read all of an article or paper to get the point or gist of it, or enough of it for the purposes at hand.

read
rēd/Submit
verb
1.
look at and comprehend the meaning of (written or printed matter) by mentally interpreting the characters or symbols of which it is composed.

Don't see that it specifies that one has to read an entire work to "comprehend the meaning" of it.

But I suppose I could ask comhcinc whether he read all of the article he linked to, along with all of the cited references.

[comhcinc]

lol you are so full of shit. It's remarkable!

[James Caruthers]

I can sympathize with at least some parts of your argument. However, I think "apartheid" is somewhat "demagogue-ish" as the criteria isn't a race but a set of rather problematic beliefs; I wonder how you would feel about allowing the immigration of unreconstructed cannibals.

And it seems that your "their weird beliefs and their weird hangups" is "bending over backwards to positively supine lengths" - as Dawkins put it. Maybe arguably but it seems to me that the differences between France and England, on the one hand, and Canada and the US on the other is that the numbers of Muslims is much larger in the first case: ounce of prevention and all that. You may wish to take a close look at Ibn Warraq's Why I'm Not a Muslim for the details.

http://www.dcmemorials.com/Img//0004000 ... 053589.jpg

[James Caruthers]

The word "genocide" is very "demagogue-ish." Fucking SJW scum trying to make genocide seem unacceptable!

[Kirbmarc]

Fair enough - more or less: one might reasonably ask where comhcinc qualified his "read" with "all", and whether it is really necessary to read all of an article or paper to get the point or gist of it, or enough of it for the purposes at hand.

Since Croom's conclusions from other papers clearly do not support your hypothesis (as I have pointed out to you before), maybe you should ask yourself if you actually got the gist of his paper you've posted numerous references to.

You seem to have enough time to post lengthy posts here. I'm confident you can find some time to have thorough read of Croom's paper, and maybe even of a chapter or two of the Novum Organum.

[Steersman]

<snip>

I'm all for criticising, mocking and limiting the power of Muslims: no Islamic courts should ever be allowed, no Islamic schools should receive public funding, perpetrators of acts of violence and those who aid and abet them must be severely punished, no intellectuals who spews idiotic SJW pro-Muslim propaganda should be taken seriously by liberals.

Your illiberal proposal, though, is also fundamentally antithetical to central and fundamental principles of liberal democracy, like freedom of religion and of opinion.

Why should we stop at deportation? The brilliant rationale offered by Steers can be extended to any number of additional policies to protect our culture from the Islamic threat. If we can justify removing a citizen's legal and human rights because of what they may or may not believe or the religion they follow, why not extend this to the establishment of special "Islamic camps" where we can keep these people separate from our western population? Why not allow shopkeepers to refuse to sell to Islamic barbarians? Why not allow banks to refuse loans on the basis of Islamic beliefs?

We can establish a universal "piss test" before job interviews, bank loans and at border checkpoints. You can piss on the Koran or you can be arrested as a suspected violent barbarian.

The actions of a few violent people should establish the baseline for how we treat others who share their religion. You need to read more Wikipedia articles until you comprehend this, Kirbmarc.

Kind of missing the point. Which is maybe not surprising. But it is that all of those things you talk of - getting loans, being able to buy goods & services, getting a job, etc. - are the rights that follow from being a citizen; deportation is basically rescinding people's citizenship AND removing them from locations where those rights have any applicability. You might consider that citizenship isn't really an absolute and that many countries have deported those who clearly refuse to accept the minimal obligations that it entails - for example, France has more or less recently deported one or more Islamic clerics. Granting the viability of a principle says nothing about its potential scope.

[Steersman]

The word "genocide" is very "demagogue-ish." Fucking SJW scum trying to make genocide seem unacceptable!

Where did I say that it was acceptable? Nothing like reading something into an interlocutor's argument that isn't there and then condemning them for that.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Fair enough - more or less: one might reasonably ask where comhcinc qualified his "read" with "all", and whether it is really necessary to read all of an article or paper to get the point or gist of it, or enough of it for the purposes at hand.

Since Croom's conclusions from other papers clearly do not support your hypothesis (as I have pointed out to you before), maybe you should ask yourself if you actually got the gist of his paper you've posted numerous references to.

You seem to have enough time to post lengthy posts here. I'm confident you can find some time to have thorough read of Croom's paper, and maybe even of a chapter or two of the Novum Organum.

Holy shit. In what field would this slipshod, lazy, intellectually vacous approach work? Marketing? Leisure Studies? And notice that he didn't answer your point, but deflected to Comhcinc. What a fraud.

[free thoughtpolice]

James Caruthers wrote:

Why not allow banks to refuse loans on the basis of Islamic beliefs?

Actually, orthodox Islam prohibits lending or borrowing money if interest is charged.
So if the person in question agrees to pay interest it would appear the person is a true Muslim.
On the other hand, if the bank refuses to lend money to Muslims because they refuse to pay interest than they are bigots that don't respect others deeply held religious belief. :ugeek:

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Watch as Steersman carefully avoids answering the actual point that Croom didn't support the "nigger" thesis. He's still got Chris Rock, who doesn't support white people saying nigger either.

[Kirbmarc]

<snip quotes>

Why should we stop at deportation? The brilliant rationale offered by Steers can be extended to any number of additional policies to protect our culture from the Islamic threat. If we can justify removing a citizen's legal and human rights because of what they may or may not believe or the religion they follow, why not extend this to the establishment of special "Islamic camps" where we can keep these people separate from our western population? Why not allow shopkeepers to refuse to sell to Islamic barbarians? Why not allow banks to refuse loans on the basis of Islamic beliefs?

We can establish a universal "piss test" before job interviews, bank loans and at border checkpoints. You can piss on the Koran or you can be arrested as a suspected violent barbarian.

The actions of a few violent people should establish the baseline for how we treat others who share their religion. You need to read more Wikipedia articles until you comprehend this, Kirbmarc.

I have a cunning plan.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/imag ... Hsvp4hATgQ

I'm sure Steersman would love to establish one of these where he lives, if the deportation plan fails. Maybe build some ovens and buy a few vans. Make sure the trains run on time, too.

And after the Muslims, isn't it time to deal with certain other minorities that are also widely obnoxious? What's sauce for goose is also sauce for the gander. Oh, not all of them, of course. Just the ones that are made fun of by Chris Rock.

[Steersman]

Fair enough - more or less: one might reasonably ask where comhcinc qualified his "read" with "all", and whether it is really necessary to read all of an article or paper to get the point or gist of it, or enough of it for the purposes at hand.

Since Croom's conclusions from other papers clearly do not support your hypothesis (as I have pointed out to you before), maybe you should ask yourself if you actually got the gist of his paper you've posted numerous references to.

You seem to have enough time to post lengthy posts here. I'm confident you can find some time to have thorough read of Croom's paper ....

I don't think your interpretation of that paper of his really supports your argument, but I'll have to put a response on the back burner for a bit.

... and maybe even of a chapter or two of the Novum Organum.

Not quite sure why you think that is necessary. I criticized Caruthers' rather cavalier dismissal of the book by pointing to and quoting several credible sources - much more so than Caruthers himself - who have touted the book as being a seminal and defining influence in the development of Western society and science. Which I figure more or less closes the case; if he wishes to add his edits to that Wikipedia article, and have them last more than a nanosecond or two, then I might be willing to reconsider the point. Absent which I'll rest on my fairly well evidenced opinion that he's simply blowing smoke out of his ass.

[Steersman]

Watch as Steersman carefully avoids answering the actual point that Croom didn't support the "nigger" thesis. He's still got Chris Rock, who doesn't support white people saying nigger either.

So fucking what? You're going to insist that only blacks can use a particular word as an insult? Seems awfully fucking racist to me.

[CuntajusRationality]

Watch as Steersman carefully avoids answering the actual point that Croom didn't support the "nigger" thesis. He's still got Chris Rock, who doesn't support white people saying nigger either.

So fucking what?

So... that means you should probably stop citing him as a source for your it's-ok-to-say-nigger campaign.

[James Caruthers]

Fair enough - more or less: one might reasonably ask where comhcinc qualified his "read" with "all", and whether it is really necessary to read all of an article or paper to get the point or gist of it, or enough of it for the purposes at hand.

You seem to have enough time to post lengthy posts here. I'm confident you can find some time to have thorough read of Croom's paper, and maybe even of a chapter or two of the Novum Organum.

:lol:

[James Caruthers]

<snip quotes>

Why should we stop at deportation? The brilliant rationale offered by Steers can be extended to any number of additional policies to protect our culture from the Islamic threat. If we can justify removing a citizen's legal and human rights because of what they may or may not believe or the religion they follow, why not extend this to the establishment of special "Islamic camps" where we can keep these people separate from our western population? Why not allow shopkeepers to refuse to sell to Islamic barbarians? Why not allow banks to refuse loans on the basis of Islamic beliefs?

We can establish a universal "piss test" before job interviews, bank loans and at border checkpoints. You can piss on the Koran or you can be arrested as a suspected violent barbarian.

The actions of a few violent people should establish the baseline for how we treat others who share their religion. You need to read more Wikipedia articles until you comprehend this, Kirbmarc.

I have a cunning plan.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/imag ... Hsvp4hATgQ

I'm sure Steersman would love to establish one of these where he lives, if the deportation plan fails. Maybe build some ovens and buy a few vans. Make sure the trains run on time, too.

And after the Muslims, isn't it time to deal with certain other minorities that are also widely obnoxious? What's sauce for goose is also sauce for the gander. Oh, not all of them, of course. Just the ones that are made fun of by Chris Rock.

Offshore detaining facilities for deportees and suspected True Islamists sound like a good idea, too.

[youtube]B4J6_tCy8To[/youtube]

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Actually, Steersman, an awful lot of people of dark skin think it's racist no matter who uses it. Also consider the difference between sel-depreciation and insult. Consider the use of faggot by gay and straight people.

But you won't, of course. Kirbmarc, James, Billie, Skeptickle (and apologies to those I am forgetting) have all refuted you far more succinctly and eloquently than I can. You ignored them, moved goalposts and deflected.

However, I read Croom. I also looked over the other academic literature regarding that word. Thousands of papers that thoroughly disagree with you, and bits of the abstract of one you grab onto for your great white hope. And it really doesn't say what you thought it did either.

But you won't admit this, or concede other faulty arguments you make. Which is why I deemed you a troll, though being charitable, perhaps an unknowing one. You use SJW argument-style of deflection and ignoring the central point to latch onto wording or illusions. And of course, you insult the people you argue with.

I had been happy having you on ignore, but there has been a lot of quoting of your obsessive inanity. I have no doubt that you are either strangely compulsive or simply very dedicated in trying to paint the pit as racist.

So ignore, deflect. Get the attention you crave. But don't thinkcravek you have anybody fooled. You arenot intellectual, you are not philosophical, you are at best a compulsive troll, at worst a poseur with delusions of grandeur..

[CuntajusRationality]

Can we deport steersman if he refuses to say nigger to a large black man?

I think we all know what the reaction would be if he ever did it.
http://i56.tinypic.com/htwlq8.jpg

[Kirbmarc]

I don't think your interpretation of that paper of his really supports your argument, but I'll have to put a response on the back burner for a bit.

Take your time and maybe read the Croom article in its entirety.

[Gefan]

The inimmtiable Shoe0nhead weighs in on todays events:

[youtube]ZQs8ev-7DFI[/youtube]