The Refuge of the Toads

[deLurch]

And now for my Historical Retrospective on Steersmans' most inane posts. Back in 2012, Steersman actually started off somewhat brief. This was only his 5th post in. Who knew?

I didn’t watch the whole thing, but I didn’t see her rolling around under the table. And her comments about a more or less even keel debate with some creationists seemed coherent and cogent, even if her conclusions were possibly somewhat naive or biased. But can’t see that any of that justifies suggesting she needs “professional help” ....

Only 44,333 more posts to go.

[Guest_df4fcc85]

At a party the other night, a friend of a friend brought his girlfriend along. She's about to start a phd in communications near Salt Lake City, and overhearing her speak about her field of study, I overheard "... critical theory ..."

But she didn't seem like an autist, and well within standard bmi, brown-blonde hair not colored, no visible tats, so I was left hoping maybe she is getting her phd to fight critical theory....

Well I can hope.

[Malky]

By consent I mean informed interspecies consent. Can a dog give informed consent to being violated by a polyester-wearing bloke?

Is it wagging it's tail?

That's consent.

Afrre we speaking from experience? :think:

[comhcinc]

If Carrier really thinks that if he could somehow dissolve Christianity by proving that Jesus didn't exist through his Bayesian analysis he's much stupider than I gave him credit for.

Why else make it the focus of a career?

Pathological narcissism. Carrier wants to become famous as "the man who proved that Jesus doesn't exist". The effects of his proof on Christianity don't really matter as long as he gets the fame he thinks he deserves.

So he is much stupider that you gave him credit for?

[Spike13]

I think I have to throw in with some of the other folks, steers may put up walls of text, but it isn't too hard to scroll by if I don't wish to read it. Gulaging just seems to be very UN-pit-like to me.

Just my 2 cents. You're the boss.

[comhcinc]

I think I have to throw in with some of the other folks, steers may put up walls of text, but it isn't too hard to scroll by if I don't wish to read it. Gulaging just seems to be very UN-pit-like to me.

Just my 2 cents. You're the boss.

No I am not. And fuck that asshole steersman.

[screwtape]

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... id=9352846

Sarah W. Holmes

Abstract

This article examines the treatment of the pelvis in the Pilates exercises “Single Leg Stretch” and “Leg Circles.” The teaching practices of the hips, as commonly explained in Pilates educational manuals, reinforce behaviors of a noble-class and racially “white” aesthetic. Central to this article is the troubling notion of white racial superiority and, specifically, the colonizing, prejudicial, and denigrating mentality found in the superiority of whiteness and its embodied behaviors. Using the two Pilates exercises, I illuminate how perceived kinesthetic understandings of race in the body may be normalized and privileged. By examining the intersections between dance and Pilates history, this article reveals the ways embodied discourses in Pilates are “white” in nature, and situates Pilates as a product of historically constructed social behaviors of dominant Anglo-European culture.

Is the Cambridge University Press a real thing?

Mmm, it was a thing. I learnt my latin via their rather silly set of books about Caecilius and Grumio. It seems they are no longer to be taken seriously.

[Kirbmarc]

Pathological narcissism. Carrier wants to become famous as "the man who proved that Jesus doesn't exist". The effects of his proof on Christianity don't really matter as long as he gets the fame he thinks he deserves.

So he is much stupider that you gave him credit for?

I wasn't clear. I think that he knows that even if he become successful and famous nothing about Christianity would really change. He doesn't really care about social change. That's my point. He's jumped on the mythicist bandwagon because he thinks that it's an easy way to fame and fortune. So far his gambit hasn't paid off.

What I wanted to argue is that unlike welch I don't think that Carrier truly believes that his work will "disprove" Christianity. I think that as long as he gets famous (and rich) he doesn't care what happens to anyone else.

[Oglebart]

However, "why can't we be friends" wasn't my point. As you point out, religion is far more than just a definition of one's relationship with the universe. The existence of a central figure or not isn't really that important once you get a few centuries away from it, and I doubt it's that important even when said figure is alive or not. People want to be "right", people want to be superior, and people want to know it's not their fault. Religion is pretty awesome at all of that.

Buddhism doesn't depend on Siddartha being a real guy, any more than the various native american pagan traditions really depend on spirit animals actually talking to people. It gives people a structure with which to both run their lives and feel superior to other groups. I think that deep down, Carrier et al think, somehow, that if they can just definitively prove jesus didn't exist, then Christianity will somehow cease to exist.

And yet Christians are the deluded ones.

It does seem pretty pointless to me too, do they think that people that think Noah sailed around in a big boat with some dinosaurs in it are gonna be swayed by anything questioning Jesus's existence? I guess some people are interested, Ehrman seems reasonably popular but I guess they're all too far in to admit that it's all been a huge waste of time!

[Steersman]

scientificamerican.com/article/software-error-doomed-japanese-hitomi-spacecraft/?print=true

Software Error Doomed Japanese Hitomi Spacecraft
Space agency declares the astronomy satellite a loss
<snip>

On 28 April, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) declared the satellite, on which it had spent ¥31 billion (US$286 million), lost. At least ten pieces — including both solar-array paddles that had provided electrical power — broke off the satellite’s main body.

I have friends who help build the microcalorimeter on Hitomi. This whole episode is a major bummer for them.

Remember reading of a similar, possibly apocryphal, case where the British and Americans were each contributing pieces of hardware that had to function together in a satellite. But seems that the British were using metric units for acceleration while the Americans were, incongruously, using English units with the same result.

[Spike13]

Hitting on Kirbs question of "even if he did disprove historical Jesus, so what?" First of all anyone who has a shot at disproving Historical Jesus will be an archeologist. Someone who can show hard evidence that Jesus was invented out of whole cloth. Not a wanker playing numbers games)Who even knows if any such evidence even exists.

It's clear to anyone who looks at it rationally, that the bible gets more wrong than it does right and about subjects of more import than inconsequence. Nobody who believes cares.

Those who are true believers in Christianity would continue to believe. Others may fall away more than likely to find some different religion. Very few will become atheists or adopt a skeptical outlook on life.

Hell, we have an A/S movement and a large part of the people in it buy into 3rd wave PC woo.

Over all I can't see anything really changing much.(. Maybe getting a bit worse as some abandon Xian for somethin even more regressive.)

[comhcinc]

Pathological narcissism. Carrier wants to become famous as "the man who proved that Jesus doesn't exist". The effects of his proof on Christianity don't really matter as long as he gets the fame he thinks he deserves.

So he is much stupider that you gave him credit for?

I wasn't clear. I think that he knows that even if he become successful and famous nothing about Christianity would really change. He doesn't really care about social change. That's my point. He's jumped on the mythicist bandwagon because he thinks that it's an easy way to fame and fortune. So far his gambit hasn't paid off.

What I wanted to argue is that unlike welch I don't think that Carrier truly believes that his work will "disprove" Christianity. I think that as long as he gets famous (and rich) he doesn't care what happens to anyone else.

I have to disagree. He comes off as "I have to be right and since I don't believe then I will prove you are wrong" and like most people I am sure he would like the world to be a better place and like some getting rid of christianity would do that.

[Really?]

I think that as long as he gets famous (and rich) he doesn't care what happens to anyone else.

You forgot "laid by women at conventions."

[Steersman]

I think Based Mom* got it right about that we should "blame the Social justice university courses".
<snip>
I guess the key thing here is that the SJW courses prevent you having any knowledge or interests which will let you break the cycle. ....

Exactly right, or at least some justification for that argument - post-modernist rot that goes right to the core. Think that someone had referred to that in a thread outside the Undead one on how to try changing that without jeopardizing one's career. And then there's this post at the Tablet - by an author who deserves his own canticle, so to speak:

Time for the Academy To Put Its Pencils Down
Don’t dismiss the petulant students at Yale and elsewhere
—they’re here to tell us what we should’ve known a long time ago: American academia is beyond salvation
By Liel Leibovitz

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Hitting on Kirbs question of "even if he did disprove historical Jesus, so what?" First of all anyone who has a shot at disproving Historical Jesus will be an archeologist. Someone who can show hard evidence that Jesus was invented out of whole cloth. Not a wanker playing numbers games)Who even knows if any such evidence even exists.

It's clear to anyone who looks at it rationally, that the bible gets more wrong than it does right and about subjects of more import than inconsequence. Nobody who believes cares.

Those who are true believers in Christianity would continue to believe. Others may fall away more than likely to find some different religion. Very few will become atheists or adopt a skeptical outlook on life.

Hell, we have an A/S movement and a large part of the people in it buy into 3rd wave PC woo.

Over all I can't see anything really changing much.(. Maybe getting a bit worse as some abandon Xian for somethin even more regressive.)

Can we forget about this "historical Jesus" discussion? Future scholars will be much more interested in the history of other key thinkers:

[youtube]LRtvU20NqU4[/youtube]

[Sunder]

PZ plugs Karen Stollznows new book.
https://archive.is/PTIgE

One thing it lacks is reverence for organized skepticism — many skeptics are portrayed as jerks. It’s almost as if the author’s insider familiarity with the skepticism movement has disillusioned her.

Gosh, I wonder if she portrays some skeptics as mentally unstable harridans that try to ruin the lives of ex-boyfriends by making false accusations about them and flip out and violently assault their domestic partners? :think:

1) As pointed out before, Karen's book is the same scummy shit Michael Chrichton was almost universally panned for when he wrote a real-life critic/opponent into an unflattering (actually criminal) caricature in one of his books. This is petty revenge disguised as petty literature.

2) PZ's endorsement might be enough to move one extra copy: Onto PZ's shelves next to dozens of unsold Happy Atheist pamphlets.

3) PZ is a stupid fat tit.

[Sunder]

I've really been enjoying the Addyi controversy. A shit ineffective drug with loads common side effects and bad interactions with other drugs the target demographic might be taking pushed through federal review by whining and finding that virtually nobody actually wants to buy it because it sucks and is dangerous. So the company that currently owns it decide to stop flushing money down the toilet and get rewarded with accusations that they're deliberately sabotaging it.

[youtube]WAlJDpPFiLk[/youtube]

[Badger3k]

Reposting because it seems relevant: Carrier almost certainly pose as a sock on this thread (Zbykow, newly registered user) to defend "the historicity of Jesus":
http://vridar.org/2016/04/15/what-does- ... /#comments

Things go south and he resorts to the usual "you don't understand probabilities" and jumping between topics. Here is one comment:

Tim Hendrix: You are arguing based on what your intuition tells you we should do and not what probability theory actually tells us we have to do. Probability theory has to be the arbiter of truth and what you are saying just does not follow as far as I can see. Please just start with p(~h|b.E) and try to derive your expression, I promise you that it can’t be done symbolically.

Zbykow/Carrier skips on to next topic...

Zybkow is defending it? Most of it went over my head as I never thought of Bayes as being more than making shit up. One line of (I think) Carrier saying that using Bayes can illustrate people's bias or claims (looking at what probabilities they assign to what) - that seems useful. But I never got how they could assign probabilities when they have no basis for them except in their heads. GIGO. I skimmed the postings and thought Z was going against Bayes/Carrier - I guess I read it wrong.

[Badger3k]

However, "why can't we be friends" wasn't my point. As you point out, religion is far more than just a definition of one's relationship with the universe. The existence of a central figure or not isn't really that important once you get a few centuries away from it, and I doubt it's that important even when said figure is alive or not. People want to be "right", people want to be superior, and people want to know it's not their fault. Religion is pretty awesome at all of that.

Buddhism doesn't depend on Siddartha being a real guy, any more than the various native american pagan traditions really depend on spirit animals actually talking to people. It gives people a structure with which to both run their lives and feel superior to other groups. I think that deep down, Carrier et al think, somehow, that if they can just definitively prove jesus didn't exist, then Christianity will somehow cease to exist.

And yet Christians are the deluded ones.

If Carrier really thinks that if he could somehow dissolve or Christianity by proving that Jesus didn't exist through his Bayesian analysis he's much stupider than I gave him credit for.

The Bible has a terrible track record at explaining things and at dealing with reality. And yet lots of people choose to believe in it anyway.

The question of the existence of Jesus is a purely academic one. Even if Carrier's conclusions were widely accepted in the bible studies community Christianity would survive in some way. Sure, some people could leave Christianity if the academic world started to consider Christ a mythological figure, but the major religious authorities would say something along the lines that "Christ's existence is highly improbable, which proves he's a miracle which violates the laws of the physical world" and they'd cover their ass.

The real reason why Christianity is in crisis in the West is that many Westerners care more about other things, namely getting stuff they like. Capitalism is the real enemy of religion. Also the SJW ideology has showed up as a potential competitor at attracting people who want to feel special, right, superior and never guilty.

You forget the 'prosperity gospel" - they can make religion fit anything.

[Badger3k]

Pathological narcissism. Carrier wants to become famous as "the man who proved that Jesus doesn't exist". The effects of his proof on Christianity don't really matter as long as he gets the fame he thinks he deserves.

So he is much stupider that you gave him credit for?

Is that possible?

[Badger3k]

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... id=9352846

Sarah W. Holmes

Abstract

This article examines the treatment of the pelvis in the Pilates exercises “Single Leg Stretch” and “Leg Circles.” The teaching practices of the hips, as commonly explained in Pilates educational manuals, reinforce behaviors of a noble-class and racially “white” aesthetic. Central to this article is the troubling notion of white racial superiority and, specifically, the colonizing, prejudicial, and denigrating mentality found in the superiority of whiteness and its embodied behaviors. Using the two Pilates exercises, I illuminate how perceived kinesthetic understandings of race in the body may be normalized and privileged. By examining the intersections between dance and Pilates history, this article reveals the ways embodied discourses in Pilates are “white” in nature, and situates Pilates as a product of historically constructed social behaviors of dominant Anglo-European culture.

Is the Cambridge University Press a real thing?

Mmm, it was a thing. I learnt my latin via their rather silly set of books about Caecilius and Grumio. It seems they are no longer to be taken seriously.

"Caecilius est pater, Matella est mater" (IIRC) - going back close to 30 years, so maybe her name is spelled wrong. I suspect maybe it was the something, or else "Caecilius" was a really popular name.

[welch]

Andrew did that once or twice, but the difference is, and why I respect him a LOT more than Steerzo even though I disagree with him almost constantly, is that when I showed him his sources didn't in fact agree with his point, his response was what you'd want. "Well...okay, so I have to do more research". FUCK YEAH! That's how it's supposed to work.

I am more interested in the truth than being right. As far as I am concerned my pwecious fee fees are of no consequence compared to that. I can not even recall saying "I told you so" when I am proven right.

I also do not care who or what you are. If I was wrong when speaking what I believe to be true has cast someone in a negative light, then I will apologize as appropriate (for some reason this appears to be very important for small children especially).

As I recall, we still don't agree on that specific issue, but your response was really...heartening.

[Badger3k]

Foursome?

[welch]

He's someone who enjoys being a dick. Which is fun, let's be clear. There are times when being a dick is fun as HELL. But it can't be your only approach to the world, it just isn't terribly effective as the only tool in the toolbox. And there are times when I think encouraging Steerzo to go and shit on people's parades is almost an act of striking cruelty, for the same reason I think the assholes in the SJW world who encourage people like Triggly and Big Red to go do that shit they do is cruel.

Almost an act of striking cruelty? C'mon. At worst, Steersman is an irritant - if anyone thinks him anything worse than that, then the interwebz prolly ain't the best place for them. I've never seen him flood a board with porn or dox anyone. What he does is simply sit there and waffle, waffle, waffle while remaining utterly impervious to counter arguments and board etiquettes. People are free to ignore him if they wish. People can - and do - ban Steersman quite easily and without consequence. Steers, for all his faults, is hardly some uber-evil channer.{/quote}

I meant more towards Steerzo than the people he's blathering at.

Steerzo being encouraged to be a raging fuckwad in other people's comment posts makes it harder for the folks who actually are trying to discuss things like sane human beings.

Steers doesn't need any encouragement - that much is clear. And if saner, better posters - and by extention, the content of their posts - are dismissed because the association with Steers, then those doing the dismissing are likely to be just as obtuse and unreasonable as Steers himself. So why waste time with them?

That's all pithy and good, but the fact is, if you're used to the sole representative of a group being a pedantic asshole, then your basic assumption is going to be that everyone in that group is exactly the same. Because honestly, you're going to be right, or close to right, more often than not, as it's pretty rare for a group to have someone completely at odds with the rest of group as a member.

At the extreme end, not a lot of gay, black, jewish liberal klansment. Nor do you see Rush Limbaugh hanging out with the Black Panthers.

And I do know that people from this site who go out and try to have an actual discourse with other people do get annoyed/irritated when they're banned just for being from the 'pit.

Not like they're crying in their porridge over it, but still, it does suck.

[Keating]

At worst, Steersman is an irritant - if anyone thinks him anything worse than that, then the interwebz prolly ain't the best place for them. I've never seen him flood a board with porn or dox anyone.

How do you know this? While I don't have him on ignore, I tend to only read the first few sentences, go 'meh, not worth it', and scroll past. I imagine most people treat him this way. So, perhaps Steersman is a master troll. He builds up the ultimate boring persona, then doxes and posts text porn at will after a few sentences of his usual stuff to prevent people from reading it. Meanwhile, Google now returns the pit for when people search for Alaskan Pipelines.

[comhcinc]

At the extreme end, not a lot of gay, black, jewish liberal klansmen.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/d631pdfRasE/maxresdefault.jpg

[Brive1987]

I've had enough of seeing you fuckers quote Steerzo's endless BS, so I plan to Wonderize him later today. I'll post an announcement when I've done so.

Steers is the shit flinging monkey that stops a visit to the zoo being all about brown bears.

The trick is to mostly watch and only throw the occasional return turd when their backs are turned and no one else is around. The tendency here is go full pie fight.

[Steersman]

It is generally true, to some extent at least, that "language is usage". But that doesn't necessarily mean that the usage is particularly accurate or holds much water - as in the sunrise example I provided earlier.

What the fuck does this even mean? What is generally true, to some extent that ''language is usage''?

Languge is usage.

It was an allusion to the descriptist-prescriptivist sides of linguistics:

In the study of language, description or descriptive linguistics is the work of objectively analyzing and describing how language is actually used (or how it was used in the past) by a group of people in a speech community.

All scholarly research in linguistics is descriptive; like all other sciences, its aim is to observe the linguistic world as it is, without the bias of preconceived ideas about how it ought to be. ....

Linguistic description is often contrasted with linguistic prescription, which is found especially in education and in publishing. Prescription seeks to define standard language forms and give advice on effective language use, ....

A prescriptive grammarian, on the other hand, would analyze the rules and conventions behind the statements made and determine which statement is correct according to those rules. ....

Kind of anti-intellectual if not clueless to insist that usage is the only factor or side of the discipline to be considered.

What the fuck do you mean by that doesn't necessarily mean that the usage is particularly accurate or holds much water?

By what other criteria do we judge the meaning of a word other than by it's usage?

Do you understand what we mean by the statement that usage determines meaning?

<snip>
Communication, the exchange of meaning, constitutes the meaning of the words used.

And usage is extremely important and essential because outside that usage there is no meaning.

If you think otherwise give examples of words that have meaning outside their usage.

It may be true that "usage determines meaning". But, as the "prescriptive grammarians" quote above suggests, there are rules within most if not all languages. And there's some justification in looking under the hood and asking whether various constructions make sense or are consistent with those rules - fortunately not everyone is as obtuse as SquelchyWelchy is or with their heads as far up their asses as his is, and whose modus operandi is apparently little more than, as Scented Nectar succinctly put it, "Question nothing. There's nothing interesting to see here, folks." ;-)

But, as an example of a usage that is not "particularly accurate or holds much water", consider the one that Damion suggested in the conversation that led to that argument, i.e., "menopausal woman". IF - and do note the hypothetical - if one accepts the primary definition of woman as "female (produces ova) human" THEN that is a contradiction in terms - the "square circle" that Damion compared it with. By that definition, menopause is a process that changes a woman into just a person, one who can no longer produce ova, at least without hormonal or surgical intervention. So a "prescriptive grammarian" would probably say, with some justification, that that "statement is [not] correct according to those rules". While that example might not amount to a hill of beans, I think there are many other cases where the cheese is potentially a little more binding, if not "problematic".

And case of that is, I think, afforded by the infamous "nigger-cunt hypothesis". If the rule - a prescriptivist notion that seems foreign to some (dogmatic) descriptivists - is that a word that refers to an attribute or feature of a class - e.g., skin colour, articles of clothing, ethnicity, sexual proclivities - is used as a pejorative towards one member of the class then it is deemed to be used to implicitly tar all other members of the same class. Hence racist or sexist or bigoted as the case may be. But if that is the case for those instances then why not for "cunt"? Which is also a case of a feature of a class used as a pejorative. Maybe there's something else happening underneath the hood to explain the difference. But absent a justification for that difference one might reasonably suggest that there's a bias, a double-standard in play.

[Brive1987]

Not "some" dictionary definitions. Every single one of the top google hits except the one you chose to go with.

Is Jenna Talackova a "real woman"?

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1119614/image ... cebook.jpg

Real enough to win beauty pageants, clearly. Real enough to arouse men. If you're looking for someone to bear your children on the other hand, no.

Jenna is a gender Schrödinger's box - the state of the pussy is entirely unknowable until you open the package.

[welch]

At the extreme end, not a lot of gay, black, jewish liberal klansmen.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/d631pdfRasE/maxresdefault.jpg

I stand corrected...and want to join, because they are FABULOUS

[DaveDodo007]

At a party the other night, a friend of a friend brought his girlfriend along. She's about to start a phd in communications near Salt Lake City, and overhearing her speak about her field of study, I overheard "... critical theory ..."

But she didn't seem like an autist, and well within standard bmi, brown-blonde hair not colored, no visible tats, so I was left hoping maybe she is getting her phd to fight critical theory....

Well I can hope.

[youtube]aDMKXFeBNVU[/youtube]

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... id=9352846

Sarah W. Holmes

Abstract

This article examines the treatment of the pelvis in the Pilates exercises “Single Leg Stretch” and “Leg Circles.” The teaching practices of the hips, as commonly explained in Pilates educational manuals, reinforce behaviors of a noble-class and racially “white” aesthetic. Central to this article is the troubling notion of white racial superiority and, specifically, the colonizing, prejudicial, and denigrating mentality found in the superiority of whiteness and its embodied behaviors. Using the two Pilates exercises, I illuminate how perceived kinesthetic understandings of race in the body may be normalized and privileged. By examining the intersections between dance and Pilates history, this article reveals the ways embodied discourses in Pilates are “white” in nature, and situates Pilates as a product of historically constructed social behaviors of dominant Anglo-European culture.

Is the Cambridge University Press a real thing?

I'm very triggered by this whole "hips" thing. Remember I only have one left...

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

The whole internet runs on quoting people who are wrong and then perhaps saying something slightly less wrong and interesting. Please don't ban him, Lsuoma. Steersman belongs into this forum like broken quotes and the undead thread. We have to endure him.

Thanks -

See? That's where you should have stopped.

[Brive1987]

In some ways I am closer to Steers than I thought I'd be.

IMO and with a very small zone of 'shits gone wrong' you are born a male / female. Anything that happens post hoc is modification on this 'natural order'. So Jenna remains a man who has successfully rewired himself to the point he is outwardly indistinguishable from a "real" woman as formed.

And by all means then re gender your pronouns to her/she and walk the talk - as long as you don't think this conjures magic. And I'm more than happy, on a day to day pragmatic level to consider you a sociological woman. This is way beyond the Dave travesty or the woman who's rewiring extends to clothes and makeup but not 'her' shlong.

However at an objective level, even a Jenna remains a rewired man.

The functioning ova benchmark is a dumb one as all naturally born women will eventually fall short of this mark.

[DaveDodo007]

The whole internet runs on quoting people who are wrong and then perhaps saying something slightly less wrong and interesting. Please don't ban him, Lsuoma. Steersman belongs into this forum like broken quotes and the undead thread. We have to endure him.

Aneris and d4m10n sitting in a tree....

[HunnyBunny]

*snip*

Think of the outpouring of 'lets Steers stay' more as the Pit having a weird Uncle who shows up at family weddings. No one wants to sit next to him, but they can't leave him of the invite list. We still don't want to read the tedious shit you type about how you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. And no, I haven't read your post/wiki link/quote/article/tweet *.


*(delete as necessary for whatever you plan on pointing out I would agree with if only I had read it.)

[Steersman]

<snip>

I don't see your point. Consider its definition as indicated at the top of a Google search:

can kan
verb
1. be able to: "they can run fast"
2. be permitted to: "you can use the phone if you want to"

I'm certainly willing to permit Bruce Jenner to "bear offspring or produce eggs" whenever he wants to, but the question is whether he is able to.

And there we go with the motte and bailey again. The word "can" introduces ambiguity that you're ignoring with regards to the menopausal women aren't women argument, as it just requires possibility, and possibility becomes a more philosophical debate. ....

What po-mo horseshit; what a pile of "philosophical" woo. Most women can - are able to - produce ova given the passage of some time, or a hormonal or surgical intervention; you really think that Bruce Jenner or Dave Muscato could do so, regardless of the efforts or technology applied? Such things, like squaring the circle, are simply not possible: "can" has no bearing or relevance at all - idiocy to think otherwise.

Is Jenna Talackova a "real woman"?
[.img]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1119614/image ... cebook.jpg[/img]

Real enough to win beauty pageants, clearly. Real enough to arouse men. If you're looking for someone to bear your children on the other hand, no.

She looks like a real woman. But, hate to break to you, appearances aren't actualities. Hence the necessity for objective, quantifiable, criteria.

And I notice that you too have yet to actually ante-up with a definition for the term "woman", despite repeated challenges to do so. And if you don't fall back on the primary, biological, attribute then I expect that all you will be doing is relying on "feelings", on stereotypes, on a "collective identity".

[Steersman]

*snip*

Think of the outpouring of 'lets Steers stay' more as the Pit having a weird Uncle who shows up at family weddings. No one wants to sit next to him, but they can't leave him of the invite list. We still don't want to read the tedious shit you type about how you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. And no, I haven't read your post/wiki link/quote/article/tweet *.

*(delete as necessary for whatever you plan on pointing out I would agree with if only I had read it.)

Not very "skeptical" or fair of you, that you would say "I [have] never seen anyone come within even a parsec of concluding you have a fraction of a rational point on this" yet would refuse to look at the evidence I provided that contradicts that view. That is, this comment from Matt Cavanaugh:

But Steers is right in one aspect: if Muscato is a woman, [then] the term 'woman' can mean anything -- thus, nothing.

And you might also note that Brive has just more or less agreed with the same point.

[Steersman]

In some ways I am closer to Steers than I thought I'd be.

Hallelujah! Ever onward and upward! ;-)

IMO and with a very small zone of 'shits gone wrong' you are born a male / female. Anything that happens post hoc is modification on this 'natural order'. So Jenna remains a man who has successfully rewired himself to the point he is outwardly indistinguishable from a "real" woman as formed. ....

However at an objective level, even a Jenna remains a rewired man.

Exactly. Hence "transwoman" makes some sense - like "crayfish" as Aneris suggested some time ago.

The functioning ova benchmark is a dumb one as all naturally born women will eventually fall short of this mark.

Well, that is what the primary definition is; if you don't like it then change it, but don't shoot the messenger. But I don't get the "eventually fall short of ..."; we eventually all fall short of the mark of "teenager" too without getting our panties in a twist over that transition.

[Brive1987]

As embarrassing as Carrier is, he does seem at least to be right in that there is no genuine evidence for Jesus's existence. Ehrman's dismissive handwaving away of this problem, as far as I can see, never seems to be accompanied by an actual refutation. This would be trivially easy to do if the evidence was there (cf. evolution vs creationism).

The problem is, Carrier is trying to fabricate evidence that Jesus did not exist, via his cargo-cult toying with Bayes' Theorem. Carrier just pulls probabilities out of his ass, then plugs them into a formula that was never intended for assessing the probability of one-off events. Which is why Unwin & Swinburne were able to use Bayes' to prove that God does exist & Jesus was resurrected.

Bayes' is fine for things like: estimating the odd of a horse winning a race, when it's won 8 of its last 10 races, but only 1 of 3 races under today's jockey. In fact, Bayes is what we naturally do in our head for those situations. It's completely nonsensical for the question 'did Jesus [whoever & however one defines that] exist, once?'

It's rarely possible to positively prove something in History. Delbrück made a compelling argument -- exhaustively researched & impeccably reasoned -- that the Greeks outnumbered the Persians at Marathon. But he never proved it, never could. Average Dick thinks he's disproven Jesus. :doh:

The Delbruck that helped popularise the infamous "heavy hoplite" canard? :mrgreen:

[Tigzy]

That's all pithy and good, but the fact is, if you're used to the sole representative of a group being a pedantic asshole, then your basic assumption is going to be that everyone in that group is exactly the same.

Because honestly, you're going to be right, or close to right, more often than not, as it's pretty rare for a group to have someone completely at odds with the rest of group as a member.

At the extreme end, not a lot of gay, black, jewish liberal klansment. Nor do you see Rush Limbaugh hanging out with the Black Panthers.

Yeah, but this is Steersman we're talking about. How many times have you seen him go into a forum and announce himself as the authentic voice of the Pit? Anyone aware of Steers' connection with the Pit will likely have some prior knowledge of this place, and likewise, some knowledge of the more reasonable voices here. If they therefore go on to use Steers as a cudgel against this place, or view him as the authentic voice of us folks, then they're being unreasonable and aren't likely to be swayed by any points to the contrary.

Now, it's true that someone could see Steers and some other pitters arguing somewhere and reasonably assume, given the thrust of the argument in question and at least a degree of camaderie between Steers and the other Pitters, that they're all part of the same group. However, assuming some of the more reasonable pitters are there, then it would be entirely unreasonable to dismiss those pitters on the basis of Steersman. Again, someone probably not worth dealing with.

If someone encounters Steersman waffling by himself on some forum somewhere - well, that's Steers' problem.

If you mean it in the sense of Steers being viewed as some sort of representation of the anti-socjus movement as whole, then again - that's an unreasonable position to take. It's like dismissing the voices ranged against Creationism simply because you encountered a particularly obtuse Lamarckist somewhere.

Also, it needs to be said that Steersman's purported ability to shit everything up for the rest of us is contingent upon the bloke having at least a degree of charisma and fluency that generally make his posts readable after the first few lines. I dunno...something tells me that encountering a series of typically convoluted, near incoherent and long-winded Steersman posts on some forum somewhere is simply gonna lead most people to ignore the waffling fucker. Certainly, some will take the bait, and that's when the fun ensues. But I seriously doubt Steers' overall reach is anything to be concerned about.

And I do know that people from this site who go out and try to have an actual discourse with other people do get annoyed/irritated when they're banned just for being from the 'pit.

Yeah, but you can hardly pin all that on Steersman.

Almost an act of striking cruelty? C'mon. At worst, Steersman is an irritant - if anyone thinks him anything worse than that, then the interwebz prolly ain't the best place for them. I've never seen him flood a board with porn or dox anyone. What he does is simply sit there and waffle, waffle, waffle while remaining utterly impervious to counter arguments and board etiquettes. People are free to ignore him if they wish. People can - and do - ban Steersman quite easily and without consequence. Steers, for all his faults, is hardly some uber-evil channer.{/quote}

I meant more towards Steerzo than the people he's blathering at.

What, you mean cruel in the sense that it's enabling some sort of self-abasing behavior in Steers? C'mon. Dude just likes to go into forums and be a long-winded contrarian. If you think it's a problem deeper than that, then please do elaborate. Cos he gets plenty o' that enabling in this place, for sure.

[d4m10n]

In some ways I am closer to Steers than I thought I'd be.

Hallelujah! Ever onward and upward! ;-)

IMO and with a very small zone of 'shits gone wrong' you are born a male / female. Anything that happens post hoc is modification on this 'natural order'. So Jenna remains a man who has successfully rewired himself to the point he is outwardly indistinguishable from a "real" woman as formed. ....

However at an objective level, even a Jenna remains a rewired man.

Exactly. Hence "transwoman" makes some sense - like "crayfish" as Aneris suggested some time ago.

The functioning ova benchmark is a dumb one as all naturally born women will eventually fall short of this mark.

Well, that is what the primary definition is; if you don't like it then change it, but don't shoot the messenger. But I don't get the "eventually fall short of ..."; we eventually all fall short of the mark of "teenager" too without getting our panties in a twist over that transition.

If the primary usage really does imply that women stop being women at menopause then surely it shouldn't be difficult to find examples of writers other than Steersman taking this distinction into account.

[Skep tickle]

<snip>

Most women can - are able to - produce ova given the passage of some time, or a hormonal or surgical intervention; you really think that Bruce Jenner or Dave Muscato could do so, regardless of the efforts or technology applied?

<snip>

[/quote][/quote]
"Most women can produce ova" [in at least some circumstances] = not all women can produce ova.

So, production of ova is not the definition you're using for "woman". I see.

___

Also: ovarian transplantation & uterine transplantation have each been performed, see for example here, here, and here. It turns out they've only been performed in people considered to be biologically female (by gyn surgery researchers whose criteria for "female" have been more inclusive than Steers uses), in part because the purpose has been to allow pregnancy. Is there a biological reason that ovarian &/or uterine transplants, appropriately HLA-matched & with appropriate pharmacologic immune suppression, could not some day be performed in people considered, going into the surgery, biologically male or intersex?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

If Carrier really thinks that if he could somehow dissolve Christianity by proving that Jesus didn't exist through his Bayesian analysis he's much stupider than I gave him credit for.

Why else make it the focus of a career?

Pathological narcissism. Carrier wants to become famous as "the man who proved that Jesus doesn't exist". The effects of his proof on Christianity don't really matter as long as he gets the fame he thinks he deserves.

Don't forget -- this is the man with the hubris to think he could reconcile quantum mechanics with relativistic gravity via philosophy.

[Shatterface]

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... id=9352846

Sarah W. Holmes

Abstract

This article examines the treatment of the pelvis in the Pilates exercises “Single Leg Stretch” and “Leg Circles.” The teaching practices of the hips, as commonly explained in Pilates educational manuals, reinforce behaviors of a noble-class and racially “white” aesthetic. Central to this article is the troubling notion of white racial superiority and, specifically, the colonizing, prejudicial, and denigrating mentality found in the superiority of whiteness and its embodied behaviors. Using the two Pilates exercises, I illuminate how perceived kinesthetic understandings of race in the body may be normalized and privileged. By examining the intersections between dance and Pilates history, this article reveals the ways embodied discourses in Pilates are “white” in nature, and situates Pilates as a product of historically constructed social behaviors of dominant Anglo-European culture.

Is the Cambridge University Press a real thing?

Pilates is racist because it's white.

Yoga is racist because it's not white.

[Service Dog]

I've had enough of seeing you fuckers quote Steerzo's endless BS, so I plan to Wonderize him later today. I'll post an announcement when I've done so.

Good. Now's the time to do it. Not when Steersman has made some fresh controversial statement, which would blur what's going-on here & make it seem his unpopular views are why he's getting the boot. But it's that he's an ENDLESS headache.

AND it's not-even Steersman who caused this to happen: it's the people who didn't heed your request that they should stop engaging with him. But they kept quoteboxing Steersman, so fuck it. Please don't change your mind this time. Steersman was 'spared the axe' once and has been 'living on borrowed time' and other cliches. 'Enough is enough'.

Get in your box, Steersman:

viewtopic.php?p=356278#p356278

[Matt Cavanaugh]

The Delbruck that helped popularise the infamous "heavy hoplite" canard? :mrgreen:

I'm not familiar with that term -- I've only read Delbrück in German.

[AndrewV69]

Andrew did that once or twice, but the difference is, and why I respect him a LOT more than Steerzo even though I disagree with him almost constantly, is that when I showed him his sources didn't in fact agree with his point, his response was what you'd want. "Well...okay, so I have to do more research". FUCK YEAH! That's how it's supposed to work.

I am more interested in the truth than being right. As far as I am concerned my pwecious fee fees are of no consequence compared to that. I can not even recall saying "I told you so" when I am proven right.

I also do not care who or what you are. If I was wrong when speaking what I believe to be true has cast someone in a negative light, then I will apologize as appropriate (for some reason this appears to be very important for small children especially).

As I recall, we still don't agree on that specific issue, but your response was really...heartening.

I do not remember what the issue was. Was is about Catharine MacKinnon?

[Brive1987]

A teenager transitions into adulthood, a woman doesn't transition into anything majorly new at menopause. She simply stops being fertile.

I get the Steers perspective, I could understand a definition of "non functional female". But a car without an engine is still a car. Becky's zoom box didn't morph into a meaningless pile of parts just because it lost a major part of its utility. (Take that as you will !!)

And when you are dealing with people, the inflexible use of utilitarian terms is especially unhelpful. You simply can't call someone a "functionally broken woman".

So Steers, no one else is so bound by the definition of car woman that they need to change it to accommodate the nuance of change in 'utility'. No one sees menopause as a definitional problem to solve.

[AndrewV69]

Getting this in before the FT bans me to the outer darkness - "with extreme prejudice", thanks rayshul. And Phil. And screwtape. And anyone else who I might have missed who expressed similar opinions.

Though, in passing, not sure that anathematizing people quoting me reflects all that well on the supposed claim to fame of the Pit - i.e., free speech and all that.

I believe the real issue Steers is in persisting in your arguments way past the time you should have dropped them as unpersuasive. At least that is what I do at any rate.

It just seems to annoy people if you persist in your arguments when the people you are talking to see them as invalid and for reasons that have been laid out for you.

You are not helping your cause when you continue to argue. In fact at that point you are hurting it. A couple of things you may find edifying:

a. The Backfire Effect

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.

The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

b. A paper titled When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions You can download it here

Abstract
An extensive literature addresses citizen ignorance, but very little research focuses on misperceptions. Can these false or unsubstantiated beliefs about politics be corrected? Previous studies have not tested the efficacy of corrections in a realistic format. We conducted four experiments in which subjects read mock news articles that included either a misleading claim from a politician, or a misleading claim and a correction. Results indicate that corrections frequently fail to reduce misperceptions among the targeted ideological group. We also document several instances of a “backfire effect” in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.

Just saying. Ya'know?

[Tigzy]

Holy shit.

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

viewtopic.php?f=34&t=490&start=260

[Brive1987]

The Delbruck that helped popularise the infamous "heavy hoplite" canard? :mrgreen:

I'm not familiar with that term -- I've only read Delbrück in German.

No big deal, I have just read some stuff on Delbruck being the boogie man who popularised the concept that hoplites wore 70 pounds of kit. And therefore had to fight in a mass driven scrum. Modern thought is 20-30 pounds and far more individual flexibility. Who the hell knows.

Just wanted to see if I could ruffle your Teutonic sensibilities. ;)

Delbruck had a thing with numbers though. He argued for far smaller Persian armies in Alexandrian campaigns as well as smaller armies in medieval times.

The whole ancient arena can be a mind fuck. There is a view that there was no such thing as the "Peloponesian War" - that its apparent continuity was a post hoc construct. I have even seen the view that the Battle of Plataea was largely a Greek on Greek civil battle with Persian intent.

[Steersman]

<snip>

The functioning ova benchmark is a dumb one as all naturally born women will eventually fall short of this mark.

Well, that is what the primary definition is; if you don't like it then change it, but don't shoot the messenger. But I don't get the "eventually fall short of ..."; we eventually all fall short of the mark of "teenager" too without getting our panties in a twist over that transition.

If the primary usage really does imply that women stop being women at menopause then surely it shouldn't be difficult to find examples of writers other than Steersman taking this distinction into account.

Maybe a fair point. However, I might suggest that the contradiction, the oxymoron, of "menopausal woman" wasn't really highlighted or brought into focus until various transactivists insisted on, in effect, redefining the word "woman". Which then raises the questions of how much of a claim they have to it, and what is a reasonable definition for it in the first place.

[Shatterface]

It was an allusion to the descriptist-prescriptivist sides of linguistics:

In the study of language, description or descriptive linguistics is the work of objectively analyzing and describing how language is actually used (or how it was used in the past) by a group of people in a speech community.

All scholarly research in linguistics is descriptive; like all other sciences, its aim is to observe the linguistic world as it is, without the bias of preconceived ideas about how it ought to be. ....

Linguistic description is often contrasted with linguistic prescription, which is found especially in education and in publishing. Prescription seeks to define standard language forms and give advice on effective language use, ....

A prescriptive grammarian, on the other hand, would analyze the rules and conventions behind the statements made and determine which statement is correct according to those rules. ....

Kind of anti-intellectual if not clueless to insist that usage is the only factor or side of the discipline to be considered.

So to counter my argument you quote several paragraphs which unequivocally support my argument (''All scholarly research in linguistics is descriptive; like all other sciences, its aim is to observe the linguistic world as it is, without the bias of preconceived ideas about how it ought to be'') followed by a fourth which is about prescriptive grammar, not semantics???

What the fuck do you mean by that doesn't necessarily mean that the usage is particularly accurate or holds much water?

By what other criteria do we judge the meaning of a word other than by it's usage?

Do you understand what we mean by the statement that usage determines meaning?

<snip>
Communication, the exchange of meaning, constitutes the meaning of the words used.

And usage is extremely important and essential because outside that usage there is no meaning.

If you think otherwise give examples of words that have meaning outside their usage.

It may be true that "usage determines meaning". But, as the "prescriptive grammarians" quote above suggests, there are rules within most if not all languages. And there's some justification in looking under the hood and asking whether various constructions make sense or are consistent with those rules - fortunately not everyone is as obtuse as SquelchyWelchy is or with their heads as far up their asses as his is, and whose modus operandi is apparently little more than, as Scented Nectar succinctly put it, "Question nothing. There's nothing interesting to see here, folks." ;-)

Those 'prescriptive' rules you are referring to refer to syntax (grammar) not semantics.

There's an underlying structure to language in the sense that the order in which we put words determines the meaning of the sentence: that syntax is what lies ''under the hood''.

'Dog bites man' means something different than 'man bites dog' but that doesn't mean the words 'man', 'dog' or 'bite' change their fucking meaning, and that fact doesn't alter whether the surface grammar is subject-verb-object as in English, subject-object-verb like Latin, or object-subject-verb like fucking Yoda.

But, as an example of a usage that is not "particularly accurate or holds much water", consider the one that Damion suggested in the conversation that led to that argument, i.e., "menopausal woman". IF - and do note the hypothetical - if one accepts the primary definition of woman as "female (produces ova) human" THEN that is a contradiction in terms - the "square circle" that Damion compared it with.

Only you think ''menopausal woman'' is a contradiction in terms since only you believe producing ova is a necessary and sufficient condition for being a woman.

By that definition, menopause is a process that changes a woman into just a person, one who can no longer produce ova, at least without hormonal or surgical intervention. So a "prescriptive grammarian" would probably say, with some justification, that that "statement is [not] correct according to those rules". While that example might not amount to a hill of beans, I think there are many other cases where the cheese is potentially a little more binding, if not "problematic".

I'd be fascinated to read any ''prescriptive grammarian'' who would say anything remotely like that since the definition of womanhood is not an issue of grammar, it's an issue of semantics.

And case of that is, I think, afforded by the infamous "nigger-cunt hypothesis". If the rule - a prescriptivist notion that seems foreign to some (dogmatic) descriptivists - is that a word that refers to an attribute or feature of a class - e.g., skin colour, articles of clothing, ethnicity, sexual proclivities - is used as a pejorative towards one member of the class then it is deemed to be used to implicitly tar all other members of the same class. Hence racist or sexist or bigoted as the case may be. But if that is the case for those instances then why not for "cunt"? Which is also a case of a feature of a class used as a pejorative. Maybe there's something else happening underneath the hood to explain the difference. But absent a justification for that difference one might reasonably suggest that there's a bias, a double-standard in play.

I have no idea what ''prescriptivist'' means in this context since ''prescriptivist grammarians'' make no claim about the meaning of the words ''nigger'' or ''cunt''.

You haven't made any coherent objection to the fact usage determines meaning, you have just demonstrated that it is possible to use words meaninglessly: you rendered them meaningless through your usage.

[Steersman]

<snip>

Most women can - are able to - produce ova given the passage of some time, or a hormonal or surgical intervention; you really think that Bruce Jenner or Dave Muscato could do so, regardless of the efforts or technology applied?

<snip>

"Most women can produce ova" [in at least some circumstances] = not all women can produce ova.

So, production of ova is not the definition you're using for "woman". I see.

Not sure of your point, although it seems predicated on a "collective identity" definition for "woman" rather than a biological one. I've been arguing from square one for "female: produces ova" until Jet_Lagg threw in what is, I think, largely a red herring, i.e., "female: the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs". I don't see a helluva lot of difference between "produces" or "can produce", although I suppose there might be a few if one were to consider the effects of taking birth control pills.

Also: ovarian transplantation & uterine transplantation have each been performed, see for example .... Is there a biological reason that ovarian &/or uterine transplants, appropriately HLA-matched & with appropriate pharmacologic immune suppression, could not some day be performed in people considered, going into the surgery, biologically male or intersex?

Well, when Bruce Jenner avails himself of that surgery then I will be happy to call him a woman. The definition merely denotes a capability: have it then he can wear the label - with pride and honour if he so wishes; don't have it then technically he can't. I think that Hornbeck and company actually have a bit of a point, that, apparently, many lose sight of the difference between the label and what it denotes, investing it with all sorts of woo that isn't particularly helpful if it's not actively harmful.

[comhcinc]

For those of you that don't want steerler to go away I would suggest getting off of his merry go round because from the way I read it you are doing exact what is annoying our great and wonderful leader.

And I don't blame him one bit.

Shatterface I am looking at you man.

[welch]

I am more interested in the truth than being right. As far as I am concerned my pwecious fee fees are of no consequence compared to that. I can not even recall saying "I told you so" when I am proven right.

I also do not care who or what you are. If I was wrong when speaking what I believe to be true has cast someone in a negative light, then I will apologize as appropriate (for some reason this appears to be very important for small children especially).

As I recall, we still don't agree on that specific issue, but your response was really...heartening.

I do not remember what the issue was. Was is about Catharine MacKinnon?

I forget. It's not like we agree often :-D

I just really appreciated that without changing your position, you were able to acknowledge the weakness of your sources and set out to find better ones. That was kind of awesome.

[Brive1987]

For those of you that don't want steerler to go away I would suggest getting off of his merry go round because from the way I read it you are doing exact what is annoying our great and wonderful leader.

And I don't blame him one bit.

Shatterface I am looking at you man.

I agree that fisking is probably not the best approach. In fact it rarely is, as woods morph into trees.

[welch]

A teenager transitions into adulthood, a woman doesn't transition into anything majorly new at menopause. She simply stops being fertile.

I get the Steers perspective, I could understand a definition of "non functional female". But a car without an engine is still a car. Becky's zoom box didn't morph into a meaningless pile of parts just because it lost a major part of its utility. (Take that as you will !!)

And when you are dealing with people, the inflexible use of utilitarian terms is especially unhelpful. You simply can't call someone a "functionally broken woman".

So Steers, no one else is so bound by the definition of car woman that they need to change it to accommodate the nuance of change in 'utility'. No one sees menopause as a definitional problem to solve.

The irony of it of course, is that Steerzo's "only if you can make babies are you a woman" idiocy is right in line with most of the more fundamentalist beliefs of the abrahamic religions. Women are only valued for their utility, and that utility is making babies. Once that's done, then she's...well, she's formerly useful?

Hmm...maybe we should make Steerzo piss on the Quran.

[Billie from Ockham]

A teenager transitions into adulthood, a woman doesn't transition into anything majorly new at menopause. She simply stops being fertile.

Says the guy who didn't marry a woman when she was 25 and stay with her until she was 55+.

ps. you're wrong

pps. very wrong