The Refuge of the Toads

[feathers]

Health is not a moral obligation? The fuck it is!

Indeed, if you want others to take care of you when you're sick or indisposed, the very least you owe them is some effort to stay healthy. That is even more concrete when you're in a society with tax-funded health insurance.

Everybody understands that's easier for some than for others, and we all have our sins, but to bluntly claim you have no responsibility is simply disingenuous.

[Steersman]

No. Steers doesn't understand people communicating on the internet.

He's asked for people to use emoticons while talking to him so he can understand when we're being funny and when we're making a serious point, because he just doesn't know how to read conversational communication.

He doesn't mean to be like this, as far as I can tell. He just thinks you're having a different conversation from the one you're actually having.

It's like autism but on the internet.

You maybe think that emoticons exist only because I, and I alone, have difficulty understanding people's points and intent without them? They exist for a reason besides me alone not understanding "people communicating on the internet".

And, at the risk of getting Welch's panties in a twist - the exemplar of those who "know not and knows not they know not" if ever there was such, I might quote again Shermer from his The Believing Brain (highly recommended):

As we saw in the previous chapter, politics is filled with self-justifying rationalizations. Democrats see the world through liberal-tinted glasses, while Republicans filter it through conservative shaded glasses. When you listen to both “conservative talk radio” and “progressive talk radio” you will hear current events interpreted in ways that are 180 degrees out of phase. So incongruent are the interpretations of even the simplest goings-on in the daily news that you wonder if they can possibly be talking about the same event. …. [pg #263]

We all seem to have different ways of interpreting the same things and events and people; we all have different assumptions and preconceptions that determine how we do that. If we're not able to address those, if we're not able to define and elucidate them - for which emoticons seem to have some utility, then I don't see that the result will be anything other than those incongruent interpretations, than people riding madly off in all directions.

Someone here recently linked to the Slate Star Codex blog which had this interesting and relevant observation in the About section:

“Slate Star Codex” is a slant anagram of my name. Topics here tend to center vaguely around this meta-philosophical idea of how people evaluate arguments for their beliefs, and especially whether this process is spectacularly broken in a way that may or may not doom us all.

"spectacularly broken", indeed. Seems to be some justification if not urgency - "the hour is getting late; let us not talk falsely now" - in asking "how people evaluate arguments". And simply assuming that one's interlocutor is necessarily on the same page doesn't seem particularly conducive to evaluating various arguments, much less understanding how people do that in the first place.

[feathers]

I did actually have an SJW 'splain to me why you can be transgendered but not transrace/wrongskin: apparently, it's all to do with the foetus. A foetus can develop as male or female, which means transgenderism is legit, but a black foetus can't become a white one - and vice versa - so that means claiming to be transracial is just dang wrong.

Wait a minute, an SJW admitted that children are actually born male or female, and not "assigned a sex at birth"? I'm afraid you need to report that person for re-education.

[screwtape]

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... d0d3a4.jpg

"Bowling for Fatties"
The people up-top are clearly acting in self-defense against an approaching cultmob.

They're hangry!

Hold on, is the woman at the front, with red umbrella, supposed to be Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

That might be a tad embarrassing for some of the social justice warriors, since they have thrown her under the bus.

Actually, tovarisch, that picture is no longer to be distributed. There are several ex-comrades in it that have to airbrushed into unpersons—the counter-revolutionist Benson, revisionist Ali and that running dog of western capitalism, Amy. The only reason we haven't reprocessed the truth of that scene already is that we are waiting for word on Comrade Watson. She may have to spend some time in a 12 step re-education camp before she can be trusted again.

[Kirbmarc]

Actually, tovarisch, that picture is no longer to be distributed. There are several ex-comrades in it that have to airbrushed into unpersons—the counter-revolutionist Benson, revisionist Ali and that running dog of western capitalism, Amy. The only reason we haven't reprocessed the truth of that scene already is that we are waiting for word on Comrade Watson. She may have to spend some time in a 12 step re-education camp before she can be trusted again.

I think what you mean is:

picprop SJ doubleplusungood refs unpersons redraw fullwise upsub antefiling

[Kirbmarc]

I just realized that Steersman is simply the Bizarro Ken Livingstone:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChOJEeZXEAAfo4Q.jpg:large

[Kirbmarc]

<snippety do dah>

As I suggested earlier, I don't believe "woman" always has sharp Aristotelian boundaries as you do. Sometimes the term refers to biological sex (e.g. women's health services, women's soccer) sometimes to gender or the performance thereof (e.g. women's clothing, women's restrooms) and sometimes, confusingly, to both at once (e.g. women's rights). Context is everything, and it is a foolish consistency indeed which fails to recognize that the meaning varies from one situation to the next.

....
Steersman won't listen to this argument. He's a strict language prescriptivist: he believes that words have (or should have) context-free, fixed definitions. Well, at least that some words should. His frequent use of figures of speech and metaphors suggests that he's not very consistent about his own rules.

When the only tool you have is a hammer .... That some people use language in a particular way is no guarantee that it is coherent, makes sense, or holds any water at all. You'd have more credibility if you were to actually address the issues I've raised relative to the perspectives of taxonomy.

But it's less a question of insisting that (some) words should have "context-free, fixed definitions" than attempting to understand the implications and ramifications of choosing particular ones. And, relative to taxonomy, why we might chose those ones in the first place.

Expect to be called dogmatic or a "descriptivist absolutist" because you reject his claims.

If the foo shits ... ;-)

Serious questions: what do you think is the evolutionary history of natural language? Do you think that people consciously "choose" the meaning of words? Do you think that people learn their native languages from dictionaries? Do you think that if you had an Ancient Finnish to English dictionary you could translate the Kalevala into English, without any knowledge about Finnish culture, about how the Finnish language works, or about the socio-cultural and historical context in which it was written?

[Brive1987]

There have been some limited japes at Carrier's bolt hole.

Firstly there is this.

First in is Kansas City. That’s my fifth stop on the move across country. And that’s Saturday night, May 28. Come verify my historicity! Pictures & signatures welcome..

:lol:

Secondly Bart Ehrman has struck a low blow:

I don’t think there is any doubt that Jesus existed. There are a couple of scholars who’ve argued he didn’t exist. There are a lot of voices out there saying that he didn’t exist. But they’re not by scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines. There are voices on the internet. But there are voices on the internet for all sorts of things. Scholars who study this stuff really, there isn’t any, it’s not a question that’s debated among my colleagues. It is not debated. Because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Poor Dick is huffing and puffing about that one.

[Shatterface]

If you can work out the logic of their pick-and-choose rules, best of luck to yer. I'm surprised some SJW object to Dolzeal labelling herself black, when I have heard some have no problems with identifying as animals (otherkin).

Some don't even have problems identifying as fuckin fictional creatures. Remember that tit who identified as a dalek? http://kinspeak.tumblr.com/post/2033946 ... lek-doesnt

I have a bit of a dilema… my kin (Dalek) doesn’t exactly expression compassion or pity towards, well, anything or anyone. That really is what I honestly feel like, but I hate it! It’s so conflicting! I don’t want to be “mean” (please don’t be offended by this, and if I did explain how I can better word it?). I’ve been told not to worry about it since I’m not “really” a Dalek but I need some advice from other kins…

A troll? Possibly. But the thing is - who can say, these days?

There's a word for someone who feels like a Dalek inside, and that's 'psychopath'.

[Kirbmarc]

Some don't even have problems identifying as fuckin fictional creatures. Remember that tit who identified as a dalek? http://kinspeak.tumblr.com/post/2033946 ... lek-doesnt

I have a bit of a dilema… my kin (Dalek) doesn’t exactly expression compassion or pity towards, well, anything or anyone. That really is what I honestly feel like, but I hate it! It’s so conflicting! I don’t want to be “mean” (please don’t be offended by this, and if I did explain how I can better word it?). I’ve been told not to worry about it since I’m not “really” a Dalek but I need some advice from other kins…

A troll? Possibly. But the thing is - who can say, these days?

Maybe they're a human dalek?

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/tar ... 0115093009

[Shatterface]

I did actually have an SJW 'splain to me why you can be transgendered but not transrace/wrongskin: apparently, it's all to do with the foetus. A foetus can develop as male or female, which means transgenderism is legit, but a black foetus can't become a white one - and vice versa - so that means claiming to be transracial is just dang wrong.

Wait a minute, an SJW admitted that children are actually born male or female, and not "assigned a sex at birth"? I'm afraid you need to report that person for re-education.

It's easy to spot a kid who might grow up to be a transwoman: they are born with nipples.

[HunnyBunny]

A couple of days ago someone retweeted a furry on my timeline. I clicked on the profile and learnt two things. You can now buy dildos in the shape of dog penises, and furrys do not understand the concept of consent.

[Shatterface]

Health is not a moral obligation? The fuck it is!

Indeed, if you want others to take care of you when you're sick or indisposed, the very least you owe them is some effort to stay healthy. That is even more concrete when you're in a society with tax-funded health insurance.

Everybody understands that's easier for some than for others, and we all have our sins, but to bluntly claim you have no responsibility is simply disingenuous.

If anyone thinks health is not a moral issue you should ask them what they feed their kids, or if they make them wear seatbelts.

Or ask why businesses should pay to ensure the health and safety of their employees, or contribute to their health insurance.

[HunnyBunny]

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

[Shatterface]

On the subjects of autistics and assholes, the failure to read social cues and judge appropriate behaviour might make autistics who are not assholes come across as assholes but that does not preclude the possibility that some are, in fact, assholes.

The difference isn't the behaviour but the response to being told they are behaving like an asshole.

If they try to modify their behaviour they are probably not assholes; if they double down they are probably assholes.

Or they are right and you are wrong so you are being an asshole.

When it comes to Trigglypuff, I'm tempted to attribute her behaviour to intrasocial factors rather than individual psychology.

People who are part of mobs behave irrationally. That's a surrender of personal responsibility to that of the mob is a surrender of selfhood. It's the behaviour we'd expect in a riot or a case of mass hysteria.

Whether she is, actually, autistic or not, that loss of selfhood is the opposite of autism.

[InfraRedBucket]

Health is not a moral obligation? The fuck it is!

Indeed, if you want others to take care of you when you're sick or indisposed, the very least you owe them is some effort to stay healthy. That is even more concrete when you're in a society with tax-funded health insurance.

Everybody understands that's easier for some than for others, and we all have our sins, but to bluntly claim you have no responsibility is simply disingenuous.

Digging further into Trigglypuff's "activism", this is someone who apparently wants to abolish prisons and the Police.
Which will surely strike a blow for Rape Culture.

And goes to a College that charges around $48k for tuition fees alone.
Nothing like checkin' that 'ol privilege is there? :burn:

[Shatterface]

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.

[Kirbmarc]

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.

Didn't PZ Myers write that sex with dogs (and dolphins) is OK under some limited circumstances, if the animals seem to be into it?

[piginthecity]

I think Based Mom* got it right about that we should "blame the Social justice university courses".

I think one reason that these courses trap you into a groove of SJW ism is because whatever you've studied becomes linked to your income. For all of us, when we're up against it in life we have two options 1) Feel sorry for ourselves and blame the world and 2) Redouble our efforts in whatever field we know about so we can take control and solve the problem.

For those of us lucky enough to have studied real subjects and can do a real job which produces something, these are genuinely two different approaches. Problem is, for SJW course graduates, their special skill is "Complaining about the rest of the world". Therefore both of their options always actually boil down to the same thing. Either way they are routed back to self-pity and the justification of self-pity with no means of breaking the cycle.

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.

*Okay, I admit I'm probably older than her but anyway.

[Shatterface]

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.

Outside usage it's just vibrations in the air or scribbles on a page.

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?

That usage is constitutive of that meaning?

Do you understand what constitutive means?

Do you get any of this at all?

I'll put it in terms you understand by Wikying it for you:

Adjective

1.having the power or authority to constitute, establish or enact something
2.having the power or authority to appoint someone to office
3.extremely important, essential
4.that forms a constituent part of something else
5.(biochemistry) (of an enzyme) that is continuously produced at a constant rate

1. and 3. are the relevant definitions here.

Usage has the power or authority to constitute, establish or enact the meaning of a word.

Think of it like legal tender; the exchange of money - its usage - constitutes it's value. If money cannot be exchanged for goods and services it no longer functions as money. That might sound tautological but it's true. You can't unilaterally decide that leaves are money, or that $4 is enough to buy you a Mercedes.

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.

[Eskarina]

Health is not a moral obligation? The fuck it is!

Indeed, if you want others to take care of you when you're sick or indisposed, the very least you owe them is some effort to stay healthy. That is even more concrete when you're in a society with tax-funded health insurance.

Everybody understands that's easier for some than for others, and we all have our sins, but to bluntly claim you have no responsibility is simply disingenuous.

Digging further into Trigglypuff's "activism", this is someone who apparently wants to abolish prisons and the Police.
Which will surely strike a blow for Rape Culture.

And goes to a College that charges around $48k for tuition fees alone.
Nothing like checkin' that 'ol privilege is there? :burn:

Someone here posted her okcupid profile and it said something like "Contact me if you like Netflix and smashing the white, capitalist cisheteropatriarchy".

As if Netflix isn't the archetypal capitalist company that sells mindnumbing panem et circensem entertainment to the great unwashed masses underprivileged minorities to keep them in check.

[Shatterface]

I've got Netflix and I'm pretty sure they don't have any series where the main character is black, other than reruns of Luther from the BBC.

House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Marco Polo, Daredevil, Jessica Jones...

Luke Cage doesn't start until September.

[feathers]

Hahaa - that 'Kin Speak Tumblr is just beautiful. Seriously, go have a look - guaranteed cure for the blues.
Fucking brilliant! http://kinspeak.tumblr.com/

Notably few cockroaches, slugs, amoebas or mites. Nary a Komodo dragon with a mouth full of toxic bacteria. I wonder why that might be.

[feathers]

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

http://i.imgur.com/WcHfv9i.png

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

That's why Carter needs help, moarscienceplz. Now be nice to her while we turn up the voltage.

[Brive1987]

At least Dick has dropped the University Press ambit, but he comes across as holding a single low value pair.

http://i.imgur.com/DXeysr2.jpg

[Brive1987]

At least Dick has dropped the University Press ambit, but he comes across as holding a single low value pair.

http://i.imgur.com/DXeysr2.jpg

http://archive.is/hsMMy

[feathers]

First of all, what good will the umbrellas do against those boulders? Second, how strong are the guys at the top? Are those foam rubber boulders? And if they're foam rubber, why would the evil misogynists bother throwing them? And how could they get the boulders, foam rubber or rock, to curve around the path in the side of the mountain?

This is confusing.

You're trying to follow the rules of physics, which are a patriarchal, suppressive construction.

[jet_lagg]

Well, thanks for that. But maybe because I've been Googling "woman", going to a definition provided by one dictionary, and then going from there. However, even accepting the fact that some dictionary definitions for "female" utilize "can"

Not "some" dictionary definitions. Every single one of the top google hits except the one you chose to go with. If we're going to be insufferably pedantic, let's be insufferably pedantic.

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. This has nothing to do with trans women, which is why your question about them was irrelevant. I'll go a step further and say I consider the question "are trans women really women?" to be bordering on incoherent. The word woman has a fuzzy definition (to apparently every English speaker in the world except you). The phrase "real woman" further complicates things and makes the question unanswerable without providing additional context.

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.

[feathers]

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

At the very least they should wear natural wool to prevent interspecies static build-up.

[feathers]

It’s that time of year again

That’s right, hibernation. Constantly eating, constantly gaining weight; just to be unable to eat or stay awake for the next four to five months. Being a college level dancer, gaining fifteen pounds during the fall isn’t something that is looked highly upon. Yet even worst then that is the Winter. Being unable to eat or stay awake makes it nearly impossible for me to keep up with my fellow dancers, plus gaining and loosing weight so quickly can’t be healthy for the human body. Anyway; I was wondering, dose anyone have any tips to combat hibernation? Or at least to help control regular, healthy eating? Thank you all for reading

I recognise the sentiment, when the days in the North get shorter and shorter. I mostly like to replenish the energy reserve with ethanol, though. Maybe I'm Alcohol-Engine kin.

[Skep tickle]

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/dZbkTsd.png[/img]

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/WcHfv9i.png[/img]

[.img]http://i.imgur.com/heWPRiS.png[/img]

That's why {this student} needs help, moarscienceplz. Now be nice to her while we turn up the voltage.

http://archive.is/eItGg

Umm. Does this mean that the student pictured & named in Myers' blog post gave their permission for him to publicly post, on his personal blog, their photo & full name & jokey reference to having some issue with brain function & enough information for many people to recognize what medical test they're undergoing?

(Not that it isn't kinda funny to see Myers' current commenters: assuming the student's gender; using pronouns that differ from the student's preferred ones that Myers gave in the OP; asking for clarification whether "they" should be followed by "is" or "are" & whether "they" might be misleading as to how many students it references; commenting on hair color as if it's something unusual or that could be varied at will by someone other than the student wearing it; identifying the medical test (& similar possibilities) the student is undergoing, and joking along on the use-electricity-on-students theme.)

[dogen]

I've got Netflix and I'm pretty sure they don't have any series where the main character is black, other than reruns of Luther from the BBC.

House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Marco Polo, Daredevil, Jessica Jones...

Luke Cage doesn't start until September.

DS9.

[Ericb]

It’s that time of year again

That’s right, hibernation. Constantly eating, constantly gaining weight; just to be unable to eat or stay awake for the next four to five months. Being a college level dancer, gaining fifteen pounds during the fall isn’t something that is looked highly upon. Yet even worst then that is the Winter. Being unable to eat or stay awake makes it nearly impossible for me to keep up with my fellow dancers, plus gaining and loosing weight so quickly can’t be healthy for the human body. Anyway; I was wondering, dose anyone have any tips to combat hibernation? Or at least to help control regular, healthy eating? Thank you all for reading

I recognise the sentiment, when the days in the North get shorter and shorter. I mostly like to replenish the energy reserve with ethanol, though. Maybe I'm Alcohol-Engine kin.

Yeast kin? You don't actually have to have the ability to ferment to be yeast but with copious amounts of alcohol you can express your inner yeastness.

[Lsuoma]

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.

[Tigzy]

Steersman, I wanna present you with this little conundrum:

Consider a sandcastle. Consider a nondescript pile of sand. We can all quite easily differentiate between the two, though there is some overlap with both - namely, that it's quite possible for a sandcastle to transition to a pile of sand.

So tell me Steersman - if one were to transition a sandcastle to a pile of sand by laboriously dislodging every single grain of sand, at which point would be able to determine precisely when the object in question stopped being a sandcastle and became instead a nondescript pile of sand?

[Skep tickle]

Steersman, I wanna present you with this little conundrum:

Consider a sandcastle. Consider a nondescript pile of sand. We can all quite easily differentiate between the two, though there is some overlap with both - namely, that it's quite possible for a sandcastle to transition to a pile of sand.

So tell me Steersman - if one were to transition a sandcastle to a pile of sand by laboriously dislodging every single grain of sand, at which point would be able to determine precisely when the object in question stopped being a sandcastle and became instead a nondescript pile of sand?

Depends. Does it have ova?

[jet_lagg]

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.

It's an addiction. I know I need to get help.

http://images.memes.com/meme/404674

[Ericb]

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.

http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warri ... cranus.htm

[Shatterface]

I've got Netflix and I'm pretty sure they don't have any series where the main character is black, other than reruns of Luther from the BBC.

House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Marco Polo, Daredevil, Jessica Jones...

Luke Cage doesn't start until September.

DS9.

Not a Netflix show though.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

... Bart Ehrman has struck a low blow:

I don’t think there is any doubt that Jesus existed. There are a couple of scholars who’ve argued he didn’t exist. There are a lot of voices out there saying that he didn’t exist. But they’re not by scholars who are actually trained in any historical disciplines. There are voices on the internet. But there are voices on the internet for all sorts of things. Scholars who study this stuff really, there isn’t any, it’s not a question that’s debated among my colleagues. It is not debated. Because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Poor Dick is huffing and puffing about that one.

I'd say Robert Eisenman, Markus Vinzent, and Herman Detering, to name three, qualify as "actually trained" scholars. The jibe at "internet voices" is fatuous, as everyone, Ehrman included, has an internet presence now. And the reason the historicity of Jesus is not debated -- read 'questioned'; the nature of Jesus' historicity is adamantly debated -- among Ehrman's colleagues is because nearly all his colleagues are believers.

Unfortunately, the Bayesian gimmick has become popular among mythicists, and Average Dick has staked out his claim as the high priest of Bayes. So now, most anti-mythicist rhetoric is focused on trashing Carrier as a gonk. Which is, as we all know, so very easy to do.

[Tigzy]

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.

http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warri ... cranus.htm

With a hefty dose of http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warri ... ndroid.htm

'Android's circuits are not equipped to process ambiguous or aesthetic input'

[Matt Cavanaugh]

It's easy to spot a kid who might grow up to be a transwoman: they are born with nipples.

Silly, nipples prove that everyone is a little bit gay!

[/PZ Myers, crack developmental biologist]

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Steers, it may be a good idea to engage in some reflective thinking on this issue.

Has anyone, ever, anywhere on the internet where you have dumped this shitty pointless argument, responded to your points with anything other than derison, anger, reasoned answers why you are wrong, unreasoned answers why you are a fuckhead for promoting this? I have seen people from radfems to quasi-MRAs tell you to gtfo, I never seen anyone come within even a parsec of concluding you have a fraction of a rational point on this.

Your biggest problem in your internet discussions is failure to see when enough is enough, time move on, get over it, shut the fuck up.

Maybe Steerzoid can't. Perhaps he is genuinely unable to tolerate anything other than an ironclad definition. I can only imagine what it would be like witnessing Steersman developing an object model. It would be a hierarchy approaching infinite height as new exceptions keep emerging.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

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.

I know since I'm not a Consul of Rome I don't have the Right of Veto, but I will nonetheless veto the motion. I was not a fan when it happened to Wonderist, and I would definitely not be a fan if it happened to Steers. For all his stubborn dumbfuckery on certain subjects, he also has his good moments.

Of course, it's your place, so do as you wish, but don't be surprised if some people here start considering you a fascist tit or something...

[Aneris]

Steersman, I wanna present you with this little conundrum:

Consider a sandcastle. Consider a nondescript pile of sand. We can all quite easily differentiate between the two, though there is some overlap with both - namely, that it's quite possible for a sandcastle to transition to a pile of sand.

So tell me Steersman - if one were to transition a sandcastle to a pile of sand by laboriously dislodging every single grain of sand, at which point would be able to determine precisely when the object in question stopped being a sandcastle and became instead a nondescript pile of sand?

http://stoppress.co.nz/media/VERSIONS/b ... 0x1200.png

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I did actually have an SJW 'splain to me why you can be transgendered but not transrace/wrongskin: apparently, it's all to do with the foetus. A foetus can develop as male or female, which means transgenderism is legit, but a black foetus can't become a white one - and vice versa - so that means claiming to be transracial is just dang wrong.

Wrong.

Every* zygote is either XX or XY, that is, female or male. So every fetus is either female or male from the start. Under normal conditions**, every XX fetus will develop into a baby with female physical characteristics, every XY, male characteristics. Sex is predetermined at the moment of conception.


* Barring rare fuck-ups where there's too many or too few Xs & Ys (or the SRY gene is misplaced). Yielding individuals who are technically neither male nor female.

** Barring uncommon fuck-ups where hormonal imbalances in the womb create either masculinized females, or vice versa. But the faulty development did not change the sex predetermined by the XX or XY.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

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.

FAIL.

[Billie from Ockham]

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

http://i.imgur.com/WcHfv9i.png

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

Dear fucked-up transmission-fluid person -

If you want to use "they" as your personal pronoun, then more power to you. But if you do this, please remember to use the singular form of the verb in the same sentence. Thanks.

- Someone who knows grammar

[Søren Lilholt]

And the reason the historicity of Jesus is not debated -- read 'questioned'; the nature of Jesus' historicity is adamantly debated -- among Ehrman's colleagues is because nearly all his colleagues are believers.

I had an inkling this was probably the case.

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).

[Matt Cavanaugh]

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.

Didn't PZ Myers write that sex with dogs (and dolphins) is OK under some limited circumstances, if the animals seem to be into it?

Yes.

Consent
While “most animals will not consent to sex with a human”, some “domesticated and intelligent animals” such as dolphins and dogs, do “demonstrate a willingness to participate” in sexual activity with humans. “Within that narrow band of possibilities, I’d have to say that this criterion doesn’t provide an argument against sex with animals in all cases.”

http://skeptischism.com/atheismneat/201 ... mal-lover/

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

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.

It's an addiction. I know I need to get help.

http://images.memes.com/meme/404674

I have him on ignore, the one time I take a peek to see if he's still dribbling and I go and say something. I know he can't be reasoned with, he has never seen reason in all the arguments ever patiently presented to him, but the temptation that he might actually understand this time is so very strong.

Is he doing it on purpose or is he an unknowing troll? What is he trying to do at this point, what is he hoping to accomplish? Lately he's coming across as "not quite right" in the sanity department, imho. Not trying to be insulting, I'm quite serious.

[Billie from Ockham]

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

Of course it can. My only question is why they always ask for ruff sex. Sometimes I just want to spoon with Fido.

[jet_lagg]

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.

FAIL.

What? You prefer brunettes?

http://lovelace-media.imgix.net/uploads ... e5f2f5.png?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

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:

[Billie from Ockham]

I did actually have an SJW 'splain to me why you can be transgendered but not transrace/wrongskin: apparently, it's all to do with the foetus. A foetus can develop as male or female, which means transgenderism is legit, but a black foetus can't become a white one - and vice versa - so that means claiming to be transracial is just dang wrong.

Wrong.

Every* zygote is either XX or XY, that is, female or male. So every fetus is either female or male from the start. Under normal conditions**, every XX fetus will develop into a baby with female physical characteristics, every XY, male characteristics. Sex is predetermined at the moment of conception.


* Barring rare fuck-ups where there's too many or too few Xs & Ys (or the SRY gene is misplaced). Yielding individuals who are technically neither male nor female.

** Barring uncommon fuck-ups where hormonal imbalances in the womb create either masculinized females, or vice versa. But the faulty development did not change the sex predetermined by the XX or XY.

The above makes it clear that you really don't get how the world works these days.

There are no "fuck-ups." Everything is normal, OK, and worthy-of-celebration. In fact, all concepts and categories should be defined in such a way that what you call "fuck-ups" are the new prototypes of said concepts and categories. Rareness is not a reason to decrease the weight given to an exemplar when defining the concepts and categories; quite the opposite.

[Aneris]

Originally feminist pushed for the gender and sex distinction in the 1970s. Sex was the biological part, and gender was the performative part. This academical idea is still not widespread among common people, but an old hat for social justice warriors. They need to come up with new and controversial things, otherwise, what's there to lecture and police? It seems sex and gender are now the same thing without any meaningful distinctions and subsumed under identity rather than performance.

Once the postmodernist decay starts to foul holes into the reasoning process, everything tangible dematerialize into marginalisations, identities, which are all issues, which are problematic. Not even social justice warriors have any idea what they are talking about. They are starting with a map with abstract symbols on it, and when asked how this place looks like, the person then renders the terrain -- more like roleplaying where the ideas create the terrain. Not like empiricism where the terrain informs the map. A profound confusion of map with territory. But we know this for years by now.

[Oglebart]

That's why {this student} needs help, moarscienceplz. Now be nice to her while we turn up the voltage.

http://archive.is/eItGg

Umm. Does this mean that the student pictured & named in Myers' blog post gave their permission for him to publicly post, on his personal blog, their photo & full name & jokey reference to having some issue with brain function & enough information for many people to recognize what medical test they're undergoing?

(Not that it isn't kinda funny to see Myers' current commenters: assuming the student's gender; using pronouns that differ from the student's preferred ones that Myers gave in the OP; asking for clarification whether "they" should be followed by "is" or "are" & whether "they" might be misleading as to how many students it references; commenting on hair color as if it's something unusual or that could be varied at will by someone other than the student wearing it; identifying the medical test (& similar possibilities) the student is undergoing, and joking along on the use-electricity-on-students theme.)

I thought the same thing when I saw that posted here, you would hope he would check with the student before he partially doxxes them. Has Nerd tripped up with the pronouns yet? Thim, Ther, or anything similar :lol:

[Tigzy]

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.

You could say similar about the Oxfordians.
http://i.imgur.com/6oeMo0z.jpg

[screwtape]

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:

Good Lord, Matt. We might make a statistician of you, yet. Probably no point stating the obvious to most people though, as they will already be certain you are wrong.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Good Lord, Matt. We might make a statistician of you, yet.

Does five years in market research count?