In 2017 Idiocracy is a Documentary

[Really?]

Does anyone know what Mythcon Milwaukee pulled in? I'd love to compare it to events featuring SJW speakers.

Over 500 people according to this. Double their prior year.
https://areomagazine.com/2017/10/03/cha ... onference/

Despite the organized effort to shut down the event, the conference drew over 500 attendees, nearly double the attendance compared to the previous year according to event organizers.

First floor seating capacity is 627. I am not sure if they ever intended to use the 2nd or 3rd floors.

A couple more cons like that and Silverman will come around, immediately preceded by a "KACHING!" sound, and the appearance of a dollar sign in each eye.

If attendance gets low enough, they'll have a panel for the Pit.

[Ape+lust]

What's worse, Watson being blackballed by Dawkins or Peezus being blueballed by Watson?

Peez has to look in the mirror and know that the loser looking back settled for 3rd rate and still couldn't attain it.

[Steersman]

Is a glider a glider if it's on the Moon? Gliding is contextual. You can't glide if you have no atmosphere to glide on. Even if you have an engine.

Entirely beside the point. A plane isn't less a plane because it's sitting on the moon:

An airplane or aeroplane (informally plane) is a powered, fixed-wing aircraft that is propelled forward by thrust from a jet engine or propeller.

The environment that enables or permits flight is, as you suggest, "contextual"; being designed to take advantage of airflow to provide lift is the essential or defining element, and is present regardless of the environment.

[Ape+lust]

Suddenly "denouncing the shit" after years of silence is a reprise for Silverman. He's become his own tribute band.

[free thoughtpolice]

Is a glider a glider if it's on the Moon? Gliding is contextual. You can't glide if you have no atmosphere to glide on. Even if you have an engine.

Entirely beside the point. A plane isn't less a plane because it's sitting on the moon:

An airplane or aeroplane (informally plane) is a powered, fixed-wing aircraft that is propelled forward by thrust from a jet engine or propeller.

The environment that enables or permits flight is, as you suggest, "contextual"; being designed to take advantage of airflow to provide lift is the essential or defining element, and is present regardless of the environment.

But if it is sitting on the moon it can't be propelled forward by the engines so it is no longer a plane.

[shoutinghorse]

Shives calls out Dawkins for blackballing Rebecca Watson after a half hour rant calling out people in the "Atheist/Sceptical community" for not blackballing Sargon. And all with no hint of irony.

He's just gone to a whole new level of fucktardery. :doh:

[jet_lagg]

Our convention next year is March 29 to April 1 in Oklahoma City. Like every year, we're going to have new people you've never heard from. We're going to talk about tough subjects. But we're going to do it without making people feel unsafe at our event.

Completely impossible. A blunt discussion involves elevated pulses and attacks on cherished beliefs. You will feel "unsafe", in the sense these hand-wringers use the word. If you don't, you're not doing it right.

These are the people who say they want to have an honest discussion about gun violence in America and absolutely lose their shit if I say race related DOJ data needs to be part of the conversation. This is before I've even hinted at an interpretation of the stats, let alone a concrete policy proposal. Already they're frothing at the mouth and saying I've crossed a line of decency. Fly under your true fucking flag, you pussies.

[Steersman]

Is a glider a glider if it's on the Moon? Gliding is contextual. You can't glide if you have no atmosphere to glide on. Even if you have an engine.

Entirely beside the point. A plane isn't less a plane because it's sitting on the moon:

An airplane or aeroplane (informally plane) is a powered, fixed-wing aircraft that is propelled forward by thrust from a jet engine or propeller.

The environment that enables or permits flight is, as you suggest, "contextual"; being designed to take advantage of airflow to provide lift is the essential or defining element, and is present regardless of the environment.

But if it is sitting on the moon it can't be propelled forward by the engines so it is no longer a plane.

You have to be joking. It can no longer fly while it's there, but that doesn't change the elements of the thing that would permit that if it were placed in a different environment. You think a plane is less so if it's sitting on the bottom of the ocean?

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

What's worse, Watson being blackballed by Dawkins or Peezus being blueballed by Watson?

My eighty year old mother having sex with Steers<man for Canadian money (ie worthless)

[Really?]

Our convention next year is March 29 to April 1 in Oklahoma City. Like every year, we're going to have new people you've never heard from. We're going to talk about tough subjects. But we're going to do it without making people feel unsafe at our event.

Completely impossible. A blunt discussion involves elevated pulses and attacks on cherished beliefs. You will feel "unsafe", in the sense these hand-wringers use the word. If you don't, you're not doing it right.

These are the people who say they want to have an honest discussion about gun violence in America and absolutely lose their shit if I say race related DOJ data needs to be part of the conversation. This is before I've even hinted at an interpretation of the stats, let alone a concrete policy proposal. Already they're frothing at the mouth and saying I've crossed a line of decency. Fly under your true fucking flag, you pussies.

Maybe the discussion will be safe because they're going to reveal they've given their hearts to God. And by God, they mean Lena Dunham.

[free thoughtpolice]

An airplane or aeroplane (informally plane) is a powered, fixed-wing aircraft that is propelled forward by thrust from a jet engine or propeller.

That is the definition it doesn't say "if it is in the appropriate environment" any more than the definition of a woman says she still is one after she stops ovulating. Try to at least be logically consistent.

[jet_lagg]

Now that research has shown new oocytes can be produced from stem cells in the ovaries, is it fair to say that Steersman's mother being a woman or not is a matter of scientific dispute?

[Ape+lust]

Shives calls out Dawkins for blackballing Rebecca Watson after a half hour rant calling out people in the "Atheist/Sceptical community" for not blackballing Sargon. And all with no hint of irony.

He's just gone to a whole new level of fucktardery. :doh:

He's never called out his butt-buddy Peez for blackballing Abbie. And he never will.

And Peez gets pissy as hell when you mention it to him. He'll have you know there was only ONE INSTANCE when an organizer mentioned Abbie, and being the upright citizen that he is, he suggested they invite her in his stead.

The pinhead thinks it's escaped everyone's notice that, unlike Dawkins, he announced to the whole world he was blackballing Abbie. So, if venues considered her and passed, why would he expect to know? "Hey Peez, we shitcanned Abbie for ya, hyuk-hyuk!" Moron.

[Ape+lust]

Saw this on Richard THE KING Sanderson's twitter feed.

https://imgur.com/4IKwJDj.png

[Steersman]

Now that research has shown new oocytes can be produced from stem cells in the ovaries, is it fair to say that Steersman's mother being a woman or not is a matter of scientific dispute?

She's long dead - RIP - though she lived to be close to 88 if I'm not mistaken, and said she'd had a good life. But expect for the last 30 or so years of her life she was no longer a woman, technically speaking at least. You really might consider looking closely at definitions, specifically:

female: 1 a (1) : of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs

You think that for those later years she had the capacity for either of those? Even with medical interventions? But if you think that's a reasonable criteria then why not say we're all female since, presumably, any of our cells - stem or otherwise - could be made to produce oocytes?

Really think far too many people are unable or unwilling to differentiate between a specific ability or attribute of a person, and the entire person themselves. Between surfaces and essences - so to speak.

[Sunder]

BLM jumps the shark yet again.

[Steersman]

An airplane or aeroplane (informally plane) is a powered, fixed-wing aircraft that is propelled forward by thrust from a jet engine or propeller.

That is the definition it doesn't say "if it is in the appropriate environment" any more than the definition of a woman says she still is one after she stops ovulating. Try to at least be logically consistent.

LoL. You might try reading - and giving some thought to:

Essentialism is the view that every entity has a set of attributes that are necessary to its identity and function.

Bit of a problematic concept, at least in all of its many uses and manifestations, but not at all unreasonable in its own essence - so to speak. But you might note that "produces ova" is the essential element of "female", while actually being in an "appropriate environment" isn't for "airplane". "produces ova" is necessary to the function of "female", and "capable of flight using wings that generate lift" is likewise for "airplane".

But "produces ova" says diddly squat about the conditions under which ova are normally produced - sexual stimulation if my understanding of the biology is correct - and "capable of flight" likewise says diddly squat about the conditions under which flight is possible because those conditions are not part of their essences.

Your argument really doesn't hold any water at all as your constructions aren't analogous - you might read and pay close attention to the article thereon, particularly the selected section.

[Ape+lust]

https://imgur.com/JugfGB7.png

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/life/p ... e29629855/

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

https://imgur.com/JugfGB7.png

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/life/p ... e29629855/

And Im sure he'll love her sooooo much in his adult
years

[free thoughtpolice]

An airplane or aeroplane (informally plane) is a powered, fixed-wing aircraft that is propelled forward by thrust from a jet engine or propeller.

That is the definition it doesn't say "if it is in the appropriate environment" any more than the definition of a woman says she still is one after she stops ovulating. Try to at least be logically consistent.

LoL. You might try reading - and giving some thought to:

Essentialism is the view that every entity has a set of attributes that are necessary to its identity and function.

Bit of a problematic concept, at least in all of its many uses and manifestations, but not at all unreasonable in its own essence - so to speak. But you might note that "produces ova" is the essential element of "female", while actually being in an "appropriate environment" isn't for "airplane". "produces ova" is necessary to the function of "female", and "capable of flight using wings that generate lift" is likewise for "airplane".

But "produces ova" says diddly squat about the conditions under which ova are normally produced - sexual stimulation if my understanding of the biology is correct - and "capable of flight" likewise says diddly squat about the conditions under which flight is possible because those conditions are not part of their essences.


Your argument really doesn't hold any water at all as your constructions aren't analogous - you might read and pay close attention to the article thereon, particularly the selected section.

Bit of a problematic concept, at least in all of its many uses and manifestations, but not at all unreasonable in its own essence - so to speak.

Like your soul sister Dr. Kristi Winters, you like to throw meaningless word salad around.

But "produces ova" says diddly squat about the conditions under which ova are normally produced - sexual stimulation if my understanding of the biology is correct - and "capable of flight" likewise says diddly squat about the conditions under which flight is possible because those conditions are not part of their essences.

Sexual stimulation produces ova?
If the definition for an airplane doesn't take into the possibility of exceptions, like the environment it is in, then why not make exceptions for the strict definition of a woman?
Try not to let your mind wander sailor. :P

[gurugeorge]

So far as we can actually tell, there is only this Universe - and it really is very odd that it should be both intelligible and conducive to the evolution of sentient creatures who are able to perceive and understand it.

I agree with Kirbmarc the universe isn't necessarily intelligible, but also think it's exactly backwards to say that it would be odd to find ourselves in one that was. You're familiar with the anthropic principle so you already know where I'm going, but I'll say it anyway. That we find ourselves in a universe conducive to the evolution of beings like us is a tautology. Let's imagine puddles can perceive, but only puddles of a very precise shape. Now let's imagine one of these puddles is marveling at the fact the hole it finds itself in is precisely formed such that the puddle can exist. This misses the point that, according to the rules of the thought experiment, it could not be any other way. If the hole was different, the puddle wouldn't perceive anything. What I'm looking for from anyone who wants to posit it *could* be another way, is a set of internally consistent rules that that allow for such things (if someone objects that consistency is besides the point then I'd say by definition I don't know what they're talking about and neither do they). The closest I've ever come to an answer was with someone who believed in panpsychism and started talking about "free floating qualia" as I recall. They declined to elaborate on their position unfortunately.

It's tautologically true that since we do exist, the universe logically necessarily must be conducive to our evolution, but it's not tautologically true that the universe had to be the type of universe that would lead to such beings as us existing. Or, to put it another way, the fact that the type of universe that exists happens to be the type of universe that, right from its inception, allowed for the possibility of things arising in it that could cognize it, is what's puzzling.

Why is the universe that happens to exist, just the type of universe that's capable of growing an eye with which to see itself? That's no small thing, it's not like another configuration of matter, it's a different order of thing altogether.

Perhaps it wouldn't be so puzzling if we knew that there were alternative possible universe configurations that are now wallflowers, not actualized, not instantiated. If we knew that, then yes, we could say that we've "won the universe lottery" and the Anthropic Principle would be a pure tautology, because we would know for sure that the universe being the type of universe it is, is an accident, there WAS NO "had to be" at all; this universe, the one that exists or is instantiated or actualized, might have been incapable of hosting beings like us, but we just lucked out. But we don't know that, at least not yet. For all we know, this may be the only universe there could have been. And it has this strange property of being able to extrude self-reflexive bits of itself.

(But actually even on the hypothesis of universe-sifting and lottery winning, in that case we're just using "universe" differently from "the totality of everything" - and the universe proper is what contains the possibility of multiverses, which are sub-universes then, in that sense. So all we've done is introduce a bit of padding: the puzzle remains, it just has to be reworded as: "Why is the LARGER universe the kind that produces multiverses SOME of which are conducive to self-reflexive sentient bits arising within them?")

...and yet here we find ourselves in an intelligible universe, in which there aren't grue or bleen things but blue or green things, a universe in which quus is just a thought-experiment and not descriptive of anything real, a universe in which things have natures.

How do you know that? What if we are flitting in and out of understandable realities all the time? It still stands that the only time you'd ever be asking yourself this question would be those rare moments where it all coalesced long enough to give the appearance of a universe where things have natures, where one thing proceeds logically from the next. By analogy, what would look different if we moved backwards in time? My take is that it would look exactly as it does now. If you imagine things progressing forward frame by frame, we have memories because of the increased complexity in our brains at each step, but if the program ran in reverse, removing complexity frame by frame, it wouldn't look any different from the inside of any given frame. Only with a God's eye view would there be a distinction.

Well, I have no reason to think otherwise - these sorts of ideas, which are variations on Descartes' demon or brain-in-a-vat are imaginable possibilities, but unless you can point to evidence that they're likely (like the kind of "glitch" that's hypothesized might provide evidence of a simulated universe) there's no reason to think they might be true, therefore no reason to consider them as live options. We say we know that which we can connect logically to the evidence of our senses (i.e. that's the cash value of this thing we call "knowing"); imagination is just imagination.

Or: we don't need to block off every imaginable alternative possibility to say we know, or that we're certain. Knowing is always just in the context of the evidence we have.

[Ape+lust]

And Im sure he'll love her sooooo much in his adult
years

No kidding! I'm probably overestimating, but it seems a not uncommon occurrence in the bios of killers and scoundrels that their parents wanted a child of the opposite sex and raised them accordingly, at least for a while.

[jet_lagg]

Now that research has shown new oocytes can be produced from stem cells in the ovaries, is it fair to say that Steersman's mother being a woman or not is a matter of scientific dispute?

She's long dead - RIP - though she lived to be close to 88 if I'm not mistaken, and said she'd had a good life. But expect for the last 30 or so years of her life she was no longer a woman, technically speaking at least. You really might consider <snip harumphing, apropos of which, accusations of not having read the same goddamn wikipedia and dictionary entries he's been linking for years>

See, this is what I love about you Steers. An obvious joke is taken as an invitation to explain for the trillionth time why you think your mother was not a woman.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

But a post linked to on Winters' Twitter page:

An Open Letter to Atheist Podcasters and Conference Speakers, from a Rape Survivor and Youtube Feminist. We Need to Talk.

Posted on October 4, 2017 by chrisiousity .....

it was important for feminists to hold the line. I am, well… just the right kind of bitch for that sort of job.

[....]

I burst into tears. I couldn’t stop crying.
It took me two days to calm down so I could write this.

[CommanderTuvok]

There was (perhaps) one instance that we know of where Dawkins implied he wouldn't attend a conference if Beckybooze attended. Sounds reasonable to me. Who would want to attend an event with Rebecunt Twatson? Not anybody with a brain cell or more.

But Shives, Myers, and company, make it sound as if Dawkins has issued some sort of decree from upon high, forcing event organisers not to invite Twatson. For a start, Dawkins does not attend that many conferences, so the fact is, hardly anybody invites Rebecunt. That's because she's a talentless blob of faecal matter.

[Steersman]

<snip>
Bit of a problematic concept, at least in all of its many uses and manifestations, but not at all unreasonable in its own essence - so to speak.

Like your soul sister Dr. Kristi Winters, you like to throw meaningless word salad around.

LoL. Most fields or disciplines of any complexity tend to have their own arcana and definitions, the understanding of which is more or less necessary for appreciating or dealing with papers and discussions therein. Absent which most of those papers are going to look like "word salad". Why it's frequently necessary to be precise, to draw a line in the sand, particularly in front of those who try to change them to peddle questionable ideology:

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

"why not make exceptions for the strict definition of" "glory"?

But "produces ova" says diddly squat about the conditions under which ova are normally produced - sexual stimulation if my understanding of the biology is correct - and "capable of flight" likewise says diddly squat about the conditions under which flight is possible because those conditions are not part of their essences.

Sexual stimulation produces ova?

I stand corrected (see how easy that is? ... ;-) ):

Ovulation is the release of eggs from the ovaries. In humans, this event occurs when the follicles rupture and release the secondary oocyte ovarian cells.

Seems to happen regardless of "sexual stimulation" - learn something new every day. But you might consider that one definition for "produce" - "Show or provide (something) for consideration, inspection, or use" - is a close analog to "release". Which is, I expect, the intent behind the definition for "female".

If the definition for an airplane doesn't take into the possibility of exceptions, like the environment it is in, then why not make exceptions for the strict definition of a woman?

Why not take that up with all the publishers of dictionaries and encyclopaedias? Definitions are more or less like the rules of the road, the laws of the land. Maybe there are cases that justify changing them, but trying to change them willy-nilly, without rhyme or reason, or arbitrarily looks to be a recipe for disaster. See: transactivism; Jones, Zinnia; Tur, Zoey; etc. ...

Try not to let your mind wander sailor. :P

:-) "Visions of sugar plums" ....

[Steersman]

<snip>

See, this is what I love about you Steers. An obvious joke is taken as an invitation to explain for the trillionth time why you think your mother was not a woman.

:-) However, that you think it was "an obvious joke" doesn't mean that everyone does. You might consider throwing in a smiley or a winky if that's your intent. :-)

[Easy J]

Nothing wrong from our perspective. The guy's hypocrisy still gets me grinding my teeth though. The guy's moral code is that it's evil to be a PUA, unless you also act like you have autism.

Yup. The guy was an utter chode in the past. We warned him that his actions did not match the rules he was trying to foist on everyone else. And he got caught in a trap of his own making. Now he is caught in a rather pricey legal battle with multiple people, and largely ousted from the only community he did not ostracize. He dug his own gave, and now he is paying for it.

Might as well call well enough alone. Hell, no one hear left has the spoons to bother read what he is writing any more. Let him marinate in his own juices a little longer and see if he finally figures out where he went wrong. It takes some people much longer than others to change their minds.

If MythCon is ostensibly a conference about Jesus Mysticism, Carrier is one of the few guests who's presence made sense. This year it became a referendum on SJWism & the Youtube antis & poor Dickey found himself a complete non-entity in the only place his name still sorta mattered.

[Steersman]

But a post linked to on Winters' Twitter page:

An Open Letter to Atheist Podcasters and Conference Speakers, from a Rape Survivor and Youtube Feminist. We Need to Talk.

Posted on October 4, 2017 by chrisiousity .....

it was important for feminists to hold the line. I am, well… just the right kind of bitch for that sort of job.

[....]

I burst into tears. I couldn’t stop crying.
It took me two days to calm down so I could write this.

:-) Didn't read that far; obviously or maybe a little "overwrought", a bit too emotional. But that somehow excuses all the pile-ons and harassment that Phillips, for example, apparently received?

Really don't think it helps matters at all that bad moves or behaviour on one side are used to excuse or justify equally bad or "more bad" behaviour from the other. Eye-for-an-eye may be justified, particularly in cases of outright war. But in a supposedly civil society it just leads to a degeneration of the conversation which really helps no one.

[free thoughtpolice]

There was (perhaps) one instance that we know of where Dawkins implied he wouldn't attend a conference if Beckybooze attended. Sounds reasonable to me. Who would want to attend an event with Rebecunt Twatson? Not anybody with a brain cell or more.

But Shives, Myers, and company, make it sound as if Dawkins has issued some sort of decree from upon high, forcing event organisers not to invite Twatson. For a start, Dawkins does not attend that many conferences, so the fact is, hardly anybody invites Rebecunt. That's because she's a talentless blob of faecal matter.

The facts are that Dawkins has been hounding poor Becky. He harassed her so badly that she couldn't write. Why else would she blow a bid deal like Scientific American. Her self image was destroyed.
In effect he asked her to acknowledge her privilege, and it destroyed her life. :(

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... =619971701

David Silverman
5 hrs · Cranford, NJ ·

I saw the video of the Mythcon event. I heard people laugh and cheer at a victim of sexual assault being taunted via Twitter with a shameful shitty tweet.

My blood boiled. My adrenaline flowed. My bile bubbled. If you're one of the people who cheer when victims get taunted, you're an asshole. And I don't want to have anything to do with you. I want nothing to do with you until you figure out how to have some empathy.

When you're organizing an event, the most important thing you can do is make sure that people feel welcomed. Celebrating the diversity of our community also means recognizing that we have work to do to make our events reflect the larger community of atheists. It's something I strive for every time I sit down with my team to work on our events.

We can't tolerate intolerance. We can't abide elevating those who spend their time trolling, and harassing, and alienating the very people who we're in this fight to help. We have serious work to do and we need serious conversations about how to do that. I don't have time to waste on people whose only interest seems to be provocation for provocation's sake and not on making the lives of our fellow atheists better.

Our convention next year is March 29 to April 1 in Oklahoma City. Like every year, we're going to have new people you've never heard from. We're going to talk about tough subjects. But we're going to do it without making people feel unsafe at our event. We're going to have a great time celebrating our community and the people in it. And we're going to do it while working to help people.

I do what I do to make a positive change in this country. I'm 51 years old and I don't have the time or patience to put up with assholes.

Who taunted what sexual assault victim? I kinda missed that. Where they taunting the assault or is it now verboten to ever criticize somebody that has been sexually assaulted?

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Now that research has shown new oocytes can be produced from stem cells in the ovaries, is it fair to say that Steersman's mother being a woman or not is a matter of scientific dispute?

She's long dead - RIP - though she lived to be close to 88 if I'm not mistaken, and said she'd had a good life. But expect for the last 30 or so years of her life she was no longer a woman, technically speaking at least. You really might consider looking closely at definitions, specifically:

female: 1 a (1) : of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs

You think that for those later years she had the capacity for either of those? Even with medical interventions? But if you think that's a reasonable criteria then why not say we're all female since, presumably, any of our cells - stem or otherwise - could be made to produce oocytes?

Really think far too many people are unable or unwilling to differentiate between a specific ability or attribute of a person, and the entire person themselves. Between surfaces and essences - so to speak.

Women have successfully carried babies while no longer able to produce eggs. So you mean the womb bits. Update your definition or activate self-destruct mode.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

After giving it a thorough investigation and much meditation Melissa McEwen has concluded that the LV shooter was motivated by misogyny.

http://www.shakesville.com/2017/10/ever ... qus_thread

Jeezus, what a surprise. It's all about the womenz.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Now that research has shown new oocytes can be produced from stem cells in the ovaries, is it fair to say that Steersman's mother being a woman or not is a matter of scientific dispute?

She's long dead - RIP - though she lived to be close to 88 if I'm not mistaken, and said she'd had a good life. But expect for the last 30 or so years of her life she was no longer a woman, technically speaking at least. You really might consider looking closely at definitions, specifically:

female: 1 a (1) : of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs

You think that for those later years she had the capacity for either of those? Even with medical interventions? But if you think that's a reasonable criteria then why not say we're all female since, presumably, any of our cells - stem or otherwise - could be made to produce oocytes?

Really think far too many people are unable or unwilling to differentiate between a specific ability or attribute of a person, and the entire person themselves. Between surfaces and essences - so to speak.

Women have successfully carried babies while no longer able to produce eggs. So you mean the womb bits. Update your definition or activate self-destruct mode.

Also it says specifically "typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs". Are you ignoring the word "typically"? Why? What about the "or"? What if they produce eggs AND bear young? And we haven't even dealt with the word "bear", which is a whole other kettle of fish. I suggest you look at dictionaries as less rules and more guidelines.

As to women producing with a womb and no eggs, I give you-
http://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/Womens ... d=12912270

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-p ... production

I expect an answer.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

If my granny had wheels, would she be a wagon? I suppose she'd still be dead, but maybe a little more festive.

[free thoughtpolice]

If my granny had wheels, would she be a wagon? I suppose she'd still be dead, but maybe a little more festive.

Technically, wheels on wagons are devices that allow the wagon to roll around. If your granny is dead she wouldn't be able to roll around , therefore not a true wagon. :ugeek:

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

<snip>

See, this is what I love about you Steers. An obvious joke is taken as an invitation to explain for the trillionth time why you think your mother was not a woman.

:-) However, that you think it was "an obvious joke" doesn't mean that everyone does. You might consider throwing in a smiley or a winky if that's your intent. :-)

Of course Steers<man doesn't see the obvious joke. The autistic have no sense of humor

[Lsuoma]

Now that research has shown new oocytes can be produced from stem cells in the ovaries, is it fair to say that Steersman's mother being a woman or not is a matter of scientific dispute?

She's long dead - RIP - though she lived to be close to 88 if I'm not mistaken, and said she'd had a good life. But expect for the last 30 or so years of her life she was no longer a woman, technically speaking at least. You really might consider <snip harumphing, apropos of which, accusations of not having read the same goddamn wikipedia and dictionary entries he's been linking for years>

See, this is what I love about you Steers. An obvious joke is taken as an invitation to explain for the trillionth time why you think your mother was not a woman.

Steerzo is getting VERY close to being Wonderized.

[Lsuoma]

If my granny had wheels, would she be a wagon? I suppose she'd still be dead, but maybe a little more festive.

Technically, wheels on wagons are devices that allow the wagon to roll around. If your granny is dead she wouldn't be able to roll around , therefore not a true wagon. :ugeek:

But does a wagon need wheels to be a wagon?

[Bhurzum]

But does a wagon need wheels to be a wagon?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Hqn3Tfwl5Vc/T ... rail+4.jpg

[HelpingHand]

Steerzo is getting VERY close to being Wonderized.

Steerz Lives Matter!

I will post firmly worded rants on social media if Sterzo gets Wonderized.

If I had social media accounts.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Steerzo is getting VERY close to being Wonderized.

Steerz Lives Matter!

I will post firmly worded rants on social media if Sterzo gets Wonderized.

If I had social media accounts.

#bringbackoursteersman

[free thoughtpolice]

A lively debate I am having.

alflybear
alflybear
8 hours ago
Your use of the word "White Supremacist" is fellatious and proves you have no idea of what true intersectionality means. When Jacques Derrida Jr. gets wind of your verbal wind breaking you will have your feminazi status removed and you will be demoted to just another nazi. Have fun punching yourself.
REPLY



Melissa Toro
Melissa Toro
7 hours ago (edited)
@aflybear Are you threatening with censorship because you are a triggered sheep who can't handle the truth? Your hypocrisy is hilarious. Sit your clown ass down- no one cares about your crying! Who the fuck is Jacques Derrida Jr? Your Jesus?! WTF! Cringe. Let me guess? When someone kneels you also freak out! Think about that! LOL, you are a pawn. hahaa
REPLY
3



alflybear
alflybear
4 hours ago
Melissa Toro, if that is your real name. You clearly are a running dog lackey tool of the capitalist imperialist
Patriarchy that has brainwashed you. I am sorry for you if you are so poorly educated that you haven't heard of Jacques Jr. Silencing gender traitor Trump supporting Nazis like you isn't censorship btw.
Also, check your privilege you cis het white racist homophobe.
REPLY



Melissa Toro
Melissa Toro
4 hours ago (edited)
Lol ok brahhhhhhhhhhh! GTFOH! Let's translate for alflybear: "DERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR" Go back to your cave. Is that English? I am Colombian American, born in the same hospital as Hog Hybrid Trump, you tool. I am also a lesbian and proud woman. I don't even know what you are saying or stand for, but I clearly trigger you. Which I LOVE! Thank you for hating women so much. Us Lesbians are in heaven. Seriously. All we need is you all to stop crying so loudly.
Read more
REPLY
1



Melissa Toro
Melissa Toro
3 hours ago
aflybear, why don't you use your real name, coward? Maybe because you really stand for NOTHING, solely entitlement. No one owes you anything.
REPLY
1



alflybear
alflybear
3 hours ago
You are just a jealous, angry transphobe that can't handle the fact that transwomen like Danielle Muscato are more beautiful and more of a true woman than you will ever be.
REPLY



Melissa Toro
Melissa Toro
3 hours ago (edited)
Who is Danielle Muscato? I don't care if someone is trans. What if someone didn't have the money to keep up with hormones? This is the problem. Why are you saying they are more of a woman? How is that possible. You mean by saying it? Ok! You are fighting with yourself. I love women.
REPLY



Melissa Toro
Melissa Toro
3 hours ago (edited)
I looked that person up. You told me I had hetero cis privilege? I think that happens when you are a white man demanding people call yourself a woman in a binary driven world when you look like a MAN. I didn't create this world, babe. If he is ever in my presence of course I will call him/her if that is what he asks but that is not a woman, honey.
REPLY
1



alflybear
alflybear
2 hours ago
So women that look like men aren't really women? You really hate some women apparently.
The next thing you will say is that lesbians can't have penises.
Bigot. TERF trash.
REPLY



Melissa Toro
Melissa Toro
2 hours ago (edited)
alflybear I don't care how someone identifies. But you calling me the names you are calling me doesn't help the women's movement. Start there and then we can have a conversation. Lesbians don't talk to one another like this, so I don't know, what you are, but I can already tell you are a male by birth by the way you speak to women. You should really work on that. If you are trying to be stealth.
REPLY
1



Phoenix Chastaine
Phoenix Chastaine
1 hour ago
alflybear Awww what a sweet little care bear. LOL!!!
REPLY
1



Phoenix Chastaine
Phoenix Chastaine
1 hour ago
Melissa Toro LOL!!! An Anonymouse yakking about "real names" and shit bahhhhh hahaha
REPLY
1



Phoenix Chastaine
Phoenix Chastaine
1 hour ago
alflybear is Blair LOL damn dummy lol
REPLY
1



alflybear
alflybear
1 hour ago
So now you claim to speak for all Lesbians and are entitled to decide who is a true woman and a true Lesbian.
You really love women? Ha ha, what a joke. You arbitrarily decide who a woman or a Lesbian is and decide to distribute your "love" accordingly. Meanwhile, you don't care about how your bigoted exclusionary attitude to who is a real woman damages and hurts so many women.
A woman is a woman at birth, even if they have been unfairly called "male by birth" by the Patriarchy.
If you ever develop the self awareness to how your ignorance is damaging the WWP community you may find it hard to sleep at night for some time. (frowny face)
Read more
REPLY



Melissa Toro
Melissa Toro
1 hour ago
You said I spoke for all lesbians not me. Get over yourself.
REPLY



alflybear
alflybear
1 hour ago
You said "Lesbians don't talk to each other like this". Get over myself? Are you even aware of what you are writing?
REPLY



Melissa Toro
Melissa Toro
1 hour ago
no one cares.
REPLY



alflybear
alflybear
1 hour ago
Am not. Your pants are on fire so often you need to be a phoenix rise to from the ashes after every goofy post you make.
REPLY



alflybear
alflybear
1 hour ago
That was in reply to P Chastaine's cheeky post.
REPLY



alflybear
alflybear
20 minutes ago
Mellisa Toro. That means honey bull in Colombian. $Si?
You are not a real Lesbian.
REPLY

[KiwiInOz]

But does a wagon need wheels to be a wagon?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Hqn3Tfwl5Vc/T ... rail+4.jpg

Yep. Otherwise it'd be a draggin.

[KiwiInOz]

snip
Steerzo is getting VERY close to being Wonderized.

Don't do that. He's a feature and a bug of the Pit.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

If my granny had wheels, would she be a wagon? I suppose she'd still be dead, but maybe a little more festive.

Technically, wheels on wagons are devices that allow the wagon to roll around. If your granny is dead she wouldn't be able to roll around , therefore not a true wagon. :ugeek:

Not even with an incline? You could have told me before I half-excavated the grave.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Is this the same definition Steers has been using all along? (sorry, I tend to gloss over his demeaning definitions of women)

female: 1 a (1) : of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs

Is it the beer disabling me tiny brain? Does it not say "typically", which would allow exceptions; "capacity to bear young", which would mean a female is any woman with a functional uterus and the contradiction "bear young or produce eggs", which is clearly not an "and" produce eggs and bear young. This sorta defines a woman as not somebody that both produces eggs or bears young. Sure you could quibble, but not by Steers' strict definition of terms.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

This sorta defines a woman as not somebody that both produces eggs and bears young. Is what I meant to type. :oops:

[MarcusAu]

Who taunted what sexual assault victim? I kinda missed that. Where they taunting the assault or is it now verboten to ever criticize somebody that has been sexually assaulted?

It refers to Sargon's 'I wouldn't even rape you' tweet to UK Politician & professional female Jess Phillips. I believe he encouraged other people to send the same / similar tweets to her too. Judging by the number generated the campaign could be said to be wildly successful.

Not sure of all the detail - but Phillips had identified as a rape victim - and was speaking in favour of UK censorship - specifically of the Internet. She had also previously explicitly dismissed (ie laughed off) statistics on male suicide - so Sargon obviously thought that she was old enough and ugly enough to stand the slings & arrows of modern discourse.

I'm sympathetic to Sargon's 'side' on this - but I'm not sure how successful his campaign was with the general public.

Time will tell.

[HoneyWagon]

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... =619971701

David Silverman
5 hrs · Cranford, NJ ·

I saw the video of the Mythcon event. I heard people laugh and cheer at a victim of sexual assault being taunted via Twitter with a shameful shitty tweet.

My blood boiled. My adrenaline flowed. My bile bubbled. If you're one of the people who cheer when victims get taunted, you're an asshole. And I don't want to have anything to do with you. I want nothing to do with you until you figure out how to have some empathy.

When you're organizing an event, the most important thing you can do is make sure that people feel welcomed. Celebrating the diversity of our community also means recognizing that we have work to do to make our events reflect the larger community of atheists. It's something I strive for every time I sit down with my team to work on our events.

We can't tolerate intolerance. We can't abide elevating those who spend their time trolling, and harassing, and alienating the very people who we're in this fight to help. We have serious work to do and we need serious conversations about how to do that. I don't have time to waste on people whose only interest seems to be provocation for provocation's sake and not on making the lives of our fellow atheists better.

Our convention next year is March 29 to April 1 in Oklahoma City. Like every year, we're going to have new people you've never heard from. We're going to talk about tough subjects. But we're going to do it without making people feel unsafe at our event. We're going to have a great time celebrating our community and the people in it. And we're going to do it while working to help people.

I do what I do to make a positive change in this country. I'm 51 years old and I don't have the time or patience to put up with assholes.

Who taunted what sexual assault victim? I kinda missed that. Where they taunting the assault or is it now verboten to ever criticize somebody that has been sexually assaulted?

Here's a bunch of words. Be skeptical as I am going a lot by memory a lot.

Re: the "rape threat/rape victim" issue.
That refers to a twitter event in 2016.
A British MP named Jess Phillips, known for wanting to increase censorship on online spaces, attracted Sargon's attention and he tweeted a non-threat to her (obviously a trolly one, but a non-threat).
I forget the actual catalyst. But I think it was in regards to claims of threats were not as the claimants say.
Similar to people being told to "die in a fire" (or DIAF) and claiming they got a death threat or being told to "go fuck themself" and claiming it was a rape threat.
So Sargon tested this out by tweeting to Jess that he wouldn't even rape her. She called this a rape threat. His fans sent her similar tweets in the thousands possibly saying that they would NOT rape her. These also counted as rape threats.
In the ensuing aftermath, no tweet of actual threats to her were found, but a lot of these non threats.
You can get mad at him for doing this, but claiming they were rape threats is Dan Arel level lying.

Thomas Smith brought this up to have a gotcha moment against Sargon, and fans of his in the audience cheered at the absurdity.

This following rundown is not complete and biased (tried to find anything neutral, hard to do)
But it gives names and info if you want them
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sq7l46

-----------


As far as I know, the sexual assault David is referring to are the tweets from Sargon's fans saying they wouldn't rape her.
If anyone wants to ask David who the victim of sexual assault was and what was the nature of her assault, please do. I would be surprised is he knew any of the backstory, but I bet he is just accepting at face value what he was told by people who are not fans of Sargon to say the least.



Ok, that is my book.

[Ape+lust]

A lively debate I am having.

-- major snip --

That is wonderful :lol: :clap:

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Who taunted what sexual assault victim? I kinda missed that. Where they taunting the assault or is it now verboten to ever criticize somebody that has been sexually assaulted?

It refers to Sargon's 'I wouldn't even rape you' tweet to UK Politician & professional female Jess Phillips. I believe he encouraged other people to send the same / similar tweets to her too. Judging by the number generated the campaign could be said to be wildly successful.

Not sure of all the detail - but Phillips had identified as a rape victim - and was speaking in favour of UK censorship - specifically of the Internet. She had also previously explicitly dismissed (ie laughed off) statistics on male suicide - so Sargon obviously thought that she was old enough and ugly enough to stand the slings & arrows of modern discourse.

I'm sympathetic to Sargon's 'side' on this - but I'm not sure how successful his campaign was with the general public.

Time will tell.

Seems like a dick thing to say for certain, but I don't think it a victim makes. And that seemed to be the only ammo they had against Sargon. No wonder they want to shut out anybody that disagrees with them. They're idiots.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Thanks Marcus and HoneyWagon.

[Kirbmarc]

https://imgur.com/JugfGB7.png

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/life/p ... e29629855/

And Im sure he'll love her sooooo much in his adult
years

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/00/f4/f4 ... 68a730.jpg

[Steersman]

snip
Steerzo is getting VERY close to being Wonderized.

Don't do that. He's a feature and a bug of the Pit.

Thanks - I think. :-)

[Steersman]

Is this the same definition Steers has been using all along? (sorry, I tend to gloss over his demeaning definitions of women)

female: 1 a (1) : of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs

Generally, no, that's not the definition I've been using. Most dictionaries seem to follow the lead (or vice versa) of Wikipedia that defines woman as "female human" with "female" defined as "Female (♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, that produces non-mobile ova (egg cells)."

But you might consider the possibility that it's less a case of my supposedly "demeaning definitions of women" than a case of too many making too much out of a single attribute.

Is it the beer disabling me tiny brain? Does it not say "typically", which would allow exceptions; "capacity to bear young", which would mean a female is any woman with a functional uterus and the contradiction "bear young or produce eggs", which is clearly not an "and" produce eggs and bear young. This sorta defines a woman as not somebody that both produces eggs or bears young. Sure you could quibble, but not by Steers' strict definition of terms.

Addenda: This sorta defines a woman as not somebody that both produces eggs and bears young. Is what I meant to type.

"Or" is frequently defined, at least logically, as covering both possibilities: "A or B" means A alone or B alone or A and B together; having tea or coffee could mean having only tea or only coffee or both tea and coffee.

But that probably wasn't the best definition to quote because of, as you suggest, some possible contradictions or serious muddying of the waters. So, in hindsight, I should probably have selected a different dictionary other than Merriam-Webster.

[Kirbmarc]

Here's a bunch of words. Be skeptical as I am going a lot by memory a lot.

Re: the "rape threat/rape victim" issue.
That refers to a twitter event in 2016.
A British MP named Jess Phillips, known for wanting to increase censorship on online spaces, attracted Sargon's attention and he tweeted a non-threat to her (obviously a trolly one, but a non-threat).
I forget the actual catalyst. But I think it was in regards to claims of threats were not as the claimants say.
Similar to people being told to "die in a fire" (or DIAF) and claiming they got a death threat or being told to "go fuck themself" and claiming it was a rape threat.
So Sargon tested this out by tweeting to Jess that he wouldn't even rape her. She called this a rape threat. His fans sent her similar tweets in the thousands possibly saying that they would NOT rape her. These also counted as rape threats.
In the ensuing aftermath, no tweet of actual threats to her were found, but a lot of these non threats.
You can get mad at him for doing this, but claiming they were rape threats is Dan Arel level lying.

Thomas Smith brought this up to have a gotcha moment against Sargon, and fans of his in the audience cheered at the absurdity.

This following rundown is not complete and biased (tried to find anything neutral, hard to do)
But it gives names and info if you want them
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sq7l46

-----------


As far as I know, the sexual assault David is referring to are the tweets from Sargon's fans saying they wouldn't rape her.
If anyone wants to ask David who the victim of sexual assault was and what was the nature of her assault, please do. I would be surprised is he knew any of the backstory, but I bet he is just accepting at face value what he was told by people who are not fans of Sargon to say the least.



Ok, that is my book.

The "I wouldn't even rape you" tweet was labeled with the hashtag #AntiRapeThreats and included a link to this youtube video:



At 11:50 Sargon starts to talk about the "Reclaim The Internet" campaign, a campaign against "online abuse" that was sponsored by the Guardian (and which looked very much like a Very Special Concern/Moral Outrage). He goes on for a while then comes to comment on an article from Jess Phillips, where she frames "Reclaim the Internet" as "protecting free speech" from trolling which is, apparently, a "silencing technique".

At 17: 31, Sargon reads a paragraph from Phillips's article when she complains that the real problem isn't the quality of the tweets she receives, but the quantity of it:

People talking about raping me isn't fun but has become somewhat par for the course. What is the real pain is the thousands of tweets or Facebook notifications that join in. I think my record is 700 people blocked in one night.

To which Sargon replies:

Well, I'll tell you what Jess, I think that's terrible. And I'll tell you what, I wouldn't even rape you, I wouldn't even rape you, believe me.

Sargon goes on to argue that Phillips' point, that she feels "silenced" by hostile tweets and Facebook notifications, and so she pauses every time before she posts anything on the Internet, doesn't mean that mean tweets is a violation of Phillips' freedom of speech and so censorship cannot be justified that way. He goes on later to explain that it was found out that 50% of misogynistic tweets come from women, so mean tweets were unlikely to be a male tactic to intimidate and silence women.

Sargon's tweet is obviously a trolling/provocation related to the point in question, whether online trolling justifies censorship efforts because it is "silencing" women. Many others joined in with "AntiRapeThreats".

Now I don't like Sargon, he over-simplifies complex issues and is more of a shock jock than a clever or insightful political commentator. And of course those tweets were mean, dickish and an inconvenience to Phillips, and one of Sargon's motivations for the "AntiRapeTweet" campaign was to get attention. Sargon has always been an attention whore, although I guess that's part of being a "Youtube celebrity".

But in the context of the "Reclaim the Internet" campaign, the push to create a "feminist internet", a "safe space" online by arguing that trolling is a "silencing technique" the Sargon tweets appear to be an extreme and attention-grabbing technique to protest censorship in the name of protecting the feelings of "fragile women". You might find them distasteful but they're hardly the capital sin that the SocJus thinks they are, especially in context.

They're the equivalent of the controversial "Piss Christ" or PZ Myers' "Moo-ham-ed, the pedophilic cow-pig". They're deliberately triggering a sense of moral disgust of a community to test the boundaries of freedom of speech, especially when those communities support censorship to protect their offended moral principles.

Sargon is a wannabe Howard Stern or Larry Flynt.

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

If a car is up on blocks, and is missing its tires, is it still a car???

3920365677_ef2001a409.jpg

(134.69 KiB) Downloaded 125 times

Let's ask Steersman, seen on left.

"Steersman, is it still a car"?

"duh" !!!

[Kirbmarc]

As far as I know, the sexual assault David is referring to are the tweets from Sargon's fans saying they wouldn't rape her.
If anyone wants to ask David who the victim of sexual assault was and what was the nature of her assault, please do. I would be surprised is he knew any of the backstory, but I bet he is just accepting at face value what he was told by people who are not fans of Sargon to say the least.

Jess Phillips claims to have been a survivor of a sexual assault in real life, although she also claimed in article (quoted in the video I posted) that online rape threats didn't bother her as much as the idea of having lots of notifications from Twitter or Facebook.

The moral outrage over Sargon's "AntiRapeThreat" seems to be based on the idea that Sargon's publicity stunt/trolling/boundary testing was a deliberate intimidation technique towards a victim of real life sexual assault, which is a very shaky narrative.

[Steersman]

If a car is up on blocks, and is missing its tires, is it still a car???

3920365677_ef2001a409.jpg

Let's ask Steersman, seen on left.

"Steersman, is it still a car"?

"duh" !!!

LoL. Knickers still in a twist, a bee in your bonnet?

Know you're not much for dictionaries or even reading, but you might be able to click on a link to one and read a dozen words:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/automobile