Periodic Table of Swearing

[BarnOwl]

<------- Sorry for the avatar change, I wanted to reflect my mood.

Jack Sparrow, is that you? What have you done with Phil?

:lol:

* above reaction does not contradict my previous agreement with Abbie

[Mykeru]

Let's do one of those nudie calenders like the Skepchicks did to raise money to go to TAM 2013.

And then demand we not be sexualized.

[KiwiInOz]

Realistically though, what's the odds of any of us getting to a TAM without the Baboon security forces spreading horseshit to the organizers?

Let's do one of those nudie calenders like the Skepchicks did to raise money to go to TAM 2013.

Men only and the Full Monty!

http://www.musicalworld.nl/images/music ... tlogo_.jpg

Looks like Abbie and BarnOwl have their orders in for 12 months of Phil!

[franc]

That was reason #230 why I hated Prometheus. When the "derelict" ship crashed and Noomi Rapace and Charlize Theron are running, running running, I got the feeling I was watching Wile E. Coyote.

RUN FUCKING LATERALLY, FOR FUCK'S SAKE ALREADY!

I LOL'ed when I saw that scene. I mean, come on. Really? Too bad there was so much potential in the idea of that flick; it turned out to be the Keystone Kops of Science in Outer Space. Another facepalm moment was "Hey, let's just assume no viruses or germs are in the air, the meter thingy says there's oxygen here, let's rip our helmets off with no testing! Also, how did Noomi do all that running when her abdominal muscles had just been sliced? A row of staples just ain't gonna cut it. The movie was visually gorgeous at times, but that's about it.

Don't forget the role playing gamer's cardinal sin - "let's split the party". Fucking awful movie. Pretentious wank loaded with pseudo-religious symbolic crap you can sorta get if, and only if, you read any of the fanboy/girl dissections. Further justification for nuking Hollywood and salting its earth so nothing grows there ever again.

[real horrorshow]

On other matters. You like the first cassock pic? Check this one. I really want this:

That's a bit more stylin'.

We can all get cheaper cassocks and wear an orange silk sash from a martial arts shop. It can be the official Slyme Pit Satanic Ritual uniform for all conferences.

And instead of a cross we can have parody knock-off Surly-ramics.

That cassock seriously rocks. I would be willing to deal with a vampire invasion just to watch you kick vampire ass with the switchblade and the gun while wearing that cassock.

The skull would be a plus.

Well that's a full-on Watts & Co, but you can get basic cassocks for much less - about £145. Prices for latex/vinyl/leather versions, please consult your usual supplier. Cow skulls and switchblades are readily available.

I only ever got one chance to shoot a .45 auto and I liked it much better than the .357 Mag revolvers my club was then using. Alas, almost all firearms are now unavailable in the UK. Unless you're criminal of course.

[Mykeru]

Just because:

I'm watching the line up of political shows on MSNBC and the continued Republican writhing over how badly they lost the election is truly a joy to behold.

Republicans: Don't give an inch. The loss was not your fault. The election was stolen by people who wanted stuff. Like Gary Bauer said, you lost because you were not hard core enough. If you want to win, become more conservative. Really stop important issues like gay marriage and really dig for the truth on the President's birth certificate. Start looking to Donald Trump for inspiration. He's all orange because he's full of truth. Give more money to Karl Rove, he totally knows what he's doing. The election was unfairly determined by the other side getting more votes. That's not how democracy works.

Be more of what you are. Hold firm. Success will be yours.

(Yeah, that'll work for you, you fucking delusional morons)

P.S. Becca must be so mad that Jill Kelley has her own personal FBI buddy to track down "harassing" emails that call her bad names. It's all about the networking.

[Sulaco]

That was reason #230 why I hated Prometheus. When the "derelict" ship crashed and Noomi Rapace and Charlize Theron are running, running running, I got the feeling I was watching Wile E. Coyote.

RUN FUCKING LATERALLY, FOR FUCK'S SAKE ALREADY!

I LOL'ed when I saw that scene. I mean, come on. Really? Too bad there was so much potential in the idea of that flick; it turned out to be the Keystone Kops of Science in Outer Space. Another facepalm moment was "Hey, let's just assume no viruses or germs are in the air, the meter thingy says there's oxygen here, let's rip our helmets off with no testing! Also, how did Noomi do all that running when her abdominal muscles had just been sliced? A row of staples just ain't gonna cut it. The movie was visually gorgeous at times, but that's about it.

Don't forget the role playing gamer's cardinal sin - "let's split the party". Fucking awful movie. Pretentious wank loaded with pseudo-religious symbolic crap you can sorta get if, and only if, you read any of the fanboy/girl dissections. Further justification for nuking Hollywood and salting its earth so nothing grows there ever again.

http://redlettermedia.com/red-letter-me ... us-on-dvd/

[Sulaco]

That was reason #230 why I hated Prometheus. When the "derelict" ship crashed and Noomi Rapace and Charlize Theron are running, running running, I got the feeling I was watching Wile E. Coyote.

RUN FUCKING LATERALLY, FOR FUCK'S SAKE ALREADY!

I LOL'ed when I saw that scene. I mean, come on. Really? Too bad there was so much potential in the idea of that flick; it turned out to be the Keystone Kops of Science in Outer Space. Another facepalm moment was "Hey, let's just assume no viruses or germs are in the air, the meter thingy says there's oxygen here, let's rip our helmets off with no testing! Also, how did Noomi do all that running when her abdominal muscles had just been sliced? A row of staples just ain't gonna cut it. The movie was visually gorgeous at times, but that's about it.

Don't forget the role playing gamer's cardinal sin - "let's split the party". Fucking awful movie. Pretentious wank loaded with pseudo-religious symbolic crap you can sorta get if, and only if, you read any of the fanboy/girl dissections. Further justification for nuking Hollywood and salting its earth so nothing grows there ever again.

http://redlettermedia.com/red-letter-me ... us-on-dvd/

Hit submit too soon. But the above sums above my thoughts of Prometheus pretty well. It was a pretty movie, but that was it.

Also, an archeologist doing an autopsy on an alien? wtf?

[franc]

That was reason #230 why I hated Prometheus. When the "derelict" ship crashed and Noomi Rapace and Charlize Theron are running, running running, I got the feeling I was watching Wile E. Coyote.

RUN FUCKING LATERALLY, FOR FUCK'S SAKE ALREADY!

I LOL'ed when I saw that scene. I mean, come on. Really? Too bad there was so much potential in the idea of that flick; it turned out to be the Keystone Kops of Science in Outer Space. Another facepalm moment was "Hey, let's just assume no viruses or germs are in the air, the meter thingy says there's oxygen here, let's rip our helmets off with no testing! Also, how did Noomi do all that running when her abdominal muscles had just been sliced? A row of staples just ain't gonna cut it. The movie was visually gorgeous at times, but that's about it.

Don't forget the role playing gamer's cardinal sin - "let's split the party". Fucking awful movie. Pretentious wank loaded with pseudo-religious symbolic crap you can sorta get if, and only if, you read any of the fanboy/girl dissections. Further justification for nuking Hollywood and salting its earth so nothing grows there ever again.

http://redlettermedia.com/red-letter-me ... us-on-dvd/

http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html

[Mykeru]

That was reason #230 why I hated Prometheus. When the "derelict" ship crashed and Noomi Rapace and Charlize Theron are running, running running, I got the feeling I was watching Wile E. Coyote.

RUN FUCKING LATERALLY, FOR FUCK'S SAKE ALREADY!

I LOL'ed when I saw that scene. I mean, come on. Really? Too bad there was so much potential in the idea of that flick; it turned out to be the Keystone Kops of Science in Outer Space. Another facepalm moment was "Hey, let's just assume no viruses or germs are in the air, the meter thingy says there's oxygen here, let's rip our helmets off with no testing! Also, how did Noomi do all that running when her abdominal muscles had just been sliced? A row of staples just ain't gonna cut it. The movie was visually gorgeous at times, but that's about it.

Don't forget the role playing gamer's cardinal sin - "let's split the party". Fucking awful movie. Pretentious wank loaded with pseudo-religious symbolic crap you can sorta get if, and only if, you read any of the fanboy/girl dissections. Further justification for nuking Hollywood and salting its earth so nothing grows there ever again.

Watching her walk, run, jump and fucking breathe slice through the abdominal musculature made me crazy. I mean, suspension of disbelief is one thing, a plot based on your audience having prostate/bladder trouble so they were taking a wee so as not to have seen that, just sucks. Having had a hematoma the size of an orange on my gut this summer, I can tell you standing was a problem.

It comes down to having no respect for the audience.

I only ever got one chance to shoot a .45 auto and I liked it much better than the .357 Mag revolvers my club was then using. Alas, almost all firearms are now unavailable in the UK. Unless you're criminal of course.

I carried a Ruger Security Six .357 back in the day in AZ. It's a simple and totally serviceable wheel gun that you can be sure you can count on. Nothing wrong with it. You can also carry snake loads (basically mini shot shells, very useful in the desert) The 1911A1 is pretty much the same in that it's a classic, reliable design that hasn't changed in 100 years. That Browning got it that right from the start still amazes me.

Being someone who has used firearms with no great love for them except as an unfortunately necessary tool, they are both no-frills and are comparable in terms of stopping power.

Although I still think the best defense is a really big dog.

[BarnOwl]

Skulls Unlimited

I have a cow skull and a feral hog skull, both found at my friends' ranch, in my garage at the moment. I also have two striped skunk skulls that were found on a ranch in New Mexico. Had a coyote skull on my front porch at Hallowe'en one year, and it disappeared. That'll teach me.

[KarlVonMox]

TL/DR: I’ve frequently heard people object to the Schroedinger’s Rapist argument as sexist, with anti-black racism used as a counter-example. I reject this comparison because it neglects two important factors: 1) that the issue under discussion is about whether or not we want women to feel more comfortable; and 2) that black people often make similar behavioural adjustments to accommodate the racism of their white friends. I share some personal stories to illustrate this.

Update: Comrade Physioprof has made this excellent observation: “It is not “sexist” for women to view all men as potential rapists, because (other than in prison) men possess the privilege of being subject to a vanishingly small likelihood of being raped by either men or women, while women are subject to a substantial likelihood of being raped by men. In contrast, it is “racist” for white people to view all black people as potential criminals, because (as far as I can discern from available crime statistics) white people are the ones who possess the privilege of being less likely to be crime victims than black people, and they are more likely to be victims of crimes committed by white people than by black people.”

This is so idiotic. The "two important factors" he lists in the first paragraph are irrelevant (what if the topic of discussion was someone living in a majority black crime ridden neighborhood? Schroedingers black murderer would still be invalid).

Then the second paragraph is interesting, since suddenly its okay to use statistics and probability about how often black people are crime victims compared to white people to support his argument. Curious since before pointing out that any one man has a microscopically small chance of him being a rapist is somehow missing the point.

[AndrewV69]

So, I'm diddling between the HP ENVY 23-d065 and the HP Envy 23-d030, trying to figure out how much is "buy up" horseshit, how much is really neat (2 TB HD) and why the fuck don't they list the graphics accelerator on some models (maybe because once you are about quad core, it makes fuck all difference) and doing it all online.

Because if most consumers don't know enough for it to be a deciding point for them. If the graphics accelerator isn't listed, it is a good bet that the machine is using an embedded graphics accelerator, such as the Intel 2500. If you know what the mother board is, you can look it up.

I think I should mention that my recent experience with HP has not been satisfactory.

I personally will never buy another HP product again, without the understanding up front, that the lifespan of said product is approximately four years.

After which expect a catastropic failure (in my case two desktops and a monitor). This afternoon a neighbour presented me with his 4 year old HP laptop. I have scheduled an autopsy within a couple of days.

Just saying.

[welch]

That was reason #230 why I hated Prometheus. When the "derelict" ship crashed and Noomi Rapace and Charlize Theron are running, running running, I got the feeling I was watching Wile E. Coyote.

RUN FUCKING LATERALLY, FOR FUCK'S SAKE ALREADY!

I LOL'ed when I saw that scene. I mean, come on. Really? Too bad there was so much potential in the idea of that flick; it turned out to be the Keystone Kops of Science in Outer Space. Another facepalm moment was "Hey, let's just assume no viruses or germs are in the air, the meter thingy says there's oxygen here, let's rip our helmets off with no testing! Also, how did Noomi do all that running when her abdominal muscles had just been sliced? A row of staples just ain't gonna cut it. The movie was visually gorgeous at times, but that's about it.

Don't forget the role playing gamer's cardinal sin - "let's split the party". Fucking awful movie. Pretentious wank loaded with pseudo-religious symbolic crap you can sorta get if, and only if, you read any of the fanboy/girl dissections. Further justification for nuking Hollywood and salting its earth so nothing grows there ever again.

Watching her walk, run, jump and fucking breathe slice through the abdominal musculature made me crazy. I mean, suspension of disbelief is one thing, a plot based on your audience having prostate/bladder trouble so they were taking a wee so as not to have seen that, just sucks. Having had a hematoma the size of an orange on my gut this summer, I can tell you standing was a problem.

It comes down to having no respect for the audience.

My wife is a big Lost fan. I just go find other things to do when she watches, because the yelling gets too much. The first episode alone insulted my intelligence so hard and fast, I felt like my reasoning centers had been speed-fucked by a giant sky dick.

[welch]

Skulls Unlimited

I have a cow skull and a feral hog skull, both found at my friends' ranch, in my garage at the moment. I also have two striped skunk skulls that were found on a ranch in New Mexico. Had a coyote skull on my front porch at Hallowe'en one year, and it disappeared. That'll teach me.

Melissa's dad is a taxidermist. Skulls, spines, fuck, the whole animal I can get.

[Dilurk]

Realistically though, what's the odds of any of us getting to a TAM without the Baboon security forces spreading horseshit to the organizers?

Let's do one of those nudie calenders like the Skepchicks did to raise money to go to TAM 2013.

Men only and the Full Monty!

http://www.musicalworld.nl/images/music ... tlogo_.jpg

Looks like Abbie and BarnOwl have their orders in for 12 months of Phil!

You could add Phil's snake to the end too.

/me runs fast

[BarnOwl]

Skulls Unlimited

I have a cow skull and a feral hog skull, both found at my friends' ranch, in my garage at the moment. I also have two striped skunk skulls that were found on a ranch in New Mexico. Had a coyote skull on my front porch at Hallowe'en one year, and it disappeared. That'll teach me.

Melissa's dad is a taxidermist. Skulls, spines, fuck, the whole animal I can get.

Awesome! Does he have any armadillo skulls?

[Steersman]

However, I periodically think that “god” is still a useful concept – as an abstraction, as a sort of “virtual reality”. By which token I find that PZ Myer’s – and to a lesser extent, Jerry Coyne’s – anathematization of accommodationism is, at least, misplaced if not highly problematic. Although most religious fundamentalists tend to fall off the cliff on the other side of that rather narrow road into the “sin” of reification: treating an abstraction “as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity” ….

God" a useful concept? Useful for what? You might as well claim that "tooth fairy" is a useful concept, or "the luminiferous ether".

Accommodationism is the view that science and religion are compatible, or by extension, that religion is a way of knowing facts about the world that are inaccessible to science. Or, put in yet another way, that the claims of religion can not be disproved by science. Accommodationism is pandering to religion and I view those in favour of it as betrayers of science and as people who are devaluating genuine, hard-won knowledge.

That’s one particular definition – somewhat supported by Wikipedia. But a post by Massimo Pigliucci suggests a more sensible perspective:

A new word has entered the atheist vocabulary of late: “accommodationist.” It is meant as a derogatory term toward those atheists and assorted rationalists who try to extend a metaphorical olive branch to moderate religionists and find common ground against the real danger, fundamentalism (of any kind, religious or not). To give you an idea of the landscape, I think it is fair to count Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and PZ Myers among the “purists,” while Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and yours truly have been labelled as accommodationists.

Seems to me that the difference is predicated on a recognition, as Pigliucci suggests, that not all “religionists” are literalists – that there are, at least, metaphorical if not scientific justifications for the concept. In the former case there is this in the introduction of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene:

The Selfish Gene has been criticized for anthropomorphic personification and this too needs an explanation, if not an apology. [He then offers several examples from others including “the great molecular biologist Jacques Monod” and “Peter Atkins in his wonderful book ‘Creation Revisited’”]

Personification of this kind is not just a quaint didactic device. It can also help a professional scientist to get the right answer, in the face of tricky temptations to error. Such is the case with Darwinian calculations of altruism and selfishness, cooperation and spite. It is very easy to get the wrong answer. Personifying genes, if done with due care and caution, often turns out to be the shortest route to rescuing a Darwinian theorist drowning in a muddle. [pg x-xi]

And in the latter case – of scientific justifications – there seems to be the fact – in part suggested by such works as Godel’s Proof – that there are quite likely to be things that are quite true but which are, nonetheless, not at all provable by science – i.e., there are likely things, beliefs, concepts that “can not be disproved by science” but which are nonetheless quite true. Which then raises, I think, some sticky questions as to how we might deal with them.

And leading the hit parade in that department is, I think, the phenomenon of consciousness. Some certainly argue with some credibility if not asperity (Dennett) that even though it is a complex question it is not an intractable one. But many others seem to argue – with equal if not greater credibility – that there is in fact still a “ghost in the machine” that might well be beyond even the explanatory “limits of science”. Not to mention its creative capabilities: it is one thing to explain something; quite another to build it from scratch – the latter being more or less the proof of the pudding – or rather the recipe.

And if that latter case is the true one, the actual state of affairs, then some conceptions of god – notably a panentheist one which both Spinoza and Einstein largely subscribed to – may actually provide some handle on those “sticky questions”. Which is, I think, quite different from “pandering to religion”, particularly the anthropomorphic literalist conceptions of fundamentalist Christianity and Islam.

I am not dumb enough to become pro accommodationism just because PZ Myers happens to be anti accommodationism (as are Dawkins, Coyne, not to mention the late lamented Christopher Hitchens).

TL;DR: I don’t think it is an either-or situation: it only becomes so if you insist on a quite narrow definition of religion and “god”.

[AKAHorace]

I am an accomadationist as:

-I want to distinguish between religions that will persecute me for being an atheist from those which are largely benign.

-I am prepared to work with religions for causes that I think are good.

Treating Anglicans and the Taliban as morally equivalent is the sort of extremism that you can indulge in when you are safe from persecution yourself.

[Steersman]

However, I periodically think that “god” is still a useful concept – as an abstraction, as a sort of “virtual reality”. By which token I find that PZ Myer’s – and to a lesser extent, Jerry Coyne’s – anathematization of accommodationism is, at least, misplaced if not highly problematic. Although most religious fundamentalists tend to fall off the cliff on the other side of that rather narrow road into the “sin” of reification: treating an abstraction “as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity” ….

"God" a useful concept? Useful for what? You might as well claim that "tooth fairy" is a useful concept, or "the luminiferous ether".

Accommodationism is the view that science and religion are compatible, or by extension, that religion is a way of knowing facts about the world that are inaccessible to science. Or, put in yet another way, that the claims of religion can not be disproved by science. Accommodationism is pandering to religion and I view those in favour of it as betrayers of science and as people who are devaluating genuine, hard-won knowledge. I am not dumb enough to become pro accommodationism just because PZ Myers happens to be anti accommodationism (as are Dawkins, Coyne, not to mention the late lamented Christopher Hitchens).

He's talking God as a metaphor for nature. The physicists have been guilty of doing this and they need to stop. Einstein's throw away line about God and dice has been misquoted by the nutty religious for years.

Seems that you are of a similar mind to Richard Dawkins on that point:

Nevertheless, I wish that physicists would refrain from using the word God in their special metaphorical sense. The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason. [The God Delusion; pg 41]

Although I think neither of you have that much in the way of legs to stand on. As indicated in my previous response to Jan Steen, the panentheistic conception of god – actually somewhat more accurate than Dawkins “pantheistic” one – has quite a history – and one that probably predates the “sin-punishing” version of the Bible.

[d4m10n]

Abbie had a really great post about this. If all you do is meet in places that serve booze, you lose the families, the non-drinkers, or the people who aren't into bars that much. There are parks. There are all kinds of places you can meet that are a good place for the entire age range of people, and yet, they keep coming back to bars.

If only there were such a thing as a family friendly restaurant that also has a bar, or at least a decent beer/wine list. Wait, what? Those are littered across suburbia, you say?

Seriously, this isn't a tough nut to crack. We get in better (and far more relevant) arguments over wheelchair access.

But as others have pointed out, a restaurant is not the best place for this. First, there's the people interrupting you trying to do their job, and second, once you're done eating, I'm of the "get the fuck out so someone who's going to buy more food can use the table". three tables of schmucks getting nothing but drink refills is just fucking up the program for everyone else.

In our case it's more like 10-20 tables of schmucks, but on a Tuesday night they generally welcome the business and tips.

I have little faith in the Zvanoids being decent tippers

They are not invited. In fact, no -oids or -ians need apply.

[ReneeHendricks]

If you aren't confident that you can sell 30 t-shirts what the fuck are you doing anyway.

Around here, it costs a bit to have them done. Not sure about other places. Your statement makes sense, however. I guess I'm just used to services that allow me to create something online and have it sold on a piece-by-piece basis.

[Steersman]

I am an accommodationist as:

-I want to distinguish between religions that will persecute me for being an atheist from those which are largely benign.

-I am prepared to work with religions for causes that I think are good.

Largely agree with that, although I think the question turns on what makes a religion “benign”. And offhand I would say that is determined largely by whether the religion is literalist and dogmatic or not - I think there are some that qualify in the latter case.

Treating Anglicans and the Taliban as morally equivalent is the sort of extremism that you can indulge in when you are safe from persecution yourself.

I’ll largely agree with the first part: treating the two as equivalent does seem to qualify as “extremism”, of tarring two manifestations with the same brush. However the last part seems a bit of a non sequitur – unless you maybe mean to suggest that the persecution of others – by one or both of those religions – can safely be ignored as long as oneself is not directly victimized.

[Dilurk]

However, I periodically think that “god” is still a useful concept – as an abstraction, as a sort of “virtual reality”. By which token I find that PZ Myer’s – and to a lesser extent, Jerry Coyne’s – anathematization of accommodationism is, at least, misplaced if not highly problematic. Although most religious fundamentalists tend to fall off the cliff on the other side of that rather narrow road into the “sin” of reification: treating an abstraction “as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity” ….

"God" a useful concept? Useful for what? You might as well claim that "tooth fairy" is a useful concept, or "the luminiferous ether".

Accommodationism is the view that science and religion are compatible, or by extension, that religion is a way of knowing facts about the world that are inaccessible to science. Or, put in yet another way, that the claims of religion can not be disproved by science. Accommodationism is pandering to religion and I view those in favour of it as betrayers of science and as people who are devaluating genuine, hard-won knowledge. I am not dumb enough to become pro accommodationism just because PZ Myers happens to be anti accommodationism (as are Dawkins, Coyne, not to mention the late lamented Christopher Hitchens).

He's talking God as a metaphor for nature. The physicists have been guilty of doing this and they need to stop. Einstein's throw away line about God and dice has been misquoted by the nutty religious for years.

Seems that you are of a similar mind to Richard Dawkins on that point:

Nevertheless, I wish that physicists would refrain from using the word God in their special metaphorical sense. The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason. [The God Delusion; pg 41]

Although I think neither of you have that much in the way of legs to stand on. As indicated in my previous response to Jan Steen, the panentheistic conception of god – actually somewhat more accurate than Dawkins “pantheistic” one – has quite a history – and one that probably predates the “sin-punishing” version of the Bible.

Yes I am familiar with the two terms and if you go back a bit on here I mentioned panentheism as well. It's the same old same old. Whenever debating with a religious person, you first need to pin down a definition of what they think God is. It could be well argued that "God" is just a placeholder for unknown or will be as religion attempts to evolve to survive. Everyone on here rejects the idea of the supernatural and especially so that there is a God that listens to prayers, but I think that there is wiggle room for a redefinition of 'God' much as 'spiritual' can be seen without a supernatural component. The difficulty is having the religious conflate these uses of 'God' and 'spiritual' with theirs.

[franc]

I am an accomadationist as:

-I want to distinguish between religions that will persecute me for being an atheist from those which are largely benign.

-I am prepared to work with religions for causes that I think are good.

Treating Anglicans and the Taliban as morally equivalent is the sort of extremism that you can indulge in when you are safe from persecution yourself.

I have a different take. God is quite simply irrelevant to existance. Does not matter one bit if there is one or not, it shows no evidence of existing nor that it cares one iota about life on this dirtball, therefore why should anyone care about it, let alone waste time arguing about it?

Believers are quite another matter. Once you take into account the irrelevancy of god, they are no longer distinguishable from any other kind of "believer" in intangible nonsense - be it political, supernatural, alt.culture, the gender fem-bot derangement of the baboons or even sport or pop idol groupies. They are all just one amorphous gibbering mass of people I don't particularly want to have anything to do with.

That said, I see no harm in most intangible beliefs providing folks don't let it affect nuts and bolts reality. I've always had a degree of respect for the humble believer that just potters along in their own quite way without bothering anyone or casting judgement. They perhaps are weak - they cling to faith in much the same manner that others cling to a few beers after work. A crutch yes, and we all have them. So why should I really care what they do when I'm not around? They're just people - you either like them on a personal level or don't, and quite often there are common goals unrelated to beliefs that will provide mutual benefit with cooperation. It is just plain stupid to let irrelevant belief foibles undermine that cooperation.

And then there are baboons...

[Dilurk]

I am an accomadationist as:

-I want to distinguish between religions that will persecute me for being an atheist from those which are largely benign.

-I am prepared to work with religions for causes that I think are good.

Treating Anglicans and the Taliban as morally equivalent is the sort of extremism that you can indulge in when you are safe from persecution yourself.

I have a different take. God is quite simply irrelevant to existance. Does not matter one bit if there is one or not, it shows no evidence of existing nor that it cares one iota about life on this dirtball, therefore why should anyone care about it, let alone waste time arguing about it?

This is exactly my view and always has been.

Believers are quite another matter. Once you take into account the irrelevancy of god, they are no longer distinguishable from any other kind of "believer" in intangible nonsense - be it political, supernatural, alt.culture, the gender fem-bot derangement of the baboons or even sport or pop idol groupies. They are all just one amorphous gibbering mass of people I don't particularly want to have anything to do with.

That said, I see no harm in most intangible beliefs providing folks don't let it affect nuts and bolts reality. I've always had a degree of respect for the humble believer that just potters along in their own quite way without bothering anyone or casting judgement. They perhaps are weak - they cling to faith in much the same manner that others cling to a few beers after work. A crutch yes, and we all have them. So why should I really care what they do when I'm not around? They're just people - you either like them on a personal level or don't, and quite often there are common goals unrelated to beliefs that will provide mutual benefit with cooperation. It is just plain stupid to let irrelevant belief foibles undermine that cooperation.

Religion is like bad breath, I don't care if you have it, just keep it away from me. As a Canadian living in a very accepting part of Canada, I've never at all felt the religious were persecuting me or that I had to keep my atheism private. It just did not matter. Then I noticed the nutters south of the border...

And then there are baboons...

[justinvacula]

http://i.imgur.com/M2gpH.jpg

Ophelia loves it.

(

[real horrorshow]

Skulls Unlimited

Thanks for that link, they have lots of cool stuff.

[Steersman]

Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:45 pm

Just doin' some substituing....I wonder how well this version would go down with the radfem justice soldiers?: ….

Thing is that there is some asymmetry there: outside of prison where there are more men than women, it seems quite clear that there are more women than men who are raped, forcibly or through the aid of various intoxicants (which makes the definition somewhat moot). Whereas in the case of blacks who happen to be robbers – or murderers in your analogy, it seems likely to be the case that men and women are generally equally victimized.

For instance you might take a look at the statistics – for the US at least – which indicates that in 1990 there were about five and ten times more robbery and assault, respectively, than there were rapes. By which token one might argue that we should all be more concerned about “Schrodinger’s robber” or “Schrodinger’s assaulter” than the rapist variety. In which case one might argue that some women are literally making mountains out of molehills – not that that precludes being careful about tripping over either ….

True, true... But, using the same logic which Tracy Walker uses, we can justify any paranoia against any class/group. Some black people ARE murderers. Some women rape. We can never know one way or the other so until such time as I do know I will "treat" you as a "potential" X.

I think you and others aren’t being fair to Walker. She quite clearly says “... people I meet might be rapists” – nothing in there that I can see that suggests that she is asserting that all people ARE rapists – or murderers in your analogy. Seems that your implication of paranoia is based on an assumption that “potential” is the same as “actual”: as she said, “I am not assuming they ARE rapists”.

Further to the “others”, I think an exchange between Walker and Justin Vacula suggests that the latter is being somewhat hypocritical in doing the same thing in some hypothetical cases as what he criticizes her for doing in other ones:

When I meet anyone, if I lack prior knowledge, I take a position, the best I can, of neutrality. I am not going to assume they are 'potential anything.' I will, though, take reasonable precautions (I won't just get in anyone's vehicle, I won't let random people borrow money, etc). I won't, though, say that because men face certain issues women are potential x or y seemingly assuming the worst of all worlds.

If you don't loan them money, then you are deciding they may not be trustworthy for paying you back. They are potential debt skippers. You are in fact doing exactly that, whether you admit it to yourself or not.

Same goes for all your other examples: you are denying what you're actually doing. If you don’t get in a cab with someone, you're considering that they may not be a safe person to be in an enclosed space with, i.e., a potential mugger or what have you. You call it "reasonable precautions" - so do I.

Both are using the potential – the possibility, the probability – of someone acting in a detrimental way to guide their actions, to modify their own actions to forestall those eventualities. Methinks it is really not cricket to want it both ways; sauce for the goose and all that.

But maybe a more charitable construction or interpretation is to suggest that Justin at least fails to realize that "taking precautions" is predicated on the perception - unconscious or otherwise - that a potential exists for damage or harm: one generally wears seatbelts because of the possibility or potentiality, not the certainty, of injury ….

[Badger3k]

That was reason #230 why I hated Prometheus. When the "derelict" ship crashed and Noomi Rapace and Charlize Theron are running, running running, I got the feeling I was watching Wile E. Coyote.

RUN FUCKING LATERALLY, FOR FUCK'S SAKE ALREADY!

I LOL'ed when I saw that scene. I mean, come on. Really? Too bad there was so much potential in the idea of that flick; it turned out to be the Keystone Kops of Science in Outer Space. Another facepalm moment was "Hey, let's just assume no viruses or germs are in the air, the meter thingy says there's oxygen here, let's rip our helmets off with no testing! Also, how did Noomi do all that running when her abdominal muscles had just been sliced? A row of staples just ain't gonna cut it. The movie was visually gorgeous at times, but that's about it.

Don't forget the role playing gamer's cardinal sin - "let's split the party". Fucking awful movie. Pretentious wank loaded with pseudo-religious symbolic crap you can sorta get if, and only if, you read any of the fanboy/girl dissections. Further justification for nuking Hollywood and salting its earth so nothing grows there ever again.

http://redlettermedia.com/red-letter-me ... us-on-dvd/

Hit submit too soon. But the above sums above my thoughts of Prometheus pretty well. It was a pretty movie, but that was it.

Also, an archeologist doing an autopsy on an alien? wtf?

I had heard quite a few podcasts rip apart the science, as well as other issues - like not having any realistic or likable characters, etc. The movie was so bad I left it running and went and did my dishes for 20 minutes. I still have no idea who anybody was - except for the dead rich guy and the android. What the heck was the female lead's job - I still have no idea. What a crap movie.

[real horrorshow]

I have a different take. God is quite simply irrelevant to existance. Does not matter one bit if there is one or not, it shows no evidence of existing nor that it cares one iota about life on this dirtball, therefore why should anyone care about it, let alone waste time arguing about it?

The more philosophical terminology is that god is not a 'necessary existent'. I was going to quote LaPlace at this point, but he doesn't need me to.

[Badger3k]

That was reason #230 why I hated Prometheus. When the "derelict" ship crashed and Noomi Rapace and Charlize Theron are running, running running, I got the feeling I was watching Wile E. Coyote.

RUN FUCKING LATERALLY, FOR FUCK'S SAKE ALREADY!

I LOL'ed when I saw that scene. I mean, come on. Really? Too bad there was so much potential in the idea of that flick; it turned out to be the Keystone Kops of Science in Outer Space. Another facepalm moment was "Hey, let's just assume no viruses or germs are in the air, the meter thingy says there's oxygen here, let's rip our helmets off with no testing! Also, how did Noomi do all that running when her abdominal muscles had just been sliced? A row of staples just ain't gonna cut it. The movie was visually gorgeous at times, but that's about it.

Don't forget the role playing gamer's cardinal sin - "let's split the party". Fucking awful movie. Pretentious wank loaded with pseudo-religious symbolic crap you can sorta get if, and only if, you read any of the fanboy/girl dissections. Further justification for nuking Hollywood and salting its earth so nothing grows there ever again.

http://redlettermedia.com/red-letter-me ... us-on-dvd/

Hit submit too soon. But the above sums above my thoughts of Prometheus pretty well. It was a pretty movie, but that was it.

Also, an archeologist doing an autopsy on an alien? wtf?

I had heard quite a few podcasts rip apart the science, as well as other issues - like not having any realistic or likable characters, etc. The movie was so bad I left it running and went and did my dishes for 20 minutes. I still have no idea who anybody was - except for the dead rich guy and the android. What the heck was the female lead's job - I still have no idea. What a crap movie.

Bugger - Finished reading posts above and reread mine. I left out that I heard the podcasts before I watched it, so I was prepared for it being bad, but I was still surprised at just how bad it was.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Surly Amy once again breaching trademark laws:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cavanaugh_toft/5951675112/

[rayshul]

Am so annoyed today - found another friend talking about "rape culture" and how a man saying a woman is wrong is fucking MISOGYNY.

Yeaaahahhhhhh removed.

I don't even fucking understand how these people can exist without maybe once or twice questioning the retarded shit they spew.

I'm about ready to join the MRM out of sheer fucking RAGE at this stupidity. Sign my fucking ass up.

[John Greg]

Prometheus was such a massive disappointment for me. I mean, Jesus, Ridley Scott has made some of the greatest movies of the last several decades. and the concept behind Prometheus, aside from its religious clap-trp, could have been magnificent. Bit it was so chock full of nonsense, stupidity, totally unlikable and dreadfully cliched and single layered characters ... yuck, just yuck.

I just about fell out of my movie seat when the lead character, a scientist for fuck's sake, says she doesn't need eveidence, because she chooses to believe. And we are supposed to accept that?!? From a scientist!?! Fuck off.

[real horrorshow]

Am so annoyed today - found another friend talking about "rape culture" and how a man saying a woman is wrong is fucking MISOGYNY.

Yeaaahahhhhhh removed.

This is Farcebook?

I don't even fucking understand how these people can exist without maybe once or twice questioning the retarded shit they spew.

I wont even ask if you've tried explaining this to these 'friends'.

I'm about ready to join the MRM out of sheer fucking RAGE at this stupidity. Sign my fucking ass up.

This is where many start I think.

[rayshul]

Am so annoyed today - found another friend talking about "rape culture" and how a man saying a woman is wrong is fucking MISOGYNY.

Yeaaahahhhhhh removed.

This is Farcebook?

Naw, twitter.

I don't even fucking understand how these people can exist without maybe once or twice questioning the retarded shit they spew.

I wont even ask if you've tried explaining this to these 'friends'.[/quote]

Where do you start there? Like, where do you begin saying I don't live in a rape culture? WHERE???

[real horrorshow]

Am so annoyed today - found another friend talking about "rape culture" and how a man saying a woman is wrong is fucking MISOGYNY.

Yeaaahahhhhhh removed.

This is Farcebook?

Naw, twitter.

Well you're on a loser from the start with that limited format. Nothing can be explained in 140 characters. So if that's the only communication with them you have, it's not worth the stress.

I don't even fucking understand how these people can exist without maybe once or twice questioning the retarded shit they spew.

I wont even ask if you've tried explaining this to these 'friends'.

Where do you start there? Like, where do you begin saying I don't live in a rape culture? WHERE???

Right there is where you begin (if it's possible/worthwhile). You point out that simple fact. You, as a woman, know the reality doesn't match that - and they do too. After that, you might need to arm yourself with some stats, but they aren't hard to come by. The AVfM site has them.

[rayshul]

Right there is where you begin (if it's possible/worthwhile). You point out that simple fact. You, as a woman, know the reality doesn't match that - and they do too. After that, you might need to arm yourself with some stats, but they aren't hard to come by. The AVfM site has them.

Well I tried pointing out I live in REALITY and was sent a bunch of links to retarded feminist wank. Yes, because clearly some shit on a blog will magically change everything. Sweet mother of fuck.

I don't think it's worth it, really. I've got to start accepting it's a cult and just hope people grow out of it.

[rayshul]

But even that "here's some links to a blog" thing is a fucking example of the stupidity.

If I lived in a rape culture I'm pretty sure I'd know about it. How the fuck did I miss that? Surely I'd have seen a copy of great rapes magazine in the shops, or celebrated rape day, or accidentally ordered some rape with a coffee one day. I mean what is even the fuck is even the fuck.

[sacha]

(*sacha look away now, canid-abuse)

cheers, Dusty

[DownThunder]

But even that "here's some links to a blog" thing is a fucking example of the stupidity.

If I lived in a rape culture I'm pretty sure I'd know about it. How the fuck did I miss that? Surely I'd have seen a copy of great rapes magazine in the shops, or celebrated rape day, or accidentally ordered some rape with a coffee one day. I mean what is even the fuck is even the fuck.

The problem is the reification of these political ideas, and the religious mindset that forms around them. Same with invoking patriarchy to explain everything - when I hear someone say/write "patriarchy wants ______" or "patriarchy needs ______ " its time to take a step back and give that person some space to come to terms with the fact that their ideas aren't real things, let alone something with needs and wants.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/ ... 177229.jpg

[sacha]

My mother-in-law is a black friday machine. I have seen large-scale military invasions that did not have the level of planning she puts into that day. I'd never, ever go with her, but holy fuckoley, that woman gets in and out of half the stores in orlando like some kind of shopping ninja.

I tell you, it's a blood sport for people who love to shop.

And I hate shopping.

Now, I still go to brick and mortar places to look, but often end up buying online. Even shoes. I've gone through several pairs of Rockport dress shoes so now, when I need a new pair, instead of getting in the car, driving to the freaking mall, which I hate, and going some place looking for the same pair of Rockports, I just order them online.

Of course, for some people shopping, especially for things like shoes, has some sort of deeper fun and significance that eludes me.

I despise shopping.

I have been inside a mall perhaps twice in at least 10 - 15 years, because my homicidal tendencies become nearly uncontrollable.

I will leave items I need, and walk out of a shop if more than a handful of people are there

I do not ever plan to buy a gift, do not attend anything where gifts are exchanged, do not celebrate holidays or birthdays, and I do not go near places people are shopping during the Christmas "season".

[real horrorshow]

Well I tried pointing out I live in REALITY and was sent a bunch of links to retarded feminist wank. Yes, because clearly some shit on a blog will magically change everything. Sweet mother of fuck.

I don't think it's worth it, really. I've got to start accepting it's a cult and just hope people grow out of it.

But even that "here's some links to a blog" thing is a fucking example of the stupidity.

If I lived in a rape culture I'm pretty sure I'd know about it. How the fuck did I miss that? Surely I'd have seen a copy of great rapes magazine in the shops, or celebrated rape day, or accidentally ordered some rape with a coffee one day. I mean what is even the fuck is even the fuck.

Ah, I see your brain is clicking along well in the tracks of rationality and my attempts at long range repair are not needed. Just vent some steam and remember, they are crazy, not you.

[sacha]

It's the idea of a Mykeru stall right next to Surly-Ramics that appeals. A table covered in lemur-eyed cow-skulls and switchblades with a manikin displaying the cassocks for sale.

you have a West Side Story fascination with switchblades

[sacha]

Realistically though, what's the odds of any of us getting to a TAM without the Baboon security forces spreading horseshit to the organizers?

TAM isn't a problem. The baboons don't have enough clout with the JREF

[Guest]

"Schroedinger's rapist" would be better called "Pascal's rapist" - makes more sense and gives it the (lack of) credibility it deserves.

Now that I like. The reasoning is identical to that we've heard from the god squad all these years.

A strange man either intends to rape me, or he does not. I myself may either believe him to be a rapist, or I may not.

If I believe him to be a rapist and he is not a rapist, I avoid him unnecessarily but I lose nothing. If I believe him to be a rapist and he is a rapist, I avoid him and am saved. If I do not believe him to be a rapist and he is not a rapist, nothing happens. If I do not believe him to be a rapist and he is a rapist, I am in very grave danger.

Therefore I will believe him to be a rapist to maximise my expected outcome.

[sacha]

Skulls Unlimited

I have a cow skull and a feral hog skull, both found at my friends' ranch, in my garage at the moment. I also have two striped skunk skulls that were found on a ranch in New Mexico. Had a coyote skull on my front porch at Hallowe'en one year, and it disappeared. That'll teach me.

Melissa's dad is a taxidermist. Skulls, spines, fuck, the whole animal I can get.

ooh

[Barael]

Uh oh, Steven Andrew of Zingularity stepped into it big time with his post about Petraeus (http://freethoughtblogs.com/zingularity ... supremacy/). For the high crime of using unconscionably misogynistic words like "bitch" and "tart", the People's Firing Squad from Pharyngula was dispatched promptly:

Well, that’s the last of your posts I read, you misogynist arsehole.

I was hoping you were being sarcastic, rather than a misogynist arsenugget.

I don’t have time to educate you thoroughly. You’re an adult capable of doing it yourself. Go search the word bitch at Greta’s, at Stephanie’s, and at Ophelia’s

In a surprise twist (in the context of FTB) and to the baboons' dismay, Stephen isn't eating up their crap with much gusto:

Ed is one blog up and over to the left.

As fas as I know bitch or tart or horny or whichever one you don’t like has not been promoted to the list of words we cannot use. If and when that happens I’ll adjust accordingly.

FWIW here at Sexist Mysigonist Central — or whatever one may cooking up in the mind as my evil dwelling — it wasn’t even me that first coined the phrase this morning.

Evidence of DEEEEEP RIFTS at FTB, or will "DarkSyde" be pelted back into his proper place with heroic efforts of simian feces flinging? Place your bets now!

[rayshul]

I feel like a post about how FtB isn't so bad is going to come next...

Followed by a removal.

[Guest]

But remember folks, FTB is not a hivemind and the blogs thereon are entirely independent in their editorial policy! That's what we're always told.

*popcorn*

[comslave]

Let's do one of those nudie calenders like the Skepchicks did to raise money to go to TAM 2013.

And then demand we not be sexualized.

...must...poke....out....mind's...eye!

[DownThunder]

Some dumbass

I just realized that I mis-remembered your words. It was “tart”. Which is definitely demeaning. A tart is a small pie. An object, not a person. A small object, of no particular value, a mouthful, disposed of in an instant. But it has been promoted to a mean a woman who behaves as an object. Again, this is according to the social mores of the speaker.

It is a put-down, robbing the woman so named of all worth. Avoid it. Surely you can find better words!

Its amazing to read how clueless these people are. Everything gets filtered and distorted into a narrative. How does this explanation fit the phrase "tarting up"? Hint: it doesn't.

See, its easy. "Honey, Im home" is misogynistic because it is reducing women to a bit of regurgitated plant jizz for rapacious males to let females know "Ill spread you anytime I want a bit of sweetness".

Try it at home kids!

[TedDahlberg]

…or celebrated rape day…

Have we settled on a date for that yet? We really ought to.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

But even that "here's some links to a blog" thing is a fucking example of the stupidity.

"Have you met Jesus? No? Here's some pamphlets to help you out".

[TedDahlberg]

http://i.imgur.com/5zdmm.jpg

refusing to assign an estimated probability is abdicating adulthood.

in addition: read up on Bayes, Ms Walker. Quite liberating for someone who chooses to live in a prison of self imposed fear.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/frequentist ... esians.png
xkcd 1132

[Jonathan]

Some dumbass

I just realized that I mis-remembered your words. It was “tart”. Which is definitely demeaning. A tart is a small pie. An object, not a person. A small object, of no particular value, a mouthful, disposed of in an instant. But it has been promoted to a mean a woman who behaves as an object. Again, this is according to the social mores of the speaker.

It is a put-down, robbing the woman so named of all worth. Avoid it. Surely you can find better words!

Its amazing to read how clueless these people are. Everything gets filtered and distorted into a narrative. How does this explanation fit the phrase "tarting up"? Hint: it doesn't.

See, its easy. "Honey, Im home" is misogynistic because it is reducing women to a bit of regurgitated plant jizz for rapacious males to let females know "Ill spread you anytime I want a bit of sweetness".

Try it at home kids!

She must have a pretty big mouth, tarts can be quite large.

[Jonathan]

No Light suggests:

So now that we’ve all weighed in, why not seek some unbiased advice from AVFM or the. ‘Pitters?

My unbiased advice is that No Light should read up on how to argue logically.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

This Petraeus story, and more specificaly his biographer, reminds me of the Nowak case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Nowak

[acathode]

Some dumbass

I just realized that I mis-remembered your words. It was “tart”. Which is definitely demeaning. A tart is a small pie. An object, not a person. A small object, of no particular value, a mouthful, disposed of in an instant. But it has been promoted to a mean a woman who behaves as an object. Again, this is according to the social mores of the speaker.

It is a put-down, robbing the woman so named of all worth. Avoid it. Surely you can find better words!

Its amazing to read how clueless these people are. Everything gets filtered and distorted into a narrative. How does this explanation fit the phrase "tarting up"? Hint: it doesn't.

See, its easy. "Honey, Im home" is misogynistic because it is reducing women to a bit of regurgitated plant jizz for rapacious males to let females know "Ill spread you anytime I want a bit of sweetness".

Try it at home kids!

this from the people who regularly use cupcake as an insult?