Periodic Table of Swearing

Old subthreads
Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42661

Post by Metalogic42 »

cunt wrote:
Ape+lust wrote:The more I see of Kassiane, the less sure I am it was the crazier one in Hug-gate who flounced.
Really. That's the one who's all pissed off that charities exist to help autistic people and their parents, because they make autism sound like its a problem.
Where did he say that? I must have missed it.

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42662

Post by AbsurdWalls »

Ape+lust wrote:To be fair, most who called transvaginal ultrasounds rape were reacting to a state law that made them compulsory if you wanted an abortion.
I wouldn't call them rape, but I would say they shouldn't be made compulsory unnecessarily because they are of the class of things that would very easily be felt as a violation.

John Brown
.
.
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:17 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42663

Post by John Brown »

AbsurdWalls wrote:
justinvacula wrote:Here are some ideas:

"Is the atheist community hostile toward women?" (or variations)

"Are anti-harassment conference policies necessary/a good idea?"

"Is atheism+ good for the atheist movement?"
Kassiane wrote:Oh yes please tell me your BIG IMPORTANT WHITE ABLE NEUROTYPICAL CISMAN OPINIONS about these things. I mean, if they don't work for YOU they aren't important, right?

This is inane why is this here?
Excellent topic selection from Kassiane.
It's amazing. Kassiane puts all the words in the correct order. The grammar is correct in that it follows the general accepted patters of noun, verb usage. Even the punctuation is correct.

It's almost as if mindless automatons can mimic speech patterns, or something.

Here's my white, kind of nerotypical, cisman opinion. Kassaine is a lazy piece of shit who blames all of her/his/its problems on everyone else but her/him/itself. That she/he/it can even express these opinions and live comfortably in a society which protects them and her/him/it proves just how much of a leach on the system she/he/it is.

I fucking loathe people like this.

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42664

Post by AbsurdWalls »

Oneiros666 wrote:The people over at AtheismPlus don't think one should debate issues they (even though "are all individuals" all agree on. Because, if they say it's so, then that's that; according to them.
At the same time disagreeing with each other as to whether A+ is even part of the atheism movement.

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42665

Post by cunt »

Metalogic42 wrote:
cunt wrote:
Ape+lust wrote:The more I see of Kassiane, the less sure I am it was the crazier one in Hug-gate who flounced.
Really. That's the one who's all pissed off that charities exist to help autistic people and their parents, because they make autism sound like its a problem.
Where did he say that? I must have missed it.
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3089

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42666

Post by Pitchguest »

ReneeHendricks wrote:WTF? On that A+ thread with Justin Vacula says "ceepolk":
I don't give a shit about the atheist movement at all.
Then why are you even on the A+ site??? I mean, isn't is *supposed* to be at least a little bit about atheism??? These people are just completely out of their fucking minds, I swear.
Kind of like Natalie Reed saying the atheist movement "claimed her." "Against her will."

picard.jpg

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42667

Post by ReneeHendricks »

LOL Still on that A+ thread (Amadan):
You won't be banned just for saying things people disagree with.
Really? That's not what many of us have seen. Oh, I see. You'll just call them an "asshole" then ban them when they disagree with you. Nifty, that.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: A Good Sign

#42668

Post by welch »

Michael K Gray wrote:
justinvacula wrote:Here's a press release the FFRF put out just today.
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item ... lkes-barre
In that single act, Justin Vacula has managed to achieve far more for the atheist cause than A✟Theism will ever, ever, ever achieve!
Congrats for actually getting out there in the real world and getting things done, without whining!
That's Justin's real sin: he actualy does stuff instead of blogging about it and getting drunk at conferences. When it comes down to it, he's done more than most of the twats combined.

Al Stefanelli
.
.
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:55 am
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42669

Post by Al Stefanelli »

Pitchguest wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:WTF? On that A+ thread with Justin Vacula says "ceepolk":
I don't give a shit about the atheist movement at all.
Then why are you even on the A+ site??? I mean, isn't is *supposed* to be at least a little bit about atheism??? These people are just completely out of their fucking minds, I swear.
Kind of like Natalie Reed saying the atheist movement "claimed her." "Against her will."

picard.jpg
Atheism+, it's like Atheism minus the atheism...

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42670

Post by AbsurdWalls »

Very interesting responses from ceepolk in that thread. Assuming she is not completely going off on her own with this one it might actually write A+ out of relevance altogether:
Justin;

I have to let you know something. It's important.

This forum is not Debate club. Debating isn't part of what we do here. I appreciate your invitation to go debate somewhere, and perhaps someone other than Orenda is interested, and as such, you're welcome to post further details about your event here for anyone who is or might be interested.

but this space is not for you.

This space is for people who want to talk about the things that matter to them *away* from the debate culture of most spaces in internet atheism. you coming here and expecting this space to accomodate your desire to debate is inappropriate.

You may invite people to debate you elsewhere, but please do not attempt to bring the atmosphere that we very specifically do not want and created in order to get away from it here, or you will have to communicate your invitations to debate on other internet atheism spaces.

Thank you.

Amadan, while this message was not addressed to you, i'd appreciate it if you stopped offering up our space for exactly the thing this space was created to get away from. Thank you.

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1832
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42671

Post by justinvacula »

Anyone interested in a Slymepit Skype conference call? I know WalterEgo has been successful in organizing some (and I have gladly participated in some). I'll be available tonight at 11EST for those interested. My skype handle is 'justinvacula.'

fascination
.
.
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42672

Post by fascination »

another lurker wrote:
fascination wrote:
another lurker wrote:

Don't forget, I am sure that they were part of the crowd that argued that trans-vaginal ultrasounds were technically rape.

So, if you penetrate man, or a woman, with an object, without that persons consent, or if it is coerced, that should = rape.
Woah, what?! I had a transvaginal ultrasound yesterday at my OB/GYN's office because I'm 10 weeks pregnant. So I was raped yesterday while my husband was in the room?!!! And my rapist gave me pictures of my unborn baby? These people are nuts!
fascination, my post was in reference to anti-abortion laws, requiring doctors to force women to get a trans-vaginal ultrasound or else no abortion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... ound-bill/
The bill sparked national debate this month over a provision that would have required many women to undergo transvaginal ultrasounds, which opponents decried as medically unnecessary and physically invasive
Oh, I gotcha now. Radfems have said and written so many ridiculous things that it was an easy mistake for me to make, lol.

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42673

Post by Metalogic42 »

cunt wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:
cunt wrote:
Ape+lust wrote:The more I see of Kassiane, the less sure I am it was the crazier one in Hug-gate who flounced.
Really. That's the one who's all pissed off that charities exist to help autistic people and their parents, because they make autism sound like its a problem.
Where did he say that? I must have missed it.
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3089
Wow...I saw that congressional hearing, and while there were some facepalmy moments (especially when they started talking about vaccines), it wasn't nearly as bad as they make it out to be.

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42674

Post by AbsurdWalls »

To be clear then, from ceepolk Atheism+ is...

1) Not about atheism.
2) Not about changing peoples' minds.

I guess that's the end of that chapter then.

Al Stefanelli
.
.
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:55 am
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42675

Post by Al Stefanelli »

justinvacula wrote:Anyone interested in a Slymepit Skype conference call? I know WalterEgo has been successful in organizing some (and I have gladly participated in some). I'll be available tonight at 11EST for those interested. My skype handle is 'justinvacula.'
I'll have to beg off on this one. I'm in the middle of a three hour live Internet radio broadcast. Have fun :)

16bitheretic
.
.
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42676

Post by 16bitheretic »

Pitchguest wrote:Kind of like Natalie Reed saying the atheist movement "claimed her." "Against her will.
Yes, because the atheists came in and forced her to join a blogging network populated by outspoken atheists, with "freethought", a term associated with open expression of atheist and agnostic viepoints for over a century in North America, in the very title of the site.

Maybe William Dembski is right and we non-believers are bringing about a new age of Gulags, this time one of indentured content creation on atheist propoganda networks. Crack the whips comrades, we have more social media to infiltrate!

Rystefn
.
.
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42677

Post by Rystefn »

Yeah, so I'm pretty sure many lulz and nothing else will come of this proposed discussion between Justin FUCKING Vacula and the A+ people... Just in case I'm wrong, though, I totally volunteer to moderate. I'm totally impartial because I don't really get along with anyone, right?

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42678

Post by Metalogic42 »

Avenel wrote:Verbal debates are nearly useless to get to the truth. They priviledge people handy with retorical tricks, as well as the willfully dishonest. They are impossible to fact check appropriately. I highly discourage anyone from participating in any such dog and pony show.
I've read this over and over, and all I see is "Debates privilege people good at debating!"

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42679

Post by another lurker »

AbsurdWalls wrote:To be clear then, from ceepolk Atheism+ is...

1) Not about atheism.
2) Not about changing peoples' minds.

I guess that's the end of that chapter then.

It's a support group for fuckups who have nothing better to do but hold pity-parties.

Ok, fuckups is a bit nasty. Emotionally damaged people, at any rate.

16bitheretic
.
.
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:00 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42680

Post by 16bitheretic »

Metalogic42 wrote:
Avenel wrote:Verbal debates are nearly useless to get to the truth. They priviledge people handy with retorical tricks, as well as the willfully dishonest. They are impossible to fact check appropriately. I highly discourage anyone from participating in any such dog and pony show.
I've read this over and over, and all I see is "Debates privilege people good at debating!"
Privilege! Another dot on my FTB/A+ Bingo card!

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42681

Post by AbsurdWalls »

Metalogic42 wrote:
Avenel wrote:Verbal debates are nearly useless to get to the truth. They priviledge people handy with retorical tricks, as well as the willfully dishonest. They are impossible to fact check appropriately. I highly discourage anyone from participating in any such dog and pony show.
I've read this over and over, and all I see is "Debates privilege people good at debating!"
That is also Dawkins' excuse for not debating William Lane Craig, who is an excellent debater. He eviscerated Sam Harris (who deserved it, imho, for that moral landscape idea).

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42682

Post by AbsurdWalls »

justinvacula wrote:Anyone interested in a Slymepit Skype conference call? I know WalterEgo has been successful in organizing some (and I have gladly participated in some). I'll be available tonight at 11EST for those interested. My skype handle is 'justinvacula.'
Are these calls private or are they like podcasts?

Oneiros666
.
.
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:57 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42683

Post by Oneiros666 »

Oh, this is so fucking priceless. I was insanely bored tonight, but this has saved the night's entertainment for me. So much awesome w1n5:
Ceepolk wrote:Justin's assumption that the people on this forum are anything *but* individuals is absolutely incorrect. Just making sure that you know that too, okay?
Then, a couple of posts later:
Ceepolk wrote:Amadan, while this message was not addressed to you, i'd appreciate it if you stopped offering up our space for exactly the thing this space was created to get away from. Thank you.
*Snicker*

Rystefn
.
.
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42684

Post by Rystefn »

justinvacula wrote:Anyone interested in a Slymepit Skype conference call? I know WalterEgo has been successful in organizing some (and I have gladly participated in some). I'll be available tonight at 11EST for those interested. My skype handle is 'justinvacula.'
I'm in if it happens. Just let me know.

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1832
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42685

Post by justinvacula »

AbsurdWalls wrote:
justinvacula wrote:Anyone interested in a Slymepit Skype conference call? I know WalterEgo has been successful in organizing some (and I have gladly participated in some). I'll be available tonight at 11EST for those interested. My skype handle is 'justinvacula.'
Are these calls private or are they like podcasts?
Private calls

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42686

Post by ReneeHendricks »

It just keeps getting better and better! Avenel:
Verbal debates are nearly useless to get to the truth.
I...I just have nothing for this other than quite a bit of laughter!

Al Stefanelli
.
.
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:55 am
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42687

Post by Al Stefanelli »

ReneeHendricks wrote:It just keeps getting better and better! Avenel:
Verbal debates are nearly useless to get to the truth.
I...I just have nothing for this other than quite a bit of laughter!
The whole thing is a bucket o' lulz

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42688

Post by ReneeHendricks »

Justin, I know you really meant well and a part of me really was hoping they'd have a few step up to the challenge (ok, they had 1). But honestly, I don't think a single person in that group could handle the talking and the breathing at the same time. Entirely too much work and you'd be showing your "privilege" when you're able to do just that.

Oneiros666
.
.
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:57 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42689

Post by Oneiros666 »

Metalogic42 wrote:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3089

Wow...I saw that congressional hearing, and while there were some facepalmy moments (especially when they started talking about vaccines), it wasn't nearly as bad as they make it out to be.
Hehe.
Kassiane wrote:Why do they hate us so much?

Why do they hate us so much?

Why? why? why do they hate us so much?
We don't hate autistics. Really, we don't. We just hate you, Kassiane ;-)

YetAnotherLurker

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42690

Post by YetAnotherLurker »

fascination wrote:
another lurker wrote:

Don't forget, I am sure that they were part of the crowd that argued that trans-vaginal ultrasounds were technically rape.

So, if you penetrate man, or a woman, with an object, without that persons consent, or if it is coerced, that should = rape.
Woah, what?! I had a transvaginal ultrasound yesterday at my OB/GYN's office because I'm 10 weeks pregnant. So I was raped yesterday while my husband was in the room?!!! And my rapist gave me pictures of my unborn baby? These people are nuts!
To be fair, I assume, if you submit by your own accord to the transvaginal scan (because your doctor said you need it and you agreed with him/her), then I think they wouldn't have a beef against it - I mean, it is really something for the benefit of you and your baby. Even if you couldn't give explicty consent, but the doctor tought it would save your life or your baby's life, that's fair game.

What most of the sane people oppose as "rapey"is mandatory transvaginal scan, by law, before an abortion. That's just ridiculous.

Men have the prostate exam to compare to that - it's a finger up their asses, after all, but most men would consent to it because it is kinda important. Now, if the doctor just shove his finger up his pacient's ass without consent, that's rape.

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1832
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42691

Post by justinvacula »

AbsurdWalls wrote:
Metalogic42 wrote:
Avenel wrote:Verbal debates are nearly useless to get to the truth. They priviledge people handy with retorical tricks, as well as the willfully dishonest. They are impossible to fact check appropriately. I highly discourage anyone from participating in any such dog and pony show.
I've read this over and over, and all I see is "Debates privilege people good at debating!"
That is also Dawkins' excuse for not debating William Lane Craig, who is an excellent debater. He eviscerated Sam Harris (who deserved it, imho, for that moral landscape idea).
I diverge from Dawkins on this point as you might assume. Personally, though, I'd prefer to debate people with some sort of clout rather than an average Joe fundie who really has nothing to add to a discussion and ought not be taken seriously. I have, though, engaged with some pretty far-out from the mainstream people who have protested gay pride festivals :)

[youtube]5mJlv38iQuA[/youtube]

Craig, though, I must say, wins a majority of the debates he partakes in. Many of these debates unfortunately include poor debaters and people who clearly have not read Craig's arguments (which are very publicly available) prior to the debate. Some who debate Craig fail to address his arguments, fall to 'traps' (by not demanding Craig provide evidence, for example, that without God there are no objective moral values), and raise irrelevant points. Stephen Law, I have to mention, demolished Craig :)

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42692

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

In Meyers's lounge, the idiots are trying to think of something - some behavior - which doesn't get "gendered" by society.

JAL shits out these words:
Hell, even sleeping gets gendered.
Caine dives in to reassure xim:
Yes, it does. Pretty much everything does.
Bunch o' cunts.

YetAnotherLurker

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42693

Post by YetAnotherLurker »

another lurker wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:To be clear then, from ceepolk Atheism+ is...

1) Not about atheism.
2) Not about changing peoples' minds.

I guess that's the end of that chapter then.

It's a support group for fuckups who have nothing better to do but hold pity-parties.

Ok, fuckups is a bit nasty. Emotionally damaged people, at any rate.
As The Bard once said, Atheism Plus is:

[spoiler]Much Ado About Nothing[/spoiler]

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42694

Post by ReneeHendricks »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:In Meyers's lounge, the idiots are trying to think of something - some behavior - which doesn't get "gendered" by society.

JAL shits out these words:
Hell, even sleeping gets gendered.
Caine dives in to reassure xim:
Yes, it does. Pretty much everything does.
Bunch o' cunts.
Ok, I'll bite. How the fuck does sleeping get "gendered"?

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42695

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

Oneiros666 wrote:
We don't hate autistics. Really, we don't. We just hate you, Kassiane ;-)
Well, some of them can be useful:

[youtube]rzGIFkin5v0[/youtube]

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42696

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

ReneeHendricks wrote:
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:In Meyers's lounge, the idiots are trying to think of something - some behavior - which doesn't get "gendered" by society.

JAL shits out these words:
Hell, even sleeping gets gendered.
Caine dives in to reassure xim:
Yes, it does. Pretty much everything does.
Bunch o' cunts.
Ok, I'll bite. How the fuck does sleeping get "gendered"?
Glad you asked. JAL explains:
Hmmmm…
Walking gets gendered.
Hell, even sleeping gets gendered. I apparently sleep and snore like a man.
Breathing, maybe?

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1832
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42697

Post by justinvacula »

Okay, Skype call is starting. Please feel free to ring in -- 'justinvacula'


YetAnotherLurker

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42699

Post by YetAnotherLurker »

ReneeHendricks wrote:
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:In Meyers's lounge, the idiots are trying to think of something - some behavior - which doesn't get "gendered" by society.

JAL shits out these words:
Hell, even sleeping gets gendered.
Caine dives in to reassure xim:
Yes, it does. Pretty much everything does.
Bunch o' cunts.
Ok, I'll bite. How the fuck does sleeping get "gendered"?
[spoiler]Patriarchy, of course. You should know it better, you silly little woman.[/spoiler]

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42700

Post by ReneeHendricks »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:[spoiler]
ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:In Meyers's lounge, the idiots are trying to think of something - some behavior - which doesn't get "gendered" by society.

JAL shits out these words:
Hell, even sleeping gets gendered.
Caine dives in to reassure xim:
Yes, it does. Pretty much everything does.
Bunch o' cunts.
[/spoiler]

Ok, I'll bite. How the fuck does sleeping get "gendered"?
Glad you asked. JAL explains:
Hmmmm…
Walking gets gendered.
Hell, even sleeping gets gendered. I apparently sleep and snore like a man.
Breathing, maybe?
That sound you just heard was my face planting itself firmly on my desk.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42701

Post by Michael K Gray »

AbsurdWalls wrote:That is also Dawkins' excuse for not debating William Lane Craig, who is an excellent debater. He eviscerated Sam Harris (who deserved it, imho, for that moral landscape idea).
Link, please...

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42702

Post by AbsurdWalls »

justinvacula wrote:Craig, though, I must say, wins a majority of the debates he partakes in. Many of these debates unfortunately include poor debaters and people who clearly have not read Craig's arguments (which are very publicly available) prior to the debate. Some who debate Craig fail to address his arguments, fall to 'traps' (by not demanding Craig provide evidence, for example, that without God there are no objective moral values), and raise irrelevant points. Stephen Law, I have to mention, demolished Craig :)
I thought Craig usually made that argument very well? Maybe I was hallucinating and mentally substituting Wittgenstein's argument. I personally agree that there are no objective moral values without God. I don't quite understand why Sam Harris felt the need to argue there were.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42703

Post by welch »

AbsurdWalls wrote:
Pitchguest wrote:[spoiler]
[/spoiler]

I can't view it, says I need to be a member.
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3496

Speaking as an almost complete stranger: this is a terrible idea Justin.
Ditto

DownThunder
.
.
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:10 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42704

Post by DownThunder »

OK Ive had enough. Saved 2 pages of the A+ justin debate thread. Its just 2 pages of excuses for why they can't/won't - they're correct just cuz, in fact you're already wrong for even asking for a debate, BITCHES AINT SHIT, etc. The only reason you'd criticise any harassment policies is because you are pro-harassment. Cheers for the logon Eucliwood, I dont think Ill need to go back there again.

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42705

Post by Mykeru »

Pitchguest wrote:Haha, profitless. These people are so precious, it's almost cute. Cute in a Garbage Pail Kids sort of way.

Anyway, I love trinioler. It's like Justin's on the bench and s/h/it's giving him an interrogation. Just look at this shit:

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/422/ ... rshrug.jpg

:confusion-shrug:
Between that attitude on Atheism plus and people like Simon Davies coming right out and saying "toe the line or you won't get speaking gigs", their essentially authoritarian nature, if not outright fascistic one, comes out.

The free and open exchange of ideas? Nah, they'll tell you what to think.

Oneiros666
.
.
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:57 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42706

Post by Oneiros666 »

Aaaaahahaha. Oh man, these AtheismPlussers, they *laughs so fucking hard* they are just amazing:
ceepolk wrote: » Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:11 am

bookstore feminists are why I'm not a supporter of feminism, so go go Jen McCreight!
So, ceepolk "doesn't give a shit about atheism" and s/h/it is not a supporter of feminism. And yet he is one of the more prominent members of Atheism+.

Wow, just...wow.

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42707

Post by AbsurdWalls »

Michael K Gray wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:That is also Dawkins' excuse for not debating William Lane Craig, who is an excellent debater. He eviscerated Sam Harris (who deserved it, imho, for that moral landscape idea).
Link, please...
[youtube]yqaHXKLRKzg[/youtube]

Sam Harris cannot argue his own case. He does not want to have the debate that he has gone in for and just attacks religion in general.

Tristan
.
.
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:29 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42708

Post by Tristan »

AbsurdWalls wrote:
Tristan wrote:
I'd say it's going quite well so far.
Yes. I am quite surprised. I imagine a cool idea for a Google Hangout would be to have an A+ member (preferably a mod), an A+ supporting person who is more well known, Justin, and another anti-A+ person... preferably a woman so "rarr misogyny" is not so easy (possibly Woolly Bumblebee)? Some sort of moderator would be necessary too.
Personally, I'm quite surprised I managed to type that with a straight face.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42709

Post by Michael K Gray »

AbsurdWalls wrote:I personally agree that there are no objective moral values without God.
Which "God"?
TRhere are 10s of thousands to choose from, why use the singular?
Do you agree that there are no moral values without Santa?
AbsurdWalls wrote:I don't quite understand why Sam Harris felt the need to argue there were.
Have you the book in full?

Lurkion
.
.
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42710

Post by Lurkion »

ohbother wrote:Today's thought:

"Why are religious moralists so preoccupied with sex?"

http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabled ... patriarchy

It's interesting when a "free thought" blog questions religious moralist preoccupation with sex and the controlling of sexual behavior while at the same time this same "free thought" blog has such a moralist preoccupation with sex that it bans commenters for inappropriate sexual speech (contrast controlling speech with controlling behavior).
This is exactly what I've been thinking. These people hate sex just as much as their evangelical counterparts. Every sexual act seems to be rape, to them, or at least is demeaning...

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42711

Post by Pitchguest »

Oneiros666 wrote:Oh, this is so fucking priceless. I was insanely bored tonight, but this has saved the night's entertainment for me. So much awesome w1n5:
Ceepolk wrote:Justin's assumption that the people on this forum are anything *but* individuals is absolutely incorrect. Just making sure that you know that too, okay?
Then, a couple of posts later:
Ceepolk wrote:Amadan, while this message was not addressed to you, i'd appreciate it if you stopped offering up our space for exactly the thing this space was created to get away from. Thank you.
*Snicker*
[youtube]_9VWxIRIkRc[/youtube]

Cunning Punt
.
.
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:50 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42712

Post by Cunning Punt »

Pitchguest wrote:
Oneiros666 wrote:Oh, this is so fucking priceless. I was insanely bored tonight, but this has saved the night's entertainment for me. So much awesome w1n5:
Ceepolk wrote:Justin's assumption that the people on this forum are anything *but* individuals is absolutely incorrect. Just making sure that you know that too, okay?
Then, a couple of posts later:
Ceepolk wrote:Amadan, while this message was not addressed to you, i'd appreciate it if you stopped offering up our space for exactly the thing this space was created to get away from. Thank you.
*Snicker*
[youtube]_9VWxIRIkRc[/youtube]
Ha! You beat me to it.

Eucliwood
.
.
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42713

Post by Eucliwood »

another lurker wrote:
I don't remember all the details, but feminists argued against the bill, saying having a trans-vaginal wand shoved up your vagina without your consent = rape.

So, if they can argue that this is rape, why can't they see that a man can get raped with an object too? (penis not required)
Yup, with objects, with restraints, with drugs to weaken... etc.
What is the TV wand for, and from what I read, it doesn't sound like "without your consent." Do they not do informed consent?
One thing people need to be protesting is vaginatoass splitting. That happens without them even asking you sometimes, or they're just like "mmkay we're gonna split your ass."
NO bitch.
You can say no. Remember that.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42714

Post by Michael K Gray »

AbsurdWalls wrote:yqaHXKLRKzg
Sam Harris cannot argue his own case. He does not want to have the debate that he has gone in for and just attacks religion in general.
Seen it before, and thought that this must be the debate to which you referred.
You and I must have a vastly different impression of what "eviscerated" means, is the most charitable thing that I can say.

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42715

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

welch wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:
Pitchguest wrote:[spoiler]
[/spoiler]

I can't view it, says I need to be a member.
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3496

Speaking as an almost complete stranger: this is a terrible idea Justin.
Ditto
Ditto.

But then Justin does have some ego issues which just can't be fixed by a bad mustache.

JackRayner
.
.
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42716

Post by JackRayner »

Skep tickle wrote:
JackRayner wrote:[spoiler]My hair is curly, and from first hand experience I can say that growing it out longer has exponentially increased the amount of positive [often vocal] attention that I receive from women whenever I'm out in public. [When compared to the short fade I used to sport before...] Final year of school has kept me busy, so I'm sticking to one woman for the moment, but the prospects seem much better than when I kept it short. :dance:

The only girls giving me shit about it are a friend who thinks it's not masculine enough [fuck if I care] and my lover who squeals about how much she likes it, says she wishers her hair was curly, and then tells me to cut it off. http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... y/Durp.gif[/spoiler]
Yes, dear. I'm sure you're quite irresistible with your curly long hair. (Indeed, that's generally a turn-on for me, but then again the whole package has to be appealing...no, not just that package, those of you with your minds in the gutter. :D )

And do be careful of letting your girlfriend near the scissors while you're asleep... :o
*GASP* http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... nByJRD.png

Well...she's joked about it before, [like a few hours ago] but I don't think she'd be able to pull it off. Don't know if it's my PTSD or something, but I find it much easier to sleep on my own, so the slightest movement from her [who is a much deeper sleeper] wakes me right up. That, and she's living with her boyfriend now, so I feel pretty safe about the hair when I go to sleep. :D
JackRayner wrote:
My guess would be that breast size might have the greatest effect...
I would argue that you and your source are being anglo-centric, but all I've got is anecdote from myself and non-white friends/acquaintances who, when compared to white friends/acquaintances, seem much less interested in tits. :whistle:
Hmm, point taken. http://broadblogs.com/2010/11/04/men-ar ... ttractive/ So then will we have to bring all sorts of other features into the discussion, for example the neck-coils & appearance of elongated neck of Kayan women?
Don't know. I might find find it hawt if I saw it. :lol:

Speaking of Africa [article didn't mention it but there was a picture], the Spaniards brought slaves to Puerto Rico, so our Spanish includes some words of African origin. One is "chumba", which is used for females with flat/no ass. [Codelette can step in and correct me if she knows one, since I've been away from the island for a long time, but that I know] We don't have a similar word for "flat chested woman" so in my own, biased view, I think that speaks a little to my culture's preferences. :)
JackRayner wrote:
When OKCupid looked at this question, they may not have tried to evaluate the physical features that correlated with likelihood-to-get-laid, but here's what they did find http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/magaz ... .html?_r=0:
[spoiler]
...built a composite of four sets of personal characteristics that might correlate with openness toward new (but not necessarily long-lasting) relationships.

Two measures he studied were explicitly concerned with sex: what percentage of singles out on a given evening listed casual sex as a “romantic priority” and what percentage was willing to sleep with someone on a first date. The other two measures were less sex-centric: what percentage described themselves as extroverted and what percentage fancied themselves as adventurous.

When he put all the numbers together, he got a curious result. Weekdays, not weekends, are better for singles on the prowl — and the mix of people out on Wednesday nights are the friskiest. (The least surprising bit of data is that someone’s chances of success increase over the course of an evening.)
[/spoiler]
Not sure how this connects to any of the rest. http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... /shrug.gif
I couldn't find any studies to suggest that people with one feature or another are more likely to get laid than people with a different common variant of that feature. This at least attempted to look at some characteristics that bear on likelihood-of-getting-laid.
I'd agree that getting out of the house and being a little social will probably up a person's chances.

Lurkion
.
.
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42717

Post by Lurkion »

Al Stefanelli wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:
Al Stefanelli wrote: Legal definition, where? That's the thing. It might fly in certain countries, but many have rape laws that cover everyone.
The UK is the place I know off the top of my head.
According to this website:
The offence of Rape (Sec 1(1) SOA 2003) can only be committed by a man; however, a woman can be charged with, or convicted of rape as a secondary party. For example, a woman may be convicted of rape where she facilitated (helped) a man who has raped another person.
This seems to be a legal definition, for the purposes of criminal charges, etc. The reality of it is, of course, very different. Any Brits aware of possible amendments to this?
Wait. Did we just accidentally unearth an instance of rape culture?

Wherein rape of a man by a woman is implicitly condoned by the law and by people talking about it.

If a man says he's raped, the response is usually disbelief.

Couple that with the law, you have a decent hypothesis.

OMG.

Oneiros666
.
.
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:57 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42718

Post by Oneiros666 »

Michael K Gray wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:I personally agree that there are no objective moral values without God.
Which "God"?
TRhere are 10s of thousands to choose from, why use the singular?
Do you agree that there are no moral values without Santa?
AbsurdWalls wrote:I don't quite understand why Sam Harris felt the need to argue there were.
Have you the book in full?
I think (something I would not have been allowed to do, let alone say, over at AtheismPlus) that people talking about "objective morality" fail to understand what morality is.

Morality is subjective by nature. Even among fundy- christians like Craig there are no consensus of what objective morality consists of. For example:

Both Jesus and the 10 commandments (all three versions of them) say "Thou shall not kill". Yet, most fundy-christians are very much in favour of capital punishment and ardent defenders of the armed forces (even though Jesus said 'love thy enemy' and 'turn the other cheek').

When religious people ask me "where do you get your morals from", I usually answer what is most common among us humans: I got them from my parents, my friends and my community.

Al Stefanelli
.
.
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:55 am
Location: Peachtree City, GA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42719

Post by Al Stefanelli »

Mykeru wrote:
Pitchguest wrote:Haha, profitless. These people are so precious, it's almost cute. Cute in a Garbage Pail Kids sort of way.

Anyway, I love trinioler. It's like Justin's on the bench and s/h/it's giving him an interrogation. Just look at this shit:

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/422/ ... rshrug.jpg

:confusion-shrug:
Between that attitude on Atheism plus and people like Simon Davies coming right out and saying "toe the line or you won't get speaking gigs", their essentially authoritarian nature, if not outright fascistic one, comes out.

The free and open exchange of ideas? Nah, they'll tell you what to think.
Profitless?

http://myliteraryquest.files.wordpress. ... arkds9.jpg

AbsurdWalls
.
.
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42720

Post by AbsurdWalls »

Michael K Gray wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:I personally agree that there are no objective moral values without God.
Which "God"?
TRhere are 10s of thousands to choose from, why use the singular?
Do you agree that there are no moral values without Santa?
Objective moral values do not exist in the natural world. If they were to exist they would have to have some sort of supernatural authority. God would suffice.
Michael K Gray wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:I don't quite understand why Sam Harris felt the need to argue there were.
Have you the book in full?
I've watched this debate, heard him give a talk, and read articles. I have not read his book because none of those other sources gave me reason to believe he had anything interesting to say on the topic. He might make arguments about a reasonable set of subjective moral values, but proposals of that kind are banal compared to the idea of setting up an objective morality.

Locked