Hehe. This is what I think of (uh oh, trigger warning!):ReneeHendricks wrote:This is what I think of when I read *anything* from A+:
http://i2.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo ... inners.gif
http://i.imgur.com/IiYYd.jpg
Hehe. This is what I think of (uh oh, trigger warning!):ReneeHendricks wrote:This is what I think of when I read *anything* from A+:
http://i2.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo ... inners.gif
Congratulations. I still don't understand what you were doing (you know it's not a debate if you don't make any arguments, right?).Michael K Gray wrote:"Ad Hominem".AbsurdWalls wrote:Do you have any thoughts of your own on this or are you content to just suck up to a big-name atheist?
BINGO!!
Where are my knives?
Sorry, but strictly by the book – i.e., the dictionary – I think SubMor has something a point:mutleyeng wrote:sorry Justin, but you are entirely responsible for me actually agreeing with SubMor.SubMor » Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:01 am
This is more obvious grandstanding. You're smart enough to recognize the difference between a conversation and an adversarial debate, and I think you can see why they're fundamentally different things. I know I don't need to spell it out for you.justinvacula wrote:
Can a debate not be an honest discussion between persons? Why the dichotomy between 'debate' and 'honest conversation?'
Or at least, I'm reasonably confident about those things. Do feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I will try to spell it out for you if you honestly don't get it, but I think you probably will.
They are perfectly capable of making me laugh all on their own - Your "honest" quest for reasoned debate just made me cringe
sorry - just sayin
Although the points that SubMor picked up by at least having, apparently, some knowledge of a dictionary is totally wiped out – and then some – by the fact that Justin is, apparently, now banned there. There really are a bunch of total dickheads and whackos over in that forum.debate: 3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument.
conversation:
1. a. The spoken exchange of thoughts, opinions, and feelings; talk.
b. An instance of this: held a long conversation on the subject.
2. An informal discussion of a matter by representatives of governments, institutions, or organizations.
http://www.go-girl.com/what-is-gogirl.aspSkep tickle wrote:
Do you have a particularly long clitoris (within the hood of which is located the urethral meatus)?
And/or, do you mean standing, or in your lexicon does "standing" include squatting partway with butt way above the ground? I can do the latter, but peeing standing, for me, results in urine flowing down one leg or both.
I was curious of the observation that a lot of the hardcore MRA bros are from the UK.ReneeHendricks wrote:Oh, this is just...just so *Laden* - A Lot of Slymepitters Are IT People:
https://twitter.com/gregladen/status/287394291771387904
He's a by the numbers SJW. Taking women/ gender studies ant the local Uni. Always ready to get offended on someone elses behalf, quick to call all criticism harassment, throws around sexist, mysoginist, MRA, check your priveledge bullshit whenever possible, and he has a unique ability to turn himself into the victim/ hero. He's very unstable, and a blast to wind up and watch. Everyone thinks he's an idiot, and I think we keep him around for the comedic value. He is his own worst enemy and I love him for it.Pitchguest wrote:Wait, you know this guy in real life?Mr Danksworth wrote:That's exactly how he behaves in my local also. He's like a petulant child. He got his ass handed to him here today, so he's taking it out on Justin. SJW to the resuce!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:
Not to worry, I'll take responsibility for keeping everyone safe from the giant cock. It will be too tired to chase anyone.Eucliwood wrote:I had awelch wrote:and a giant white cock.Mykeru wrote:
We need a SlymePit FPS. The melee weapon is, of course, an ice-pickdreamnightmare involving them too, recently. I can't remember exactly what happened, I just remember the huge relief I felt when I woke up. *shudders*... PZ...watson...unidentified faces.. why have you invaded my dreams?
Generally, I will agree with you. However, my impression is that improperly formatted spoiler tags tend to seriously impair the reading of not only the offending post but some of them before and afterwards [like, from recollection – correct me if I’m wrong, body of one post appearing at the bottom of the previous one.sacha wrote:I'm quite sure my response here is late enough to be irrelevant, but I don't like the editing at all. ....Lsuoma wrote:It's clear the people like the spoiler tag, but oopsies have meant that I needed to fix the tags multiple times since it was introduced. Obviously, in no case did I alter the sense of the post, but it's still an edit. Do people prefer that I continue to do this, or should I disable the spoiler tag? I think it clearly has a lot of value, but I don't like editing stuff, even just for format fixes.
Please use the preview. I'll also see if I can find a less finicky implementation of spoiler. Come to think of it, if anyone use A+Theism, can they take a look and see what they use over there? Even a link to a page with a spoiler on it would be helpful, because I can look at the page source and see what code they're using...
The only time a comment should ever be edited is if someone's personal information is posted without their approval (full name, address, telephone number, etc. - if it is easily found elsewhere on the internet, then others can choose to look it up, or not) or if someone posts an illegal image (sexually suggestive photographs of children is an example).
That's it. If the comment does not include either of the two reasons I have stated above, it stands. fucked code or not.
I was trying to get you to read the source material before dismissing it via a barrage of logical fallacies.AbsurdWalls wrote:Congratulations. I still don't understand what you were doing (you know it's not a debate if you don't make any arguments, right?).Michael K Gray wrote:"Ad Hominem".AbsurdWalls wrote:Do you have any thoughts of your own on this or are you content to just suck up to a big-name atheist?
BINGO!!
Where are my knives?
Is it my imagination, or have we been getting a badass Steers 2.0 compared to a few weeks back?Steersman wrote: Although the points that SubMor picked up by at least having, apparently, some knowledge of a dictionary is totally wiped out – and then some – by the fact that Justin is, apparently, now banned there. There really are a bunch of total dickheads and whackos over in that forum.
:-) Scales dropping from my eyes?mutleyeng wrote:Is it my imagination, or have we been getting a badass Steers 2.0 compared to a few weeks back?Steersman wrote: Although the points that SubMor picked up by at least having, apparently, some knowledge of a dictionary is totally wiped out – and then some – by the fact that Justin is, apparently, now banned there. There really are a bunch of total dickheads and whackos over in that forum.
I think I pushed him over the edge when I called him Steerzo.... a thing we do often enough to names here in Ozzo.mutleyeng wrote:Is it my imagination, or have we been getting a badass Steers 2.0 compared to a few weeks back?Steersman wrote: Although the points that SubMor picked up by at least having, apparently, some knowledge of a dictionary is totally wiped out – and then some – by the fact that Justin is, apparently, now banned there. There really are a bunch of total dickheads and whackos over in that forum.
Thanx.sacha wrote:http://www.go-girl.com/what-is-gogirl.asp
or if you are lucky, MKG will make one for you.
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.
Mostly correct and not anything ceepolk has kept hidden. I've learned these things by lurking (over time) at atheism+ forumOneiros666 wrote:Aaaaahahaha. Oh man, these AtheismPlussers, they *laughs so fucking hard* they are just amazing:
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+.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!
Wow, just...wow.
[/spoiler]why do you assume that's what we need to concentrate on in our small tent? It's not my first priority. I want to talk to the people and understand what it's like for them, and have them understand what it's like for me, and to support each other, because every day is the damn struggle out there and plenty of people feel like they're doing it by themselves. I am more interested in reaching the lonely silenced person than I am in trying to help the privileged person see what they refuse to acknowledge. It's a much more productive use of my energy and resources and it is my desire to bring comfort to the afflicted. Afflicting the comfortable is merely a secondary irritation and a necessity in holding the boundaries of the space clearly in order to protect its purpose. It is my belief that activists suffer burnout because they do too much for others and not enough for themselves, and this is what I am here for - those who insist that we must give our energy to persuading those who oppress us to please grant us our humanity, our personhood, our competency - No. They can fuck off. There is literature, there are links, there are suggestions and they are given freely. I'm uninterested in wasting my energy by playing their games of politeness and civility and proper attitude. I have nothing for them. The job of recognizing me as human is theirs, not mine. I know what I am.
needed to be repeatedastrokid.nj wrote:Lemme complete that for you Lapsang.Lapsang Souchong wrote: I agree with that in principle but it might be the case that things are so skewed to the other side that an MRM is necessary to rectify the situation.
I haven't followed this MRM stuff too closely but what little I've seen of the MRM (JohntheOther, e. g.) seems to take just your position (i.e., misogyny and misandry are both wrong). Whilst the only blanket hatred (of men) and vilification of a sex seems to come out of the extremes of the other camp. I've yet to read some MRM advocating homosexuality (amongst men) and putting all the women in a concentration camp.
Whilst the only blanket hatred (of men) and vilification of a sex seems to come out of the extremes of the other camp that is mainstream, heavily funded and entrenched in power, and this attack in modern form has been going on for 40 years now. Aside from the Women are Wonderful psychology that makes men kowtow to women and their demands and throw other men under the bus.. its aided by several other camps that make money out of it..such as family law attorneys who hate to see the goose that lays golden eggs die, and hence vigorously oppose alimony or child custody/support reform. Corporations that exploit the fact that women are their primary customers (80% of all spending is done by women), and nothing beats stroking women's ego.. Remember Edward Bernays and Freedom torches? Many in the MRM believe that feminists are ALSO useful idiots in the grander scheme of The menace of Cultural Marxism, and the case for it is quite compelling.. but one will have to invest a good deal of time to study and understand this.
Quick correction, I had not grokked that womanism was different than feminism, so had glossed over the few mentions of it I saw at A+ forums, until franc pointed the difference out here, 2 days (and 26 pages) ago.Skep tickle wrote:Mostly correct and not anything ceepolk has kept hidden. I've learned these things by lurking (over time) at atheism+ forum ...
I’d be interested in seeing the posts previous to that first one from taslima. Seems to me that her “Men are the same everywhere†is sufficiently general that it is a serious stretch to argue that it supports the contention that it is equivalent to the assertion that all men are rapists.Tkmlac wrote:"Teh menz are teh samez. Did I say 'all?' nope."
Because there's a difference? I actually defended this lady's blogpost a long time ago on a subreddit for women atheists. Blarrrggh!!!
http://i.imgur.com/9eegr.jpg
"That's what THEY say."Ape+lust wrote:Heh. The CFI Executive Director for DC is jumping into the CFI Communications Director's shit for triggering her with wrong words.
Yes, it's Melody again.
[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/lzcKD.png
http://freethoughtblogs.com/nearearthob ... ving-into/[/spoiler]
For Dawkins’ sake there Skep tickle, do keep up. I mean, 1300 posts in 2 days – child’s play …. ;-)Skep tickle wrote:Quick correction, I had not grokked that womanism was different than feminism, so had glossed over the few mentions of it I saw at A+ forums, until franc pointed the difference out here, 2 days (and 26 pages) ago.Skep tickle wrote:Mostly correct and not anything ceepolk has kept hidden. I've learned these things by lurking (over time) at atheism+ forum ...
The concluding sentence on her blog: "And Men, unfortunately, educated or illiterate, rich or poor, young or old, black or white, are more or less the same everywhere!"Steersman wrote:I’d be interested in seeing the posts previous to that first one from taslima. Seems to me that her “Men are the same everywhere†is sufficiently general that it is a serious stretch to argue that it supports the contention that it is equivalent to the assertion that all men are rapists.Tkmlac wrote:[spoiler]Teh menz are teh samez. Did I say 'all?' nope."
Because there's a difference? I actually defended this lady's blogpost a long time ago on a subreddit for women atheists. Blarrrggh!!!
http://i.imgur.com/9eegr.jpg[/spoiler]
But I’ll concede that her phrasing is at least somewhat ambiguous and open to misinterpretation. However if you read her “men†as different samples of, say, 5 men taken in different locations throughout the world – {A1, B2, C5, G17, H45} in Lower Slobovia; {A17, B42, C23, K42, M19} in Upper Mongolia; {D75, H29, N27, R82, Z19} in Eastern Patagonia; etc – then “men are the same everywhere†could easily be read simply as somewhat of a conjecture or hypothesis that the statistical frequency distributions – one rapist, two Christians, one Muslim, one scientist, etc. – are more less the same in all cases.
Now if she had said “all men ….†then you would have had a case, although that wouldn’t hold any water at all as neither men nor women are as identical as peas in a pod or bees in a hive. Otherwise? Not quite as watertight ….
But I think the case highlights the problem of different nuances and connotations to various words – very easy for the conversation – or debate – to go off the rails if different people use different or the least charitable ones ….
But then there's her blog post (from today, though it carries tomorrow's date as I look at it now), which was linked here & discussed within the past few pages here, which includes this:Steersman wrote:I’d be interested in seeing the posts previous to that first one from taslima. Seems to me that her “Men are the same everywhere†is sufficiently general that it is a serious stretch to argue that it supports the contention that it is equivalent to the assertion that all men are rapists.
But I’ll concede that her phrasing is at least somewhat ambiguous and open to misinterpretation. However if you read her “men†as different samples of, say, 5 men taken in different locations throughout the world – {A1, B2, C5, G17, H45} in Lower Slobovia; {A17, B42, C23, K42, M19} in Upper Mongolia; {D75, H29, N27, R82, Z19} in Eastern Patagonia; etc – then “men are the same everywhere†could easily be read simply as somewhat of a conjecture or hypothesis that the statistical frequency distributions – one rapist, two Christians, one Muslim, one scientist, etc. – are more less the same in all cases.
Now if she had said “all men ….†then you would have had a case, although that wouldn’t hold any water at all as neither men nor women are as identical as peas in a pod or bees in a hive. Otherwise? Not quite as watertight ….
But I think the case highlights the problem of different nuances and connotations to various words – very easy for the conversation – or debate – to go off the rails if different people use different or the least charitable ones ….
Presumably her very recent tweets bear some relation to her very recent blog post on what appears to be the same general topic.... Men love rape jokes. They verbally rape the girls who are already raped. ... We haven’t finished protesting against brutal gang rape in India. ... the bitter truth is, misogynists are everywhere, they are in the North, in the South, in the West and in the East. And Men, unfortunately, educated or illiterate, rich or poor, young or old, black or white, are more or less the same everywhere!
Any day now, she'll decide billboards are talking to her.Tkmlac wrote:"That's what THEY say."Ape+lust wrote:Heh. The CFI Executive Director for DC is jumping into the CFI Communications Director's shit for triggering her with wrong words.
Yes, it's Melody again.
[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/lzcKD.png
http://freethoughtblogs.com/nearearthob ... ving-into/[/spoiler]
OMG. She's gone full paranoid delusional.
Epic Zvan is epic.justinvacula wrote:[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/4ncTb.jpg[/spoiler]
But is she wrong in her implicit argument that you’re not treating others as you would expect to be treated? If so then your “ageism†question looks to qualify as evasiveness and obfuscation ….
:lol: :lol: :lol:
What a load of crap.Ape+lust wrote:Epic Zvan is epic.justinvacula wrote:[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/4ncTb.jpg[/spoiler]
I think maybe one of the clearest distinctions between here and there is that nobody over here tries to wrap what they're doing in the Cloak of Nobility.
nippletwister wrote: Going back a few dozen pages here, but I have to say....there are some bitter and disturbed people who identify as MRA's, but they are truly a tiny minority from what I've seen. What I've read of the MRM is a whole hell of a lot more reality-based and unbiased than just about anything I've seen from any of the new internet feminists of the last several years. Yes, women, even in free western societies, have some unfair and arbitrary sex or gender stereotypes and expectations thrown at them...but they are all entirely voluntary, and don't relate to much in the way of real, tangible benefits or loss of benefits in society. Really, they're not really much more than what men put up with, unless you choose to wear expensive make-up and high heels every day. Most of the problems that western feminists complain about haven't been the reality for two generations or more. Education? Now tilted in favor of females in most places, from kindergarten through college. Law enforcement and the justice system, especially the family courts and sentencing for crimes, have a HUGE pro-female bias. Wage gap? Horseshit. Women in positions of authority? Progressing as fast as anyone could possibly expect. Reproductive freedom? Entirely women's choice, no choice for men except to completely trust a woman or remain celibate. Men are more likely to be wrongfully convicted, or end up homeless, or commit suicide, or be shunned by their families, or have mental issues....yet most of the funding for social programs goes to women. Now we have feminist activists pushing for a society where a woman can say or do anything, or dress however she likes, and men are to be shamed and shunned if they react in any way not pre-feminist-approved....and of course, no equal considerations for men's feelings. Men still have to live up to white-knight stereotypes or else pay social consequences. I don't care how any woman dresses, but if someone shakes their tits in my face I reserve the right to make whatever comment I like. But Woe To Me if I dare offend any woman's precious sensibilities...she can then call me a woman-hater, slut-shamer, or just get her boyfriend to beat me up like in the good old Victorian days and nobody will even say boo. Any man who is not rich and connected has no power or privilege in our society at all above what pretty much every woman has, and this has been true for over thirty years if not longer. Unless you count being expected to risk your health and tear up your body doing strenuous labor, or serving in the military to be "privileges".
Frankly, I don't see how these obvious conditions escape notice, except that men are still held to stereotypes of a chivalrous society from day one, and expected to do all the dangerous work, take all the risks, and pay for all of society's needs as a matter of course, while expecting no real privileges any more, and this is somehow seen as good and normal. While for women, it's all a matter of "choice" and there are no wrong choices. Someone will always pick up the bill and make sure not too much harm comes from bad decisions.
As far as the "real world problems" go, away from all the theories and assumptions, I for one have seen many more innocent men destroyed emotionally and financially by abusive partners, divorce, and from having access to their own children cut off and/or manipulated by women and the courts, than I have seen women harmed by abuse, rape, violence, or anything else men might do. I have seen more men fucked over and abused by the government and court system than women, by far. I have also known more women who were verbally abusive to their partners and physically or verbally abusive to their children than I have abusive men. Most women I've talked to about these issues agree with me on these observations, but still, nobody seems to be able to bring themselves to expect the kind of accountability from women that we expect from every single man, or to muster the compassion for men that we hand without question to women.
This isn't some trendy "movement" whose assumptions I've swallowed to feel part of a group...I've noticed this shit for years, long before the last year or two, when I first discovered that MRA's even existed. I was actually quite surprised to find I wasn't alone in noticing these things, since I had never heard anyone bring them up before.
Edge Penguin and decius may have a different perspective if they were living in the US.decius wrote:Ditto.EdgePenguin wrote:
I've nothing against MRAs (nor feminists per se, so long as they aren't the radfem lunatics you find at FtB etc.) but the idea of approaching social activism from either genders point of view is not very appealing to me peronsally.
[youtube]Qb21lsCQ3EM[/youtube]sacha wrote:When I refer to myself as an MRA, it is based upon my experiences living in the US. I agree with Nipple Twister from a US perspective.
Ah high school!Michael K Gray wrote:[youtube]Qb21lsCQ3EM[/youtube]sacha wrote:When I refer to myself as an MRA, it is based upon my experiences living in the US. I agree with Nipple Twister from a US perspective.
BTW when was the term "gender traitor" coined and by which individuals or groups, as least in your experience? Lesbian separatists etc?sacha wrote:Although I have been referred to as a Gender Traitor as long as I can remember, and have always been able to see sexism towards men with a very different perspective than most women, and even though I have always defended men when women made sexist comments, and have always been more comfortable around men, I thought of myself as "pro-equality". I am a MRA because I live in the US.
I'll be interested to read what sacha and Scented Nectar have to say about this. I went poking around online, earliest use of it I found was from 1991 in a magazine here: http://tinyurl.com/b5gng2aDownThunder wrote:BTW when was the term "gender traitor" coined and by which individuals or groups, as least in your experience? Lesbian separatists etc?sacha wrote:Although I have been referred to as a Gender Traitor as long as I can remember, and have always been able to see sexism towards men with a very different perspective than most women, and even though I have always defended men when women made sexist comments, and have always been more comfortable around men, I thought of myself as "pro-equality". I am a MRA because I live in the US.
And this confusion about the true nature of women continues to fuel contemporary debates about gender politics. From those who stressed the essentialism of womanhood in the 19th century through the radical feminists of the 1970s who eschewed any interaction with the male world, to contemporary feminist theorists like Luce Irigay and Julia Kristeva, separatism still divides those who reject the male sphere from those of us who want a share in the power.
Aha, this was a review of The Handmaid's Tale, and on further poking around it looks like Atwood was using that term (in the book) to refer to gay men....earliest use of it I found was from 1991 in a magazine here: http://tinyurl.com/b5gng2a ...
Interesting; thanks for the “heads-upâ€. My recent post on Taslima’s site, awaiting moderation (the link might not be valid yet):Skep tickle wrote:But then there's her blog post (from today, though it carries tomorrow's date as I look at it now), which was linked here & discussed within the past few pages here, which includes this:Steersman wrote:I’d be interested in seeing the posts previous to that first one from taslima. Seems to me that her “Men are the same everywhere†is sufficiently general that it is a serious stretch to argue that it supports the contention that it is equivalent to the assertion that all men are rapists.
[spoiler]But I’ll concede that her phrasing is at least somewhat ambiguous and open to misinterpretation. However if you read her “men†as different samples of, say, 5 men taken in different locations throughout the world – {A1, B2, C5, G17, H45} in Lower Slobovia; {A17, B42, C23, K42, M19} in Upper Mongolia; {D75, H29, N27, R82, Z19} in Eastern Patagonia; etc – then “men are the same everywhere†could easily be read simply as somewhat of a conjecture or hypothesis that the statistical frequency distributions – one rapist, two Christians, one Muslim, one scientist, etc. – are more less the same in all cases.[/spoiler]
Now if she had said “all men ….†then you would have had a case, although that wouldn’t hold any water at all as neither men nor women are as identical as peas in a pod or bees in a hive. Otherwise? Not quite as watertight ….
But I think the case highlights the problem of different nuances and connotations to various words – very easy for the conversation – or debate – to go off the rails if different people use different or the least charitable ones ….
[spoiler][/spoiler]... Men love rape jokes. They verbally rape the girls who are already raped. ... We haven’t finished protesting against brutal gang rape in India. ... the bitter truth is, misogynists are everywhere, they are in the North, in the South, in the West and in the East. And Men, unfortunately, educated or illiterate, rich or poor, young or old, black or white, are more or less the same everywhere!
Presumably her very recent tweets bear some relation to her very recent blog post on what appears to be the same general topic.
So, Taslima, what you’re saying then is that “rape – it’s more of a guy thing�
If so, you might want to check with Party Central – i.e., Ed Brayton & PZ Myers (1) – who have been raking Michael Shermer over the coals – i.e., virtually calling him, in effect, the most odious sexist in existence since Day One for which he should be burnt at the stake – for him saying that (2) about involvement in the atheism movement.
However, I will agree with you to the extent that men are certainly more violent – about ten times as many men in US prisons as there are women (3). And there are other attributes where there are notable differences in the distributions for both men and women – Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate has an interesting summary in the chapter on gender. (4)
But about your “Men … are more or less the same everywhereâ€, while the intent or idea behind the statement is largely correct, I think it is very open to misinterpretation. It appears to me that it is more accurate, and maybe closer to what you had in mind, to read your “men†as different samples of, say, 5 men taken in different locations throughout the world – {A1, B2, C5, G17, H45} in Lower Slobovia; {A17, B42, C23, K42, M19} in Upper Mongolia; {D75, H29, N27, R82, Z19} in Eastern Patagonia; etc . By which token “men are the same everywhere†could easily be read simply as somewhat of a conjecture or hypothesis that the statistical frequency distributions – one rapist, two Christians, one Muslim, one scientist, etc. – are more or less the same in all cases. And which, of course, probably applies generally to women as well. But it tends to obviate or forestall any interpretation that you are arguing that all men are rapists – or scientists or politicians or businessmen or theologians or ….
However, from a broader perspective, it seems to me that a large part of the problem is the general unwillingness to accept that there is some truth to various stereotypes, in part because of an apparent aversion, which borders on mind-killing panic, to the conjecture – amplified and elaborated on by Pinker – that at least part of the reason for those stereotypical gender differences is actually genetic.
Can’t fix the problem if one refuses to even attempt an understanding of the causes, regardless of what they might be.
(1) “http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/12/thats-not-a-response-michael-its-a-denial/â€;
(2) “http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?secti ... on_33_1â€;
(3) “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Raceâ€;
(4) “http://www.pasadena.edu/files/syllabi/txcave_18360.pdfâ€
Indeed, those search terms turned up the first comment to Abbie's July 1, 2011 post, Bad form, Rebecca WatsonNov 26, 2011 – “To be fair I googled “gender traitor†and ERV. The first reference I could find was on July 1 where skeptifem called abbie gender traitor on the
There's also a shitload of these Staph -justinvacula wrote:http://i.imgur.com/4ncTb.jpg
I believe it was skeptifem, post elevatorgate.DownThunder wrote:BTW when was the term "gender traitor" coined and by which individuals or groups, as least in your experience? Lesbian separatists etc?
Or this?Tigzy wrote:I wish I had the haxxor skills to get into Melody's wedding photos website, so I could leave this at the end:
http://www.sogoodblog.com/wp-content/up ... im-jim.jpg
Rule of Acquisition #94: Females and finances don't mix.Al Stefanelli wrote:Obviously misogynists, what with their mandatory female nudity and all...ReneeHendricks wrote:My favorite Ferengi.
For the slymetwitters who are no doubt already crowing about how us banning Vacula means he must obviously be right, as if by doing so we "proved his point":
No. That is not how truth and falsity work. This is an example of Greta Christina's "Galileo Fallacy" combined with the "Gadfly Corollary", from her excellent essay The Galileo Fallacy, and the Gadfly Corollary. Just because someone (in this case, Vacula) possesses an opinion which proved unpopular here, and was irritating, insulting, and angering, does not mean he's right. He might just be an asshole.
Is this nonfiction? As in a guide to living?rocko2466 wrote:Hey slymepitters
I gots a question. If you had to write a book your kid for when s/he's say 20 - 25, what topics would you include?
Atheism and ethics are two obvious ones, but any ideas (even if they're within those two broad categories) would be appreciated.
I'll keep that in mind.Cunning Punt wrote:Also: I don't know Sacha, but I like it when she gets mad.
oh, honey. Everyone knows I am an MRA fucktoy.another lurker wrote:
She's a woman, she can get mad without you turning her into some sort of mra fucktoy
That's not the point.Steersman wrote:But is she wrong in her implicit argument that you’re not treating others as you would expect to be treated? If so then your “ageism†question looks to qualify as evasiveness and obfuscation ….
And in a reply to that comment:Ape+lust wrote:
This reminds me of when someone took a look at the blue-haired one's involvement with JREF:
I had heard the name mentioned a number of times, so I wanted to see her contributions in the trenches, so to speak. She posted there nearly 7,000 times before being banned for acting like an adolescent. Do you know how many posts she had in General Skepticism and the Paranormal? A mere 124. Science? 130. Religion and Philosophy? 140.
How in the hell did she become some Skeptic Guru? Well, it ties into what you describe about the forums and TAM. It’s about popularity. She spent most of her time hanging out in Community, chatting it up and goofing around. She’s undoubtedly fun and somewhat charismatic. She certainly did NOT rise to the top (so to speak) for her insight and skeptical approach to things.
http://skeptopia.wordpress.com/2010/06/ ... omment-201
...and...I think it’s more impressive that there are people out there doing actual work, and Rebecca’s image deteriorated into basically being skepticism’s answer to Paris Hilton, (a party girl who is famous basically for being famous). One thing I will say for her, is that she’s a hell of a marketer and she’s got the savvy to know how to sell herself (in a marketing way, not a prostitute way).
All from June 2010. Dissatisfaction with Watson has been brewing for a long time.I just remembered one of the things that first started to bug me about Ms. Watson. At my first TAM, I went to the ‘Skepchick Pajama Party’ which was a ‘ladies only’ gathering (though some men did show up). It was different from the Forum Party which was hosted by Rebecca, but I still expected to see Rebecca there, since she was a prominent female in the movement and she was THE Skepchick. What I found out was that the men were having a “Scotch and Cigars†party at the same time for men only, as a counter-party to the all female Skepchick Pajama Party. The year I attended, Rebecca didn’t even make an appearance at the pajama party, preferring instead to crash the men’s party and hang out with the boys, who were her clear fan base. I found it incredibly rude of her, as it devalued the women’s party and it also showed that she was more interested in being the token girl than part of a group of women. Far from being interested in bringing more women into skepticism, she seemed to just wanted to be fawned over by drooling men.
I like this one:Oneiros666 wrote: Hehe. AtheismPlus never fails to deliver.
I am not reviewing Harris's book. I am talking about the moral landscape idea that Harris has put forward in articles, interviews, debates, and talks. I make the parsimonious assumption that this is the same argument he has made in his book. It is absolutely not incumbent on me to read his book in order to talk about the ideas he has put forward elsewhere. ("Just buy and read my non-peer-reviewed book!", by the way, would be a very bad argument for a scientist to make if it was him saying this and not you. Somebody in my research community was recently pilloried for doing it.)Michael K Gray wrote:[spoiler]I was trying to get you to read the source material before dismissing it via a barrage of logical fallacies.AbsurdWalls wrote:Congratulations. I still don't understand what you were doing (you know it's not a debate if you don't make any arguments, right?).Michael K Gray wrote:"Ad Hominem".AbsurdWalls wrote:Do you have any thoughts of your own on this or are you content to just suck up to a big-name atheist?
BINGO!!
Where are my knives?
Seriously.
After each of your equivocations and studied avoidance of referencing this source material from the person very to whom you are addressing your falsehoods, I made the assessment that mocking your piss-poor debating skills would be more beneficial.
Now: it seems that will only be satisfied if I regurgitate Harris' book?
I am not your Nanny.
If you are as you claim: a neuroscientist, then you should be able to afford to purchase this slim volume and read it for yourself.
Your expectation that I should distil this already distilled volume for you is utterly unreasonable.
I propose not to interact with you on this subject until you have actually read that which you so imperiously dismiss.
Any more logical fallacies to conceal your skeptical failure?
It is not my responsibility to spoon-feed you Harris' perfectly accessible words.
Sure, after reading them, you should feel free to dismiss them. But to do what ypou have done to date just smacks of hypocrisy.
And we all know what I think of hypocrisy, don't we boys & girls.[/spoiler]