Periodic Table of Swearing

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42781

Post by Oneiros666 »

ReneeHendricks wrote:This is what I think of when I read *anything* from A+:

http://i2.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo ... inners.gif
Hehe. This is what I think of (uh oh, trigger warning!):

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

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42782

Post by AbsurdWalls »

Michael K Gray wrote:
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?
"Ad Hominem".
BINGO!!

Where are my knives?
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?).

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42783

Post by Steersman »

mutleyeng wrote:
SubMor » Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:01 am
justinvacula wrote:
Can a debate not be an honest discussion between persons? Why the dichotomy between 'debate' and 'honest conversation?'
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.

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.
sorry Justin, but you are entirely responsible for me actually agreeing with SubMor.
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
Sorry, but strictly by the book – i.e., the dictionary – I think SubMor has something a point:
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.
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.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42784

Post by sacha »

Skep 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.
http://www.go-girl.com/what-is-gogirl.asp

or if you are lucky, MKG will make one for you.

mutleyeng
.
.
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:32 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42785

Post by mutleyeng »

ReneeHendricks wrote:Oh, this is just...just so *Laden* - A Lot of Slymepitters Are IT People:

https://twitter.com/gregladen/status/287394291771387904
I was curious of the observation that a lot of the hardcore MRA bros are from the UK.

Mr Danksworth
.
.
Posts: 398
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:30 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42786

Post by Mr Danksworth »

Pitchguest wrote:
Mr Danksworth 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:
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!
Wait, you know this guy in real life?
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.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42787

Post by sacha »

Eucliwood wrote:
welch wrote:
Mykeru wrote:
We need a SlymePit FPS. The melee weapon is, of course, an ice-pick
and a giant white cock.
I had a dream nightmare 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?
Not to worry, I'll take responsibility for keeping everyone safe from the giant cock. It will be too tired to chase anyone.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42788

Post by Steersman »

sacha wrote:
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...
I'm quite sure my response here is late enough to be irrelevant, but I don't like the editing at all. ....

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.
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.

But in passing and relative to your "message board for 13 year olds" - I quite agree. However, having voting buttons would still seem to be useful without skirting that hole - many newsmagazine type sites use them and I very much doubt that that epithet could be applied to them. And, to throw in another suggestion, I've seen phpbb boards that include post numbers which, I find, tends to be quite useful.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42789

Post by Michael K Gray »

AbsurdWalls wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
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?
"Ad Hominem".
BINGO!!

Where are my knives?
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?).
I was trying to get you to read the source material before dismissing it via a barrage of logical fallacies.
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.

mutleyeng
.
.
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:32 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42790

Post by mutleyeng »

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.
Is it my imagination, or have we been getting a badass Steers 2.0 compared to a few weeks back?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42791

Post by Steersman »

mutleyeng wrote:
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.
Is it my imagination, or have we been getting a badass Steers 2.0 compared to a few weeks back?
:-) Scales dropping from my eyes?

Maybe not quite yet ready to condemn them all to the “dustbin of history” as one might argue, at least if one was feeling particularly charitable and in a mellow mood, that at least some of them “strive for high ideals” and exhibit some intellectual honesty, but the balance certainly seems to be tipping against them ….

TheMan
.
.
Posts: 709
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42792

Post by TheMan »

mutleyeng wrote:
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.
Is it my imagination, or have we been getting a badass Steers 2.0 compared to a few weeks back?
I think I pushed him over the edge when I called him Steerzo.... a thing we do often enough to names here in Ozzo.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42793

Post by Michael K Gray »

sacha wrote:http://www.go-girl.com/what-is-gogirl.asp
or if you are lucky, MKG will make one for you.
Thanx.
But my missus was not named Lorena.

I remember seeing a protoype of these in the late 70s, at Uni.
At the Mawson Institute for Antarctic research.
Chicks were having big trubs peeing in sub-sub-zero gales.
(Not like guys don't, either. Get yer todger out in an Antarctic gale, and you know why it is called the South Pole)
So one them came up with this idea.

Being a roadie in a past life for hard-core rock-n-roll bands, at several pub gigs where the Q to the ladies' was as long as a schlong, I saw several females front up to the bloke's urinal, finger their clitoral hood, and pee with both accuracy and ease.
Very impressive.
Then there were the girls just sat in the blokes' hand-wash sink.
Oh well. It was hardly ever used anyway.

Funny, we never saw any hipsters frequenting these gigs.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42794

Post by Skep tickle »

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.
Oneiros666 wrote: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.
Mostly correct and not anything ceepolk has kept hidden. I've learned these things by lurking (over time) at atheism+ forum
1) ceepolk is female & goes by "she"
2) ceepolk self-identifies as a womanist rather than a feminist
3) I thought I'd seen ceepolk repeatedly saying that she wants to keep atheism+ "a small tent", but it looks like that's actually Setar. ceepolk's focus is different: "reaching the lonely silenced person" (fuller quote from that link is in the spoiler) [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.
[/spoiler]

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42795

Post by sacha »

look what I have been invited to:
(scroll down, I'm afraid if I reduce the image, the font will be too small to read.)
ReGreta.png
(183.53 KiB) Downloaded 129 times
anyone want to bet on how long it will take from the moment I post this comment, to the organiser receiving phone call(s) about banning me because "Greta's physical well being is in imminent danger if I attend"

and since the California State Director for American Atheists and organizer of the Atheist Advocates of San Francisco knows me, I'll just let the Baboons wonder if I will be there or not.

It's really too bad that whenever PZ and friends try to get me banned from some event or gathering, the organiser knows me well enough to ignore them.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42796

Post by sacha »

astrokid.nj wrote:
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.
Lemme complete that for you Lapsang.
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.
needed to be repeated

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42797

Post by Skep tickle »

Skep tickle wrote:Mostly correct and not anything ceepolk has kept hidden. I've learned these things by lurking (over time) at atheism+ forum ...
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.

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42798

Post by Ape+lust »

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]

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42799

Post by Steersman »

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
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 ….

Tkmlac
.
.
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:13 am
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42800

Post by Tkmlac »

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]
"That's what THEY say."

OMG. She's gone full paranoid delusional.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42801

Post by Steersman »

Skep tickle wrote:
Skep tickle wrote:Mostly correct and not anything ceepolk has kept hidden. I've learned these things by lurking (over time) at atheism+ forum ...
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.
For Dawkins’ sake there Skep tickle, do keep up. I mean, 1300 posts in 2 days – child’s play …. ;-)

[Reminds me of Fred Hoyle’s The Black Cloud ….]

Tkmlac
.
.
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:13 am
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42802

Post by Tkmlac »

Steersman wrote:
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]
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 ….
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!"

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42803

Post by Skep tickle »

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 ….
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:
... 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.

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42804

Post by Ape+lust »

Tkmlac wrote:
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]
"That's what THEY say."

OMG. She's gone full paranoid delusional.
Any day now, she'll decide billboards are talking to her.

leafs
.
.
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:19 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42805

Post by leafs »

My favourite author, summing up my concerns with A+ forum far better than I ever could

"Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the ‘transcendent’ and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you."

When I attempt to engage in discussion over there or with anyone, I have moments of doubt. I read and re-read to ensure I understand as well as I can. Ceepolk, Submor, Flew, and their minions are zealots... and won't debate anyone because exposing their assertions to the arena of ideas would not be in their best interests.

Nice try Vacula, it was worth a shot.

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1825
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42806

Post by justinvacula »


justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1825
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42807

Post by justinvacula »

From A+ forum:

http://i.imgur.com/63Occ.jpg

Ageism? :o

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42808

Post by Ape+lust »

justinvacula wrote:[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/4ncTb.jpg[/spoiler]
Epic Zvan is epic.

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.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42809

Post by Steersman »

justinvacula wrote:From A+ forum:

http://i.imgur.com/63Occ.jpg

Ageism? :o
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 ….

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42810

Post by Skep tickle »

justinvacula wrote:From A+ forum:

http://i.imgur.com/63Occ.jpg

Ageism? :o
:lol: :lol: :lol:

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

Agenda Fluid

#42811

Post by Michael K Gray »

A✟Theismatists seem to like the term "Gender Fluid".
Why don't they be honest?
They are referring to Smegma, or Semen.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42812

Post by Skep tickle »

Ape+lust wrote:
justinvacula wrote:[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/4ncTb.jpg[/spoiler]
Epic Zvan is epic.

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.
What a load of crap.

She sees herself as a, or the, self-appointed Strong Educator-Savior protecting the Weak Wobbly-Legged Ones.

I'd love to see her post at atheism+ forum to make sure they know how much she's putting herself out for people like them.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42813

Post by sacha »

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.
decius wrote:
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.
Ditto.
Edge Penguin and decius may have a different perspective if they were living in the US.
I've not experienced anything close in the UK/Europe.

I don't know about Nipple Twister's geographical perspective, but when it comes to the US, I agree with him completely.

I usually cannot stand when someone speaks of an issue from a US-Centric view without clarifying. I'm often the first to have a go at the person who thinks the rest of the world revolves around the US.

The problem with this particular issue is that the Baboons are Merkins, and their brand of feminism is from a US Perspective, therefore when comparing the specifics of the Baboon perspective regarding feminism to the MRM perspective, one has to keep in mind that in order to understand the MRM point of view on the specifics which the Baboons speak of, one has to be considering the same geographical reality.

It seems that Canada has an extremely similar reality, but that is not something I can comment on, as I have never lived there.

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.

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.

The topics that can be discussed with a more universal point of view, are far more interesting.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42814

Post by Michael K Gray »

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.
[youtube]Qb21lsCQ3EM[/youtube]

somedumbguy
.
.
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42815

Post by somedumbguy »

Michael K Gray wrote:
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.
[youtube]Qb21lsCQ3EM[/youtube]
Ah high school!

I grew up in the vicinity of that song and Tom Petty's Free Falling.

Stupid me went off to become an engineer instead of inheriting my legacy in the Los Angeles Entertainment Industrial Complex.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42816

Post by DownThunder »

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.
BTW when was the term "gender traitor" coined and by which individuals or groups, as least in your experience? Lesbian separatists etc?

Casual Nemesis
.
.
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:14 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42817

Post by Casual Nemesis »

justinvacula wrote:From A+ forum:

http://i.imgur.com/63Occ.jpg

Ageism? :o

It was a nice run. Two hours and five minutes on A+ forums is like a two minute bull ride. I'm not sure why you did it, but it was interesting to watch.
:popcorn:

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42818

Post by Skep tickle »

DownThunder wrote:
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.
BTW when was the term "gender traitor" coined and by which individuals or groups, as least in your experience? Lesbian separatists etc?
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/b5gng2a

The other use I found for "gender traitor" is as an old (presumably obsolete) term for gay men. I did find other uses of "traitor" in feminist literature from pre-1991, but those referred to those "traitor" feminists who wanted to bring considerations of race & class into feminism.

And here's a New Humanist article about gender traitors in history - all or most apparently on the wrong side of history, anti-suffragettes etc (who wanted to keep women pure, unsullied, focused on motherhood), until perhaps modern times:
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.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42819

Post by Skep tickle »

...earliest use of it I found was from 1991 in a magazine here: http://tinyurl.com/b5gng2a ...
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.

So then I found a bunch of references using "gender traitor" from 2009 and I *think* one from 2003, now will go back & see if I can find it again...

Darren
.
.
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:40 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42820

Post by Darren »

Because it's the 'pits 6 month anniversary today and I had nothing better to do...

Some stats about the 'pit! All times are PST (GMT - 0800).

http://i.imgur.com/695Lh.png

http://i.imgur.com/quZd1.png

http://i.imgur.com/0lsXf.png

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10154
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42821

Post by Steersman »

Skep tickle wrote:
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 ….
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:
[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!
[/spoiler]
Presumably her very recent tweets bear some relation to her very recent blog post on what appears to be the same general topic.
Interesting; thanks for the “heads-up”. My recent post on Taslima’s site, awaiting moderation (the link might not be valid yet):
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 everywhere”, 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/”;
(2) “http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?secti ... on_33_1”;
(3) “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Race”;
(4) “http://www.pasadena.edu/files/syllabi/txcave_18360.pdf”

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42822

Post by Skep tickle »

My last blast on the history of "gender traitor". Tried searching its etymology but no luck. Earliest uses for women I'm finding (via Google search) are self-referential:

9/2007 Hetero cis(?)-woman whose husband is a trans-woman & therefore she feels like a gender traitor (can't relate to other hetero women): "And I am, I guess, a gender traitor" (start of last paragraph)

2/2008 Bug_girl's blog as she expressed support for Obama over Clinton for president: "I am a gender traitor" (headline)

Search also pointed to this start of a (slime pit?) post:
Nov 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
Indeed, those search terms turned up the first comment to Abbie's July 1, 2011 post, Bad form, Rebecca Watson

Good night, all!

franc
.
.
Posts: 2465
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:03 pm
Location: Kosmopolites
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42823

Post by franc »

justinvacula wrote:http://i.imgur.com/4ncTb.jpg
There's also a shitload of these Staph -

[spoiler]http://www.global-whale-alliance.org/us ... review.JPG[/spoiler]

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42824

Post by Jan Steen »


Darren
.
.
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:40 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42825

Post by Darren »

DownThunder wrote:BTW when was the term "gender traitor" coined and by which individuals or groups, as least in your experience? Lesbian separatists etc?
I believe it was skeptifem, post elevatorgate.

Tony Parsehole
.
.
Posts: 6658
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42826

Post by Tony Parsehole »

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
Or this?

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~gbarron/GASTEROS/mutinu1.jpg
The flies are a nice touch.

masakari2012
.
.
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42827

Post by masakari2012 »

Al Stefanelli wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:
My favorite Ferengi.
Obviously misogynists, what with their mandatory female nudity and all...
Rule of Acquisition #94: Females and finances don't mix.
Rule of Acquisition #139: Wives serve, brothers inherit.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42828

Post by Mykeru »

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.

Yes, it's true that banning Justin doesn't prove him right, which is a point no one here raised. Not only is answering a point put into the mouths of the opposition more of an Atheism Plus tactic, but so is the very idea of "I have people criticizing me (oh, sorry, "bullying and harassing"), therefore I must be on to something".

But thank you, asshat, for answering a point raised by no one but yourself, by referring us to your obscure sacred texts, written by someone who wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it gave her magic cancer.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42829

Post by Lurkion »

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.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42830

Post by rayshul »

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.
Is this nonfiction? As in a guide to living?

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42831

Post by Lurkion »

Yeah. Something like that. Also a nice sampler of views on important issues.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42832

Post by sacha »

Cunning Punt wrote:Also: I don't know Sacha, but I like it when she gets mad.
I'll keep that in mind.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42833

Post by sacha »

another lurker wrote:
She's a woman, she can get mad without you turning her into some sort of mra fucktoy
oh, honey. Everyone knows I am an MRA fucktoy.

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42834

Post by Karmakin »

Steersman wrote:
justinvacula wrote:From A+ forum:

http://i.imgur.com/63Occ.jpg

Ageism? :o
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 ….
That's not the point.

The point is that A+ is supposed to be a movement that's against all that stuff. That's what social justice means in the first place. Or at least that's what people claim it means. When Jen put down her manifesto of sorts, yes, it was against ageism. And other things.

But instead, it's a movement that actually is drowning in sexism (to be fair, they wear their sexism on their sleeve as a badge of honor), racism, ageism, classism, etc.

This is at best, highly hypocritical. However, I think that it's more accurate to say that their entire ideology revolves around putting people into little boxes based on these groupings, and as such we shouldn't be surprised that they do this. SJW-dom in the end is everything they claim to be fighting against.

It's blowing up the world to save it.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5457
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42835

Post by Gumby »

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 in a reply to that comment:
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).
...and...
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.
All from June 2010. Dissatisfaction with Watson has been brewing for a long time.

franc
.
.
Posts: 2465
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:03 pm
Location: Kosmopolites
Contact:

Hensley's theorem (simplified)

#42836

Post by franc »

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

Buy the shirt (courtesy of Alexander Garber/CriticalG)-

http://www.redbubble.com/people/thecrit ... ss-formula

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5457
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42837

Post by Gumby »

Oneiros666 wrote: Hehe. AtheismPlus never fails to deliver.
I like this one:

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 81fbc9.jpg

They can't even look at the concept of 'debate' in the traditional (dictionary) sense anymore - that it is the open discussion of sometimes contradictory ideas, with the goal being mutual understanding of the other's positions. (Debate: noun - a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints). They can only see debate as "two people trying to force their viewpoints on each other".

They just assume bad faith on Justin's part, and say "We won't debate you for the same reasons we won't debate creationists".

And then they ban him - who could have seen that coming? :lol:

Well, at least it can't be said that people from this side of the schism didn't try to conduct meaningful and productive dialogue.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42838

Post by AbsurdWalls »

Michael K Gray wrote:[spoiler]
AbsurdWalls wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
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?
"Ad Hominem".
BINGO!!

Where are my knives?
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?).
I was trying to get you to read the source material before dismissing it via a barrage of logical fallacies.
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]
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.)

Nevertheless, I would still be interested in reading Harris's book if I had reason to believe that it was going to present a joined-up argument, but I don't. In fact when I've seen Harris trying to support these ideas he has done a very bad job of it. For example, drawing an analogy with "health" - which is a circular argument. I know people who are attempting to model objective systems of morality based on maximising the wellbeing of conscious creatures (no, Harris wasn't the first person to come up with the idea, though I wish I could get away with not reviewing the previous literature by claiming to do so would be increase the amount of boredom in the universe). The idea that these people have is to use their models of objective morality to make judgements about "health"!

I was not asking you to regurgitate the book. I was asking whether you are capable of arguing the case for the moral landscape idea yourself rather than saying that Harris probably addresses my criticisms in his book.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42839

Post by Oneiros666 »

Goood morning VietPit!

So, I guess most of you know of him; but I just want to shamelessly plug him some more as he, next to Justicar, seems to be an absolute King in pwning the shit out of the A+pes:

[youtube]JmvnPks7ijA[/youtube]

(Yes, I know this vid adresses something that is ancient in YT time, but still cool imho).

UnbelieveSteve
.
.
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:37 pm
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#42840

Post by UnbelieveSteve »

Surprisingly (to me) that curious little forum known as Atheismplus is still alive and kicking.
I see their member base topped 2K a while ago but the same ole members are keeping the post count average to themselves.

Is it really a 'safe space' or is it more a cubby house for the cool kids?

I'd like to see a top 5 list of users/posters/moderators that we've come to love so dearly, and what they're most commonly known for. (banhammering etc)

Pretty much the same deal as the recent "Top 5 wankers of 2012" thanks to Reap.
Something along those lines might be a good laugh.

If not, eat shit.

Locked