Exactly why I am glad, given permission, to be able to publish personal details explaining my reasons.windy wrote:That sounds fair. I get your concern, but banning someone for undisclosed reasons seemed too contrary to the spirit of the 'pit.Lsuoma wrote:When I get back home today I'll be setting up a separate forum where I will give my reason for the ban. I will unban Eucliwood (and notify her), but grant her access to post to ONLY that forum, unmoderated. Everyone will be able to join in the discussion, but I myself will respond only to posts which demonstrate that the facts on which I based my decision to ban were false. Otherwise I will not participate.
Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
-
- .
- Posts: 4969
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Well, so PZ claims, anyways. He said a number of women and even a man has come on to him at conferences. As for the prostitutes, he's probably on a banned blacklist of clients. "Avoid this guy. he wants you to don a blue wig and then...[ :shock: ]...which should cost a fortune, right? But then he won't pay even a basic rate, says he's waiting to strike it rich in the blogosphere and he'll get back to you. Blacklist Rating: nutter and thief"katamari Damassi wrote:Someone solicited sex from PZ Myers? Do you think they were attracted to his rugged good looks, his white hot charisma, or his charming personality?Scented Nectar wrote: I think that's why PZ was able to mention that he's had women plus one gay man try to pick him up at conferences and no one said boo to that. That would have been slut shaming the women or gays, and they knew it. Yet they have opposite rules when the sexes are flipped and it's a man offering sex to a woman. Then the man becomes a potential rapist and/or creep.
Wait. Were these prostitutes?
-
- .
- Posts: 1335
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:50 am
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Justin, get legal advice, make sure you have Ron Lindsay's agreement that you should be able to attend, and maybe get his cell #.Mykeru wrote:Now, remember my prediction here.justinvacula wrote:The fundraiser launched to help send me to the upcoming Women in Secularism 2 conference has reached its goal thanks to 24 generous donors who, in total, contributed $1500 with 28 days remaining for the project!
http://skepticink.com/justinvacula/2013 ... -goal-met/
Thanks to all of those whom Stephanie Zvan apparently wants me to renounce...helping to send the 'wrong man' to the Women in Secularism 2 conference can surely now be added to list of horrible things about this community/forum.
Everyone knew that Melody Hensley, et. al. would put out feelers to determine the best way to block your attendance, even thought it would be the stupidest thing they could do. They just can't help being petty.
Now that you have met your goal, they will still block your attendance but in a way to
1. Maximize drama, playing victim and working the threat narrative.
2. Block you at the door, metaphorically if not literally (see #1). This will also serve to waste your time and cause you to expend funds. The goal, being petty, would not be served by turning you away before you left. This way you get all the time, trouble, expense, the TSA anal search, bad airplane food, lost luggage, a big freaking hole in your wallet and get turned away regardless.
Place your bets.
And lose the 'stache :twisted:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=249
-
- .
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
- Location: you kay?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
If Eucliwoo-woo is a minor can she 'give explicit permission' without the intervention of her parents?Lsuoma wrote:I am. BTW, the information I'll be sharing is open for discussion, but the decision to ban rests solely with me. I value the opinion of many here, which is why I've decided to share the information now that Eucliwood has given explicit permission, and it can't be considered doc dropping.jjbinx007 wrote:Indeed. I think you're caught between a rock and a hard place right now.Lsuoma wrote: I think you're probably referring to the tweets that caused me to ban her.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.
-
- .
- Posts: 1127
- Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
- Location: Florida, US of A
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Preach it Sister!Scented Nectar wrote:Which patriarchy? The imaginary western conspiracy one of thought crimes and over-indulged-in fears? Or the few remaining REAL patriarchies (theocratic countries whose religious laws and social customs really are oppressive of, and unequal towards, women)?Submariner wrote:"The Patriarchy hurts menz too."Scented Nectar wrote:Have I mentioned that I love doing that reversal of the sexes thing on situations, to see how the reaction would differ? It often reveals so much! :)
Now then, let's try...
"The Matriarchy hurts womenz too." Yep, feminists try to run other women's sex lives, telling them they are not consenting when the woman knows damn well she was. Eg; drunk sex being said to always be rape. Another eg: Willing workers in the sex industry (dancing, prostitution, porn acting, phone sex operators, etc) are told by many feminists that they are raped every time they do their job.
Feminists want to control other people's sexual transaction choices. Some consider all sex with men rape, but outside of those ones, even moderate radfems try and control the transaction choice. If you are trading sexual pleasure for sexual pleasure, they are fine with that. If you are trading sexual pleasure for a promise of monogamy, they are fine with that. However, a fun drinking night ending in a fun one night stand of trading sexual pleasure for sexual pleasure? Nope! Rape rape! Even though he was drunk too, they won't say the woman raped the man, but if she was drunk (and I don't mean passed out), it get's called rape. Women are not allowed to consent to that, since the feminists won't believe her consent. She was brainwashed or doesn't know any better. She needs rescuing. Same story for sex work. Most feminists believe there is no way to consent to sex work, so it is all rape. Even if a woman carefully draws up her business plan, advertises and runs everything herself. Nope, she was raped. Sex for money transaction not allowed, unless it's in the form of already bought items, such as wedding rings, expensive dinners, a house, car, etc. Cash itself MAY be acceptable only in the form of financial support or allowance IF she is also living with him.
ummm-hmmm
-
- .
- Posts: 4740
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Bolded mine. That's the thing, and this is how I believe the FTBers manage to sucker in noobies such as myself. As a casual reader/poster at FTB, I just assumed that they were talking about the REAL PATRIARCHY and not the imaginary conspiracy one. So, when they said horrible things about MRA's and the Slymepit, I once again, wrongly assumed, that the pit and MRA's were *suppporting* misogynist fucks like Rick Santorum and Todd Akin. The thing is, since they lump anyone who disagrees with them into the same basket, it's really difficult to discern truth from propaganda unless you look deeper. So yeah, I was an 'unquestioning' supporter, at the start, b/c who *would* want to take away women's rights, or subjugate anyone who is not a cis-white-male?Scented Nectar wrote:Which patriarchy? The imaginary western conspiracy one of thought crimes and over-indulged-in fears? Or the few remaining REAL patriarchies (theocratic countries whose religious laws and social customs really are oppressive of, and unequal towards, women)?Submariner wrote:"The Patriarchy hurts menz too."Scented Nectar wrote:Have I mentioned that I love doing that reversal of the sexes thing on situations, to see how the reaction would differ? It often reveals so much! :)
Now if only more people would visit the pit, and see that it's a nice place...
And in the end I do think that they will burn themselves out. They are too hostile to newcomers, and their 'movement' will only shrink, not grow. I also suspect that in the broader spectrum, most modern 'feminists', are more likely to be funfems than radfems. Millenials want to enjoy sex, and enjoy men, not sit in a corner hating everyone who says bad words!
-
- .
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:33 pm
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.jjbinx007 wrote:My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.
-
- .
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
- Location: you kay?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
<---- I got it back....now leave it alone!
Damn I am far more handsome than I remember!
Damn I am far more handsome than I remember!
Re: "Deep Rifts!"
The terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter are that the person renounce the slymepit, and as a result no longer be considered a slymepitter. The terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter is if they weren't a slymepitter. Therefore there are no terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter.LMU wrote:
...
They think they can force the point, that's why the ultimatums. I think this is actually progress, they have named terms under which they would actually speak to a slymepitter. They are ridiculous unreasonable terms, but it means that it can be done in principle. They could have interpreted the offer as a threat (as has been done in the past), dismissed it out of hand, or ignored it entirely. Note that different baboons might have different terms, and a lesser baboon might actually have reasonable terms (either because they have more to gain by the exposure such a discussion would give them, or because they aren't actually a true believer).
I really doubt common ground can be found if only one party is willing to find it. Baboons are all too willing to misconstrue and politicize every communication. It's really pointless to try to refute their claims that the pit is full of rape apologists and misogynists, fallacious as they are. Even encouraging them to come here and find out for themselves will fail to undermine their prejudice. Their senses are so attuned to find offence that the frank (franc?), ribald, laissez faire nature of this stream of opinion and evidence will only further entrench their misguided opinions.
Mind you, I'm not advocating abandoning this little klatch of ours. I'm just trying to nip any optimism in the bud. You can't really clean up this mess. You're better off putting a fence around it and warning other people away.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
And this is why she has a very hard row to hoe.Angry_Drunk wrote:And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.jjbinx007 wrote:My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
To convince me to rescind the ban.Lsuoma wrote:And this is why she has a very hard row to hoe.Angry_Drunk wrote:And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.jjbinx007 wrote:My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.
-
- .
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
- Location: you kay?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
repeating my previous question lsuoma, can a minor give permission to release her info without her parents say so?Lsuoma wrote:And this is why she has a very hard row to hoe.Angry_Drunk wrote:And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.jjbinx007 wrote:My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.
I've stayed out of this brouhaha until now, but it's beginning to look like she is some sort of agent provocateur.
-
- .
- Posts: 1127
- Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
- Location: Florida, US of A
- Contact:
Re: "Deep Rifts!"
The point that they often make to the "privileged" yet refuse to see in themselves, is that if one views the world through a particular lens (biblical glasses?) then every piece of evidence, every innocuous post, every uttered thought not polarized in the same direction appears to that person as a validation of their worldview.Parge wrote: I really doubt common ground can be found if only one party is willing to find it. Baboons are all too willing to misconstrue and politicize every communication. It's really pointless to try to refute their claims that the pit is full of rape apologists and misogynists, fallacious as they are. Even encouraging them to come here and find out for themselves will fail to undermine their prejudice. Their senses are so attuned to find offence that the frank (franc?), ribald, laissez faire nature of this stream of opinion and evidence will only further entrench their misguided opinions.
-
- .
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:37 pm
- Location: Sydney Australia
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I just found it too. I think i'll steer clear of her if she returns. Block/ignore whatever it takes. She a fucken weird one.Scented Nectar wrote:Ugh. I think I just saw it too. Was it her chatting up the person with "pedophile" in their name, commiserating about pedophilia, and wanting them to email her?jjbinx007 wrote:Ugh. What the fuck. I just read something on Eucli's twitter that I wished I hadn't.
I now think she's an undercover pedo entrapper. Either that or very fucking disturbed.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
The fucking scary thing is that you're not hyperbolic, this is actually how some of them thing and reason:Scented Nectar wrote:Women are not allowed to consent to that, since the feminists won't believe her consent. She was brainwashed or doesn't know any better.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/201 ... mment-4765
Btw, that whole blog post was like the 2nd non-tf00t FTB post I ever read, and it so smock full of crazy that it needs a trigger warning for anyone suffering from nut allergy. It's also to only thing I've ever read by Taslima, so when posters here were talking about Taslima not being as crazy as the rest of the FC(n) shortly after I had signed up here, I was literally scratching my head. I mean, common...
There were some other really sketchy shit going on with Oolon though, like the completely new poster who shortly after Oolon joined and started poster here showed up and after 3-4 posts went and doxxed Oolon (iirc from Oolons website/domainname info). IIRC though, you said that there was nothing linking the account with Oolon's, but in my book still sketchy as fuck.Lsuoma wrote:No, I know who it was and had an email discussion with them about it. I genuinely believe it was a mistake on their part, but I could be wrong. Definitely not colon. He DOWNloaded it.katamari Damassi wrote:Was it ever determined that that was oolon? IIRC that same person posted a couple of really bad jokes about domestic violence. It reeked set up from the beginning.Lsuoma wrote:Not true. Several incarnations of Mabus are banned, plus someone who posted what was indistinguishable from child porn (a picture of a girl of apparently 13 or 14 years of age with semen on her face.)jimthepleb wrote: Eucliwood is the first person banned permanently (i anticipate s/h/it's guest appearance in the next few hours).
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Why are you agonizing over this?Lsuoma wrote:And this is why she has a very hard row to hoe.Angry_Drunk wrote:And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.jjbinx007 wrote:My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.
You have a person who came in here posting in either an intentionally annoying and obsessive manner who then claims to be an underage girl who solicited dick pictures and sent weirdo slash/fic to someone so they could point to the weirdos the Pit houses, and then threatened to get the pedo-cops after anyone who didn't kiss their child/troll ass.
We have had enough people come in here with "What say to a woman with a black eye" crap, obviously intending to plant something in the forum that can be used to smear the membership in general. My first impression was that Eucli was intentionally trying to get themselves banned for serial spamming so they could run off and make a claim that The Pit was just as ban-happy as the Atheism Plus Forum.
This person did that and more. S/h/it pushed every botton it could reach.
Considering that being banned from this forum is nearly impossible, to me, makes the decision to actually ban someone when they have not only crossed the line from several direction, but pretty much circled the globe to cross it again, that much easier.
If you don't want to be the "bad guy" in this you can blame me. If s/h/it asked who did it just say, in time honored fashion, that I was to blame...
"Because he's the asshole The Pit deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Mykeru."
[Cue Hans Zimmer]
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
My fave picture from her post about "men hate woman's bodies" -acathode wrote:Btw, that whole blog post was like the 2nd non-tf00t FTB post I ever read, and it so smock full of crazy that it needs a trigger warning for anyone suffering from nut allergy. It's also to only thing I've ever read by Taslima, so when posters here were talking about Taslima not being as crazy as the rest of the FC(n) shortly after I had signed up here, I was literally scratching my head.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/fil ... having.jpg
OMG men make women bleeeeeed by forcing them to shave their legs!!!!
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
One of the most surreal exchanges I observed over at the A+sylum was where a creature called "Simpleflower" apparently misappropriated 'hugs' intended for another loon... er uh... marginalized being.
That Simpleflower is a real piece of work. She(?) describes herself as an "Autism Supremacist" and said that "super empathic autistics" such as herself were the "next step in evolution". In other words. The current strain of homo sapiens will be replaced with homo autisticus empathicus. The hilarious thing is howver this 'super empath' completely dismissed fellow loon "Kasianne" as not part of this evolutionary cutting edge and hence destined to go the way of the Dodo, and did so without irony. What empathy, lol!
Anyway, I wonder if any of the self described autistics over there have ever actually been diagnosed with the condition, or if it is just an attempt to make some claim to being "oppressed" or "marginalized". It's really weird; they talk about autistics over there like they're a race; autism identity politics. What a concept.
But I digress...
That Simpleflower is a real piece of work. She(?) describes herself as an "Autism Supremacist" and said that "super empathic autistics" such as herself were the "next step in evolution". In other words. The current strain of homo sapiens will be replaced with homo autisticus empathicus. The hilarious thing is howver this 'super empath' completely dismissed fellow loon "Kasianne" as not part of this evolutionary cutting edge and hence destined to go the way of the Dodo, and did so without irony. What empathy, lol!
Anyway, I wonder if any of the self described autistics over there have ever actually been diagnosed with the condition, or if it is just an attempt to make some claim to being "oppressed" or "marginalized". It's really weird; they talk about autistics over there like they're a race; autism identity politics. What a concept.
But I digress...
Re: "Deep Rifts!"
Bolding mine. I think that's sort of the goal of interacting with them. Assume you never posted on A+, what do you learn about A+ers when you look at the various arguments on A+ leading to bans and suspensions? You might learn that they are horrible to well meaning people for no good reason, and that you want as little to do with them as possible. How can we do this with baboons in general? Show up to interact with them, be as reasonable as possible, and let them be themselves.Parge wrote:The terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter are that the person renounce the slymepit, and as a result no longer be considered a slymepitter. The terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter is if they weren't a slymepitter. Therefore there are no terms under which they (Steffie) would actually speak to a slymepitter.LMU wrote:
...
They think they can force the point, that's why the ultimatums. I think this is actually progress, they have named terms under which they would actually speak to a slymepitter. They are ridiculous unreasonable terms, but it means that it can be done in principle. They could have interpreted the offer as a threat (as has been done in the past), dismissed it out of hand, or ignored it entirely. Note that different baboons might have different terms, and a lesser baboon might actually have reasonable terms (either because they have more to gain by the exposure such a discussion would give them, or because they aren't actually a true believer).
I really doubt common ground can be found if only one party is willing to find it. Baboons are all too willing to misconstrue and politicize every communication. It's really pointless to try to refute their claims that the pit is full of rape apologists and misogynists, fallacious as they are. Even encouraging them to come here and find out for themselves will fail to undermine their prejudice. Their senses are so attuned to find offence that the frank (franc?), ribald, laissez faire nature of this stream of opinion and evidence will only further entrench their misguided opinions.
Mind you, I'm not advocating abandoning this little klatch of ours. I'm just trying to nip any optimism in the bud. You can't really clean up this mess. You're better off putting a fence around it and warning other people away.
-
- .
- Posts: 1127
- Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
- Location: Florida, US of A
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
From PZ's latest :http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -skeptics/
Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.
Hasn't it always been said thatStop right there! That’s exactly what I mean! Atheism deals with empirical claims and the promotion of science. It’s what we do. Look at Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett and Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris and even me, although I’m not trying to rank myself in their same category: we talk and write about how religious claims fail to meet even the most minimal standards of evidence, how they fail to support their grandiose promises, how they cause harm and suffering to people. Seriously, you could take my last sentence and replace “religious claims†with “alt-med claimsâ€, and you should be able to see that we’re doing exactly the same thing with different targets.
- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")science makes no comment on the supernatural
Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
My first impression of The Woo as also that "she" was, for whatever reason, trying to see what it would take to get banned.
As to what to do about her now, I don't have an opinion because:
a) I don't have all the facts that Lsuoma does.
b) It's not my board, I don't have skin in the game.
c) It's not me going to be getting a visit from the Party Van if we're dealing with an actual entrapment / crazed minor situation.
Lsuoma seems to be acting with responsibility and prudence. Let's step back and wait to see how it all shakes out.
As to what to do about her now, I don't have an opinion because:
a) I don't have all the facts that Lsuoma does.
b) It's not my board, I don't have skin in the game.
c) It's not me going to be getting a visit from the Party Van if we're dealing with an actual entrapment / crazed minor situation.
Lsuoma seems to be acting with responsibility and prudence. Let's step back and wait to see how it all shakes out.
Re: "Deep Rifts!"
At first I was annoyed, but considering that's an attempt at the ever-expansive blob-like definition of atheism from the most non-critical atheist around, I will just be amused.Submariner wrote:From PZ's latest :http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -skeptics/
Hasn't it always been said thatStop right there! That’s exactly what I mean! Atheism deals with empirical claims and the promotion of science. It’s what we do. Look at Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett and Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris and even me, although I’m not trying to rank myself in their same category: we talk and write about how religious claims fail to meet even the most minimal standards of evidence, how they fail to support their grandiose promises, how they cause harm and suffering to people. Seriously, you could take my last sentence and replace “religious claims†with “alt-med claimsâ€, and you should be able to see that we’re doing exactly the same thing with different targets.- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")science makes no comment on the supernatural
Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
So here's how it shakes out after getting more legal advice from my sister-in-law, to whom I have just shown the tweets.
Her advice to me was stay the fuck as far away as possible. Keep the ban. Have nothing to do with anyone I suspect might be Eucliwood. Don't reply to any communications, but if I have any indication that she is trying to target me to go with her, my sister-in-law, to law enforcement and make a legal deposition. She said that while she is an attorney, she's not anyone else's attorney in this matter apart from mine, but she doubted any other competent attorney would give their client different advice in the same circumstances.
So, the posting I mentioned earlier is off. The ban stays in place, and I'm done with discussing the matter. You can do as you all see fit.
Her advice to me was stay the fuck as far away as possible. Keep the ban. Have nothing to do with anyone I suspect might be Eucliwood. Don't reply to any communications, but if I have any indication that she is trying to target me to go with her, my sister-in-law, to law enforcement and make a legal deposition. She said that while she is an attorney, she's not anyone else's attorney in this matter apart from mine, but she doubted any other competent attorney would give their client different advice in the same circumstances.
So, the posting I mentioned earlier is off. The ban stays in place, and I'm done with discussing the matter. You can do as you all see fit.
-
- .
- Posts: 1127
- Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
- Location: Florida, US of A
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Gefan wrote:My first impression of The Woo as also that "she" was, for whatever reason, trying to see what it would take to get banned.
As to what to do about her now, I don't have an opinion because:
a) I don't have all the facts that Lsuoma does.
b) It's not my board, I don't have skin in the game.
c) It's not me going to be getting a visit from the Party Van if we're dealing with an actual entrapment / crazed minor situation.
Lsuoma seems to be acting with responsibility and prudence. Let's step back and wait to see how it all shakes out.
I thought we were an autonomous collective....
[youtube]-8bqQ-C1PSE[/youtube]
A Counter-Condition to Steffie
We should formulate a counter-condition to Steffie. Not where we agree to talk to her, but the baseline minimum that we require to take her seriously.
Example:
1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).
Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.
What other conditions?
Example:
1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).
Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.
What other conditions?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Exactly.Michael J wrote:How could anyone speak for the slymepit? We are so diverse that we can't talk about friggin' bread without having a fight.Reap wrote:To anyone concerned. I have made it clear to Lee Moore that no one person is qualified to speak for the slymepit. His lack of a better term referring to opposition of FTB was probably why there was some confusion. I wasn't aware that was the way it was being presented. I only speak for me and I have never claimed otherwise. I understand that some idiots are probably going to make the mistake of assuming anyone who is a member of this forum and speaks in public is speaking for the entire forum there isn't much can be done about that except make it clear that isn't the case.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Fuck you, assbag.Reap wrote:Exactly.Michael J wrote:How could anyone speak for the slymepit? We are so diverse that we can't talk about friggin' bread without having a fight.Reap wrote:To anyone concerned. I have made it clear to Lee Moore that no one person is qualified to speak for the slymepit. His lack of a better term referring to opposition of FTB was probably why there was some confusion. I wasn't aware that was the way it was being presented. I only speak for me and I have never claimed otherwise. I understand that some idiots are probably going to make the mistake of assuming anyone who is a member of this forum and speaks in public is speaking for the entire forum there isn't much can be done about that except make it clear that isn't the case.
-
- .
- Posts: 863
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:50 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I'm obviously curious as hell to find out what happened, but I trust whatever caused you to make this decision is good enough reason. I do wonder whether we will end up seeing her rejoin under a new name (especially if she's savvy enough to cover her tracks).Lsuoma wrote:So here's how it shakes out after getting more legal advice from my sister-in-law, to whom I have just shown the tweets.
Her advice to me was stay the fuck as far away as possible. Keep the ban. Have nothing to do with anyone I suspect might be Eucliwood. Don't reply to any communications, but if I have any indication that she is trying to target me to go with her, my sister-in-law, to law enforcement and make a legal deposition. She said that while she is an attorney, she's not anyone else's attorney in this matter apart from mine, but she doubted any other competent attorney would give their client different advice in the same circumstances.
So, the posting I mentioned earlier is off. The ban stays in place, and I'm done with discussing the matter. You can do as you all see fit.
-
- .
- Posts: 1127
- Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
- Location: Florida, US of A
- Contact:
Re: A Counter-Condition to Steffie
Abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses/theories and discontinue the use of "studies" and "scholarly papers", which assume said unfalsifiable beliefs as part of their premise, as evidence.Mykeru wrote:We should formulate a counter-condition to Steffie. Not where we agree to talk to her, but the baseline minimum that we require to take her seriously.
Example:
1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).
Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.
What other conditions?
Re: A Counter-Condition to Steffie
I like this idea.Mykeru wrote:We should formulate a counter-condition to Steffie. Not where we agree to talk to her, but the baseline minimum that we require to take her seriously.
Example:
1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).
Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.
What other conditions?
2. It could be helpful to require that they define some of their terms. For example feminism (A radical notion... or ?), misogyny (Hatred of all women, or ?), patriarchy (A nation or group whose leaders are a majority male, or ?) etc. Choosing whatever terms are relevant to the topic of the discussion.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
What the fuck is an "assbag" anyway? Is it something you wear to hide your a/ss/rse out of shame, or to utilize your a/ss/rse for its intended purpose on the go. Or more horribly, is it something that painfully protrudes from your a/ss/rse after an ill-advised clean-and-jerk (I'm talking weightlifting here. Don't even go there). I'm at a loss.Mykeru wrote:Fuck you, assbag.
-
- .
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
3. All future blog posts must include at least 500 original words. (ha!)
-
- .
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
- Location: you kay?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
all was settledLsuoma wrote:So here's how it shakes out after getting more legal advice from my sister-in-law, to whom I have just shown the tweets.
Her advice to me was stay the fuck as far away as possible. Keep the ban. Have nothing to do with anyone I suspect might be Eucliwood. Don't reply to any communications, but if I have any indication that she is trying to target me to go with her, my sister-in-law, to law enforcement and make a legal deposition. She said that while she is an attorney, she's not anyone else's attorney in this matter apart from mine, but she doubted any other competent attorney would give their client different advice in the same circumstances.
So, the posting I mentioned earlier is off. The ban stays in place, and I'm done with discussing the matter. You can do as you all see fit.
and nothing of value was lost.
I have admired your attempt to be as fair as humanly possible Lsuoma, but as your SIL suggests, enough is enough.
-
- .
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
- Location: you kay?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
This:Parge wrote:What the fuck is an "assbag" anyway? Is it something you wear to hide your a/ss/rse out of shame, or to utilize your a/ss/rse for its intended purpose on the go. Or more horribly, is it something that painfully protrudes from your a/ss/rse after an ill-advised clean-and-jerk (I'm talking weightlifting here. Don't even go there). I'm at a loss.Mykeru wrote:Fuck you, assbag.
http://www.personalwellnessconsultant.c ... ma-bag.jpg
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Suck it..yea you like that don't cha?Mykeru wrote:Fuck you, assbag.Reap wrote:Exactly.Michael J wrote:How could anyone speak for the slymepit? We are so diverse that we can't talk about friggin' bread without having a fight.Reap wrote:To anyone concerned. I have made it clear to Lee Moore that no one person is qualified to speak for the slymepit. His lack of a better term referring to opposition of FTB was probably why there was some confusion. I wasn't aware that was the way it was being presented. I only speak for me and I have never claimed otherwise. I understand that some idiots are probably going to make the mistake of assuming anyone who is a member of this forum and speaks in public is speaking for the entire forum there isn't much can be done about that except make it clear that isn't the case.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Imagine this, but with a white background and a gumby figure in the background.
I suppose for some, it is, just as some skeptics base their position on a desire to feel superior to stupid people.
Counter Conditions
So, what we've got is:
1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).
2. Abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses/theories and discontinue the use of "studies" and "scholarly papers", which assume said unfalsifiable beliefs as part of their premise, as evidence.
3. It could be helpful to require that they define some of their terms. For example feminism (A radical notion... or ?), misogyny (Hatred of all women, or ?), patriarchy (A nation or group whose leaders are a majority male, or ?) etc. Choosing whatever terms are relevant to the topic of the discussion.
My caveat is that #3 should be applicable where they claim that someone is "anti". That is to say, in order to claim somone is "anti-feminist" they have to provide a clear definition of feminism where that claim is applicable.
Maybe we need a thread for this?
1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).
2. Abandon unfalsifiable hypotheses/theories and discontinue the use of "studies" and "scholarly papers", which assume said unfalsifiable beliefs as part of their premise, as evidence.
3. It could be helpful to require that they define some of their terms. For example feminism (A radical notion... or ?), misogyny (Hatred of all women, or ?), patriarchy (A nation or group whose leaders are a majority male, or ?) etc. Choosing whatever terms are relevant to the topic of the discussion.
My caveat is that #3 should be applicable where they claim that someone is "anti". That is to say, in order to claim somone is "anti-feminist" they have to provide a clear definition of feminism where that claim is applicable.
Maybe we need a thread for this?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Nah, Myers would never stoop to something so low as to constantly debate the existence of bigfoot. His eye is on the prize, proving that Ken Ham's illustrations of people riding dinosaurs are bullshit.
-
- .
- Posts: 4740
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
cunt wrote:Imagine this, but with a white background and a gumby figure in the background.
I suppose for some, it is, just as some skeptics base their position on a desire to feel superior to stupid people.
I was just thinking about this. I was 'arguing' with idiots on yahoo comments, and feeling all 'superior' to people who cannot manage to type without contradicting their own stances. Ok, to be honest, I don't reallly feel 'superior'. I don't even feel superior when I call them 'fools'. I'm not very good at being mean, or hateful. I *try* really hard, to hit them with incisive, biting commentary, but I feel that I fall short. My heart just isn't in it.
And then I thought about all of the mean, hateful comments on FTB and A+. These people are *pros* at the put-down.
Take cunt's sig for example "You are a bad person. You say horrible things and you should feel bad about yourself."
The entire point is to shame and upset the target of the insult. To make them fucking *hate* themselves. These people are in it b/c they love to draw blood. And then they love to skull-fuck their adversary into oblivion. Their egos are so fragile that they must constantly fluff 'em up by being mean on the internet.
This is probably one of the many reasons why they were so nasty to me over 'grammar gate'. Any chance to make someone squirm...they just cannot resist!
-
- .
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Ok, serious contribution: Addendum to 2 - *require* actual studies and scholarly papers which do not assume said unfalsifiable beliefs as part of their premise.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Just made a thread! http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=250Metalogic42 wrote:Ok, serious contribution: Addendum to 2 - *require* actual studies and scholarly papers which do not assume said unfalsifiable beliefs as part of their premise.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
2. Renounce any and all attempts to hinder free speech and free thought. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden in his digital book-burning campaign against SlimePit 1.0Mykeru wrote:We should formulate a counter-condition to Steffie. Not where we agree to talk to her, but the baseline minimum that we require to take her seriously.
Example:
1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).
Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.
What other conditions?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
I've avoided the whole Eucliwood thing, but maybe it is time to add my two bits.jimthepleb wrote:repeating my previous question lsuoma, can a minor give permission to release her info without her parents say so?Lsuoma wrote:And this is why she has a very hard row to hoe.Angry_Drunk wrote:And how, pray tell, are we to determine when "she" reaches 18 when we can't even be certain "she" is a minor to begin with.jjbinx007 wrote:My vote: Ban Eucliwood until she's 18.
I've stayed out of this brouhaha until now, but it's beginning to look like she is some sort of agent provocateur.
1) I have not blocked s/h/it's posts, but stopped reading them a long time ago (thank you, whoever invented the scrollwheel). Aside from their general pointlessness, there is just some odd quality, a subtle multiple personality sort of thing, that just sets off my alarms. There is something not right there. Someone mentioned their suspicions that s/h/it is really an adult male acting out and my take has very much that sort of feel. I just start to itch all over.
2) Do NOT take the potential reality the s/h/it is actually a minor of either sex lightly. The threat of legal ramifications to your personal self are very real and life changing in a really bad and permanent way.
I have indirect experience in this in that a former online associate (never met IRL) was entrapped by a police sting, pretending to be a teen girl. The associate agreed to meet 'her' IRL, supposedly to teach her what a bad idea meeting online strangers was, but who knows. He was met by a squad of police instead. The result. Job: gone. Family: no updates, but likely gone as well. Including his own kids, whom he was prevented from seeing unsupervised, and then only rarely. Communication: gone. Forbidden from any web access at all. Forced to shut down blog, etc., cut off from online friends - the main reason updates stopped. Status: permanently sex offender registry as pedophile. We happened to know someone in the area who did us the favor of stopping by for some of the court hearings. This is how we were able to learn as much as we know. Describing the guy as devastated does not begin to cover it.
In other words, he is Fucked For Life.
Lsuoma is playing it smart and by the book here. I would be careful with that release of personal info as others have noted here, however. Given the open nature of the Pyt and the importance we attach to that, I fully appreciate the reluctance to ban someone, but some circumstances do require it. Personally, I have not and will not engage in any way with Eucliwood. Period.
This has been a public service announcement. Please carry on.
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
3. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden when he threatened to punch one of his commenters, Becca, in the face, and told her to "get off the rag and kiss my ass".d4m10n wrote:2. Renounce any and all attempts to hinder free speech and free thought. Publicly apologise for supporting Laden in his digital book-burning campaign against SlimePit 1.0Mykeru wrote:We should formulate a counter-condition to Steffie. Not where we agree to talk to her, but the baseline minimum that we require to take her seriously.
Example:
1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).
Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.
What other conditions?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
It really is just the sheer hypocrisy that gets me every time. Myers has posted how many blog-posts now? Sometimes 3 to 4 a day for years if not decades. Most of which have been to point out a, frankly obvious, piece of stupidity from the creationists or just the american religious right. Oh yeah, i'll gumby quote this one up good, stick in a few snarky comments and post.another lurker wrote:cunt wrote:Imagine this, but with a white background and a gumby figure in the background.
I suppose for some, it is, just as some skeptics base their position on a desire to feel superior to stupid people.
I was just thinking about this. I was 'arguing' with idiots on yahoo comments, and feeling all 'superior' to people who cannot manage to type without contradicting their own stances. Ok, to be honest, I don't reallly feel 'superior'. I don't even feel superior when I call them 'fools'. I'm not very good at being mean, or hateful. I *try* really hard, to hit them with incisive, biting commentary, but I feel that I fall short. My heart just isn't in it.
And then I thought about all of the mean, hateful comments on FTB and A+. These people are *pros* at the put-down.
Take cunt's sig for example "You are a bad person. You say horrible things and you should feel bad about yourself."
The entire point is to shame and upset the target of the insult. To make them fucking *hate* themselves. These people are in it b/c they love to draw blood. And then they love to skull-fuck their adversary into oblivion. Their egos are so fragile that they must constantly fluff 'em up by being mean on the internet.
This is probably one of the many reasons why they were so nasty to me over 'grammar gate'. Any chance to make someone squirm...they just cannot resist!
Now he thinks thats just beneath him, and its only other people who have the superiority complex.
-
- .
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:37 pm
- Location: Sydney Australia
Re: A Counter-Condition to Steffie
THIS 8^10 TIMES :clap:Mykeru wrote:We should formulate a counter-condition to Steffie. Not where we agree to talk to her, but the baseline minimum that we require to take her seriously.
Example:
1. Agrees to Clifford's Creedo of Freethought ""It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence", and agrees that asking for evidence or rejecting claims based on insufficient evidence is what a freethinker and skeptic does. Asking for evidence will not be construed as indicating anything but skepticism and will not be used to assume another body of beliefs not at issue (racism, sexism, misogyny, etc).
Failure to abide by conditions, or rejection of them, is ipso facto recognition of our right to laugh snidely at her.
What other conditions?
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
As for Eucliwood.
You have no real choice.
She's only got herself to blame (and by "she", I mean the weird thirty-something year old man who is getting his kicks by impersonating a teenage girl online.)
You have no real choice.
She's only got herself to blame (and by "she", I mean the weird thirty-something year old man who is getting his kicks by impersonating a teenage girl online.)
-
- .
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:37 pm
- Location: Sydney Australia
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Fucken love this rule. Oh wait a minute. Didn't OB struggle with 6 original words the other day?Metalogic42 wrote:3. All future blog posts must include at least 500 original words. (ha!)
-
- .
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
If by "the other day", you mean "every day", then yes. :lol:UnbelieveSteve wrote:Fucken love this rule. Oh wait a minute. Didn't OB struggle with 6 original words the other day?Metalogic42 wrote:3. All future blog posts must include at least 500 original words. (ha!)
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Not to defend PZ, but I must say, don't agree with the view that science can say nothing about the supernatural. Supernatural claims can and have been investigated (and invariably found to be bullshit).Submariner wrote:
Hasn't it always been said that- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")science makes no comment on the supernatural
Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.
Just ask Uri Geller.
Jerry Coyne had a post on this issue recently ("Can science test the supernatural? Yes!"). I can't vet the post because I only skimmed it, but I am familiar with the Yon Fishman paper he cites, which is excellent (I'd post the link but I don't think we can do that here, can we?).
-
- .
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:54 am
- Location: you kay?
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
to my knowledge OB has only ever written one original word, and she tried to attribute that to us.Metalogic42 wrote:If by "the other day", you mean "every day", then yes. :lol:UnbelieveSteve wrote:Fucken love this rule. Oh wait a minute. Didn't OB struggle with 6 original words the other day?Metalogic42 wrote:3. All future blog posts must include at least 500 original words. (ha!)
The notorious 'rebitchka' that never was? Every other word she has written was previously extant.
(takes pedantic arsehole hat off and puts racist hat back on)
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Bingo. Real skepticism is hard work. PZ's version is on a par with Rebecca's debunking of 'bad graphs' and her epic take-down of evo-psych.cunt wrote:Nah, Myers would never stoop to something so low as to constantly debate the existence of bigfoot. His eye is on the prize, proving that Ken Ham's illustrations of people riding dinosaurs are bullshit.
http://store.discoveryeducation.com/ima ... 1225296659
It would actually be really interesting and worthwhile to see people like them actually apply open-minded, rigorous skepticism to social sciences / economics / social justice without an predetermined agenda.
http://www.bbsradio.com/userfiles/image ... igsFly.jpg
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Also, apropos of nothing,
When I'm on eBay bidding on an out-of-stock everywhere Nemo Gogo Le bivy tent, DO NOT TRY TO OUTBID ME.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 ... AA300_.jpg
Seriously, I will fuck you up.
When I'm on eBay bidding on an out-of-stock everywhere Nemo Gogo Le bivy tent, DO NOT TRY TO OUTBID ME.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 ... AA300_.jpg
Seriously, I will fuck you up.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
For what it's worth, i reckon you acted with due dilligence, and in keeping with preserving the pyt's ethos of freedom of expression. Ultimately there has to be a line with regards to content and membership, and that line has to be the one when crossed that could land you in front of a judge. This to my mind is sensible self (as well as board) preservation.Lsuoma wrote:So here's how it shakes out after getting more legal advice from my sister-in-law, to whom I have just shown the tweets.
Her advice to me was stay the fuck as far away as possible. Keep the ban. Have nothing to do with anyone I suspect might be Eucliwood. Don't reply to any communications, but if I have any indication that she is trying to target me to go with her, my sister-in-law, to law enforcement and make a legal deposition. She said that while she is an attorney, she's not anyone else's attorney in this matter apart from mine, but she doubted any other competent attorney would give their client different advice in the same circumstances.
So, the posting I mentioned earlier is off. The ban stays in place, and I'm done with discussing the matter. You can do as you all see fit.
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
:lol:Mykeru wrote:Also, apropos of nothing,
When I'm on eBay bidding on an out-of-stock everywhere Nemo Gogo Le bivy tent, DO NOT TRY TO OUTBID ME.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 ... AA300_.jpg
Seriously, I will fuck you up.
I thought you weren't a lightpacker?
Oh, and where is that bid link... :whistle:
-
- .
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Science can test some supernatural claims but not others. Examples:lurking coward wrote:Not to defend PZ, but I must say, don't agree with the view that science can say nothing about the supernatural. Supernatural claims can and have been investigated (and invariably found to be bullshit).Submariner wrote:
Hasn't it always been said that- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")science makes no comment on the supernatural
Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.
Just ask Uri Geller.
Jerry Coyne had a post on this issue recently ("Can science test the supernatural? Yes!"). I can't vet the post because I only skimmed it, but I am familiar with the Yon Fishman paper he cites, which is excellent (I'd post the link but I don't think we can do that here, can we?).
1) God supernaturally caused a global flood while not suspending any natural laws other than the ones required to actually cause the flood (testable)
2) God supernaturally caused a global flood, and suspended natural laws required to cause the flood, as well as laws governing the evidence such a flood would leave (not testable)
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
If PZ had stuck with this point then he might have a better argument.lurking coward wrote:Not to defend PZ, but I must say, don't agree with the view that science can say nothing about the supernatural. Supernatural claims can and have been investigated (and invariably found to be bullshit).Submariner wrote:
Hasn't it always been said that- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")science makes no comment on the supernatural
Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.
Just ask Uri Geller.
Jerry Coyne had a post on this issue recently ("Can science test the supernatural? Yes!"). I can't vet the post because I only skimmed it, but I am familiar with the Yon Fishman paper he cites, which is excellent (I'd post the link but I don't think we can do that here, can we?).
There isn't really a good reason why the skeptic movement avoids the religious questions other than a sort of pragmatic cowardice.
It's true that skepticism/the scientific method cannot tell you that a God doesn't exist, but it can whittle down the claims of supernatural intervention in nature that are made by the major religions - probably the biggest form of woo that affects all our lives.
You don't have to kill God to defeat religion - you just need to turn Him into Santa.
-
- .
- Posts: 1127
- Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
- Location: Florida, US of A
- Contact:
Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]
Absolutely science can test supernatural claims, but the gist of the "science makes no comment..." quote is that atheism is not a byproduct of science. There are in fact many theistic ( or deistic) scientists extant. Conflation of science with atheism has been a religious claim the we atheists have been disavowing for a long time.lurking coward wrote:Not to defend PZ, but I must say, don't agree with the view that science can say nothing about the supernatural. Supernatural claims can and have been investigated (and invariably found to be bullshit).Submariner wrote:
Hasn't it always been said that- http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %28book%29 et al. (google "science makes no comment on the supernatural")science makes no comment on the supernatural
Seems like PeeZus is trying to change that.
Just ask Uri Geller.
Jerry Coyne had a post on this issue recently ("Can science test the supernatural? Yes!"). I can't vet the post because I only skimmed it, but I am familiar with the Yon Fishman paper he cites, which is excellent (I'd post the link but I don't think we can do that here, can we?).