Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

[Steersman]

<snip>

That's part of the point, isn't it? It's one thing to have a police force. It's another thing to welcome CC cameras everywhere you go in public. Taking off your shoes to get on a plane. Putting your shit through a metal detector to go to a baseball game.

Where's the line? We all agree that we need police forces. But are we truly free if we are asked to submit to a cavity search just to go to a baseball game?

If you think CC cameras are worrying in terms of encroachment on privacy/liberty, the newer wide-area persistent surveillance systems will give you nightmares.
<snip>

RadioLab did an episode on this stuff, which is where I first heard about it.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/

Gosh. Kind of like the anti-rape iPhone App I've been suggesting as a potential solution ... ;-)

[Steersman]

I hate to link Wiki like a Steers, but here you go.

Like at least 90% of the Pit, I've been mostly ignoring the Steers-debates for months now. So this may not apply in this particular case, but I'll just go ahead and say that I agree with Steersman in general that it is not necessary to have read source material directly in order to offer a valid critique (within a limited scope) of that material. A trusted summary, review or derivative of the original source can offer grounds for legitimate criticism, or even dismissal. Peezus' one genuine contribution to atheism/skepticism, the Courtier's Reply Fallacy, basically makes this point. I also think Wikipedia, for all its faults, is one of the better sources of trusted summaries in non-controversial fields of study.

Thanks. I figure we're kind of hooped if we're not able to build on the analyses and works of our predecessors, if we're forced to repeat the same processes and mistakes they went through. Can be somewhat problematic of course, and in some cases there's some merit in at least some of us periodically questioning current summaries, or reviewing the original sources. Reminds me of an aphorism that I saw, I think, in one of Barbara Tuchman's books: "To read history is to be blind in one eye; to not read it is to be blind in both".

[DaveDodo007]

To me, the worse thing about the Reddit drama is that Thunderf00t will now make another "feminism ruins everything" video, instead of something useful.

:dance:

[Billie from Ockham]

I hate to link Wiki like a Steers, but here you go.

Like at least 90% of the Pit, I've been mostly ignoring the Steers-debates for months now. So this may not apply in this particular case, but I'll just go ahead and say that I agree with Steersman in general that it is not necessary to have read source material directly in order to offer a valid critique (within a limited scope) of that material. A trusted summary, review or derivative of the original source can offer grounds for legitimate criticism, or even dismissal. Peezus' one genuine contribution to atheism/skepticism, the Courtier's Reply Fallacy, basically makes this point. I also think Wikipedia, for all its faults, is one of the better sources of trusted summaries in non-controversial fields of study.

I would only agree if you accept blame for using a second-hand report if and when it turns out to be inaccurate. You cannot attack something or someone using a second-hand report and then say "not my fault" when your criticisms turn out to be unfounded. You are responsible for the basis of your attack. How much you can and should be blamed depends on the typical accuracy of the second-hand source, but it will never be zero (in my opinion).

[Aneris]

Considering people here from around the world, Fallingbostel is practically around the corner. You probably had to do with a Cockchafer, the common Maybug — the Maikäfer (now that I see it, is english “chafer” etymologically related to german “Käfer” (=beetle)? As the name suggests, they are common in may and early june but not every year (some years you don't see any, in the next you may see a kind of swarm), attributed to their lifecycle.

See Bhurzum, it was a cockchafer. You rubbed it out in the wrong place. Be more careful next time.

Some joke I don't get? ;) My reply was to Bhurzum who described a “critter”. Cockchafer/Maybug was my guess what it was. No maybug was harmed in making in this reply (never harmed one, but caught them often, when I get the chance, they are fascinating bugs).

[Bhurzum]

Some joke I don't get? ;)

Cock = slang terminology for "penis"
chafer = rubbing skin until raw/sore

Puerile rating 9.5/10 :lol:

[feathers]

Considering people here from around the world, Fallingbostel is practically around the corner. You probably had to do with a Cockchafer, the common Maybug — the Maikäfer (now that I see it, is english “chafer” etymologically related to german “Käfer” (=beetle)? As the name suggests, they are common in may and early june but not every year (some years you don't see any, in the next you may see a kind of swarm), attributed to their lifecycle.

See Bhurzum, it was a cockchafer. You rubbed it out in the wrong place. Be more careful next time.

Some joke I don't get? ;) My reply was to Bhurzum who described a “critter”. Cockchafer/Maybug was my guess what it was. No maybug was harmed in making in this reply (never harmed one, but caught them often, when I get the chance, they are fascinating bugs).

Point is, Bhurzum said he 'chafed' it on his head, rather than on, oh well, never mind.

Talking about meikevers, my father and his friends in their youth (1920s) used to catch the critters, attach them to a piece of yarn and make them go around like a horse in a circus. I've never asked him what they did with wasps.

[feathers]

Scottish Ninja.

[Bhurzum]

Scottish Ninja.

Aye, yiir maw!

:P

[feathers]

Hoots mon!
(Scottish colleague, learn Scots high culture every day)

Gawd, 'cockchafer', new English word of the year. He's gonna love this.

[Bhurzum]

Hoots mon!
(Scottish colleague, learn Scots high culture every day)

Gawd, 'cockchafer', new English word of the year. He's gonna love this.

I've already sent copious text messages and Facebook PM's to old Army mates.

I'm that sad!

[feathers]

No no, the proliferation of important biological knowledge should not be thought of condescendingly.

[Steersman]

Hoots mon!
(Scottish colleague, learn Scots high culture every day)

Gawd, 'cockchafer', new English word of the year. He's gonna love this.

I've already sent copious text messages and Facebook PM's to old Army mates.

I'm that sad!

You might then enjoy a few other connotations and uses from the historical record:

Literary usage of Cockchafer

Below you will find example usage of this term as found in modern and/or classical literature:

1. Slang and Its Analogues Past and Present: A Dictionary, Historical and by John Stephen Farmer, William Ernest Henley (1891)
"(old).—A male brothel keeper. [Quoted in Grose (1785).] cockchafer, suis, (thieves').—I. The treadmill. For synonyms, ««WHEEL OF LIFE. 1861-61. ..."

Seems it was also the term for an instrument for corporal punishment in British prisons at one time: "the treadmill; wheel of life"

[James Caruthers]

Actually I lied, IIRC Novum Organum is only 14 pages in pdf form, so you don't really need to read whole chapters of it.

http://faculty.cua.edu/mackm/HUM/texts/ ... rganum.pdf

Come learn what all the fuss is about, everyone! Is the hype real? : D

Seems that's only a smallish portion of Book 1 of 2. This seems a more complete version - from a link in the Wikipedia article:
http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm
Seems to be about 60-odd pages.

60 whole pages? :o

I can't really recall how long it is. I read my physical copy and it was part of an anthology IIRC. Anyway, much like wikipedia, you can start with the small pdf and work up to the full novum organum when you find the spoons.

[James Caruthers]

Both clearly apply.

1) Steers believes that the white race-oops I mean western culture, is in all respects superior to the black race-I mean, Islamic people and culture, ...
2) Steers believes on the basis established in 1) that all niggers-sorry, I mean Muslims, should be deported from white-I mean, western, society. ....

Race is not analogous to religion in all cases. But if someone wants to apply a textbook racist argument to a religious group, then the comparison is applicable.

Different kettles of fish, methinks, if not actually kettles of critters from entirely different phyla. For one thing, race is defined by different "physical or genetic traits" whereas religion is defined by differents sets of beliefs, ideas, and values - the former of which we don't really have any control over, the latter of which we do or should have at least some. In addition, it's quite moot whether, on average, there are any great differences in the capabilities and limitations for different races whereas it should be manifestly obvious that there is a very great difference in the utility and accuracy of different sets of ideas - unless maybe you think alchemy is on par with modern chemistry.

And it's those very great differences which I think makes your analogy more or less null and void.

Everything you just said is wrong. You didn't in any way disprove my final sentence, which was my entire point. You are just listing differences between the two things being compared even though the way you are using statistics and the conclusions you are drawing are exactly the same as what a white nationalist does.

And no, a religious person really has very little control over what they believe and how willing they are to commit blasphemy to "prove" they're a "good muslim" for you. Beliefs are a consequence, not a choice. I can't believe an atheist of all people would not understand that. You cannot believe differently than you currently believe because belief is a consequence. I did not choose to become an atheist any more than I chose to become a christian. I was exposed to evidence and I had to be honest with myself and admit I was an atheist after reading and understanding the evidence that contradicts biblical truth claims. And prior to that, I had been immersed in religious culture and practice from about age 2 and I could not "choose" to be or not be a christian.

A muslim has very little choice over whether or not something is offensive to them. What they DO have choice over is whether or not they go out and kill somebody.

But your standards for mass deportation include muslim people who have not harmed anyone.

Now go read Novum Organum, you fucking pleb.

BTW my new standard for mass deportation from western society includes anyone who becomes offended when I call them a pleb or direct them to read Novum Organum :naughty: Maybe you're just unsuitable for western society, steers! :whistle:

[feathers]

You might then enjoy a few other connotations and uses from the historical record:

Literary usage of Cockchafer

Below you will find example usage of this term as found in modern and/or classical literature:

1. Slang and Its Analogues Past and Present: A Dictionary, Historical and by John Stephen Farmer, William Ernest Henley (1891)
"(old).—A male brothel keeper. [Quoted in Grose (1785).] cockchafer, suis, (thieves').

Makes sense. He encountered it in a place called 'Fallingbrothel' or something such.

[Steersman]

I hate to link Wiki like a Steers, but here you go.

Like at least 90% of the Pit, I've been mostly ignoring the Steers-debates for months now. So this may not apply in this particular case, but I'll just go ahead and say that I agree with Steersman in general that it is not necessary to have read source material directly in order to offer a valid critique (within a limited scope) of that material. A trusted summary, review or derivative of the original source can offer grounds for legitimate criticism, or even dismissal. Peezus' one genuine contribution to atheism/skepticism, the Courtier's Reply Fallacy, basically makes this point. I also think Wikipedia, for all its faults, is one of the better sources of trusted summaries in non-controversial fields of study.

I would only agree if you accept blame for using a second-hand report if and when it turns out to be inaccurate. You cannot attack something or someone using a second-hand report and then say "not my fault" when your criticisms turn out to be unfounded. You are responsible for the basis of your attack. How much you can and should be blamed depends on the typical accuracy of the second-hand source, but it will never be zero (in my opinion).

May be fair enough. However, one might ask what evidence do you have that those "second-hand reports" have turned "out to be inaccurate"? Considering that I quoted 3 or 4 credible sources to buttress my argument that the Novum Organum wasn't entirely "tedious bullshit", and that James provided no sources, other than his own opinion, in support of his that it was, I would think most reasonable skeptics would go with the former position.

While I'll concede that a multiplicity of sources supporting a position is no guarantee of the truth of a matter, it seems a reasonable position to argue that multiple views or perspectives on a matter is more likely to lead to more accurate and in-depth representation of it - essentially the basis or benefits of binocular vision, and of objectivity in science.

[Steersman]

<snip>

Makes sense. He encountered it in a place called 'Fallingbrothel' or something such.

:lol:

[James Caruthers]

In regards to the Reddit thing, I'm at a loss to explain why they fired Victoria. Because the AMA went wrong? It's not the first by any stretch, and she's hardly at fault for people asking strong questions of Jesse Jackson (one of them got shadowbanned for asking him about his illegitimate child though).

Blaming Pao is a bit of a copout though, I feel. I don't like her, but the problem also seems to lie with the higher tier of admins too. They were likely the ones who fired her, and grievances with them seem to go back to long before Pao.

I agree Reddit is endangering itself though. Banning FPH isn't going to alienate a lot of people. Firing a well-respected user for no real reason? Uh oh.

The problem with Plebbit goes a lot deeper than its leadership. They have a culture of shadowbanning, fucking with users, "my way or the high way" moderation, mods routinely going mad with power to impose their personal opinions on an entire community, never being open about moderation practices and also having a really hilariously shitty community, hence all the channer jokes about plebbit invasion of 8chan.

[CuntajusRationality]

<snip>

That's part of the point, isn't it? It's one thing to have a police force. It's another thing to welcome CC cameras everywhere you go in public. Taking off your shoes to get on a plane. Putting your shit through a metal detector to go to a baseball game.

Where's the line? We all agree that we need police forces. But are we truly free if we are asked to submit to a cavity search just to go to a baseball game?

If you think CC cameras are worrying in terms of encroachment on privacy/liberty, the newer wide-area persistent surveillance systems will give you nightmares.
<snip>

RadioLab did an episode on this stuff, which is where I first heard about it.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/

Gosh. Kind of like the anti-rape iPhone App I've been suggesting as a potential solution ... ;-)

If by "kind of like" you mean "different in almost every respect" then I agree. ;)

In all seriousness, the reactions to your proposal there are pretty funny. This kind of sums it up.

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

[Bhurzum]

Makes sense. He encountered it in a place called 'Fallingbrothel' or something such.

Strangely enough, that was one of the many nicknames we had for the place.

Backstabbingbostel (for the career challenged)
Frothybostel (Used by those who achieve advanced states of refreshment at the weekend)
Fuckingbostel (Employed by junior soldiers who've realized the Army is not for them)

You get the idea. We're not known for our subtlety or rapier like wit.

Anyway, it's a lovely little town and we (as a brigade) only waved goodbye to it this year.

[youtube]WuhIYkI3dNU[/youtube]

Got no idea who the opening band are but our Pipes and drums stole the show as usual.

[James Caruthers]

I hate to link Wiki like a Steers, but here you go.

Like at least 90% of the Pit, I've been mostly ignoring the Steers-debates for months now. So this may not apply in this particular case, but I'll just go ahead and say that I agree with Steersman in general that it is not necessary to have read source material directly in order to offer a valid critique (within a limited scope) of that material. A trusted summary, review or derivative of the original source can offer grounds for legitimate criticism, or even dismissal. Peezus' one genuine contribution to atheism/skepticism, the Courtier's Reply Fallacy, basically makes this point. I also think Wikipedia, for all its faults, is one of the better sources of trusted summaries in non-controversial fields of study.

I would only agree if you accept blame for using a second-hand report if and when it turns out to be inaccurate. You cannot attack something or someone using a second-hand report and then say "not my fault" when your criticisms turn out to be unfounded. You are responsible for the basis of your attack. How much you can and should be blamed depends on the typical accuracy of the second-hand source, but it will never be zero (in my opinion).

When it comes to textual criticism, which is what steers was doing in responding to me about Novum Organum, no scholar would be respected if they stated an opinion on a work of literature, and then followed with "well, I never actually read the source material and don't intend to, I just know you're wrong because these Sparknotes quotations were pulled from scholars and they contradict your personal opinion of the source material."

My Chinua Achebe example was meant to prove this point and it's telling Steers ignored it. When you wish to understand a work of philosophy, it is always necessary to read the source material, or as close to the source material as you can find in your language.

In general, wikipedia is fine for certain things. However, there is still a danger of poisoning your mind by absorbing too many extraneous opinion of a work of literature before first reading it yourself. If you read 100 learned scholars shitting on Hamlet, do you think it would bias you against Hamlet, regardless of its quality? Because I think this happens all the time. I have no interest in reading you giving someone else's opinion of Hamlet. What I want is YOUR opinion of Hamlet.

That's all I've ever asked for from Steers and I know I won't get it because he's trolling.

[James Caruthers]

May be fair enough. However, one might ask what evidence do you have that those "second-hand reports" have turned "out to be inaccurate"? Considering that I quoted 3 or 4 credible sources to buttress my argument that the Novum Organum wasn't entirely "tedious bullshit", and that James provided no sources, other than his own opinion, in support of his that it was, I would think most reasonable skeptics would go with the former position.

While I'll concede that a multiplicity of sources supporting a position is no guarantee of the truth of a matter, it seems a reasonable position to argue that multiple views or perspectives on a matter is more likely to lead to more accurate and in-depth representation of it - essentially the basis or benefits of binocular vision, and of objectivity in science.

Well, so far, the only other person on the pit to read Novum Organum agreed with me.

I would be happy to have a real discussion about the merits of Novum Organum, but why would I debate with someone who is arguing in bad faith with me simply because they don't like my conclusion, and the bulk of their argument is an Appeal to Authority Fallacy?

Answer me this:

Prior to Chinua Achebe's groundbreaking criticism of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, the overwhelming literary consensus was that Heart of Darkness was a masterpiece, and not racist at all.

Now, Chinua Achebe disagreed with the majority of scholars on the latter point.

Is he wrong, simply because he disagreed with the scholars? Do we decide right and wrong by the number of stacked opinions?

Textual criticism is not like science, you dumbass. The weight of opinion does not carry the day in all cases because opinions on literature are not and CAN NEVER BE scientific.

I happen to believe that Heart of Darkness is both racist to the core and a masterpiece of literature. But I don't give a shit what your opinion on my opinion is until you tell me you've read the book. :dance:

[Steersman]

<snip>
Race is not analogous to religion in all cases. But if someone wants to apply a textbook racist argument to a religious group, then the comparison is applicable.

Different kettles of fish, methinks, if not actually kettles of critters from entirely different phyla. For one thing, race is defined by different "physical or genetic traits" whereas religion is defined by differents sets of beliefs, ideas, and values - the former of which we don't really have any control over, the latter of which we do or should have at least some. In addition, it's quite moot whether, on average, there are any great differences in the capabilities and limitations for different races whereas it should be manifestly obvious that there is a very great difference in the utility and accuracy of different sets of ideas - unless maybe you think alchemy is on par with modern chemistry.

And it's those very great differences which I think makes your analogy more or less null and void.

Everything you just said is wrong.

Ipse dixit. What can be asserted without evidence ... and all that.

You didn't in any way disprove my final sentence, which was my entire point. You are just listing differences between the two things being compared even though the way you are using statistics and the conclusions you are drawing are exactly the same as what a white nationalist does.

You still haven't read or understood that article on analogies, have you? If there are many significant differences between two cases then you can't really say they are particularly analogous. Or sufficiently so to make grand inferences on the basis of them. If you'd actually take the time to read that article - instead of putting your head in the sand or some other place where the sun don't shine - then you would have noted the analogy between the atom and the solar system: some similarities - one thing going around another - but some very significant differences - quantum level effects - that mean some conclusions about the target - the atom - simply don't hold.

Besides which, you would seem to think that because Mussolini promised to make the trains run on time - though I think he came a cropper on that too - it is the epitome of fascism for anyone else in later times to promote the same objective.

And no, a religious person really has very little control over what they believe and how willing they are to commit blasphemy to "prove" they're a "good muslim" for you. Beliefs are a consequence, not a choice. I can't believe an atheist of all people would not understand that. You cannot believe differently than you currently believe because belief is a consequence. I did not choose to become an atheist any more than I chose to become a christian. I was exposed to evidence and I had to be honest with myself and admit I was an atheist after reading and understanding the evidence that contradicts biblical truth claims. And prior to that, I had been immersed in religious culture and practice from about age 2 and I could not "choose" to be or not be a christian.

Kind of a rather fatalistic attitude that would fit well with Islam. Or with the determinism of Jerry Coyne .... However, I did say there were different degrees of control and choice, and that there was virtually none in the case of race or sex. And, as you suggested, we quite reasonably expect that people, functioning citizens, have some degree of control over their impulses - not exclusive of desires to chop people's heads off.

But your standards for mass deportation include muslim people who have not harmed anyone.

Being an accessory to a crime is also a crime - which can entail non-trivial penalties.

[James Caruthers]

How are muslims who are not hurting anyone accessories to crime worthy of mass deportation-a horrific human rights violation? Explain that to me.

[CuntajusRationality]

But your standards for mass deportation include muslim people who have not harmed anyone.

Being an accessory to a crime is also a crime - which can entail non-trivial penalties.

What? You said to "deport the lot of them - at least all those who won't piss on the Quran." No mention of being accessories to any crimes. So where did that come from and how does it relate to your mass-deportation idea?

Deport the lot of them - at least all those who won't piss on the Quran. I wonder how many more of those incidents it will take for Western societies to realize that, as Ibn Warraq rather convincingly argued, Islam is simply and entirely antithetical to central and fundamental principles of democracy.

[Shatterface as Guest]

Can we have a show of hands please?

Who, having read Steers talking endlessly about analogies, thinks he actually understands the concept'?

He seems utterly incapable of grasping the salient features that are being compared and fixates on irrelevant details.

Shatterface

[Scunner]

In regards to the Reddit thing, I'm at a loss to explain why they fired Victoria. Because the AMA went wrong? It's not the first by any stretch, and she's hardly at fault for people asking strong questions of Jesse Jackson (one of them got shadowbanned for asking him about his illegitimate child though).

Blaming Pao is a bit of a copout though, I feel. I don't like her, but the problem also seems to lie with the higher tier of admins too. They were likely the ones who fired her, and grievances with them seem to go back to long before Pao.

I agree Reddit is endangering itself though. Banning FPH isn't going to alienate a lot of people. Firing a well-respected user for no real reason? Uh oh.

The problem with Plebbit goes a lot deeper than its leadership. They have a culture of shadowbanning, fucking with users, "my way or the high way" moderation, mods routinely going mad with power to impose their personal opinions on an entire community, never being open about moderation practices and also having a really hilariously shitty community, hence all the channer jokes about plebbit invasion of 8chan.

Yeah, I do find Reddit's community annoying sometimes. It's a mix of people being racist and sexist; a lot more people complaining about perceived racism and sexism ('DAE Reddit misogynist shithole?' Is a surefire way to get some easy karma), and people who've smugly found a way to feel superior to it all.

[jet_lagg]

If it's a straight vote, Steers is going to lose every time.

[CuntajusRationality]

You still haven't read or understood that article on analogies, have you? If there are many significant differences between two cases then you can't really say they are particularly analogous. Or sufficiently so to make grand inferences on the basis of them.

Wait, what? No this is wrong. The purpose of an analogy is not (necessarily) to compare two cases/objects in all respects, or even in many respects; often times the purpose is to illuminate or illustrate just one single feature or property that both cases have in common. The Wikipedia article you cited gives the following example (emphasis added for your convenience).

This analogy [HAND : PALM : : FOOT : SOLE] is not comparing all the properties between a hand and a foot, but rather comparing the relationship between a hand and its palm to a foot and its sole. While a hand and a foot have many dissimilarities, the analogy focuses on their similarity in having an inner surface.

The strange thing is that I'm 99% sure that I've seen you make this exact same point yourself over at Ashley Miller's place, which makes it very strange that you would turn around and argue the opposite here.

[CuntajusRationality]

Can we have a show of hands please?

Who, having read Steers talking endlessly about analogies, thinks he actually understands the concept'?

He seems utterly incapable of grasping the salient features that are being compared and fixates on irrelevant details.

Shatterface

http://data8.blog.de/media/469/6676469_ ... dc7_m.jpeg

[Brive1987]

Ashley ... made homeless by the trauma of Nugent's non-reply.

Just another victim. We will remember you.

[Aneris]

Can we have a show of hands please?

Who, having read Steers talking endlessly about analogies, thinks he actually understands the concept'?

He seems utterly incapable of grasping the salient features that are being compared and fixates on irrelevant details.

Shatterface

It's more of a red herring, just as spinning dancers, collapsing bridges, metronoms synchronizing, bimodal statistics, and random Shermer or Pinker quotations. Let's be honest, even goose and gander look suspicious. He's closer on the mark with “kettle of fish”, where he is at least in the fish business.

Steersman,

1. What have analogies to do with the proposal that muslims should be deported under some circumstance?
2. Do you think other people should be deported who also hold anti-democratic beliefs?
3. To where would you ship white supremacist?
4. Are you aware that muslims can be temporarily blasphemous, if they need to? This is known as Taqiyya.

[CuntajusRationality]

You still haven't read or understood that article on analogies, have you? If there are many significant differences between two cases then you can't really say they are particularly analogous. Or sufficiently so to make grand inferences on the basis of them.

Wait, what? No this is wrong. The purpose of an analogy is not (necessarily) to compare two cases/objects in all respects, or even in many respects; often times the purpose is to illuminate or illustrate just one single feature or property that both cases have in common. The Wikipedia article you cited gives the following example (emphasis added for your convenience).

This analogy [HAND : PALM : : FOOT : SOLE] is not comparing all the properties between a hand and a foot, but rather comparing the relationship between a hand and its palm to a foot and its sole. While a hand and a foot have many dissimilarities, the analogy focuses on their similarity in having an inner surface.

The strange thing is that I'm 99% sure that I've seen you make this exact same point yourself over at Ashley Miller's place, which makes it very strange that you would turn around and argue the opposite here.

Yeah, you did: http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymille ... /#comments
(comments 56 and 105)

Over there, you actually quoted this same example from Wikipedia in response to several of Ashley's commenters grilling you for making an analogy between stealing TVs and rape. What gives?

[windy]

How would you define "essential Liberty"? I define it as any right specifically granted by the Bill of Rights, but you and Benji might disagree.

That could be a good first approximation, but a bit unhelpful to us non-Muricans in practice.

[youtube]3bYkNptOJns[/youtube]

Happy birthday in advance, USA! :dance:

[HoneyWagon]

Probably a dick move to post this...but this passive aggressive "I am a victim, but a strong one, but still feel bad for me" narrative that involves a cabal of MRAs (and not much else) post I have to share.

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

Jesus fucking christ

[Billie from Ockham]

Hoots mon!
(Scottish colleague, learn Scots high culture every day)

When in Nova Scotia, I often make the attempt to at exchange greetings in the other person's language. This isn't a problem (for me) in either English or French, but I sometimes end up giggling like an idiot when I say "how are you?" in Scots Gaelic, which is kimmar a tha thu? The problem is that the last two words are pronounced "ha hoo" - exactly the same two sounds that my wife uses to refer to her ... well ... ha hoo.

On the positive side, we are often told that we are almost unique in being Americans who can say the name of our favorite fiddler, Mairéad Ní Mhaonaigh, correctly.

[screwtape]

Considering people here from around the world, Fallingbostel is practically around the corner. You probably had to do with a Cockchafer, the common Maybug — the Maikäfer (now that I see it, is english “chafer” etymologically related to german “Käfer” (=beetle)? As the name suggests, they are common in may and early june but not every year (some years you don't see any, in the next you may see a kind of swarm), attributed to their lifecycle.

See Bhurzum, it was a cockchafer. You rubbed it out in the wrong place. Be more careful next time.

Some joke I don't get? ;) My reply was to Bhurzum who described a “critter”. Cockchafer/Maybug was my guess what it was. No maybug was harmed in making in this reply (never harmed one, but caught them often, when I get the chance, they are fascinating bugs).

Your Maybugs are called Junebugs here in Canada, and I'm offended that you imply we are a month behind the rest of the world!

[Billie from Ockham]

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

In other words: "I haven't taken any pictures of people on the street lately; please don't take back my Kickstarter money."

[KiwiInOz]

Hoots mon!
(Scottish colleague, learn Scots high culture every day)

Gawd, 'cockchafer', new English word of the year. He's gonna love this.

I've already sent copious text messages and Facebook PM's to old Army mates.

I'm that sad!

Further to your question about Australian wildlife - we also have red headed cockchafers and black headed cockchafers.

[Billie from Ockham]

Your Maybugs are called Junebugs here in Canada, and I'm offended that you imply we are a month behind the rest of the world!

If any American gives you shit about this, then just smack them down with the dates of Thanksgiving.

[Billie from Ockham]

Further to your question about Australian wildlife - we also have red headed cockchafers and black headed cockchafers.

Weird. Here in the States, the rage these days is for cockchafers to dye their hair blue.

[Tigzy]

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

In other words: "I haven't taken any pictures of people on the street lately; please don't take back my Kickstarter money."

Yup. Her fashion blog hasn't been updated in nearly a month. Cuz...MRAs. :roll:

Sorry CFI, looks like you're stuck with her.

[DaveDodo007]

Oh and when did Nerd have "sexual harassment training"? That's a new one, to add to the old EVIDENCE repertoire! This is the new and improved version, you know. Well, it made me laugh anyway :lol:

Nerd's "sexual harassment training" is women can withdraw consent after the act. He really did say this, if he ventured outside of FTB blogs some people would be able to give an ethical argument that he should be hunted down and killed. Luckily he doesn't so ethics philosophers can keep looking at their navels.

[screwtape]

Hoots mon!
(Scottish colleague, learn Scots high culture every day)

When in Nova Scotia, I often make the attempt to at exchange greetings in the other person's language. This isn't a problem (for me) in either English or French, but I sometimes end up giggling like an idiot when I say "how are you?" in Scots Gaelic, which is kimmar a tha thu? The problem is that the last two words are pronounced "ha hoo" - exactly the same two sounds that my wife uses to refer to her ... well ... ha hoo.

On the positive side, we are often told that we are almost unique in being Americans who can say the name of our favorite fiddler, Mairéad Ní Mhaonaigh, correctly.

There are very few gaelic speakers in NS. There is a Gaelic college in St Ann's, for which, humorously, Canada Post requires the address of Englishtown. I've tried my Welsh upon them, but the poor benighted creatures simply don't get it. Some tourist based towns in NS, notably Pugwash, make a thing of having street names in gaelic, but the locals don't have a clue what they mean, or how to say them. Rather sad, really.

[Really?]

Probably a dick move to post this...but this passive aggressive "I am a victim, but a strong one, but still feel bad for me" narrative that involves a cabal of MRAs (and not much else) post I have to share.

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

Jesus fucking christ

[youtube]mVoPG9HtYF8[/youtube]

The cognitive difficulties are connected to the fibromyalgia...the fibromyalgia's connected to the weight gain...the weight gain's connected to the agoraphobia...the agoraphobia's connected to the PTSD...so fuck the MRAs.

But seriously, at what point does she admit she can't do her job?

[H. Korban]

I don't know why anyone would want to argue with Herr Steersmann (Piss Be Upon His Rusted Diodes). Just piss on him, prove you are human and move on. Stop wasting electrons on this dumb-ass rust-heap of a bloviating idiot.

[Steersman]

You still haven't read or understood that article on analogies, have you? If there are many significant differences between two cases then you can't really say they are particularly analogous. Or sufficiently so to make grand inferences on the basis of them.

Wait, what? No this is wrong. The purpose of an analogy is not (necessarily) to compare two cases/objects in all respects, or even in many respects; often times the purpose is to illuminate or illustrate just one single feature or property that both cases have in common. The Wikipedia article you cited gives the following example (emphasis added for your convenience).

This analogy [HAND : PALM : : FOOT : SOLE] is not comparing all the properties between a hand and a foot, but rather comparing the relationship between a hand and its palm to a foot and its sole. While a hand and a foot have many dissimilarities, the analogy focuses on their similarity in having an inner surface.

The strange thing is that I'm 99% sure that I've seen you make this exact same point yourself over at Ashley Miller's place, which makes it very strange that you would turn around and argue the opposite here.

Yeah, you did: http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymille ... /#comments
(comments 56 and 105)

Over there, you actually quoted this same example from Wikipedia in response to several of Ashley's commenters grilling you for making an analogy between stealing TVs and rape. What gives?

Busted! But maybe after being grilled for so long I felt that I was done? ;-)

However, while I'm not quite sure that I follow the point you're trying to make, it seems to me that your "the purpose of an analogy is not (necessarily) to compare ..." kind of covers a multitude of sins - so to speak. That is, there are many different purposes for analogies, one of which was relevant at Miller's place, and another of which was relevant in the analysis of James' analogy between religion and race. And which therefore justifies focusing on the different aspects, functions, and features of analogies in general. While I will readily concede that my understanding of the mechanisms behind and the features of them is less than perfect, and that many people might reasonably and honestly focus on different features of the source and target cases and thereby come to different conclusions [spinning-dancer], it still seems to me that an essential feature of analogies is that the greater the degree of correspondence between the two cases, the greater will be the likelihood of a correct inference that an unknown feature or process in the target is similar to a corresponding one in the source about which much more is known. For example, the analogy between the atom and the solar system. A quote from the Wikipedia article that supports that view:

Contemporary cognitive scientists use a wide notion of analogy, extensionally close to that of Plato and Aristotle, but framed by Gentner's (1983) structure mapping theory.[10] The same idea of mapping between source and target is used by conceptual metaphor and conceptual blending theorists. Structure mapping theory concerns both psychology and computer science. According to this view, analogy depends on the mapping or alignment of the elements of source and target. The mapping takes place not only between objects, but also between relations of objects and between relations of relations. The whole mapping yields the assignment of a predicate or a relation to the target. Structure mapping theory has been applied and has found considerable confirmation in psychology. It has had reasonable success in computer science and artificial intelligence (see below).

Bit of a complex issue and tool, but one that is of substantial value if it is used with care and attention to detail.

[Michael J]

Oh and when did Nerd have "sexual harassment training"? That's a new one, to add to the old EVIDENCE repertoire! This is the new and improved version, you know. Well, it made me laugh anyway :lol:

Nerd's "sexual harassment training" is women can withdraw consent after the act. He really did say this, if he ventured outside of FTB blogs some people would be able to give an ethical argument that he should be hunted down and killed. Luckily he doesn't so ethics philosophers can keep looking at their navels.

I assume the sexual harrassment training is the thing that everybody in a corporation has to do at some stage. It consists of a group of people sitting in a room for 4 hours listening to an expensive consultant talking about the bleeding obvious, It doesn't give you superpowers

[DaveDodo007]

I hate to link Wiki like a Steers, but here you go.

Like at least 90% of the Pit, I've been mostly ignoring the Steers-debates for months now. So this may not apply in this particular case, but I'll just go ahead and say that I agree with Steersman in general that it is not necessary to have read source material directly in order to offer a valid critique (within a limited scope) of that material. A trusted summary, review or derivative of the original source can offer grounds for legitimate criticism, or even dismissal. Peezus' one genuine contribution to atheism/skepticism, the Courtier's Reply Fallacy, basically makes this point. I also think Wikipedia, for all its faults, is one of the better sources of trusted summaries in non-controversial fields of study.

I approve of this post by jugheadnaut. I agree with Steersbot in that the reactions to taboo words are emotional. Though out of all the free speech battles I think need fighting for, then the right of bigots to call anyone with a heavy sun tan the words (nigger, coon and wog) are on the back burner. So it is probably best to wait for the Utopian society where we can all sit around the table whilst drinking Earl Grey tea and discuss whether it is right to use such words in polite society.

[free thoughtpolice]

Probably a dick move to post this...but this passive aggressive "I am a victim, but a strong one, but still feel bad for me" narrative that involves a cabal of MRAs (and not much else) post I have to share.

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

Jesus fucking christ

I think her problems were caused by hanging around with toxic SJWs and radfems.
About the same time she began hanging with the Skepchicks is about when she went from happy healthy to her present state.
I think all the rape culture/patriarchy/kyriarchy stuff made her so paranoid she can't function any more.

[Steersman]

But your standards for mass deportation include muslim people who have not harmed anyone.

Being an accessory to a crime is also a crime - which can entail non-trivial penalties.

What? You said to "deport the lot of them - at least all those who won't piss on the Quran." No mention of being accessories to any crimes. So where did that come from and how does it relate to your mass-deportation idea?

Deport the lot of them - at least all those who won't piss on the Quran. I wonder how many more of those incidents it will take for Western societies to realize that, as Ibn Warraq rather convincingly argued, Islam is simply and entirely antithetical to central and fundamental principles of democracy.

Two different aspects or ways of looking at it: I've kind of argued elsewhere that great swaths of the Quran might reasonably be construed as hate speech. Which is a crime in itself in many countries, including Canada, Germany, and the UK.

And the other is related to the concept of collective responsibility which seems to hold at least some water:

Collective responsibility also known as "Collective Guilt" is a concept in which individuals are responsible for other people's actions by tolerating, ignoring, or harboring them, without actively collaborating in these actions.

Which might reasonably be construed as somewhat analogous to being an accessory after the fact.

[DaveDodo007]

Probably a dick move to post this...but this passive aggressive "I am a victim, but a strong one, but still feel bad for me" narrative that involves a cabal of MRAs (and not much else) post I have to share.

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

Jesus fucking christ

I get PTSD just knowing I live on the same planet as twats like this cunt.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Probably a dick move to post this...but this passive aggressive "I am a victim, but a strong one, but still feel bad for me" narrative that involves a cabal of MRAs (and not much else) post I have to share.

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

Jesus fucking christ

Thank you for posting that. The lack of personal responsibility is beautifully breathtaking.

[CuntajusRationality]

Probably a dick move to post this...but this passive aggressive "I am a victim, but a strong one, but still feel bad for me" narrative that involves a cabal of MRAs (and not much else) post I have to share.

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

Jesus fucking christ

Depression is no joke, hope she is getting help for that. To show my support I've created the following science-based high art piece / info-graphic that I will be auctioning off for charity following a peer review.

http://i.imgur.com/0At2j4z.jpg

[KiwiInOz]

Probably a dick move to post this...but this passive aggressive "I am a victim, but a strong one, but still feel bad for me" narrative that involves a cabal of MRAs (and not much else) post I have to share.

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

Jesus fucking christ

Depression is no joke, hope she is getting help for that. To show my support I've created the following science-based high art piece / info-graphic that I will be auctioning off for charity following a peer review.

http://i.imgur.com/0At2j4z.jpg

I appreciate your artistic rendition, and note in the spirit of constructive critique that it could be improved by the addition of feedback loops to explain the patterns of observed behaviour over time, and to demonstrate that this behaviour is endogenously derived.

[CuntajusRationality]

However, while I'm not quite sure that I follow the point you're trying to make

http://alltheragefaces.com/img/usercrea ... d5a313.png

[Steersman]

I hate to link Wiki like a Steers, but here you go.

Like at least 90% of the Pit, I've been mostly ignoring the Steers-debates for months now. So this may not apply in this particular case, but I'll just go ahead and say that I agree with Steersman in general that it is not necessary to have read source material directly in order to offer a valid critique (within a limited scope) of that material. A trusted summary, review or derivative of the original source can offer grounds for legitimate criticism, or even dismissal. Peezus' one genuine contribution to atheism/skepticism, the Courtier's Reply Fallacy, basically makes this point. I also think Wikipedia, for all its faults, is one of the better sources of trusted summaries in non-controversial fields of study.

I approve of this post by jugheadnaut. I agree with Steersbot in that the reactions to taboo words are emotional.

Thanks. And relative to "emotional", you might be interested in this article by Pinker that Aneris linked to not long ago on swear words; he has a nice elaboration on how swear words - and epithets presumably - trigger the limbic system (I think), more or less bypassing the more rational prefrontal cortex (if I'm not mistaken). Can't really short-circuit those responses if we don't understand them: "we aspire to the discipline of the instinct by the heart and mind" (Philip Wylie)

Though out of all the free speech battles I think need fighting for, then the right of bigots to call anyone with a heavy sun tan the words (nigger, coon and wog) are on the back burner. So it is probably best to wait for the Utopian society where we can all sit around the table whilst drinking Earl Grey tea and discuss whether it is right to use such words in polite society.

Maybe not an issue that the fate of Western Civilization hangs on, although I think there's a case to be made that it's kind of the tip of the iceberg. Seems to me that there is apparently no shortage of racism and sexism in the world, but I also think there's no shortage of misperceptions of both as well - all more or less predicated on a poor and emotional understanding of various words including epithets. But, somewhat in passing, I wonder, what do you think of the right of bigots to call anyone with a vagina the words (cunt, twat)? A right "they" seem exercise with gay abandon in a number of places, notably the UK if Ally Fogg is any type of an indicator. Which was kind of the basis or motivation for my analogy and "nigger-cunt hypothesis" to illustrate or suggest some problematic levels of hypocrisy.

[Steersman]

However, while I'm not quite sure that I follow the point you're trying to make

[.img]http://alltheragefaces.com/img/usercrea ... d5a313.png[/img]

:lol:

[CuntajusRationality]

Two different aspects or ways of looking at it: I've kind of argued elsewhere that great swaths of the Quran might reasonably be construed as hate speech. Which is a crime in itself in many countries, including Canada, Germany, and the UK.

And the other is related to the concept of collective responsibility which seems to hold at least some water:

Collective responsibility also known as "Collective Guilt" is a concept in which individuals are responsible for other people's actions by tolerating, ignoring, or harboring them, without actively collaborating in these actions.

Which might reasonably be construed as somewhat analogous to being an accessory after the fact.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/ori ... 41/0d0.jpg