Periodic Table of Swearing

#42721

Al Stefanelli wrote:Profitless?

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

My favorite Ferengi.

#42722

Oneiros666 wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:I personally agree that there are no objective moral values without God.
Which "God"?
TRhere are 10s of thousands to choose from, why use the singular?
Do you agree that there are no moral values without Santa?

AbsurdWalls wrote:I don't quite understand why Sam Harris felt the need to argue there were.
Have you the book in full?
I think (something I would not have been allowed to do, let alone say, over at AtheismPlus) that people talking about "objective morality" fail to understand what morality is.

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

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

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

I've argued this before with supporters of Sam Harris who tend to say "But if objective morality would be given by God then He could say that you must kill your child... and that would be the right thing to do!" which is true, and exactly why we should be glad that no obvious God (or therefore objective morality) exists. We are free to make our own moral judgements based on our values and the best evidence.

#42723

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

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

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

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

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

More like a bucket for crabs.

#42724

Am skyping :) Join.

#42725

Aaaaand Justin just got banned. Hahaha. Incidentally 5 minutes after he mentioned how he had been banned by PZ on Pharyngula.

He got banned because Flewellyn was "bored" with Justin asking all relevant quetsions and being rational and shit.

Then, he realized that not just cypher and ceepolk were watching, so he tried to justify himself by extensive (and hilarious) bullshit:
http://i.imgur.com/j1D0k.png

#42726

Flewellyn:

For the slymetwitters who are no doubt already crowing about how us banning Vacula means he must obviously be right, as if by doing so we "proved his point":

No. That is not how truth and falsity work. This is an example of Greta Christina's "Galileo Fallacy" combined with the "Gadfly Corollary", from her excellent essay The Galileo Fallacy, and the Gadfly Corollary. Just because someone (in this case, Vacula) possesses an opinion which proved unpopular here, and was irritating, insulting, and angering, does not mean he's right. He might just be an asshole.

Actually, your banning proves exactly what I suspected - you're all incapable of any form of discussion (unless, of course, it aligns *exactly* with your own ideology).

Greta Christina? Greta "I May Have Cancer Give Me Money Oh I Don't OOooh Look At My New $200 Shoes" Christina? Yeah, whatever, asshat.

Oh, there it is. He's an asshole meaning he didn't suck up to your teat all the while bending over and spreading his cheeks. Got it.

#42727

ReneeHendricks wrote:
Al Stefanelli wrote:Profitless?

http://myliteraryquest.files.wordpress. ... arkds9.jpg
My favorite Ferengi.

Obviously misogynists, what with their mandatory female nudity and all...

#42728

AbsurdWalls wrote:
justinvacula wrote:Here are some ideas:

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

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

"Is atheism+ good for the atheist movement?"

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

This is inane why is this here?
Excellent topic selection from Kassiane.

Is "neurotypical" a bad thing now? http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... ferent.gif

#42729

Oneiros666 wrote:Aaaaand Justin just got banned. Hahaha. Incidentally 5 minutes after he mentioned how he had been banned by PZ on Pharyngula.

He got banned because Flewellyn was "bored" with Justin asking all relevant quetsions and being rational and shit.

Then, he realized that not just cypher and ceepolk were watching, so he tried to justify himself by extensive (and hilarious) bullshit:
http://i.imgur.com/j1D0k.png

reGreta Christina's Galileo Fallacy: is that about him being executed by the Catholic church? I thought that was Twatson's?

#42730

Al Stefanelli wrote:
ReneeHendricks wrote:
Al Stefanelli wrote:Profitless?

http://myliteraryquest.files.wordpress. ... arkds9.jpg
My favorite Ferengi.
Obviously misogynists, what with their mandatory female nudity and all...

I thought that was Lwaxana Troi at Deanna's wedding ceremony.

#42731

Lsuoma wrote:
Oneiros666 wrote:Aaaaand Justin just got banned. Hahaha. Incidentally 5 minutes after he mentioned how he had been banned by PZ on Pharyngula.

He got banned because Flewellyn was "bored" with Justin asking all relevant quetsions and being rational and shit.

Then, he realized that not just cypher and ceepolk were watching, so he tried to justify himself by extensive (and hilarious) bullshit:
http://i.imgur.com/j1D0k.png
reGreta Christina's Galileo Fallacy: is that about him being executed by the Catholic church? I thought that was Twatson's?

Ok, that was funny. You're still a piece of shit, but credit where credit's due, that was a good one.

#42732

[spoiler]

JackRayner wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:
justinvacula wrote:Here are some ideas:

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

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

"Is atheism+ good for the atheist movement?"

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

This is inane why is this here?
Excellent topic selection from Kassiane.
Is "neurotypical" a bad thing now? http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... ferent.gif

[/spoiler]

BIG IMPORTANT WHITE ABLE NEUROTYPICAL CISMAN OPINIONS

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

#42733

Well, Justin's banning makes perfect sense if 'rationality' can be interpreted as 'trolling.'

And Justin, though 'rational' is by default a 'troll', because he does.not.automatically.agree.with.them.on.all.things.

#42734

AbsurdWalls wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:I personally agree that there are no objective moral values without God.
Which "God"?
TRhere are 10s of thousands to choose from, why use the singular?
Do you agree that there are no moral values without Santa?
Objective moral values do not exist in the natural world. If they were to exist they would have to have some sort of supernatural authority. God would suffice.

Michael K Gray wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:I don't quite understand why Sam Harris felt the need to argue there were.
Have you the book in full?
I've watched this debate, heard him give a talk, and read articles. I have not read his book because none of those other sources gave me reason to believe he had anything interesting to say on the topic. He might make arguments about a reasonable set of subjective moral values, but proposals of that kind are banal compared to the idea of setting up an objective morality.

You clearly did not answer the first 2 questions.
You addressed something entirely different.
Has WLC rubbed off on you?

As for cirticising Harris for not adequately addressing a topic that he HAS adequately addressed by dint of your prejudice that such would be pointless just beggars belief!
It is not a long book by any means, and may available for free, yet you dismiss its content by dint of your ignorant fiat that some anonymous "others" claim to have read it!!

Wholly 2 cow!

A+Theism: We have a new member for you!

#42735

Thanks for the latest donation from Washoe Valley. The extra traffic has had me thinking about moving to a more capable server, to head off the the bad guys (server overload) at the pass before they get together and dry gulch us all. The donation will help defray increased costs.

#42736

JackRayner wrote:
Is "neurotypical" a bad thing now?

Of course! Unless you're a person of color, non-binary, neuro-atypical, genderqueer, noncis-womyn non-ableist; then your opinion is worthless. Because you have to check your privilege.

#42737

On the topic of good ol Bill Craig:

Has anyone else seen TheoreticalBullshit or Shelley Kagan tear him a new one?

Literally the only reason Craig wins debates is because he chucks out 10 or so arguments that require more than an hour to verbally refute, so if you miss one he'll say "Well, lookee here, Mr. Scientist was UNABLE to refute 'X'". It's literally the tactic they teach you in debating classes. Refuting him on paper is considered fairly easy, I think someone even dedicated a few blog posts to it a few years ago (sorry no memory of the link).

He also makes good use of http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1vbmdU/ww ... agems.htm/

If the A+'s favourite terms 'disingenuous' and 'dishonest' apply to anyone then it is Craig.

#42738

Michael K Gray wrote:[spoiler]
AbsurdWalls wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:I personally agree that there are no objective moral values without God.
Which "God"?
TRhere are 10s of thousands to choose from, why use the singular?
Do you agree that there are no moral values without Santa?
Objective moral values do not exist in the natural world. If they were to exist they would have to have some sort of supernatural authority. God would suffice.

Michael K Gray wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:I don't quite understand why Sam Harris felt the need to argue there were.
Have you the book in full?
I've watched this debate, heard him give a talk, and read articles. I have not read his book because none of those other sources gave me reason to believe he had anything interesting to say on the topic. He might make arguments about a reasonable set of subjective moral values, but proposals of that kind are banal compared to the idea of setting up an objective morality.
[/spoiler]

You clearly did not answer the first 2 questions.
You addressed something entirely different.

It doesn't matter which God or Gods, Santa would also do. The word "objective" is the crucial one.

Michael K Gray wrote: Has WLC rubbed off on you?

Yes but it was just the once and I'm not allowed to tell his wife.

Michael K Gray wrote:As for cirticising Harris for not adequately addressing a topic that he HAS adequately addressed by dint of your prejudice that such would be pointless just beggars belief!
It is not a long book by any means, and may available for free, yet you dismiss its content by dint of your ignorant fiat that some anonymous "others" claim to have read it!!

You are misreading me. I have listened to Harris himself talk about his ideas for well over three hours. I have read him writing on this topic. Do you seriously propose that there are secret nuggets of validation in his book that he didn't think to get out when every other philosopher was shitting on it?

#42739

Oneiros666 wrote:
JackRayner wrote:
Is "neurotypical" a bad thing now?
Of course! Unless you're a person of color, non-binary, neuro-atypical, genderqueer, noncis-womyn non-ableist; then your opinion is worthless. Because you have to check your privilege.

No shit. Can't believe I forgot all about my SJW 101! :doh: Alcohol must be hitting me harder than I thought.

#42740

Sorry, had to be done -

[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/FtXUh.jpg[/spoiler]

Spoiler doesn't re-size. Right click, view image for unbuggered version.

#42741

Hemisphere wrote:On the topic of good ol Bill Craig:

Has anyone else seen TheoreticalBullshit or Shelley Kagan tear him a new one?

I quite like Kagan, but he and Harris are both "thought experiment" type philosophers and I really question the validity of that as a way of making arguments. For illustrating points it is fantastic, but I think a thought experiment has to be very carefully designed and proposed if it is to prove anything.

#42742

Oneiros666 wrote:
JackRayner wrote:
Is "neurotypical" a bad thing now?
Of course! Unless you're a person of color, non-binary, neuro-atypical, genderqueer, noncis-womyn non-ableist; then your opinion is worthless. Because you have to check your privilege.

What if I am trans-neuroatypical? Like I identify as neuroatypical but don't yet want to go through with any operations to actually screw with my brain?

#42743

AbsurdWalls wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:[spoiler]
AbsurdWalls wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:I personally agree that there are no objective moral values without God.
Which "God"?
TRhere are 10s of thousands to choose from, why use the singular?
Do you agree that there are no moral values without Santa?
Objective moral values do not exist in the natural world. If they were to exist they would have to have some sort of supernatural authority. God would suffice.

Michael K Gray wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:I don't quite understand why Sam Harris felt the need to argue there were.
Have you the book in full?
I've watched this debate, heard him give a talk, and read articles. I have not read his book because none of those other sources gave me reason to believe he had anything interesting to say on the topic. He might make arguments about a reasonable set of subjective moral values, but proposals of that kind are banal compared to the idea of setting up an objective morality.
[/spoiler]

You clearly did not answer the first 2 questions.
You addressed something entirely different.
It doesn't matter which God or Gods, Santa would also do. The word "objective" is the crucial one.

If a "god" existed, it would be a subject. Any commandments about behavior ["morals"?] would therefore be subjective.

Dead horses, and such... http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... beat_4.gif

#42744

Hemisphere wrote:On the topic of good ol Bill Craig:

Has anyone else seen TheoreticalBullshit or Shelley Kagan tear him a new one?

I've seen the Kagan debate and TB's arguments, they're good. Which goes to show, if you really want to pretzel a philosopher, bring a philosopher.

I like Kagan the best. He was a genial imp, couldn't be friendlier or happier while he turned Craig into muddled stew ("uhhh... hmm... uhhh... hmmm...").

#42745

You know, I have to say I'm really fucking pissed off at Taslima Nasreen's stupid, ignorant blog post.

And no, it's not because she's a woman, it's because she's an asshole and her post is ample evidence of that. Fuck her.

#42746

AbsurdWalls wrote:Do you seriously propose that there are secret nuggets of validation in his book that he didn't think to get out when every other philosopher was shitting on it?

Christ-on-a-crutch! Logical fallacy #7.
Where did I suggest such a thing?
An props for allowing me to tick my "argumentum ad populum" square on my A+Theism fallacious arguments bingo card.
(Only 2 squares to go.)

Read the book to find out, if your precious time allows it. It is only 320 pages. No real excuse, eh?

#42747

Michael K Gray wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:Do you seriously propose that there are secret nuggets of validation in his book that he didn't think to get out when every other philosopher was shitting on it?
Christ-on-a-crutch! Logical fallacy #7.
Where did I suggest such a thing?
An props for allowing me to tick my "argumentum ad populum" square on my A+Theism fallacious arguments bingo card.
(Only 2 squares to go.)

Read the book to find out, if your precious time allows it. It is only 320 pages. No real excuse, eh?

Ah, but can s/h/it manage 320 pages in three hours?

#42748

Hemisphere wrote:What if I am trans-neuroatypical? Like I identify as neuroatypical but don't yet want to go through with any operations to actually screw with my brain?

Now, that's good. I think I'll be neuro-fluid, so I can take righteous umbrage at any APlus nitwit who tries to oppress me with a neuro-identity.

#42749

JackRayner wrote: If a "god" existed, it would be a subject. Any commandments about behavior ["morals"?] would therefore be subjective.

Dead horses, and such... http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... beat_4.gif

So that's an argument that there are no objective moral values ever. On the other hand, if God were to exist and to have made the universe then he would be responsible for and knowledgeable of all moral truths (if such a thing exists) in that universe. This is the case (for example) in Christianity.

Anyway, my point is not really to defend the tyrannical objective morality that would be held by a God, but to point out that Harris has not managed to grab such a thing for himself.

#42750

If we took a tally of the A+theism crowd, how do you think the lineup would be?

My bet:

70 % white middle-class bitches that ainÂ´t worth shit
30 % genderqueer (also known as 'neutered') guys trying to cow-tow to the white middle-class bitches

#42751

AbsurdWalls wrote:
Hemisphere wrote:On the topic of good ol Bill Craig:

Has anyone else seen TheoreticalBullshit or Shelley Kagan tear him a new one?
I quite like Kagan, but he and Harris are both "thought experiment" type philosophers and I really question the validity of that as a way of making arguments. For illustrating points it is fantastic, but I think a thought experiment has to be very carefully designed and proposed if it is to prove anything.

Harris is a "hands on" neuroscientist who conducts real world experiments, refers to real-world science, to back up his "philosophy".
He is an expert at giving concrete examples with which to back up his assertions, more epically than anyone else of whom I know!

You are full of it, mate.

#42752

SubMor Â» Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:01 am

justinvacula wrote:
Can a debate not be an honest discussion between persons? Why the dichotomy between 'debate' and 'honest conversation?'
This is more obvious grandstanding. You're smart enough to recognize the difference between a conversation and an adversarial debate, and I think you can see why they're fundamentally different things. I know I don't need to spell it out for you.

Or at least, I'm reasonably confident about those things. Do feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I will try to spell it out for you if you honestly don't get it, but I think you probably will.

sorry Justin, but you are entirely responsible for me actually agreeing with SubMor.
They are perfectly capable of making me laugh all on their own - Your "honest" quest for reasoned debate just made me cringe
sorry - just sayin

#42753

And in just little over two hours, Justin Vacula is now banned on Atheism Plus.

#42754

AbsurdWalls wrote:
JackRayner wrote: If a "god" existed, it would be a subject. Any commandments about behavior ["morals"?] would therefore be subjective.

Dead horses, and such... http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... beat_4.gif
So that's an argument that there are no objective moral values ever.

Yyyyup! Problem? :)

On the other hand, if God were to exist and to have made the universe then he would be responsible for and knowledgeable of all moral truths (if such a thing exists) in that universe. This is the case (for example) in Christianity.

Would these "moral truths" exist without such a being? No? Subjective.

Anyway, my point is not really to defend the tyrannical objective morality that would be held by a God, but to point out that Harris has not managed to grab such a thing for himself.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... /shrug.gif

#42755

Michael K Gray wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:
Hemisphere wrote:On the topic of good ol Bill Craig:

Has anyone else seen TheoreticalBullshit or Shelley Kagan tear him a new one?
I quite like Kagan, but he and Harris are both "thought experiment" type philosophers and I really question the validity of that as a way of making arguments. For illustrating points it is fantastic, but I think a thought experiment has to be very carefully designed and proposed if it is to prove anything.
Harris is a "hands on" neuroscientist who conducts real world experiments, refers to real-world science, to back up his "philosophy".
He is an expert at giving concrete examples with which to back up his assertions, more epically than anyone else of whom I know!

You are full of it, mate.

My goodness, imagine being a hands on neuroscientist who conducts real world experiments!

Oh wait, I am one.

Harris's background is as a philosopher. The book addresses a philosophical question. The arguments that he gives for the objectivity of the moral landscape theory are based on thought experiments. He has also worked as a neuroscientist, and uses his knowledge from this to inform his philosophy. That is dandy.

#42756

Pitchguest wrote:And in just little over two hours, Justin Vacula is now banned on Atheism Plus.

I predicted 10 minutes. I gave them too little credit...

#42757

"Teh menz are teh samez. Did I say 'all?' nope."

Because there's a difference? I actually defended this lady's blogpost a long time ago on a subreddit for women atheists. Blarrrggh!!!

http://i.imgur.com/9eegr.jpg

#42758

hello,

If I ever catch up, I may find out why, but for now, I would like to let whoever contributed towards getting rid of the "thanks stars" know how much I appreciate it.

It made me feel as though I was reading a thread made for 13 year old girls.

#42759

Ape+lust wrote:
Hemisphere wrote:What if I am trans-neuroatypical? Like I identify as neuroatypical but don't yet want to go through with any operations to actually screw with my brain?
Now, that's good. I think I'll be neuro-fluid, so I can take righteous umbrage at any APlus nitwit who tries to oppress me with a neuro-identity.

Good one!
I am non-neurotypical by diagnosis, but wish to present as neurotypical person-of-transparency when using a leaf-blower.
And don't oppress me by suggesting that there should be a mandatory death-penalty for possession of a leaf-blower, you cunt.
Mine has a pink galloping My Little Pony on the sucker tube.

(Not a picture. A real pony.)

Anyone got some Vaseline?

#42760

JackRayner wrote:
On the other hand, if God were to exist and to have made the universe then he would be responsible for and knowledgeable of all moral truths (if such a thing exists) in that universe. This is the case (for example) in Christianity.
Would these "moral truths" exist without such a being? No? Subjective.

Well, if God were to exist then the existence of the world would depend on him having created it, so your proposal would be an absurdity. In the version that I am most comfortable with, God would have perfect divine simplicity (goodness = godliness).

As I said before though, we agree on the substantive point and I'd rather not lose sleep over arguing about the moral status of a God I don't believe in.

#42761

sacha wrote:hello,

If I ever catch up, I may find out why, but for now, I would like to let whoever contributed towards getting rid of the "thanks stars" know how much I appreciate it.

It made me feel as though I was reading a thread made for 13 year old girls.

I slept through the whole thing, woke up and was catching up, reading all these posts about "It's in the upper right hand corner..." I guess I didn't miss much?

#42762

Michael K Gray wrote:Good one!
I am non-neurotypical by diagnosis, but wish to present as neurotypical person-of-transparency when using a leaf-blower.
And don't oppress me by suggesting that there should be a mandatory death-penalty for possession of a leaf-blower, you cunt.
Mine has a pink galloping My Little Pony on the sucker tube.

(Not a picture. A real pony.)

Anyone got some Vaseline?

Haw!

Great to see you again! And in fine form, too.

#42763

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

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

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

:confusion-shrug:

That's exactly how he behaves in my local also. He's like a petulant child. He got his ass handed to him here today, so he's taking it out on Justin. SJW to the resuce!

#42764

AbsurdWalls wrote:
JackRayner wrote:
On the other hand, if God were to exist and to have made the universe then he would be responsible for and knowledgeable of all moral truths (if such a thing exists) in that universe. This is the case (for example) in Christianity.
Would these "moral truths" exist without such a being? No? Subjective.
Well, if God were to exist then the existence of the world would depend on him having created it, so your proposal would be an absurdity. In the version that I am most comfortable with, God would have perfect divine simplicity (goodness = godliness).

As I said before though, we agree on the substantive point and I'd rather not lose sleep over arguing about the moral status of a God I don't believe in.

Holy shit, is that William Lane Craig flavored Kool-Aid that I'm seeing you coughing up right now? You're kidding, right? http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... /shrug.gif

And again, "god" would be a subject. Any rules that it made up about proper behavior would be subjective. This isn't some cheap word game...

#42765

JackRayner wrote: Holy shit, is that William Lane Craig flavored Kool-Aid that I'm seeing you coughing up right now? You're kidding, right? http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... /shrug.gif*

And again, "god" would be a subject. Any rules that it made up about proper behavior would be subjective. This isn't some cheap word game...

*Re-pasted the wrong one! :lol: Was supposed to be this one: http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... ferent.gif

#42766

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

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

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

:confusion-shrug:
That's exactly how he behaves in my local also. He's like a petulant child. He got his ass handed to him here today, so he's taking it out on Justin. SJW to the resuce!

Wait, you know this guy in real life?

#42767

Oh man, I just noticed one of the most active threads over at A+theism: The "Help and support" section.

It's 06:38 am here in Norway, but I am too entertained by that thread to go to sleep. So fucking funny. These A+theists, they really are quite pathetic. Here are some of the things they actually spend time making individual forum threads about:

1. SAD (seasonal affective disorder): "The weather makes me sad! Waaaaah, waaaaah, I want everyone to tell me I am awesome now! Support me! Waaaah, waaaaah!

2. "My toaster doesn't work properly". Seriously, that's the thread's topic. This guy's toaster doesn't function properly and s/h/it want support.

3. "Chronic pain disorder". I.e: I have imagined disease that no medical doctor on earth will admit is an actual disease; so I'll come to A+theism where I can bitch and moan about it and get affirmation that I am a unique and valuable snowflake.

4. "My parents in-law's dishwasher broke": I had to help mop up the water from the floor. Waaaaah! Support me!!

5. "I am poor, and it sucks" (literally, that's the thread-title): I'm poor, but instead of getting my fat ass out of this chair, stop writing on A+theism and actually try to DO something about it; I'll create this stupid thread and bitch and moan as the useless bitch I truly am.

6. (Personal favourite of mine) "There is a person at work that makes me uncomfortable". A girl at work stands a little too close to me when she talks to me. This is making me uncomfortable, so now I am going to write a 1000 word essay on how horrible this is. You know, instead of telling the girl to not stand so close to me when talking to me.

These people are comedy gold! Idea: What if Louis CK did a number on A+theism? Wouldn't that be epic? I think so.

#42768

sacha wrote:hello,

If I ever catch up, I may find out why, but for now, I would like to let whoever contributed towards getting rid of the "thanks stars" know how much I appreciate it.

It made me feel as though I was reading a thread made for 13 year old girls.

Thanks, sweetie: this is JUST for you!!!

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/imag ... qjsBtr2HBQ

#42769

Tkmlac wrote:"Teh menz are teh samez. Did I say 'all?' nope."

Because there's a difference? I actually defended this lady's blogpost a long time ago on a subreddit for women atheists. Blarrrggh!!!

http://i.imgur.com/9eegr.jpg

If "men are the same everywhere", BUT, she did not say "all men"...

Never mind. It's FfTB. Taslima, you are even more of a retarded cunt than my absolute worst assumption.

#42770

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

http://i2.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo ... inners.gif

#42771

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

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

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

:confusion-shrug:
That's exactly how he behaves in my local also. He's like a petulant child. He got his ass handed to him here today, so he's taking it out on Justin. SJW to the resuce!
Wait, you know this guy in real life?

Yup.

#42772

JackRayner wrote:Holy shit, is that William Lane Craig flavored Kool-Aid that I'm seeing you coughing up right now? You're kidding, right? http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... /shrug.gif

And again, "god" would be a subject. Any rules that it made up about proper behavior would be subjective. This isn't some cheap word game...

That's assuming that the rules would be made-up by a Desirist deity...

(objective/subjective is a minefield btw so word games WILL doubtless come into it)

#42773

AbsurdWalls wrote:My goodness, imagine being a hands on neuroscientist who conducts real world experiments!
Oh wait, I am one.
...That is dandy.

"Argument from Authority"!
("Dismissive Snark" is in the centre of the bingo card, and comes for free. Pity, I'd have that too.)

Only one to go before I win the set of steak knives.

Hang on a mo'. There isn't a square called "Anonymous Claims to Expertise".
I want my money back. I would have won by now.

#42774

Tkmlac wrote:"Teh menz are teh samez. Did I say 'all?' nope."

Because there's a difference? I actually defended this lady's blogpost a long time ago on a subreddit for women atheists. Blarrrggh!!!

http://i.imgur.com/9eegr.jpg

Thanks for poking at her. If she stays good and mad she'll keep writing ever crazier shit under the Freethought Blogs rubric. Which is what Peez and Ed deserve.

#42775

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

https://twitter.com/gregladen/status/287394291771387904

#42776

AbsurdWalls wrote:
JackRayner wrote:Holy shit, is that William Lane Craig flavored Kool-Aid that I'm seeing you coughing up right now? You're kidding, right? http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... /shrug.gif

And again, "god" would be a subject. Any rules that it made up about proper behavior would be subjective. This isn't some cheap word game...
That's assuming that the rules would be made-up by a Desirist deity...

(objective/subjective is a minefield btw so word games WILL doubtless come into it)

Why would a deity other than a "desirist" one make anything at all? :think:

#42777

Michael K Gray wrote:
AbsurdWalls wrote:My goodness, imagine being a hands on neuroscientist who conducts real world experiments!
Oh wait, I am one.
...That is dandy.
"Argument from Authority"!
("Dismissive Snark" is in the centre of the bingo card, and comes for free. Pity, I'd have that too.)

Only one to go before I win the set of steak knives.

Hang on a mo'. There isn't a square called "Anonymous Claims to Expertise".
I want my money back. I would have won by now.

I'm quite impressed by the mendacity of leaving in my response to your puffing up Harris with his authority and cutting out the substantive part. Do you have any thoughts of your own on this or are you content to just suck up to a big-name atheist?

#42778

Lsuoma wrote:It's clear the people like the spoiler tag, but oopsies have meant that I needed to fix the tags multiple times since it was introduced. Obviously, in no case did I alter the sense of the post, but it's still an edit. Do people prefer that I continue to do this, or should I disable the spoiler tag? I think it clearly has a lot of value, but I don't like editing stuff, even just for format fixes.

Please use the preview. I'll also see if I can find a less finicky implementation of spoiler. Come to think of it, if anyone use A+Theism, can they take a look and see what they use over there? Even a link to a page with a spoiler on it would be helpful, because I can look at the page source and see what code they're using...

I'm quite sure my response here is late enough to be irrelevant, but I don't like the editing at all. I trust Lsuoma is editing exactly what he says he is, but many others won't, and editing a comment's content, is far worse than deleting it. It looks sinister, and there is no way to prove what was edited. Every time I see a comment edited, I cringe. so if the code for the spoiler was accidentally used incorrectly, let it stand, and explain how to stop that from happening.

The only time a comment should ever be edited is if someone's personal information is posted without their approval (full name, address, telephone number, etc. - if it is easily found elsewhere on the internet, then others can choose to look it up, or not) or if someone posts an illegal image (sexually suggestive photographs of children is an example).

That's it. If the comment does not include either of the two reasons I have stated above, it stands. fucked code or not.

#42779

AbsurdWalls wrote:Do you have any thoughts of your own on this or are you content to just suck up to a big-name atheist?

"Ad Hominem".
BINGO!!

Where are my knives?

#42780

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

Wow, we clearly watched different debates. I thought Craig got his ass handed to him by Harris. To me, Craig did better against Hitch (chiefly by being so slippery he gave Hitch nothing much to hit) but overall he strikes me as a massively overrated charlatan.
He's also, provably, a self-conscious liar. Professor Stenger nails him conclusively over continued misrepresentations of Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. He's been called on it in public and just keeps rolling merrily along.
He's a better debater than most apologists but that's a lower bar than could be limboed under by anything other than a mole.
Fuck him.