This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
I
Soviet RussiaAncient Greece, Zeus take you!Can God. Make a Rock. Soooo big. That He Himself. Can’t Lift It?
Some good news. While Chris Kluwe has gotten most of the publicity about being a pro football player who supports marriage equality, he first did it in defense of an other pro football player, Brendon Ayanbadejo, who first advocated for marriage equality.
Brendon Ayanbadejo will be playing in the upcoming Super Bowl for his team, the Baltimore Ravens. And it seems that he is using the platform he has.
Cool.
bah, they do not. Just re-fold. No new protein is produced. It’s hardly analogous in any way to reproduction.
Nope, and there never have been.
They recruit. :-)
Jesus was nailed to a cross.
Thor has a hammer.
Any questions?
Chas,
Prions are not contagious?
Martha Argerich plays Chopin “Polonaise N°6 l’heroique”
I’m not sure which of my open tabs provoked that, but … damn …
Heh! And still … they come. Dum dum durrr.
It was aimed more at annejones than any of the actual biologists, FWIW.
It’s not at all clear to me that viruses are “life” either.
@ Janine
Any questions?
Can we work a cannonball into all of this?
@ cm’s
All those horrible creatures…
Obligatory Python.
@ Anne Jones
Just for the good order:
Are you planning to work jeebus and YHWH into your story at some stage?
I ask this because, as vacuous as the argument for ID is, you will still have the problem (insurmountable in my opinion) of going from the broad Deist position implicit in ID to proving “therefore jeebus!”
Further: Do you understand what Katherine (#457) is saying about probability? You can come up any number of statistically unlikely requirements needed for life to have formed. The chances of any and all of these having happened at least once is 100%. Your whole long list therefore collapses as an argument.
Glorious
@ Janine
Indeed. And the Breeders gave birth to Belly.
Um, no. The first version of the Breeders was where the second bananas of the Pixies and the Throwing Muses teamed up. Except that Kim Deal and Tanya Donelly were fine song writers. Gigantic was one of the best Pixie songa while Tanya Donelly usually wrote the more poppy and accessible Muses songs.
Not Too Soon
Angel
Jerk Off, and?
And viruses do not replicate; they just reprogram.
Second only to the day I tell my students about how there’s no such thing as a species, I love telling them how there’s no actual definition to “life” that fits for everything. Heh.
Heck, I eye transposons pretty suspiciously where life is concerned, even. Sneaky little buggers.
@ carlie
What about tardigrades in tun? I suggest we should all address this issue before moving on.
They just reprogram…cells to replicate more viruses.
*eyebrow up*
Well, that’s carlie’s point. They exhibit many, but not all, of the ‘characteristics of Life’: they are cellular, they have nucleic-acid genes, and of course under other environmental conditions the same organism is capable of metabolism, motility, reproduction, growth and development.
Viruses? not so much. Transpososns, even less. Prions, not at all. IMO.
Speaking of Belly (see 511-513), I’ve long had a total infatuation with their first album Star. It’s poppy, it’s weird, and it contains one of the best closing tracks (“Stay”) ever. And it came out right when I graduated high school and started college (and joined a band), so it has this sort of wistful quality to it as well.
I vaguely remember frankensteinmonster as someone I have been seeing around here for quite long, but I’m not sure about their contributions.
Are they here just to disagree/provoke the Horde in any stupid way they can think of, or are they (he?) just a fool?
So after reading frankensteinmonster in the thread about the unconscionable abortion law up for consideration in New Mexico I ‘m just wanting some help to make sure my reasoning on why he’s a giant asshat is right.
The reason it is wrong to label Cathrynn Brown as insane is because by reinforcing the idea that anything horrible must be insane you’re also reinforcing the idea that people with actual mental health issues are something to be feared and avoided.
I’m I off base with this? Are there any other reasons that my sleep deprived brain hasn’t alerted me to? (Almost certainly)
Beatrice:
They’ve always posted incredibly stupid shite, but whether or not they believe all of it, I don’t know. ‘Frankensteinmonster’ is also very convinced that neo-nazism is so on the rise in Europe, that there’s going to be another nazi based war, soon, and they’ll probably win. (That was in the thread about the 1950s nuclear war stuff.)
I’d say a combination of passive aggressiveness combined with stupidity, but no one knows for sure except frankensteinmonster.
Steven:
That’s the gist of it. No splash damage. Conveniently labeling people “insane” is a way of othering them, of refusing to face reality and the real reasons human beings sometimes do very horrible things.
My memory. It is bad.
I just remember reading him, not the quality of the comments.
I might remember him better this time, after having such a nice chat.
Thanks for that Caine. Trying to train my brain to cut out all the -isms I can from my thinking but I need to understand them before I’ll even start to get there.
It’s really hard. I had no idea how many times I think things that are grossly unfair and am quite ashamed that before I started reading here I didn’t see what seems blatantly obvious to me now. Unfortunately this makes me realize that there could be equally ‘blatant’ things I’m still doing without noticing.
Steven:
Oh, don’t feel bad, at all! We all struggle with this shit, it’s ingrained and it’s habitual. I have a really difficult time not using bitch (in the sense of complaining) and have to be aware of that. The best recent thread I can think of that would help clarify the ableism problem would be this one: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2012/12/14/before-you-reach-for-the-its-not-guns-its-the-cray-cray-argument/#comments – It’s a long thread, so some patience will be required. :)
Caine:
This is the one I struggle with the most too. All I can do is try to do better next time when I slip.
Christ, Paden is a moron.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who struggles with the word bitch. I’m a little different in that I don’t use it in my speech, but I catch myself using it in my head all the time. It was actually my use of this word in my internal dialog that brought home exactly how easy it is to fall into the trap of sexism. The fact that I have an insult that is ONLY used for women, or men who act ‘like women’, shows exactly how far I have to go.
@Caine: I was following that thread for a while but then didn’t have internet for a day and came back to an additional 200 comments or so.
I’ll leave it open in a tab and slog through it in chunks.
Hekuni Cat:
I don’t know why that one is so damn difficult to get out of my head, but it’s the very word that pops up, every time.
Very *first* word.
Eeesh.
I like ‘whinge’.
I’m at a point with my use of ‘bitch’ that it is always voiced (in my head) as Emily Litella.
Chigau:
So do I. It’s my go to word, but bitch still pops up first.
Fm has always been an assholes. Iirc it’s of the libertarian flavor
Caine:
I assume this refers to a very recent episode. Do I want to know?
Hekuni Cat:
It was in this thread: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/01/24/a-farewell-present/comment-page-1/
The screed is gone now, but the gist was that ha! you’re shilling for someone to get a laptop, someone else is homeless, the proper priorities for donation, the slymepit wasn’t responsible for Natalie Reed leaving, blah, blah, blah, haha you’re always wrong PZ and Caine how does it feel to always being wrong backing up PZ your [sic] a moron, etc.
The idiot didn’t seem to realize the post had been edited or read PZ’s explanation of that edit and the reason why.
Ugh. Thanks, Caine.
Going on the theme opened by an exchange inthis thread, I wonder if anybody has any thoughts on matters like whether there is a real danger of getting over-sensitive about language? If so, how do you raise a discussion about a specific term?
E.g. if you’re corrected on a specific word and you disagree that it should be a problem, how do you dispute it without sounding like an asshole who just wants to keep using their pet slur?
I seem to recall having heard stories about such discussions coming up previously in gay rights or women’s rights connections. Maybe somebody has some experience we could draw on? I know this is very open-ended, but I don’t know how else to phrase it.
LykeX
I like to understand what people mean.
“That’s crazy.”
“She’s a cunt.”
Convey no useful information.
People should say what it is that bothers them.
LykeX:
Yeah, I think there are concerns. Personally, I don’t have a problem with the use of crazy, however, there is no denying that no matter the context, crazy in love, crazy about cars, etc., that it implies a feeling and mental state which is seriously out of bounds.
As for some people who advocate the reclaiming of certain words, I sympathise. I really do. I use queer and bitch myself, in private, with a specific set of friends, who use those words in a reclaiming way. However, the larger problem is when you get an atmosphere like this blog, which gets millions of hits and readers per day. Someone out there is going to incur damage from the casual slinging of thoughtless slurs. The price is simply too high. We have worked long and hard, for years, to make Pharyngula a safe place for all people.
You can say ‘she’s crazy because of reasons X, Y, and Z.’ Like that Rachel person, clearly thought that (republican person) was “crazy” because of the bill that she was trying to pass.
Similarly, ‘you’re a pile of shit’ and ‘you silly moron’ aren’t “useful”, but you can still say them and useful things.
imkindaokay:
You can, however, that doesn’t answer for splash damage.
If you say “she’s crazy because of reasons X, Y, and Z.” (You oxford comma user you ;P) then you have to ask what the crazy bit is adding to the reasoning. If I put forward statement A and you say ‘Your crazy to think that.’ you have not addressed what I’ve said in any meaningful way. If you say ‘Your crazy to think that because (evidence)’ then you could just say ‘Statement A is incorrect because of (evidence)’.
Unless you’re actually discussing the mental health of someone, and armchair diagnosis isn’t a good idea IMHO, then the ‘crazy’ part is simply a meaningless statement that causes splash damage to people with mental health problems.
I was just responding to Chigau’s point.
If you think ‘crazy’ causes splash damage, then that’s fair enough, but I don’t think saying “it isn’t useful” is a good criticism.
Oxford commas are the best piece of punctuation!
Why is it not a good criticism? If it’s not adding any useful information to your post/comment/conversation then I would think it’s up for being criticized. I do it all the time when I hear politicians speaking and spouting rhetoric instead of actually discussing the issues.
That doesn’t mean we should remove all rhetoric and insults from our conversations but it is a valid criticism. But yes, crazy and the like shouldn’t be used because of splash damage.
You know, some folks don’t like “*POOF*”?
It’s harsh Brit slang for gay men.
Please don’t use it. Thanks!
*grinds* *teeth*
I’m sorry, I don’t really mean that, but damn, the language policing can get a bit too much.
Try not to piss people off. If you fail, apologise.
Is that too hard?
cm:
People won’t know that if you don’t say anything. That would, however, be a harder call, considering that it’s seriously aligned with disappearance, a la magic. I’ll be more aware of the other usage, though, so I’ll personally strike it from my writing.
The give me an alternative for magicians tricks making things disappear. Like in a “poof” of smoke.
Abracadabra? :D
And CM, my context is never for the British vernacular (which I am aware of), but rather the magicians disappearance.
Chigau
Like imkindaok, I disagree with this statement. Leaving aside issues of splash damage, as Caine noted, saying ‘That’s crazy’ conveys the information ‘That statement/action is entirely irrational/based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of reality’; it is a useful term, although that doesn’t necessarily outweigh the splash damage as a reason to continue to use it. As Caine notes, the rules here are deliberately more stringent than most places, so it should probably be avoided around Pharyngula if nowhere else, but I would like like for there to be a pithy way of conveying “That is so far outside the bounds of reality that I cannot comprehend how someone would even start to think that.’ (Metaphorically; I know that the reason is usually having been lied to a lot and never having developed very good critical thinking skills)
puff
pfft
Nerd:
Puff? Voila? Vanished?
imkindaokay:
stevenbrown:
It’s not a good reason for not using “crazy”, while still using “idiot”. Both terms suffer the same problem of not actually bringing in new information (aside from the emotional state of the person speaking).
In order to criticize the use of “crazy” specifically, you have to use a criticism that’s specific to that term (or a limited group of related terms, such as all ablest insults or the like), otherwise you very much are arguing against all use of insults and rhetoric.
I’m dismissing opinion. I don’t think any of those words are as effective. But I’ll sleep on it, and maybe a word will arise from my unconscious.
Nerd, I understand, which is why I angrish-pologised. (But American vernacular? Are there no magicians other than Americans?)
Paul Daniels!
‘Effective’ for what?
For your audience or for your satisfaction?
How about “Thbbft!”
*POOF* has been used for magicians tricks. It is a known word with that connotation, usually something disappearing or appearing during a magic trick. *Thbbft* sounds like like a raspberry. While derisive, it isn’t dismissive. I’ll check what JK Rowling uses, and a couple of other comics/magicians uses. I thought of “zot”, but Johnny Parker also uses that for the anteater grabbing an ant with its tongue.
Choice of words
frankensteinmonsterI agree. However, this is not what I am saying. What I am saying, is, that this level and type of irrational (self)hatred is not just mere ‘wrong, hateful, or evil’, but a symptom of an actual pathology
What pathology. Please, give me the DSM number and diagnosis criteria.
Or stop armchair diagnosing people on the internet with the intent of insulting their mental capacity while implying that mental illness is the same as 1) self-hatred, 2) cruelty to others or 3) drafting stupid and harmful legislation.
Often, frankly, self-hatred is not irrational – by the way. People usually hate themselves when they have been given the message by others that they are bad, wrong, evil, dirty, damned, etc… and thus is a rational response to an inappropriate and harmful life situation. One of the more difficult aspects of psychology where it intersects with social justice is the fact that many members of cultural minorities have self-hatred and internalize prejudice reactions based off of repeated data given to them by their surroundings (and which continues to be given to them), so their reactions are both entirely reasonable and logical and entirely sell-harmful. That is a damn difficult nut to crack, but it doesn’t have a DSM diagnosis and it’s not insanity (often this sort of internalization is comorbid with depression, but depression would be the diagnosis, not self-hatred); it is, rather, an attempt at self-preservation in response to an untenable situation (if the world hates you, and you hate you, at least you don’t suffer from cognitive dissonance).
Oh, and calling people insane and claiming they have a “pathology” when all you know about them is they drafted legislation you don’t like is seriously fucking ablelist. Diagnosis by a trained clinician in the intended few hour interview is difficult enough; no clinician worth her degree would get anywhere near a diagnosis based on such flimsy data.
Rachel Kiernan: OK, so, if someone complains about the crazy drivers on the road, you’re hearing it as an insult against the mentally ill or mentally handicapped?
Yes. “Crazy” is used to dismiss people with psychological diagnosis and people who are developmentally delayed. Part of that is applying it to the category of “people I don’t like” and “people whose actions seem unreasonable”. Splash damage – slurring people by association – is a real thing and doing it is a sign of fuckwittedness.
I also don’t use “dumb,” or “lame” having defaulted to “pathetic” most of the time, as that’s what I usually mean and neither mute people nor people with injured limbs are pathetic. I tend to be linguistically rigorous, though, since I work with a population of people with persistent mental disorders, and they tend to be very, very sensitive to language use and struggle with accurate communication; if I want to earn their trust, I have to be trustworthy.
LyleXI wonder if anybody has any thoughts on matters like whether there is a real danger of getting over-sensitive about language? If so, how do you raise a discussion about a specific term?
Honestly, I think people are more inclined to be too insensitive to language rather that over-sensitive. (Some individuals may become over-sensitized to a limited subset, but overall most people use language as a bludgeon, not a rapier, and do a lot of extra, unnecessary damage). Usually if someone is sensitive to word use, denotation, and connotation they will respond accordingly, and if they’re not that means some education needs to be done. I have found that my ableist and sexist insult removing in particular has uncovered some really pernicious internalized prejudice and made me a much more creative insulter (both benefits!).
If you actually disagree on a point, you could certainly argue it, but personally I have found it’s much better when people tell me my language is problematic to spend a long time thinking about it before I leave evidence on the internet of what a fuckwit I am. I tend to lurk for a very, very long time on a wide variety of places to try to cut down on my visible fuckwittery. However, I profit from the fuckwittery of others, so…. maybe I shouldn’t encourage all of us to be quiet!
I have had times when I thought someone was being inappropriately persnickity with regards to language use. In every case I can remember (confirmation bias), subsequent reading of other things they and others who agreed with them said led to me changing my mind and agreeing with them, having discovered a whole new world of privilege I had that I had been entirely ignorant of. This history leads me to distrust my own opinions against the opinions of knowledgeable others most o the time. (Ok, I just remembered an exception, but I was kinda being an ass in that case, even if I was technically correct, and if I were in the same situation now I would be kinder and less self-righteous.)
So I’d say, if you disagree – do some research. Read the words of a few different people with similar opinions about the word. Maybe check in with someone with a different perspective from yours. Then keeping that all in mind, see if you can ind an appropriate place to bring it up (a 101 post of some kind?) and explain your dilemma. That’s how I would do it, if I were to have a serious disagreement; I’ve almost always tapped out and conceded defeat at step one, though.
Hekuni Cat, Caine:
I don’t feel so lonely slipping up in my head and thinking “bitch”. I don’t remember the last time I *said* it, but I do think it. It’s like a go to insult. Thankfully I stop myself every time I go to use it.
y’know, one alternative might be to not post the same words (whatever words) over and over and over and over and over and over. But that’s an opinion. *CBBS!*
Even insects in the sewers can look up and the sky and use it well – see :
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-25/dung-beetles-use-milky-way-to-roll-muck/4484538
Pretty clever invetebrates eh?
&&&&&&&&&&&
@ older td 490. kouras :
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/01/14/thunderdome-14/comment-page-1/#comment-539957
20 January 2013 at 5:05 am (UTC -6)
@ StevoR
“What about the character Blaze from an old Sega (masterdrive / megadrive / playstation?) game? It was titled, I think, ‘Streets of Rage’ or ‘Fists of fury’ or suchlike and was one of my faves which I played decades ago.
You could choose to play a three cops fighting a crime boss running a city – Adam, an African-American hero, Axel, a European-American hero or Blaze a female hero. All were pretty equal and Blaze was my fave and the one I played as most often.”
The other title commonly used was Bare Knuckle.
Blaze’s designs from BN2 and 3 were consistent with the “female heroes go out in a bikini” style that people have complained about elsewhere. While she did have a speed and manoeuvrability advantage in the first game, this was later approached by Skate from 2 onwards, and his stats were more balanced.
It does seem good that you could have a female player-character in a fighting game who wasn’t incrdibly easy to lose with, but that was 20-odd years ago. Isn’t there a problem with using this example when talking about problems with gaming today?
Cheers. Yeah, that’s true – and I wasn’t using Blaze as any sort of excuse for misogyny in today’s gaming, just providing her as another example of a strong female character in computer games in history.
Nerd: bamf.
‘Bing’ and ‘ping’ are also pseudo-onomatopoeic in the same way as ‘poof’.
StevoR:
For certain values of ‘clever’, I suppose so.
(About as clever as a moth that flies into a flame)
StevoR, I note in passing that your sloppiness in commenting is indicative of your mental habits.
foof
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=MPyTYuKsOcw
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=MPyTYuKsOcw
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
SG:
FOOF! That’s good.
POOP!
(Hey, it’s the same trick as foof :)
Theophontes:
Yes, but FOOF! is echomimetic.
@ Caine
POOP! is not?
What sound did YHWH make when He created the UniBerse then?
@444. & 485. Amphiox :
Wrong. The evidence says otherwise.
Lets do this the scientific & skeptical way – you have a hypothesis that I am a racist &/or bigot.
Now lets examine that, starting by defining the terms. You claim in your comment # 485 :
Wrong. I know exactly what the word ‘bigot’ means. It seems, however, you do NOT :
Source : http://www.yourdictionary.com/bigot
Now I am demonstrably not prejudiced or intolerant of those who are different from me. I’m quite happy to get along with – and do in fact get along with – those who are different from me. Therefore I am not a bigot.
As for racist from that same online source :
Now for the evidence? Well, I previously challenged y’all to find one instance – just one – where I suggested mistreating people because they are different or that I think “race” in any way matters. You’ve failed to do so and the challenge still stands.
Yes I’ve suggested we fight terrorism because, well, they’re terrorists trying to kill us. That’s neither “race” nor a case of people merely being different. Terrorists include, lets not forget, the likes of John Walker Lindh, David Hicks & “Azzam the American” (Adam Yahiye Gadahn) among others. Terrorism is a violent and unacceptable method of waging war. The goals of that war – mass murder and compelling everyone else to follow their particular sub-sect. Nothing to do with ethnicity at all.
What else? Some people have deliberately taken my inclusive definition of Japan as being part of the West because, well, politically and according to at least one historian (Arnold J. Toynbee) it is and that is somehow “racist?” Well, umm, no, thanks for the history lesson on “Ehrenarier” #491. theophontes (坏蛋) ; but I adopt a broad definition of West including a non-caucasian groups not always considered in that category and that supposedly means I believe some Nazi shit I’ve never even heard of? That does not compute. That would be a major reading comprehension failure and taking out of context on their part combined with a loss by Godwin as well. I wasn’t meaning anything remotely like that. Guess maybe I could’ve been clearer but then maybe too people could actually try to take what I write in something other than the deliberately worst possible interpretation eh?
Oh and, yes, I dared to mention the name of Jeremiah Wright once – and do I disapprove him based on his skin colour? Fuck no. I disapprove based on Pastor Wright’s own actual words calling for his own nation to be damned by his God. Yeah, reckon that might make him a bit unsuitable to swear in the President of that country he lives in don’t you? How could merely mentioning Pastor J. Wright’s name possibly be a metaphorical “dog whistle” itself especially in the appropriate context where I used it? Answer that’s silly and it clearly isn’t given I’ll equally criticise and mock anyone using the sort of words and calls for a fictional deity to damn their country regardless of who they or what ethnicity /culture /”race” they’re from.
So much for the evidence such as it is supposedly favouring the “StevoR is a racist /bigot “ idea. There’s really nothing to support it. What about the evidence against that hypothesis?
Well, it comes from the primary source and indisputable expert in this field ( none of you know me as well as I know me) see my comment #410 :
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/01/20/thunderdome-15/comment-page-1/#comment-543071
where I have clarified what I actually believe. Which of those ten points is a “prime example of bigotry” precisely? Note especially points (3) & 1 :
Try saying “FOOP!” out loud with a rising tone. Pretty cool huh?
(I am going to stop now, the people are looking at me funny…)
Theophontes:
No, it’s not. Not when compared to something like…PLOP!
BUUUUUUUURP…*HIC*
Actually, plop is better all the way around – “he plopped his pants.” Yep, better.
Aaah, StevoR! Just the person I’ve been meaning to ask: Do I qualify as a Western person? Or at least an “honourary Western” person?
I haz a confuzz.
PLOP! it is then. :)
StevoR:
So long as they are Honorary Westerners?
You confuse an indefinite for an universal, thus your misapprehension.
(You think that bigots are bigoted towards everyone?)
@581 . theophontes (坏蛋)
I don’t know enough about you to say but I would expect so. Why?
***
@ 495.carlie :
No. I’m not ruling out good things coming from other civilisations even Islamic ones. Ages ago in a much older thread I acknowledged that al-Haytham known to the West as Alhazen came up with something close to the modern scientific method. I’m happy to acknowledge that other cultures and civilisations can and have come up with some great stuff too.
It is kinda vague but broadly speaking :
– Liberty, equality and opportunities for everyone in society to pursue happiness.
– Liberal parliamentary democracy with regular free and fair elections
– Secular states with a strong Chuch-State divide and powerful, constant constitutions.
– A free & powerful media that is able to hold the government to account & keep the population well informed and up to date. (Yeah, I know counter-example of Fox news –which of course is an exception to the rule here.)
-Economically – Free market capitalism of various shades as opposed to having communist, kleptocratic or government planned centrally run economies.
– Politically, alliance with the US Superpower and strong support for Israel, historic ties to the inner historical “anglosphere” core of the USA, England & Commonwealth nations.
Well, I don’t think that and pretty sure I haven’t ever said it.
PS. It’s StevoR only one ‘e’ ‘k? Cut’n’paste my username to ensure accuracy if you want – its what I do.
*****
@424.Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
If I do take a break it won’t be that long. As I’ve already stated I’m not going to be bullied off this thread and I intend to convince you all that you are indeed wrong about me. Because you are.
As one decent person to a bunch of others who are also mostly good people I just ask to be judged fairly on what I actually say not what some people who seem to hate me read into my word s when it isn’t there. I ask for a fair go here that’s all.
Its not Caine’s or Nerd’s blog but PZ and Chris Clarke’s. If they ask me to leave , I’ll do so. Fellow commenters who seem not to grok what I’m getting at at all, not so much.
I cannot “force”anyone to read my comments but I will honestly answer questions and put my case logically and reasonably and I have already shifted some of my views and shown a willingness to meet my haters here halfway.
@413. Caine, Fleur du mal +
Yet strangely you have no evidence of me being bigoted or racist to cite at all. Go figure.
No I’m not. There’s no way I could force you to read my comments or respond to them even if I wanted to.
@425. Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
23 January 2013 at 6:19 am (UTC -6)
Wrong answer. I’ve never said or thought anything of the sort –hence my inclusion of Japan among the Westerners as I (&Arnold J. Toynbee) noted.
@583. John Morales :
No. So long as they are human.
I also try to treat animals and the environment around me as compassionately and considerately as I can.
I do not follow the second part of what you wrote there and will get back to you on that eventually – I have to head off for dinner now and probably won’t reply more for a couple of days – Australia day tomorrow.
StevoR,
1) Do you acknowledge that you were a racist when you said
2) Do you acknowledge that those were racist statements you made?
sez annejones:
Newsflash, annejones: Expertise in Topic X does not automatically confer expertise in a different, unrelated Topic Y. John Doe’s uninformed opinion on Topic Y is as worthless as any other uninformed opinion on Topic Y, regardless of how great a level of expertise the uninformed-on-Topic-Y Doe may possess with respect to Topic X.
So, okay: You’ve got a dude with expertise in the field of Mathematical Physics, and another dude with expertise in the field of Astronomy… and they’re writing about the field of biology, said field having no significant relationship to either of the fields those dudes actually do have expertise in?
Hmm. A bit of a red flag, that. Still, it’s at least possible that Tipler and Barrow might actually have troubled themselves to acquire sufficient biological savvy that they genuinely do know what they’re talking about, so leave us continue…
“must be present for life to develop“? Okay, so T&B are talking about the origin of life—abiogenesis. Presumably, the ’10 crucial ingredients’ they cite must, therefore, necessarily be common to all life, because otherwise, they wouldn’t have cited whatever-it-is as being ‘crucial’ dealies which ‘must be present for life to develop’ (emphasis added). So, what are these ’10 crucial ingredients’?
The last time I checked, the concensus among abiogenesis researchers—the people who actually do have the most expertise in this topic—is that DNA is a bit of a Johnny-come-lately, and it couldn’t have been involved with the actual origin of life. So I’m curious to know the grounds on which T&B assert that DNA is a “crucial ingredient” which “must be present for life to develop”.
There are critters whose metabolic processes are anaerobic , hence this point cannot be a “crucial ingredient” which “must be present for life to develop”.
I know nothing of this particular piece of chemistry. Given what I knjow of the the other 9 items on this list, however, I am somewhat doubtful that it really is a “crucial ingredient” which “must be present for life to develop”. That said, moving right along…
There’s plenty of critters that aren’t photosynthetic autotrophs, hence this point cannot be a “crucial ingredient” which “must be present for life to develop”.
There’s plenty of critters that don’t have mitochondria, hence this point cannot be a “crucial ingredient” which “must be present for life to develop”.
“Undulipodia”? [shrug] A flagellum by any other name… There’s plenty of monocellular critters that don’t have flagella/undulipodia/etc, hence this point cannot be a “crucial ingredient” which “must be present for life to develop”.
There’s plenty of critters that don’t have eyes, hence this point cannot be a “crucial ingredient” which “must be present for life to develop”.
There’s plenty of critters that don’t have endoskeletons, hence this point cannot be a “crucial ingredient” which “must be present for life to develop”.
There’s plenty of critters that aren’t chordates, hence this point cannot be a “crucial ingredient” which “must be present for life to develop”.
Since when is Homo Sapiens a “crucial ingredient” which “must be present for life to develop”?
By my reckoning, here’s the final tally:
8 (eight) blatantly, grindingly wrong claims that Thing X is a requirement for life to develop
1 (one) possibly valid claim that Thing X is a requirement for life to develop
1 (one) claim that Thing X is a requirement for life to develop, said claim being starkly at odds with the concensus of people who actually do know what they’re talking about
For some strange reason, annejones, what you wrote here does not inspire me to regard Tipler and Barrow as being any more reliable when it comes to abiogenesis, than is the dude behind the counter at the local Little Caesar’s.
Well, maybe you garbled T&B’s message a little—maybe T&B didn’t mean to discuss the origin of all life on Earth, but, rather, just the origin of one particular species on Earth, said species being us humans. If so, I’m still not impressed, because in that case, what you’ve got is yet another variation on the time-honored Creationist argument “Very Low Probability! Therefore GOD DID IT!” The main problem with any such argument is that it assumes, up front, that humans are somehow a necessary product of… whatever processes were involved with the history of life on Earth.
Analogy: Take two 52-card decks. Thoroughly shuffle them together, and deal out all the cards in the thoroughly shuffled double-deck, face up. You’ll get a sequence of 104 cards, right? As it happens, that card-sequence you just dealt out is one of (104! =) 1.03*10^166 different card-sequences, which means the particular card-sequence you got is, therefore a 1/(1.03*10^166) longshot. But ID-pushers assure us that anything whose probability is less than 1/(10^150) is so improbable that it cannot have arisen by chance, and that means any such stupendously-improbable whatzit must, therefore, be considered a product of Design!
This is, of course, bullshit. It’s also a prime example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Yes, the particular double-deck card-sequence you dealt out is, indeed, a 1/(1.03*10^166) longshot, and so what? As improbable as that card-sequence may be, it happened. You did deal that card-sequence out. And any line of ‘reasoning’ which ends with “therefore, your card-sequence must have been the product of Design” is bullshit.
Similarly, regardless of how improbable the specific sequernce of events which led up to Homo sapiens may be, that sequence of events happened. And the mere fact that said sequence of events did happen, is no more evidence of a Designer’s intervention with respect to H. Sapiens, than the mere fact that you dealt out a specific card-sequence is evidence of a Designer’s intervention with respect to that card-sequence.
I call bullshit.
You want to argue that H. Sapiens had to have been Designed, on the grounds that ‘life can only spring from life’? Fine. If that premise is valid, the Designer of H. sapiens must itself, have been a living thing. Because if you grant that the Designer wasn’t a living thing, you’ve just negated the life-only-springs-from-life premise which is your justification for invoking a Designer in the first place. And since the life-only-springs-from-life premise requires that the Designer must have been a living thing, it equally requires that the Designer, itself, must necessarily have been Designed by some other Designer. And this Designer-designer, in turn, must necessarily have been Designed by a Designer^3… who, in turn, must necessarily have been Designed by a Designer^4…
In short: The life-only-springs-from-life premise, if said premise is actually valid, absolutely requires an infinite regress of Designers designing Designers designing Designers designing yada yada yada, worlds without end, amen.
One way out is to declare that the Designer of humankind is, in fact, not a living thing—but if you go that route, kiss your life-only-springs-from-life premise goodbye. Another escape route is to declare that your Designer doesn’t need to have sprung from any other life; but this response, like the previous one, just plain old destroys the life-only-springs-from-life premise you’re touting as your justification for invoking a Designer.
And you think it’s rejecting the life-only-springs-from-life premise that requires a “faith commitment”?
Yyyyyyyyyyeah. Right. You bet, annejones. Sure thing. Uhh-huh.
Only for values of ‘failed’ which include ‘not yet been confirmed’.
Hold it. Exactly what “necessary standard” is it that you assert hasn’t yet been met? And on what grounds do you assert that said “necessary standard” has, in fact, not not been met? I’d be willing to bet a substantial sum of money that every experiment you would dismiss as “not [meeting] the necessary standard” wasn’t even intended to address the question you denounce said experiment for failing to answer.
Damn. You are blowing off the life-only-springs-from-life premise that you cite as your justification for invoking a Designer when it comes to human beings! Logic: U R DOING IT RONG.
I’m not going to bother fisking your god-talk, annejones. I will simply say this: When you can come up with an empirically valid experimental test for the presence or absence of whatever mode of intervention by your favorite god, then we can talk. Until that happy day, how about you leave your favorite god parked at the curb when you talk about science, hm?
StevoR @585, you are suggesting that Islamic Jihadists are not human.
(Is that what you really meant to do, or do you now recant your stance towards them)
Okay, time out. The criticism of Tipler? The Genetic Fallacy rears its head again. What Dr. Tipler said can’t be trusted because he wrote another book that people aren’t fond of.
Let me first say this… you demand that we accept your sources and you ridicule ours. The hypocrisy is stunning. It’s logically fallacious reasoning (and let’s be honest…virtually everything you say is logically fallacious reasoning) and all it does is make you look foolish.
But even granting the argument for a moment…are you aware that the scientific information I draw on from Barrow & Tipler came out BEFORE Tipler turned to Christianity? Sure he’s written a couple of recent books on Christianity and Physics. But when he wrote The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, he was not a Christian. In fact, he was shocked to find that the evidence for God was so good that it LED HIM to Christianity.
Here is a direct quote from him on this (from his book that you already referenced):
Whoa, you actually said being black is an advantage? I mean, Project Implicit pretty definitively has shown that being black can mean inferior health care, systematic unconscious prejudice, and I can’t count the umber of studies on job applications which vary only by the race indicated by the name; have a “black” name and you will be considered less reliable and offered less money (there are similar deficits to other variations, like being female). It’s pretty damn empirical, and it’s pretty damn damning about the disadvantages to being anything other than white and male at minimum (I don’t know what studies they’ve done on other variations, but a lot of them don’t show up via name which makes them harder to study experimentally).
People who think being black is an advantage in contemporary US society (or that King’s dream is anywhere near realization) are either ignorant or racist as fuck.
Now then lets’ deal with a couple of assertions about which one poster whose name I forget has no clue, namely vid I was linked to (about Szostak) is absurd and isnt Jack Szostak’s research, the vid is a bunch of demonstrably false pseudo-intellectual babble. It presents pure speculation as face. It states the prebiotic atmosphere had ‘many simple fatty acids’, ‘hundreds of nucleotides only one of which is needed to self-polymerize’ and ‘we know that early life must have been very simple.’
At 5:02 the vid claims the prebiotic environment had hundreds of nucleotides and that it only takes one to ‘self polymerize’. Completely false. The current research of which they is ignorant yet on which they hypocritically challenged my knowledge, is from Sutherland, Powner and Gerland which failed to show even nucleotide precursors can form from a natural process starting with natural ingredients, they started with chemicals not found in nature, right handed ribose isomers and purified cyanoacetylene, and then at many crucial steps intelligently intervened to purify results, remove lethal byproducts and add phosphate buffers. And at the same point in the vid saying this stated that it only takes one nucleotide to polymerize which is an oxymoron as polymerization is when at least two nucleotides are joined by a phosphodiester bond:
http://chem.wisc.edu/deptfiles/genchem/netorial/modules/biomolecules/modules/dna1/dna13.htm
At 3:10 in the vid it incorrectly states we know that early life must have been much simpler which is bluster, there is no evidence of simpler life, the simplest cell we know is incredibly complex and there is zero evidence that life ever was anything simpler. This is an ad hoc/post hoc invention and a tacit acknowledgement that life is too complex to ever have evolved so therefore because of the a priori belief in neo-Darwinian evolution there was simpler life, question begging and circular reasoning.
At 3:50 the vid incorrectly states the prebiotic atmosphere contained many simple fatty acids. Again, this is an unproven speculation.
So, there is no evidence of many simple fatty acids, no evidence of any nucleotides and no evidence that life ever was any simpler. The guy who presented this video didnt know this yet presented this bluster as an argument because he doesnt know how debates are won, he doesn’t know the scientific method requiring hypotheses to bested, doesn’t know logic requiring assertions to be backed with evidence and to be tested and verified, doesnt know debate uses this logic and borrows from the scientific method to test assertions just like a scientific hypothesis so he failed to apply critical thinking to this vid, didnt have the knowledge to test it yet threw it up in a post as evidence of his claims. And yet other people here didn’t call him out on this.
annejones:
That’s not the genetic fallacy; the claim is not that he is wrong because he is Tipler, but that he has been demonstrably wrong in similar endeavours and thus any appeal to authority by virtue of his being Tipler is utterly compromised.
Cite citations and sustain your claim, if you care to.
Again: your appeal to authority might count for something if it was in his field of expertise and not disputed by his peers; he is a known crank.
(Google “Omega Point”)
—
PS Are you aware of Project Steve? ;)
Another dishonest claim being made by my opponents is taking credentialed scholars and attempting to avoid their credentials and in a circular reasoning fallacy stating that because they support Christianity they are not scholars but apologists. How absurd and dishonest can you get? That is a priori reasoning starting from the conclusion that Christianity is invalid therefore there cannot be true scientists who support Christianity therefore we can ignore any scientist who supports Christianity they must be just apologists when I correctly pointed out their credentials so the desperate plea for negative attention went this way:
Then because of the ignorance of logic and debate we get people contradicting themselves asserting an abiogenesis of the gaps argument acknowledging science doesnt know or have evidence that it occured yet claims I am asserting a god of the gaps not understanding the argument which is that from direct observation of complexity we know from inductive inference, the logic used in the scientific method that the complex, specified, meaningfully functional, 3-D, multilayered, computational, communicative, epigenetic, digital metainformation can only be preceded by intelligence and the research to date such as Sutherland et al’s experiment requiring intelligent intervention confirms this.
Then there’s the reference to entropy as a response to my correct statement God is the God of order. Any Christian educated on science knows that the Bible says the universe is subject to decay (Genesis, Romans 8, Hebrews 1) and correlates decay as corruption/sin so the sin Adam and Eve brought into the world started the entropy causing the move towards disorder in the universe. So it is likely that any atheists who may claim to be former Christians (and yes, I know there are some who do in fact claim this) blustered when they claim they used to believe what I believe and now asserts their knowledge of science but doesnt know the basics of science from the Christian perspective.
The Genetic Fallacy rears its head again.
Wait, wait, I got this one. Claiming people are wrong because their parents were, and wrongness is in the genes?
Does his “special brand of physics” let people keep walking off a cliff without falling as long as they don’t look down, because I want that special brand of physics, yo.
annejones:
<snicker>
There goes the ID cloak, revealing the nethers.
(Oh, yes, Adam and Eve did the nookie, and their children did the nookie with each other too. One happy incestuous family!)
@StevoR:
My additions in bold
Western doesn’t equal anything like you say because you include the US in your ‘western’ countries. I figure it’s more along the lines of the last part of that and you choose to see the rest of it from the point of view of a privileged white dood.
Western is a vastly racist terminology. It’s along the lines of saying ‘savage’ is the non-white man, regardless of their level of sophistication. Japan is often included in the term ‘western’ because we, as American dick wagglers, cured them of their easternness. And we’re invading foreign countries trying to drop American ideals on them because maybe it’ll make them more civilized an we can cure THOSE countries of their savageness. All they need is guns, gods, and good-ole American values.
cubist,
Well, conversion of glucose into pyruvate to produce energy does occur in all cellular organisms*, although not always via the same pathway (see Entner-Doudoroff and Embden-Meyerhof, I seem to remember reading something a while back about the former being the oldest). I guess if you take a metabolism-first approach you could say that that particular piece of chemistry had to be present right at the very beginning of the process. Even then, I’m not sure about calling it a “crucial ingredient” for life to develop. It’s more like a “crucial step” of the development of life.
_
*with the exception of one or other obligate intracellular parasite. Incidentally, and relating to the discussion above, if you are too demanding with your definition of life you may end up unintentionally ruling out some of them.
Today’s episode of Clueless. It’s getting a bit stale, I’m afraid.
—-
A: Wow, your ridiculous inclusion of Japanese as honorary Westerners stinks of historical honorary whites, or what Nazis considered honorary Arians.
B: How dare you! This has nothing to do with race.
A:Um, it kinda does. See: [totally obvious connection between honorary westerners and honorary whites/arians]
B:How dare you compare me to Nazis! I never said anything about honorary whites!
(For a parallel: a homophobe does not have to use the word “faggot” one single time, and yet still be a horrible homophobe)
No, it makes you look foolish, which you are. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE, JUST PRESUPPOSITION. Your creator doesn’t exist until you show conclusive physical evidence, not mental wanking (philosophy) that it does.
Because there’s exactly one Christian perspective on science. All Christians are in complete agreement on this and Eurasia has always been at war with Eastasia.
annejones #593
Tipler is not a biologist. His credentials in biology can be ignored because they’re non-existent. That Tipler wrote a book on Christian apologetics means Tipler is a Christian apologist.
Seeing your arguments gives an answer to this question.
The argument is that Christian apologists start with the presupposition that not only gods exist but their particular pet god is the default without offering any evidence not based on the presupposition to support their handwaving. Your argument about their “credentials” is answered above.
You’re the one making the god of the gaps argument. We say that we don’t know all the details and you latch on to this statement to claim “ah ha! You don’t know therefore god! And not only god but my favorite pet god! The one who’s super duper intelligent, super duper powerful and wasn’t created!” We don’t know means we don’t know, it doesn’t mean your god is the default.
You use all those words, do you know what they mean? Sutherland’s (I assume you mean Earl Sutherland, who got the Nobel Prize for his work on hormones) experiments required intelligent intervention because keeping liver cells healthy and proliferating outside the body is not easy. So your non sequitur doesn’t support your goddidit argument.
Your word salad is just a restatement of your “it’s so complicated that I don’t understand it therefore god” argument that we’ve already explicitly rejected. Arguments from ignorance and incredulity just mean you’re ignorant and incredulous, not that goddidit.
As for what educated Christians believe about their god, so what? Don’t you know that we’re not Christians and therefore do not accept your Bible as being authoritative. We’re certainly not going to accept a 2000 year old book written to push a religious view and heavily edited, revised, redacted and rewritten for centuries by many people all with different agendas actually has something to say about something in modern physics?
You’re asking us to accept a specific religious myth as the basis for thermodynamics? You’re not arguing with your buddies in Sunday School, you’re arguing with a group of atheists with scientific interests and backgrounds. Please keep this in mind when talking to us.
Most of us here are former Christians of various types. Why should we be interested in the Christian perspective rather than the Hindu or Shinto or Taoist perspectives? When Pierre-Simon Laplace was asked why there wasn’t any mention of god in his book, he replied “I have no need for that hypothesis.” Note that Laplace, who was a Christian, wasn’t claiming that god does not exist. Laplace thought god doesn’t intervene to break the laws of science.
@ StevoR
How so would you expect so? Because I (also) speak English?
I would not like to be thought of as a second class citizen on the internets. You appear to imply that being “Western” is the thing to aspire to.
(Upthread.)
@ John Morales
I am more than just a little miffed that it is not called “Project Brian”.
@ Anne Jones
Hehe:
OK, let us examine some biblical “cosmology”:
It is in teh magick babble, so it must be true!!! Anne Jones, don’t you cringe a little when this crap gets quoted straight back at you?
wtf? For the sound of something disappearing–as in a puff of smoke–you-all choose ‘plop’?
“Plop’ is the sound of a surprised frog hitting the water. Or, I don’t know, pudding hitting the floor. Too visceral, too moist.
I think Nerd wants to modify his boilerplate with something more like ‘pop!’. (Actually, I think he’s correct that ‘poof’ is the perfect word for his need. Pity about the polysemous connotations.)
yeah, it’s clear that the list was actually touted originally as necessary steps in the evolution of Us (i.e. it’s not about abiogenesis), and that annejones has simply mislabeled it.
biopedantry: glucose –> pyruvate is ‘glycolysis’. ‘Fermentation’ is pyruvate –> lactate or ethanol+CO2 (or several other alternatives).
cilia
@ Rodney Nelson
Perhaps Anne Jones should read: ” The Dancing Wuli Masters” or somesuch:
Looks to me that Shiva and Vishnu shit all over YHWH and baby-Jeebus when it comes to reflecting the realities of cosmology!
@ Chas
Jeezzz Chas, how is that so different from “plop!”? I tell you,sir, that you have opened a can of worms!
.
While the jury is still out… how about: PIF!PAF! It sounds cool too. (And just happens to be the brand name of insect spray we used to use in Sudan. I am scared to imagine what was in that stuff.)
Also the shorter term: “PAF!” (Pronounced “Puff!” Afrikaans, used in the same situations as “pop!” and “poof!”, but with none of the extra connotations. Dutch: “floep” or “pof”)
‘pop!’ is the sound of a cork being pulled: short, sharp, dry, mid-range (as opposed to a higher ‘crack!’ or a lower ”bam!’)
‘plop!’ is the sound of a solid hitting a liquid: compared to ‘pop!’, slightly lower, more resonant, and just sort of moist.
These are very diferent sounds (to me).
Ah yes, now I remember: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/01/14/thunderdome-14/comment-page-1/#comment-538036
This is the comment Daniel Schaeller made where he referenced this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg and also http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications.html . This caused my indignation at https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/01/20/thunderdome-15/comment-page-2/#comment-545079 that no-one called the guy out on the scientific inaccuracies exposed in the post I did.
…and to Dictionary Dot Com, which sez:
(btw, their examples were cork and frog)
Could we hold off on YHWH stories for a bit? We really gotta fix the important issues first. Like what sound is made when something is magicked into existence?
Shazam!!!
What I did not know:
(my emphasis)
So let me make absolutely sure I understand this: If we look at the geological and palaeontological record, then at some point in the Pleistocene, we should see a sharp difference in how physics works; no entropy before a point corresponding to the Fall; and entropy existing after that point?
If we look at the distant stars, their physics will be completely and utterly different if they are more than however many hundreds of thousands of light-years away? Heat will not flow from hotter to cooler, but will… what, stay the same? Flow from cooler to hotter?
What would a non-entropic or anti-entropic universe look like?
deoridhe @ 563 is one of the best comments I’ve ever read on the topic of ableist language. It would be perfect to link to the next time this sort of thing comes up.
I like “foof” per Strange Gods #570.
Anne Jones, rather than allow you your presuppositions, in order to convince me you aren’t a bullshitter, it is time to restart your arguement with the following null hypotheses:
1) Your imaginary deity doesn’t exist. Evidence must be shown to make it a scientific necessity, and conclusive scientific evidence used. Philosophical necessity won’t count for squat.
2) Your babble is a book of mythology/fiction. This can change, but you are the one to evidence parts true, and only those parts are considered true. To get inerrancy you must show everything is true, and one non-truth is enough to bring the whole book into question.
3) Evidence isn’t opinion offered by presuppositionalists, which is almost all religious people and religious beliefs.
More may come into play, but the main point is that you must lose the presupposition your deity exists. Evidence it into existence. I’ve been waiting fifty years to see that evidence. And nothing you showed above is that evidence.
PIF!PAF! is good for Nerd’s requirements – sounds a bit like a cartoon blow being landed, too – you know, a double slap in a cartoon? Otherwise, FOOF!
.
I have been enjoying the exchange with annejones. I hope she sticks around for a while. I’m interested to note that when she sees “don’t know, but see no reason to introduce a supernatural element not needed or suggested anywhere else” her response is to call that “abiogenesis of the gaps” – it’s positively bizarre! It’s as if she thinks her flavour of god can actually be demonstrated and observed anywhere else … and that, to her mind, “don’t know” is somehow an attempt to handwave away … the fact that there is something not known! Perfectly and completely arse-backwards. I’d love to see her explanation of why she thinks there’s evidence for any deity at all, let alone her flavour.
And I’m also interested in her list of requirements for life, that was quite funny. Oh, and the bit about probability (good card sequence analogy from cubist).
.
These conversations are always fun and interesting – thank you Horde!
@ Nerd
OK, its your word. BUT, as my last offer, consider: Serge & Brigitte
@ goddists
As you were!
@609; Owlmirror… another one? Just want to establish that this one isn’t me. However, I’m fine with it. People who name themselves after a fool get a “like”. :)
Damn straight.
I was Owlmirror before it was cool.
Owlglass
No fear.
Owlmirror has been commenting here for years and earned a Molly back in 2008.
no regular would mistake the two of you
Owlglass, you were noticed.
+++++
theophontes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dymaxion_map_unfolded.png
Sorry, you’re out. But at least you’re not Australian.
Remember “very South African”? Same thread, I said “The modern Australian will, throughout life, feel compelled to hear the request for a fair go.”
StevoR @ 584 “I ask for a fair go here that’s all.”
Very Australian of him! Much like his specifically anti-Asian racisms.
His racism against African-Americans, though, I did not account for. I guess that’s a function of internet connectivity. Possibly an artifact of his desire to identify himself in relation to “the US Superpower”, including its project of institutional white supremacy.
Owlglass, you were noticed.
+++++
theophontes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dymaxion_map_unfolded.png
Sorry, you’re out. But at least you’re not Australian.
Remember “very South African”? Same thread, I said “The modern Australian will, throughout life, feel compelled to hear the request for a fair go.”
StevoR @ 584 “I ask for a fair go here that’s all.”
Very Australian of him! Much like his specifically anti-Asian racisms.
His racism against African-Americans, though, I did not account for. I guess that’s a function of internet connectivity. Possibly an artifact of his desire to identify himself in relation to “the US Superpower”, including its project of institutional white supremacy.
annejones,
Oh, FFS. No such thing is stated anywhere. The video says types of nucleotides. Get it? Types. Now, “hundreds of types” may be an exaggeration, granted, but it does take one type to polymerize. Many nucleotides of the same type.
Sheesh. Try to read for comprehension.
Like I said, that depends on how you define life. If what fits the definition is already “incredibly complex”, then we postulate that before life there was something simpler that already had some life-like characteristics, namely the capability to undergo Darwinian evolution. And before it something simpler. And so on. If you pick a broader definition, then some of those simpler stages can already be called life and we can talk about a “simpler life”.
Why do we assume that life originated from something simpler? Think about it. Why do we need an explanation for life at all? Because it’s complex, right? Explaining life by postulating something even more complex is… not explaining anything at all. Skyhooks and cranes.
“Too complex, therefore something even more complex did it” does not explain anything. Especially when you have no other line of evidence to suggest the existence of that even more complex thing. To add “and that thing doesn’t need an explanation because I say so, so there” on top of it is just pathetic.
No. It’s because it makes sense.
No direct evidence, but good reason to believe they were there when life arose.
You most certainly did.
Actually, the problem is not that they’re Christians. The problem is that this topic is outside of their fields, so their credentials are not really relevant.
We start at the present time and look at the overall complexity of the various lifeforms we see.
We move back in time, looking at the various levels of complexity of the lifeforms in the past.
It is by no means a linear progression, but the broad outline is clear. The further back we go, the less complex things get.
Go back a little ways, and there are no big brains. A little further back, no endothermic metabolisms. A little further back, there’s nothing capable of powered flight. Further back, no amniotic eggs. Further back, nothing that spends 100% of its life cycle on land. Further back, no animals. Further back, no multicellular life. Further back, nothing with nuclei.
Finally we get back to the oldest known fossil organism, which is a prokaryote of some sort. Very simple morphology. Biochemistry still “relatively” complex. Older than this fossil we have trace and chemical evidence of life activity stretching hundreds of millions of years further back. The complexity of whatever it is that produced these traces is unknown.
So what we have is a clear broad pattern over time, the older the time point, the less complex things are on average compared to younger, newer time points, (one can argue that a plateau of complexity was reached, say about 300 million years ago, when life finally successfully colonized every habitat on earth, sea, land, and sky, after which no further additional average complexity was accrued, and the “net” complexity has simply fluctuated around the mean, but that is a different argument for a different subject), going all the way back to the earliest evidence that we have with organisms clearly simpler on average that any other point in the future.
No we extrapolate backwards towards the origin of life, and we have two options that we can consider.
1) The as yet unknown precursor to that oldest known organism is simpler, fitting with the pattern we have observed all the way from about 300 million years ago to over 3 billions years ago, OR
2) The unknown precursor to that oldest known organism was something MASSIVELY more complex than anything every observed, ie God, completely breaking with the previously observed pattern.
Which scenario is more likely? Which scenario is it more reasonable to start with?
If you allow for God to exist as the unmoved mover, the uncreated creator, the complexity that has always been complex and needs no explanation, there is NO LOGICAL REASON THEN, having allowed for one unobserved entity to have always existed without need for explanation, not allow the same property to any other as yet unobserved entity, such as, say, the first living organism.
If God can be so, then so can life itself. If you allow the existence of God, then you simultaneously offer no logical reason why Life cannot be a thing that has always existed, always had a certain level of complexity, and from there gave rise to all subsequent life.
The very act of inserting the possibility of a creator God immediately eliminates the need to explain ultimate cause at all. And because it is far more parsimonious to simply postulate Life in eternal existence without requirement for an origin than to postulate God in eternal existence without requirement for an origin PLUS Life created by God, the first immediately becomes that much more likely than the second.
That is why the God hypothesis always, immediately, fails. It is logically incoherent. The very insertion of God into the explanatory framework instantly logically negates the need for God to be there at all. God vanishes from the equation in a poof of self-contradiction.
To invoke God as an explanation actually does not explain the origin of life (or anything else, for that matter). It is instead a convoluted way of admitted that you cannot and do not want to even try to explain it. “God did it” is just another way of saying “I know know and I don’t want to know”.
:D
We can use the “X cannot possibly come from anything but X” principle, on which annejones relies, as follows:
As far as abiogenesis is concerned, I recommend this article, for the latest on the research hypothesis I think is most promising: abiogenesis in honeycombs of metal sulphides in alkaline hydrothermal vents into an early acid ocean (it could well be compatible with Szostak’s work on membranes and RNA). Of course it could turn out to be wrong, but it’s clear scientists working on abiogenesis are able to formulate and test specific hypotheses about the emergence of life.
I notice that annejones is distinctly cagey about what she actually believes. At one stage admits evolution may have contributed to the development of life, then blaming the existence of entropy on two fictional characters. Let’s have cards on the table here, annejones: we’re quite open about the scientific account of human and universal origins, including the gaps in it; what account do you have to compare with it?
Chas:
No! You misunderstood. I’m all for FOOF! as a replacement for poof. Theophontes brought up “Poop!” and I made the case that “Plop!” was a better word for poop.
strange gods before me ॐ:
No!! There is only one true FOOF:
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/02/23/things_i_wont_work_with_dioxygen_difluoride.php
For the record, I’m not actually saying that “poof” (particularly *poof*) should be verboten. As far as I can tell no-one has ever taken offense over that meaning. If you ban the use of all words that could, potentially, have been used as insults anywhere and everywhere in the world, you don’t have many left.
I also had a post about FOOF get eaten; hopefully it will re-emerge. It was a “things I won’t work with” link. ;-)
cm:
I know. That said, I’m rather enamored of FOOF!
My bad then.
Do carry on.
I’d like to hear annejones expound as why her deity has a penis, that’s the sort of carrying-on I want.
(Not gonna get it, am I?)
I would also like to hear annejones answer Caine’s question about super-duper meanness to gay people.
Nightjar:
So would I.
I want to hear about how super-duper meanness relates to god’s penis.
Nightjar:
Yes, so would I!
Chigau:
I want to hear about how super-duper meanness relates to god’s penis.
This too. Carry on, Anne Jones, answer some damn questions already.
I am afraid I have been super duper mean to god’s penis.
S*r*h P*l*n has quit Faux News.
She does not like to hold long term jobs.
She just wants to be adored.
I’m going to dispute the more experienced at sex part, but the less compassionate and worse manners metric is about spot on.
*steps away from such a straight line thinking of wood chippers*
Nerd
I really like FOOF.
Nerd, a Stone Roses reference.
This fucking lee coye/raykyn kreep
Women are more easily domesticated! Like cattle! Well some of them, save for those uppity feminists. *snarf* His sexism is so apparent trying to tease it out is like trying to scoop a bucket of water from a bathtub.
Commending the horde for handing his ass to him (after he presented it for inspection himself.) Ginmar especially, regardless of his protesting, I think your point was salient.
Random note about Streets of Rage/Bare Knuckle: There’s a fan remake which incorporates elements from all games in the series – called, appropriately, Streets of Rage Remake. Since it was taken down by a C&D mere days after the release, you’ll have to work a bit to find a copy, but anyone interested in that kind of game should try and check it out.
I had to mention it because I got the game and it’s amazing. Also, not only you can play as all the playables from the series, but choose between their different incarnations from each game. SOR1 Blaze is one of the very best characters in the entire roster.
@StevoR
And if, say, my government decides to have diplomatic relations with the Palestinian state? Are you going to revoke my Western License? No, really. Are you?
Since when does the Anglosphere get to define what’s “Western”, pale-face? You can take your historic ties and shove them.
Well, considering you constantly conflate Muslim, Arab, Middle-Eastern and EVIL ZOMBIE HORDE, conflating Western with Anglo-Saxon is right up your racist alley.
This fucking lee coye/raykyn kreep
Women are more easily domesticated! Like cattle! Well some of them, save for those uppity feminists. *snarf* His sexism is so apparent trying to tease it out is like trying to scoop a bucket of water from a bathtub.
Commending the horde for handing his ass to him (after he presented it for inspection himself.) Ginmar especially, regardless of his protesting, I think your points weresalient.
@Caine
Sexism? What does that mean to you?
One. Two.
Onetwofuckyou.
Er…I realize I’m nobody, and I hate to be the bringer of bad news but, um:
foof
jesper, sexism is that which results in perpetuation of gender stereotypes, discrimination, and/or gender biases. Calling a man a “little girl” to indicate negative behavior does exactly that. if it weren’t sexist, it would have been “child” or “little boy”.
Jesper, what it generally means to anyone.
(Sexism)
You don’t think attempting to insult some adult male by claiming they are like a “little girl” is an instance of sexism?
la tricoteuse, eh, I don’t tend to put much stock in anything on UD.
la tricoteuse:
And since when are you “nobody”? Your voice is a great one and been much appreciated.
Come on guys. Define sexism please.
Man, woman……blah blah blah. Or is there more to it?
My bad, didn’t see your posts before i posted my second one. Too many opinions.
@Caine
Please tell me what you think sexism is?
Jesper, sexism is what you’ve done.
dafuq
Jesper:
Yeah, there is.
Sex is a biological fact, sexism is bullshitty missaplied reification of sexual essentiality.
Exactly, Jade.
It’s a confusing fucking subject, so one at a time please.
Caine called sexism on me, so I’m asking her to define what she thinks sexism is.
Start here under “No Splash Damage”, bolds mine:
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2012/08/06/the-new-rules/
So don’t use insults that equate your target with “girl” as a bad thing to be, or any other such group (such as in “That’s so gay”), and you’ll be fine. If you screw up, don’t get proud and don’t do it again.
Nice Guy 101 in case you missed my post in the Lounge:
http://synecdochic.livejournal.com/214607.html?nojs=1
Closes eyes and pretends the fart definitions are used solely.
@JEsper, no dog in this fight but from
Associating a negative attribute to a person, in this case a man, by using a gendered stereotype (little girl throwing hissy fits/being coy/aloof) is sexist. That doesn’t mean you yourself are sexist, but you’re being sexist, thus the charge of sexism.
How about instead using something more neutered such as “She’s being immature.” That’s more useful and has no (anticipated) baggage to go with it such as “acting like a little/big girl.”
We are all affected by sexist thoughts in one way or another. When we have blind spots to them we need someone to point them out to us. Accept that you were in the wrong, apologize and move on. It isn’t a form of punishment, it’s a way to communicate that you aren’t checking for offensive patterns of behaviour/speech.
the sexism was pretty easily identifiable by everyone in that thread, not just Caine
That was just the quickest link to hand as it was the first one that came up. A google search with “foof + euphemism” brings up pages of links using the word in that context (including a New Statesman article, various mummy forums, and other varied results), and searching “foof + vagina” had 19,100,000 results, though I couldn’t claim to have gone through the whole result list to check if they were relevant past the first page or two.
So it’s not JUST UD. It’s in pretty common use. Possibly not in the US, though?
@John
“Sex is a biological fact”…. no shit sherlock.
“sexism is bullshitty missaplied reification of sexual essentiality.”
What does that mean in plain english? Sex isn’t a thing?
Jes:
Of course.
Is it your browser, your monitor or your perception that fails to show each comment one at a time?
Ooohhh… ask me*! I also hereby call you out as having made a sexist insult.
(I’m a man, so obviously I get priority)
—
* Of course, I’ve already answered you.
Jesper:
That was plain English, you dolt.
(What it means is that sex ≠ sexism)
Caine, thanks. :) I just mean I’m mostly a lurker with the occasional spurts of indignant posting. I’m not a regular, and in any online community it’s easy to take less notice of or grant less importance to non-regulars.
Jesper,
John Morales gave a link to the wiki definition of sexism. It looks like your behavior is clearly included in that definition. Why can’t you accept that definition until/unless someone else disagrees with it?
Jesper:
Oh FFS, it’s the same as every other decent human being’s. John provided you with a helpful link, and Pteryxx provided even more. Try to educate yourself instead of being all happy with your sexism.
Jesper, you should be thanking caine, if you intend to remain a regular, not drawing her into fisticuffs in the thunderdome… now that, sheesh, wtf . I’m perplexed by this move.
Are we supposed to believe that Jesper has never, ever encountered the idea of sexism in his life? Because that’s too large a pill to swallow.
throwaway:
I appreciate the thought, however, I don’t want thanks. I think Jesper is a fucking liar who knows full well what sexism is, and is extremely upset that a woman “bossed him off” the lounge. Tsk.
Way to answer that question, caine.
You know what. You’re a fucking sexist.
I see no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Or just scared of men….I dunno.
Sexism. Who the fuck needs it?
John:
There was another assclam troll here a while back who insisted on calling Jadehawk “Jade”, but I can’t remember who it was.
sez annejones:
Quite right, annejones; anyone who seeks to dismiss a scholar solely and entirely on the grounds that said scholar is a Christian, is guilty of a genuine ad hominem fallacy, and we should all try to avoid making use of fallacies.
Now, what do you have to say about those who, like me, acknowledged that Tipler & Barrow do have valid credentials, but pointed out that for all of T&B’s acknowledged expertise in their respective fields, neither Tipler nor Barrow has any particular expertise in the field of biology?
That is an excellent question, annejones. I’m sure that if you continue to engage in discourse on the level you’ve started out with, we’ll all see plenty of data-points relevant to answering that question.
Jesper:
I’m not averse to answering rhetorical questions, O specimen.
You need it.
Or maybe just easily offended….
Hmmm. Seems like Caine was right all along. What kind of sincere person answers like that? A ‘pitter, that’s who.
Jesper does seem to be fixated on you, Caine, even though I was to first to point out his sexism.
(Not that it is a great feat. It was blatant. And how he has gone all in even though everyone gave him the benefit of the doubt.)
See, this is where calling out ostensibly minor linguistic doo-doos actually flushes out a specimen; their reaction is the key.
(Prevention is better than cure is a hoary old truism)
You guys are a horny bunch, aren’t you. ;-)
Loving and horny….
Oh dear, I was being clumsy again….silly me.
Yeah, jesper, you’re about as clumsy as a titmouse dropping a seed on my lawn.
Janine:
Yes, I know you did, Janine. I have a strong suspicion, have from the first, that “Jesper” is a wanker who was here before. Something about the nym has bothered me, I haven’t figured out what yet.
? I don’t understand how that follows from anything anyone here has recently said regarding your behavior.
We’re all sexist, you smegmarmalade stuffed assclam. The rest of us are simply intelligent enough to know that and examine our own biases and make changes. Which leaves you a person who is happy to be rancid slime.
Janine, you hardly called sexism….
You may have been thinking it was sexist, but you didn’t call it.
It was all good and fun until caine threw the sexism bullshit card.
Uhm, that blockquote was supposed to be this:
? I don’t understand how that follows from anything anyone here has recently said regarding your behavior.
Damn it. Left my laptops charger at work, so now I’m limited to this slow ass tablet and its godsdamn touchscreen. Grrrrrr.
Aratina Cage:
It has the benefit of proving I was right about “Jesper” being a fucking liar.
That was I was trying to be nice and inform you not to engage in such talk. When you decided to say, hey, it was not gendered; Caine called you on it. Because she did, I did not feel the need to do so.
Also, people were trying to be helpful towards you.
And your reactions. Insult everybody here.
Just fucking fuck off, already.
jessie:
You mean that until she called out your bullshit sexism, you found it was all good and fun?
(BTW, that’s Caine, not “caine”)
—
* You’re chewy.
@caine.
Ok, so we’re all sexist.
How about skipping that “you’re being sexist” bullshit, and accept the fact that sex and sexism is a fucking individual “thing”(if you please) that does not make sense.
Sex is sex, who the fuck gives a shit?
“I know you are, but what am I” is not a valid form of argument.
non-sequitur, and also bordering on sexism.
you evidently, since you seem incapable of letting go of it.
Liar, liar, all on fire. First, MM’s post was not all “good and fun”. It was about something serious, which will have a huge effect on her life. Second, sexism is not a “card”. That you think it is one is quite telling. We’ve had others of your kind here. Too many. You’ve been here before, so you know that already. Third, in what ‘verse is telling someone their partner is acting like “a little girl” comforting? Fourth, you’re a sexist asshole.
Is it me or was Jesper’s response at #689 basically just word salad?
word salad. also, sexism is a systemic and social thing, nothing “individual” about it.
you’re one confused cookie. we’re talking about sexism, not sex.
jesper, it’s not about “being offended” as in “Oh heavens, I can’t believe my sensitive ears heard such a thing! I must away to the swooning couch post-haste!”
It’s about cultivating a community where what gender/sex/orientation/size/color/etc. a person is isn’t a point of comparison for something negative. It’s about forcing people to examine why they make the word and phrase choices they do – you might counter that you did it without really thinking about it and therefore it was no big deal, but the way you’re clinging to it indicates that on some level it actually is a big deal to you to be able to use it. If it wasn’t, you would have just said the equivalent of “my bad” and been done with it. In fact, you seem to be more offended at being told you said something sexist than anything else.
I feel better, it was not just me.
Jessy:
You give a shit, since not only do you imagine “little girl” is more insulting than “little boy”, but you defend it and pucker-up when called on it.
(Also, you clearly conflate sex and gender)
Totally off-topic personal attack: Seeing as how ‘Tis Himself is still not acknowledging his plagiarism and still pretending this new Rodney Nelson person isn’t him despite proof that it is, I feel compelled to point out that I have it on good word that “Rodney” and “Nelson” are two particular Royal Navy ships: The HMS Rodney and it’s sister ship the HMS Nelson. Keep up the game, ‘Tis. You’re just making yourself look like a bigger douche by the minute.
More rank sexism. Yeah, cupcake, I’m just terrified of men, that’s why I’ve been married to one for 34 years.
“sexism is a systemic and social thing, nothing “individual” about it.”
Are you talking about chauvinism? Male chauvinism?
Caine: dunno about Jesper’s nym, but he did throw out ‘hivemind’ really quickly on the Lounge.
That it does indeed, Caine.
Not you.
no, I’m talking about sexism. of which chauvinism is one variation, but one that’s entirely irrelevant right now, since it’s not the kind of sexism under discussion
Does someone without an agenda, someone with ‘good faith’ include in their delurking comment: “… I’ll try to be nice”then proceed, in less than 24 hours, to dare the blog host to ban them?
Good faith? I think not. But that’s Jesper’s MO.
Oh look, you have heard of sexism. Gee, I wonder what society is made up of…this stuff is just so gosh darn difficult.
@Caine
“More rank sexism. Yeah, cupcake, I’m just terrified of men, that’s why I’ve been married to one for 34 years.”
Good on ya. Marriage in the churchy sense is a bit silly, but I can relate.
Seconded.
Also, their whole appearance and interaction seemed fabricated, with all types of schmoozing niceties preempting their eventual departure from what a knowledgeable lurker would be disposed to say in this forum. Like a failed attempt at social engineering to make the ‘fight’ more bitter and cut deeper. In short, troll’s a troll.
I absolutely resent being confused with Jesper :-p
Jade, I’m guessing you mean male sexism then.
Pteryxx:
Yes, I noticed. I’m sure everyone else did, too. There was a slymie here yesterday, going by “scoopdotorg”* who had quite the issue with me, but there was no over the top “I’m so British” thing going on there.
*Now disappeared.
Jesper, give it up. It is not humanly possible for you to know as little about the word “sexism” as you claim to.
<snicker>
Sure: when someone says “X is Y”, it’s worth asking them if they’re talking about Z where Z ≠ X.
(You are a cute specimen)
—
BTW: Male chauvinism is a synonymous with sexism.
@Jade
“I absolutely resent being confused with Jesper :-p”
LOL. When emotions run high and all that. :-)
Jadehawk:
Oh shit. I’m sorry! So sorry. That’s what happens when I’m trying to effing type when Amelia has her nose up my nostril.
for the love of…
Jesper, please tell me English is not your first language. No one who speaks English fluently could possibly be this dense about what sexism is.
Seriously, Jesper, you’d be a pretty shitty scientist if you were actually that observationally clueless, and a hideous collaborator.
In my opinion, gender-based human bio-diversity is a very positive and enjoyable aspect of interactions between certain special humans. Sometimes I become concerned about those who deny this self-evident Truth. Therefore I become concerned about the happiness of those who play the sexism bullshit card. Sexism is a Natural human characteristic which deserves to be celebrated.
Jessie Boped:
We’ve seen Hoggling before.
Translation: Looks like I struck a nerve.
What a character! Yuk-yuk!
Sexism as a general term is a copout, imo.
And remember folks, I’m not american or british for that matter.
There’s male sexism, and there’s female sexism.
Language matters. ;-)
I’m really sorry I read this last episode.
Jasper you are one dumb motherfucker.
oh hey, racistbob is also sexistbob. shocking.
Aaw, so sweet of the second house racist to be ever so concerned about my happiness. I’m doing fine, thank you, married to one of those awful feminist manginas.
Fuck off, racistbob.
The Lounge has been entertaining, though.
Racism, sexism, make up your minds you silly bees.
We were talking about sexism, right?
Jezzy:
Nah, we were giving you rope.
(Nice knot, there!)
Jesper, you are not one tenth as clever as you think you are.
@ Jonh Morales
“BTW: Male chauvinism is a synonymous with sexism.”
There’s female sexism and there’s male sexism.
And that right there is another sign of ‘pitiness.
that’s precious, but incorrect. sexism does have specific a meaning. From the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology:
saying that a man is behaving badly by calling him “a little girl” is sex stereotyping, and qualifies as sexism. Though at this point I highly doubt it’s unconscious. I suspect it might be deliberate.
@Janine
“Jesper, you are not one tenth as clever as you think you are.”
Nope, I’m slightly above average, but who the fuck gives a shit about IQ?
Having served in the close-quarters military, and lived with women for years, I make can with confidence make the following statement. Women smell better than men. Therefore, the genders differ fundamentally. Also, Oprah’s audience primarily consists of females. In conclusion, if I were to be stranded on a desert island with another human, gender would matter.
I feel the MENSA card coming on…
Caine:
…I’m evil. Now I want pics. <_<
I was thinking the same thing ;-)
Pteryxx:
Right. You try taking pics with a nose jammed up your nostril! :D
I have an experiment I want to run. Let’s place Jesper, racistbob and lee coye on an island and see what happens.
@Jade
“saying that a man is behaving badly by calling him “a little girl” is sex stereotyping, and qualifies as sexism. Though at this point I highly doubt it’s unconscious. I suspect it might be deliberate.”
To you maybe, to me it isn’t.
It’s not a general rule.
And no, it wasn’t deliberate, since i was in the lounge, i chilled and kicked back.
Clumsy maybe, but so fucking what? :-)
Aratina Cage,
For some reason you think I’m somebody else. I’m not going to argue the point. It’s impossible for me to prove I’m not the person you think I am. But you do get points for figuring out where my nym comes from.
Aratina Cage:
Indeed. The ‘Douglas’ I mentioned in the lounge, having much in common with ‘Jesper’? He repeatedly attempted to impress us with the incredibly high level of his intelligence. However, he did not manage to display it at all.
that’s not how reality works. calling a man a little girl to imply negative qualities is sexist stereotyping, regardless of your opinion.
you’re perpetuating toxic biases, that’s what.
Very convenient gaslighting, ‘Tis.
Jez:
That there’s female X and there’s male X doesn’t change what X is, you tool.
(Or, in English, sexism is sexism)
WTF, didn’t Jesper introduce themself in the lounge yesterday?
@Janine
I think it would be boring as fuck. And I don’t even give a shit about who the two other guys are.
@Sally
Yup. :-)
When MENSA comes up. I think of two words.
Vox Day.
*himself btw.
Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, Jesper.. Yep, I agree with you John, this is exactly why it’s important to call them out. And what happens when everybody tries to explain why he’s wrong? We’re a Hivemind! One does begin to catch the distinct odor of well-worn socks.
Jesper may or may not be a ‘Pitter, but he’s a stereotypical example of the type so far. I’m done with ‘im. He had his chance to be a decent human being and he blew it, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.
There’s sexism. Full stop. It makes no matter if sexism is coming from a man or a woman. You seem to be in love with it.
@Janine
Wankers….that’s what i can think of regarding mensa….the ultimate ciclejerk
Jester, at this point, I do not give a flying fuck what you think or who you know. That statement was for the amusement of other people.
@Caine
ffs, you called it yourself. Give it a rest, will ya.
@Janine
Cool…i guess.
Normally people who introduce themselves in the Lounge are cool.
Every rule has an exception.
of course she did. as did a bunch of other people. you’re the one however who can’t let go of the sexism, hence her conclusion that you’re in love with it.
A photograph of an Oprah audience. I am most concerned about the male with the shirt with pink flowers. Perhaps he is a cuckold. View the photograph yourself:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OLfBlPb-Axk/TQkWQFKL4wI/AAAAAAAAGEk/fQp5aMAdDYc/s1600/oprah-ultimate-favorite-things-audience.jpg
The Greeks were pretty smart, developing architecture and all that, and ‘uterus’ in their day was referred to as ‘hyster’.
will you fuck off bigotbob? no one gives a flying fuck about your disjointed ramblings.
@Sally
Remains to be seen apparantly….i thought so too.
Luckily there’s a lot of interweb out there, so all the cool people doesn’t have to be at one place.
@jade
Who wrote it first though?
Janine just asked me to watch the language a bit….
Caine went all in and called sexism. I tried to call the bluff.
That’s all she wrote….at least in my book.
Hey, dig it man… all the hep cats know that sexism isn’t cool.
I like “Propjets Breed Sheen” myself, or maybe “Josephs Beer Pretend”.
it wasn’t a bluff, you fucking idiot. and btw, calling out sexism isn’t “starting it”. the sexism is the “starting it”. meaning, you started this. and you could have ended it a long time ago if you weren’t so stubbornly defending your act of sexism.
Jez:
It’s funny because it’s true.
(You reap the consequences of purportedly trying to call a bluff that ain’t there)
For the sake of argument, let’s assume* the first chapters of Genesis are literally true (although only the relevant parts up until “the fall” would be necessary); and that the young-Earth interpretation of it is true as well, so the universe is only a few thousand years old.
You’re telling me there was somehow an actual garden, full of living organisms (as well as the rest of the universe, or at the Earth, Sun, the Moon, etc.) which managed to go at least several days without increasing entropy? And that this only ocurred because of “sin”??
Do you have any idea what entropy is? Jesus fuck, I don’t know where to begin. You’d save yourself a lot of trouble you just completely started over with your education.
*Assuming is the Bible’s true all you’re doing anyway, so it doesn’t even merit this much of a response.
There was no bluff, you fuckwit. What you said was rank sexism. You started *everything* by spouting off with sexist tripe in the face of a serious problem a woman is facing. You are a sexist, whether you like that or not. You spewed sexist shit all over the lounge, after many people gave you the benefit of the doubt and explained. You are still here, holding on to your sexism like it’s your life’s breath.
You’re a lying, sexist doucheweasel.
Rodney:
I’ll settle for a firm denial.
(Care to essay such?)
@John
“It’s funny because it’s true.”
Which makes it kinda not funny, but i hate repeating myself.
So go suck a lemon, or grow some fucking balls.
Your avatar sucks btw.
At ease soldier, and smoke ’em if you got ’em.
@Caine
Of course there was. This is the internet, if you call sexism on me, you better show some hard fucking evidence.
jizzy:
It sucks your soul, Jezzy-baby.
—
PS Welcome to Pharyngula! :)
hyperskepticism. the last defense of the willfully ignorant.
yeah, this one is not worth the effort.
equating male nads with courage… nope, bad move, that’d be hard fucking evidence.
more sexism from you. go figure.
Words are evidence, right?
Bible thumping nutjobs are IDiots, right?
@John
Thanks, mate. ;-)
This is pathetic.
These trolls are so fucking boring.
@chigau
Yeah, it’s a bit boring…but what ya gonna do?
A point is a point.
Pteryxx:
Now I’m reminded of Aristotle’s belief that the role of women in pregnancy was merely nutrititve, as the male seed contained everything needed except the environment to grow, and of course, if the woman fucks this up with her “cold constitution”, then the result is a female infant, or in Aristotle’s words, a mutilated male.
They are, if it is of things people said or wrote. Dumbass.
It’s ironic how “hyperskeptics” are so consistently awful at being actual skeptics.
We’ve established that you’re an idiot. So are you the Bible-thumping kind?
Dang, cook dinner for the Redhead and clean up, and a stupid fuckwit exposes their biases. Caught, of course, by the astute regulars. Looks like “foof” is out. Time to dream of a replacement.
@razor
Don’t be scared. Say what you mean, instead of that insinuating bullshit.
A point is a point
Of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a point
Of course
That is, of course, because the point
Is the top of your asshat head.
CR:
We’ve established that they are a sexist idiot.
jezz:
Pointy, pointy!
(Also, a troll is a troll)
Wow, ‘Tis you really are pathetic. You do know you aren’t fooling anyone right?
John:
‘Tis a pity Jesper’s wit is not pointy, nor sharp, not even witty!
Does. Not. Compute.
Goddamn, but you are dumb and transparently so, pot pie.
Point taken, but of course, there are no non-idiotic sexists, so I figured it was implied.
… And I know it isn’t very fair, but I often suspect a lot of our “atheist” trolls (perhaps a few slimewads, etc.) are not being entirely honest with us. (Shock!) It’s not as if there aren’t lots of atheists who are bigots and other varieties of shithead. I’m certainly aware of that. But I guess there a lot of things any troll would do which tend to set off my grudge-holding-attention-grabbing-bullshitting-theist-troll alarms.
I, for one, take great umbrage at the use of delicious foodstuffs as terms of non-endearment for fuckwits round these parts. Cupcakes and savoury pies are DELICIOUS and don’t deserve this treatment. :( LEAVE FOOD ALONE! *sob*
/snark
Rorschach:
Well, did you know This. Is. The. Internet?* I didn’t. Such shocking news! I thought this was The Matrix™.
*To be read in the manner of This is Sparta!
la tricoteuse, well, this Jez specimen is more like kibble.
And Nerd, sorry to rain on your foof parade, as it were. I’m sure you’ll find a better word. Do you want something more magicky, or more onomatopoeic? Or both?
la tricoteuse:
Indeed they are. However, one of our cupcakes would give you a bad case of poisoning.
John Morales – Would kibble be potentially nourishing in a pinch? Because these guys strike me as something devoid of nutritional value AND flavour.
la tricoteuse:
Indeed they are. However, one of our cupcakes would give you a bad case of poisoning.
la tricoteuse:
Indeed they are. However, one of our cupcakes would give you a bad case of poisoning. Links to the Pharyngula wiki are being trapped again, however, if you go to the wiki and search ‘cupcake’, you’ll get the full story.
la tricoteuse, now, now; even faeces has nutritional value.
(Were I meaner, I’d refer you to Philip José Farmer’s oeuvre)
You could try “whoosh” as a substitute for “poof,” if for no other reason than to mix things up a bit. It happens to be nearly the same sound as the point going over their heads anyway.
It’s not as magical, perhaps; but I don’t know how to make words more magical. Maybe prefix it with “free market” or something like that?
cr, ‘quantum’ makes words more magical.
(Trufax!)
CR:
Or FOOSH!
John, yeah, but not so much on the tasting good part, eh?
(Why would that be mean? I am not aware of him.)
QUANTUM FOOSH! *votes*
Apparenlty it’s an acronym for “fall on outstretched hand.” That might work somehow for nonsense arguments falling down?
I’d agree with that. It might work to make up a word like *thoop* that gives (to me, at least) a bit of the sound of a slightly overcharged smoke effect.
Jesper Both Pedersen
You are pathetic.
How is acting like a 4-year-old accomplishing anything?
—
and keep in mind that boring PZ has been known to cause banning
Take heart, ma chere. This is merely another manifestation of the notoriously effulgent kindness of the Horde, ironically gracing these funnel cakes with monikers evocative of inoffensive inanimate objects, rather than describing them as they truly are.
Chigau:
Given that the fuckwit couldn’t take PZ’s warning (twice) on board and thought it was a good tactic to whine to PZ that “other people started it!”, I’d say 4 years old is a good estimate and that your warning won’t penetrate the skull density of said fuckwit.
Are you having a go at funnel cakes now? :P
John, you make a very good point. However, I think “quantum free market” would be probably be overkill in most cases.
Use advisedly. Do not stare directly at quantum free market. If the quantum free market makes contact with the genitals of your deity or deities, pray for soapy water.
Athyco:
THWOOP! ?
Even better. *THWOOP!*
la tricoteuse, obscure reference.
In Farmer’s Wold Newton universe, one of the pragmatic feats of
TarzanLord Grandrith is to defiantly survive on such.(IIRC, in The Mad Goblin)
Y’all calmed down a bit now? :-)
Jezz, sure, calm like a clam.
I was just linking to my literary allusion allegorically illustrating how even shit like you is nutritious at a pinch.
(Omnom!)
Oh. Well then, fuck you kindly. I saw your “the language policing can get a bit too much” bit and thought of asking you whether you were
trollingdishonestly fucking with people, but other statements like “Try not to piss people off. If you fail, apologise. Is that too hard?” and “Nerd, I understand, which is why I angrish-pologised” suggested not.I considered the possibility that you might be upset by seeing the word often, even while knowing that neither usage is derived from the other. And that’s the only reason I suggested foof instead of telling you to go fuck yourself for baiting people.
+++++
la tricoteuse,
I saw that before I suggested the term. I think that if neither usage is derived from the other, and if no one is actually bothered by the usage in practice, then the mere existence of a homonym is not worth worrying about.
+++++
So in this case I believe both *poof* and *foof* are perfectly fine. If someone is actually bothered by it, then kindness would call for another term. But no one was bothered — and cm, that’s why I’m irritated with you; the reason why I and anyone else worried about this was personal concern for you.
Aratina Cage (Or Dysomniak or John Morales, since you seem to know too)
What’s up with ‘Tis himself then? Apparently there’s something significant that I missed somehow, I thought ‘Tis was well regarded and also had left (ISTR a post to that effect a while back), but something seems to have changed since then. Where would I find more about the situation?
SG:
I agree. I like *FOOF*.
you’re going to stop saying/defending sexist shit?
Do you expect calmness in a place called the “thunderdome,” or is this a request? Do we owe you a favor or something?
Wow, boring, pathetic, ignorant troll is boring, pathetic, and ignorant.
@John
Cool….i’d reckon shit doesn’t taste good though, so i wouldn’t recommend it. :-)
Have a good one, y’all. And see you in the lounge soon(probably:-).
*yawns and heads off to bed*
That is, in context of the other statements, I considered that “the language policing can get a bit too much” might refer to the whole package, including the subsequent denials that there’s any splash damage from calling people “crazy” and “insane”. And yes, the arguments can be overwhelming — I sure know that — but they don’t need to be. If the first speaker doesn’t agree then “I’m not sure, could you explain more?” followed by “I’m still not sure, but I’m going to take some time to think about it” usually prevents a fight, even while not establishing consensus.
CR:
We’re supposed to be playing Nonchalant Vulcan, I think. The use of naughty words implies that we are all manner of worked up, oh my yes.
Dalillama, first, the commenter using the nym ‘Tis Himself was outed as an unapologetic plagiarist, and then evidence was adduced that showed the commenter Rodney Nelson was the same commenter.
(No, I can’t be arsed chasing up and providing links and no, I am not super-duper (epistemically or experientially) certain; this is merely my impression)
PS
@jade
Nope, probably not, but it’s just words so try not to take it at heart.
Dalillama,
‘Tis Himself is a serial plagiarist.
Rodney Nelson is ‘Tis Himself, and still a plagiarist.
Jezzy:
Well, neither do I and yet here you are.
(Allegory ain’t your forte, I see)
Dalillama,
Also, this.
@JM You’re such a Savage.
How odd, given that you willingly eat shit, then see fit to vomit it up on our carpet.
Jesper the Troll: Aw, cupcake, I hope every time you walk barefoot you step on a lego! It’s just plastic, don’t take it to heart.
dysomniak, I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble man; but I have the heart and stomach of a regular, and of a regular of Pharyngula too.
(I crib but a bit)
What I think of when I see
F00F.I am a nerd.
Jessa,
Aye, and thanks to Xanthë for that. Only reason I didn’t link was because that comment was later in the same thread — but it is important.
+++++
Rodney,
Are you and your brother back on speaking terms? I understand if you don’t want to talk about it, and I’m not trying to be nice, but I know some others here would like to hear any good news if you’ve got it.
What I think of when I see FOOF.
fwoop
bloop
splup
thurb
fweeeeee
parp
parp
sploop
gronk
shping
poing
gulk
dook
dook
dook
glubublug
szhəszhə
ting
FOOF may refer to:
Flags of Our Fathers book and Flags of Our Fathers (film) about the Battle of Iwo Jima]
Independent Order of Odd Fellows (Fraternal Order of Odd Fellows)
f00f, the term for an exploit common to early Intel microprocessors
Dioxygen difluoride a chemical compound with the formula O2F2
The characteristic and frequent noise of mirth and/or exasperation made by coach John Wilkie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOOF
There’s also a foofshop dot com and a foofstore dot com (‘puter accessories and furniture), also “A “Foof” is the unofficial name for the black & white “preview” at the beginning of each act of an NCIS episode.” and many other things, including a fair amount of user names. I think it’s pretty safe to use.
♫And a partri-idge in a peeaaar treeeee.♩
As a chemist, when I see FOOF, I think this.
*ahem*
#838 clearly belongs with #836
Okay, I’ve tried to submit a comment three times now, and they’re not showing up. Not sure what’s going on. *pouts*
That’s been happening to me too. Only one of my four comments in this thread got through.
You could use something like http://shrib.com/ and link to it.
Ah, here. I found my favorite.
http://www.anonpaste.me/
Thanks, sgbm.
It’s not a big deal, it was just me trying to say that I think of dioxygen difluoride when I see FOOF, with a link to the blog of a chemist that has a “things I won’t work with” series. I was just wondering if it was a glitch or if I was doing something wrong.
See 625 and 626. cm had the same problem with the same link.
Jessa, that’s where my mind goes as well. (PS, nice gravatar)
’Tis/Rodney registered new accounts after an encounter at the forums which exposed some more of his handiwork, but the new accounts were never activated; ’Tis hasn’t been back since September. When I discovered the multiple accounts on the one IP address I did take the opportunity to consult whois, which did map to the expected state in the US. In the earlier Thunderdome thread (#13, comment 288) Rodney explicitly denied the connection (as John Morales pointed out almost immediately, just to be sure).
sgbm:
Thanks for the info. I missed that comment in my original reading of the thread. I see now that my witty-but-disappearing comment had been done before. *sigh*
dysomniak: Thanks!
Chas, that’s one answer for you.
*Paging interested parties* *Paging interested parties*
Medical issue reassurance/support needed in the lounge.
@ SGBM
You mean the closer you are to that white blob in the middle, the more “Western” you are?
Yeah, that is strange. But no more so than the viseral aversion to others equally far away, such as the Palestinians.
Aside: There is an interesting difference between African and Western democratic traditions. In the West (particularly in America¹) it is a “show of hands” (in the Greek style) and winner takes all. The African style is not uncommon in the west though. It is common in capitalism, for example, when we negotiate a solution to which all parties are in agreement (and in which all parties (at least in principle) benefit.)
(¹ I add this, because the west also has “proportional representation”, in which that is less true.)
@ Jesper Both Pedersen
For someone claiming not to understand what the term “sexist” means, you sure have taken a lot of offence at being branded as such.
@ bluentx
Sounds like teh pit’s requisite gang initiation alright.
@ comradebob
There, there, comrade. You are not the only one confusing sex with sexism. And I think your attempt at word salad was just delightful. And those croutons of crunchy obtuseness too! Omnomnom.
@la tricoteuse
Ooops…
No, silly. The other white blob, all the way on the left! Left is west on maps.
+++++
Though for all I know, “comradebob” might be an “ironic” nym for a right-winger, I hate it when the brocialists show up.
Palate cleansers:
http://cpusa.org/young-women-and-the-struggle-for-equality/
http://peoplesworld.org/panel-media-consolidation-hurts-women/
http://peoplesworld.org/gerda-lerner-pioneering-scholar-of-women-s-african-american-history/
Girl in my elementary school class is asked to show Russia on the map:
Girl: ?
Class: *whispering* East, east
Girl: ?
Class *whispering* Right, on the right
Girl: ?
Class: *gesticulating wildly to the upper right side of the map*
Teacher: *exasperated*
Sounds like she has a bright future in politics.
She was an asshole and a school bully.
I kinda doubt she’s any better now that she’s an adult.
Awesome! She could be mayor of Alaska one day.
@ SGBM
Whaaat? South America is the most “Western”? I knew the “Merkins have been pushing for some good ol’ “Manifest Destiny” down there. I just didn’t realise they’d got that far already.
I wish she’d moved to Alaska when she was 10.
There are a few people in Antarctica! They might not live there permanently, but while they are there, they are honorary westerners.
And yeah. Remember, I have a satellite uplink to the orbital brontosauruses. So I know all about geographies.
Jesper is kind of a condescending jerk, isn’t he? But as long as he stays in Thunderdome, I won’t be taking action against him.
If he starts playing these games again elsewhere, though…
PZ, I guess you haven’t seen Caine’s alert yet.
PZ:
He’s back in the lounge, anxiously awaiting you. Pteryxx sent an alert and so did I.
Manifest Antarctic Destiny! FTW!!!*
.
.
.
*(For The Westernisation)
I think being ignored hurts this one. He’s trying for the role of house jester and lives for the applause or tomatoes.
Theophontes:
MAD?
Beatrice:
Yes, that’s obvious. He’s also deliberately taking over the whole thread in his quest for attention. It might be forgivable if he had any discernible wit.
@ Caine
They even have a flag! (Linky)
So, I don’t agree with this, but I wonder if it would make for an effective argument against libertarianism.
http://tinyurl.com/hedgehog-values
Mutual Antarctic Destruction!
(or Mutual Antarctic Destiny, could be a love story)
Go WEST(ern) young man!
@ SGBM
Hell, yeah! South Africans. The most Western people on the planet.
Ooooh, I cannot wait to rub this in…
Though for all I know, “comradebob” might be an “ironic” nym for a right-winger – SGBM
Almost certainly: “Comrade Bob” generally refers to Robert Mugabe.
Libertarians often seem insusceptible to any kind of argument, but I’m sort of curious what you don’t agree with about it.
Style: 1) I wish he’d just stick with something like “a degree of liberty [or equality] that would be wrong to violate or not protect”, like in his words when such has not been upheld then “something bad has happened, something of value has been lost, people have not been treated as they had a right to be treated” — instead of redefining liberty and equality. I understand the need for brevity, but he could make it almost as short by speaking of a “right to liberty [or equality]”, and still reach the conclusion that rights, in other words what is actually valued (I am assuming the validity of his interpretive theory of rights), need not conflict.
Something other than style: 2) I think there’s a cognitive bias which dooms his insurance scheme to perpetually cause a lot of suffering in poverty. People underestimate risk. Maybe he could fix this over time by collecting data from people who fell into poverty, asking them how much they wish they’d been insured for.
3) I think my computer is getting ready to crash. Just a moment.
3) Dworkin admits “something has indeed gone wrong when [people] have less now because they had brute bad luck, including bad genetic luck.” The insurance scheme is supposed to remedy this by getting as close as is possible to a state when “no one envies the package of work and reward than anyone else has achieved.” But, per Strawson, “luck swallows everything“, and so there is always cause for envy; because no one’s choices were every really free, someone with less can always justifiably envy someone whose trajectory through spacetime resulted in having more. Dworkin needs free will in order to justify calling this-amount-of-equality-but-no-more a right to equality, or the degree of equality worth valuing.
4) I was promised a hedgehog, but all I got was a metaphor.
More on 1)
I know that fox freedom, where “power is freedom” full stop, worked on at least one libertarian, and libertarians have their own variety of hedgehog freedom:
Emphasizing the obvious truth of fox freedom worked. N = 1, I know, but I wonder if Dworkin’s N > 0.
strange gods, yeah, I owe you (and others) an apology for baiting. Some meatspace stress got through the human-computer interace. Sorry about that.
Cool, thanks cm.
Nerd: you are cleared for saying “Your unevidenced OPINION is *POOF* dismissed as fuckwittery” again. False alarm.
Just not too often, OK, please? ;-)
SGBM
I didn’t read the whole thing, because the author’s writing style reallyannoys me, but his insurance scheme is a needlessly complex way of administering a social safety net; it would be much simpler to skip the ‘what they would have insured against, maybe, etc.’ crap and go straight to ‘what are the actual costs of living,’ and set the minimum income based on that. It’s a bad system and therefore a bad argument.
Also, this bit:
makes all the rest of his blithering about taxes completely irrelevant; the money that you owe in taxes has not been ‘awarded to you’ under a presumptively ‘reasonably fair system’; infrastructure needs paying for, after all, so if you used it, it’s fair you pay in for it, presuming that doing so causes minimal hardship.
I just stumbled across another ixchel-portal here
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2011/11/21/how-to-spot-a-quack/
Dalillama: I’m not sure about your second paragraph, but I’m too tired to decide at the moment.
+++++
chigau: Intriguingly, the portal never closes. But look who’s in charge of it. Not the fun one.
ॐ
Yeah.
I didn’t comment because I don’t want to attract the wrong kind of attention.
So I asked myself
is there a place called Hog’s Hedge?
and is it in Britain?
Surely, surely.
But nope, nope.
I saw some people mentioning a MENSA card over there.
Let me tell you what, I am a member of MENSA. Apparently, my IQ is on the high 0.1% of the population, which doesn’t seem to help me all that much.
Besides, a club that thinks I’m smart enough to be a member can’t be that smart itself.
lol
Vaiyt, I know that you are not bragging about being in MENSA. But in case you are not aware, when some one is in the act of pulling out the MENSA, Vox Day gets pulled out as the ultimate example of playing the MENSA card.
Vaiyt:
Um…a fair amount of people here qualify. MENSA is a long running joke here, given MENSA itself and we’ve had a long history of people here making incredibly bad, stupid arguments and defending said arguments with “I’M A MEMBER OF MENSA!!1!”.
There are many strangely-named places in Britain. That’s not one of them. (For a collection of syllables not commonly heard together, I’d recommend Shingay-cum-Wendy.)
But hedgehogs were the subject of 2009’s (official!) funniest joke. Link.
oh, man, plus back in the day ur-troll Charlie Wagner once posted a link to a scan of his membership card.
Bonus laffs: It was expired!
Chas:
You can still see it! The post is archived at Panda’s Thumb. :D
If your Mensa membership expires do you go back to being stupid?
I’m not sure. I think you may retain a three-digit IQ.
The sum of those digits might well be 1, of course.
Do the three digits include decimals?
Caine, Janine, Chas: don’t explain the joke!
Sure! If you’re willing to pay the membership fee, they’ll add as many decimal points as you’d like!
Chigau:
You’d have to ask sandiseattle, what with him being the expert in three digit IQs.
Caine
I regret not asking sandiseattle at the time.
It seems like such an obvious question.
NEW THREAD.