Comments

  3. says

    You know, on my logged-in account, this is what I see:

    mythbri
    9 May 2013 at 5:07 pm (UTC -5) | Delete | Spam | (Edit comment) Link to this comment

    “Delete” looks awfully tempting when I see defiant cat lovers. Or maybe “Edit”. “Spam” would put you on a blacklist.

    Oh, you people. You constantly challenge my sense of restraint.

  11. says

    Karley, that quiz is very nice work! I hope you’ve posted a link in PZ’s thread on it a few days back as well, as sometimes threads get resurrected from a state of death and it’s useful to have great contributions noted there too.

  13. okstop says

    I’ve always wanted to plunge into the Thunderdome and say something that would get zapped from the Lounge… but I have nothing to say. Not right now, anyway. I just want to watch old episodes of The Amazing Race and drink screwdrivers. Or watch documentaries about the Civil War and drink lemonade. Or watch paint dry and drink turpentine. That last one isn’t ideal, but anything to avoid grading, really.

  15. mythbri says

    The Western Black Rhinoceros was declared extinct. To borrow a joke from Stephen Colbert, when I saw that this news was reported on CNN I hoped that the species had actually made an amazing comeback.

    But no.

    I feel cheated by the past generations that prevented me from ever seeing species like the dodo bird or Tazmanian Tiger.

    I imagine that’s how future generations will feel about us.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/10/world/africa/rhino-extinct-species-report/index.html?sr=sharebar_facebook

  20. theignored says

    It just hit me: Those things are knids, from the book “Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator”.

  27. chigau (違う) says

    Holy shirt!
    It changes all of them, everywhere!
    That’s … creepy.

  28. bad Jim says

    I could use a fight right now, but as usual there’s nothing but fluffiness here. Okay.

    A week or two ago I gushed about having swallows for the third year in a row, and wondered how so many could fit into one tiny nest. It finally occurred to me to look on the other side of the roof beam, and there’s another nest there. My mother’s weekend caregiver insisted there was yet another one on the other side of the house, we went to look, and it was a little hard to deny that there was a bird looking back at us.

    It’s a swallow condo, perhaps one growing family coming back every year. They probably think they own the place. We must be doing something right.

  29. chigau (違う) says

    and
    Ce qui a donné Gravatar l’idée que je peux fonctionner en langue française?

  32. chigau (違う) says

    theophontes #29
    “meh”
    Mine is a kitteh watching Nemo, touching the TV screen, looking into the camera and saying ‘meow’.
    Beat that.

  33. bad Jim says

    Theophontes, the pillow fights I had as a child, with an older sister and two younger brothers, were pretty violent. THWACK!

    The people here are about as nice as could be imagined. I’ve engaged in contention once or twice, but the issue was alway about how to be kind. So much for the viciousness of the Pharyngulite horde.

  36. chigau (違う) says

    bad Jim

    So much for the viciousness of the Pharyngulite horde.

    *ahem*
    yer a big dum … possum
    —
    One year I worked very close to a colony of those swallows that make nests with mud and spit.
    It was large, about 40 active nests.
    That summer the birds were taking advantage of nearby road construction for their mud.
    The next summer there were about 8 active nests.
    We figured they poisoned themselves with construction mud.
    I haven’t returned to the site so I don’t know the current situation.

  37. bad Jim says

    I. Don’t. Want. To. Hear. That. Next year I want to see four nests, dammit.

    I’d kind of like to know what we’re doing to breed enough insects to keep the birds fed; not just the swallows, but the mockingbirds, orioles, hummingbirds and gnatcatchers. We’ve got rats, opossums, raccoon, deer, and coyotes, and we’re near the edge of a wilderness preserve, so that may be enough of an ecosystem to keep the traditional flyways working.

    San Juan Capistrano is just down the road, and there the swallows have long been a civic tradition, but they haven’t been showing up as much as expected. We didn’t use to have them at all, but now it seems they think they own the place (which is fine by me; it’s such a treat to watch the way they fly. Each bird is a different artist of flight, and some get to me more than others. Doves are mainly noisy and clumsy, but the way they glide in to land is sublime.)

  38. okstop says

    @Asher Kay (#22):

    Oh, let’s be clear – I know how relatively lucky I am. I got out of the corporate world for a reason. But that doesn’t make me hate grading any less.

  42. Pteryxx says

    Gorg @8, here’s the source for the thread drawing:

    http://satisfactorycomics.blogspot.com/2012/03/alphabeasts-v-is-for-vermicious-knids.html

    It’s by comic artist Isaac Cates, after the style of Roald Dahl’s original illustrations. Here’s another Dahl example, from Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator:

    http://www.roalddahlfans.com/books/charglasknids.php

    “But if they’re so fierce and dangerous,” Charlie said, “why didn’t they eat us up right away in the Space Hotel? Why did they waste time twisting their bodies into letters and writing SCRAM?”

    “Because they’re show–offs,” Mr. Wonka replied. “They’re tremendously proud of being able to write like that.”

    “But why say scram when they wanted to catch us and eat us?”

    “It’s the only word they know,” Mr. Wonka said.

  46. gobi's sockpuppet's meatpuppet says

    Wow, so this is the Thunderdome, it’s… nice…
    Kittens, pillow fights, children’s stories…

    Can’t remember what I was worried about now…

  48. theignored says

    To Lofty at 46:

    Says the one with a CAT avatar! phphphphphphphhhph and double-phphphphphphphpphphhphp!

  51. Ogvorbis, broken failure. says

    I, for one, will righteously, and with abject politeness, fail to appreciate the oppressive overlord and will, with abject politeness, continue to respectfully resist our beloved oppressive overlord.

  52. chigau (違う) says

    A thought ‘experiment’
    – the Dungeon is a real place (like Hell)
    – joey, txpiper and StevoR are sharing a cell …

  55. says

    @okstop

    I got out of the corporate world for a reason.

    Wait… It’s possible to do that?!??! I want the escape route!

    Yeah, if I were grading papers, I imagine I’d be complaining about that. But the thing that’s getting to me is not being able to just finish a day’s work and say, “I’m done”. I’ve got this behemoth of a project that’s supposed to “go live” on a particular date, and everyone’s “counting on me” to “make it work”. Too much pressure.

  56. says

    ain’t no proper ‘Thunderdome’ at all no more

    Strangey’s hibernation seems to drag on a bit this time. Surely he’s got to come out of it at some point?

    (I’m not insomniac but on night duty)

  57. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    What’s that? The Thunderdome is in need of some random curse words? Allow me to help!

    POOP!
    PEEPEE!
    UNDERSHORTS!

    That should get this place riled up, by gum.

    /sorry, my son keeps making me read Captain Underpants books to him at night

  58. yazikus says

    That’s a hell of an article.

    I think I read that article in Mother Jones originally, and it was terrifying.Hard to believe there isn’t more of a national conversation going on about this.

  59. Ogvorbis, broken failure. says

    What’s that? The Thunderdome is in need of some random curse words? Allow me to help!

    POOP!
    PEEPEE!
    UNDERSHORTS!

    Those aren’t curse words. How about:

    BACHMANN!
    PALIN!
    LIMBAUGH!

    or, even worse,

    P*LTDOWN MAN!

  60. Beatrice (looking for a happy thought) says

    That’s a hell of an article.
    really

    Yeah.
    The “I got something in my eye” kind of article.

  62. zytigon says

    BBC Radio 4 had a good book of the week about Bumble Bees, ” A sting in the tale ” by Dave Gaulson. Starting 7th May. On 10th Dave pointed out that many garden bedding plants have been bred for larger flowers but unfortunately produce less nectar. Flowers that have been bred to produce double blooms make it difficult for the bumble bees to get to the nectar. Dave pointed out that a century ago there was a far more diverse flora on farmland. Nectar plants for bees have been greatly reduced by a combination of agri herbicides, ploughing wildflower meadows & reseeding with rye grass, fertilising resulting in lush grass blocking out wildflowers, far higher area of grain etc

    What if the governments of the world made a rule that there must be a 5 metre band of wildflowers round every field, would that make a big difference or would it need to be a 12 metre band ?

    Dave was appealing to people who have a garden to grow plants which are good nectar sources.

  63. okstop says

    @John Morales (#40):

    Philosophy, though it’s all just intro and critical reasoning this semester. I don’t mind – I like the “gateway” courses. It’s fun to see people who never really understood what “philosophy” was get excited about it.

    A combination of luck and willingness to reduce my standard of living radically. I was lucky enough to be single at 30 years old, so I could afford to go from a modest-but-sufficient corporate IT salary to living on campus and surviving off a meal plan while I got my degree. Not everyone is in a situation where you can do that, but if you can, I highly recommend it.

    @Asher (#55):

    Ugh! You have my sympathies. See, the only virtue, in my opinion, of corporate life was that I could forget about it when I checked out at the end of the day. But, then, I had a relatively-innocuous IT job, doing in-house tech support. I had a roommate in software development at the same company and we’d go home at the end of the day and he’d sometimes still be working while I was fucking off and watching TV… granted, he made twice as much as I did, but there you go. Salary v. hourly in a nutshell. The whole reason I went back to school and got into academia was that I knew I’d have to actually love what I did if I was ever going to survive having a job that I had to take home with me while also realizing that if I ever wanted to have enough money to have a comfortable home life, I’d need a job a had to take home with me.

  65. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    As I noted long long ago.

    Kitteh anomie.

    (I need the kitteh to reappear for long enough to re-enact the budgie scene, and then if I can get a photo, I HAZ GRAVATAR!)

    —

    Unrelated. Oh my!

    Someone moved out of my house 15 years ago. They’re still on the Scientology mailing list.

    http://scientomology.tumblr.com/

    It’s … it’s … it’s I don’t know what it is. ;-)

  66. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    Sometimes, you really do have to read the comments on YouTube.

    Henri le chat noir #6, featured comment:

    wow you are becoming a business you got this dunm adds sure cats cute but you i miss your old videos were you just show the gave some subtitles and a voice and made it say stuff that any puffed up cat would say i mean dont mind you showing you book but not in that manner your lucky that im keeping you as subscribe thing becouse that was some wat funny and it was cute

    Henri replies:

    I applaud you for your bravery. Living with an allergy to punctuation must be a constant struggle.

  67. chigau (違う) says

    cm #66
    I applaud your bravery. (for reading youtube comments)
    Henri’s reply is as good as ‘bless your heart’.

  68. Lofty says

    theignored

    Says the one with a CAT avatar!

    THAT is a totallyfuckingseriouscat avatar, not a lolcat at all.

  69. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    chigau:

    cm #66

    I feel so inadequate compared to the the tardigrade and those who went before it

    i am also for the moment eschewing punctuation and indeed capitalisation it might be fun

  72. says

    @ zytigon

    wildflowers

    I’ll post this again to cheer you on: Fynbos Garden

    I persuaded my parents to replace their grass lawn with indigenous plants quite a while back. It took a few years for the conditions to restore themselves, but ever since it has been a major success. Added to this, all manner of wildlife have returned off the mountain into the garden. More importantly, it is a living advertisement for supplanting the barren green deserts of grass (Suburban South Africans are very much like ‘Merkins in this respect.) The neighbours have also transformed large parts of their gardens in the same way. Who knows how far this will go…

  74. ck says

    @theophontes

    I’m hardly surprised that he ascribes to all of that. The only mildly impressive thing is that he packed all of it into so few words.

  79. says

    theophontes,

    do I recall correctly that you have some experience and insight into the Asian petrochemical industry? I am in need of some background information in the matter for SO who has an interest in the field, could you please let me know here or email me if you would be happy to share some knowledge…

  80. says

    @ rorschach

    We did a landscape proposal for CNPC a few years back, also a proposal for a clubhouse for their (VIP) staff. I was not involved in anything related to the petrochem industry. As far as I know, only parts of the design ever got implemented anyway.

    Sorry I cannot be of more help. I have completely lost contact with the people involved.

  81. Ogvorbis, broken failure. says

    Your Minnesotan politeness has not gone unnoticed by the Powers-that-Be

    That was not Minnesotan politeness. That was heartfelt and honest.

  89. says

    ponyboy’s turddroppings in the lounge, transferred here for laughing at and deconstructing:

    Hey PZ, do you think it’s possible the reason there is so much tension in the feminist/atheist discussions has to do with inequality in discussing gender roles?

    Do you think if we tried to change the perception that men are expendable, we might have more productive discussions and changes? Why are men expected to die for their country, fight criminals, run into burning buildings and be Canaries in the coal mines for new methods of exploration more often than women? Because biologically, our purpose was to protect and provide for women and children. Why are men more aggressive and emotional? Because men had to be. Somebody had to be and very few actually had the choice to be.

    You want sociological change between the sexes, start by pointing out we all got the short end of the stick, because the stick was short to begin with. Why continue arguing over who had or has it worse when the point of the quarrels is to try and make things better. Approach the discussion this way, and you may find more straight men to be less inflamed by the conversation at hand.

    and

    My point isn’t that this is How things should be. My point is there will be no equality until a man’s life is viewed as sacred as a woman’s and a woman’s life is viewed as expendable as a man’s. Things are changing, but not fast enough. Because men are still expected to fill their roles and woman are expected to overcome theirs.

    1)PHMT is an important part of contemporary feminism; claims to the contrary are pure, unadulterated bullshit.
    2)Whining about men predominantly doing dangerous jobs that those very same men are trying to keep women out of? Hypocritical bullshit.
    3)And don’t bullshit me about “women and children first”, either. We already know that’s an ahistorical MRA-fairytale: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/33/13220
    4)women’s lives are not “sacred”. the entire anti-abortion movement is one blatant example of that, and so is the long history of western “thought” about how women should just breed and breed until they die. From Martin Luther: “Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing, that is of no consequence; let them go on bearing children till they die, that is what they are there for”
    5)Men’s roles are being expanded by feminism; see Sweden’s parental (rather than maternal) leave policies, and the expansion of paternal leave in more and more countries as most blatant examples

  90. chigau (違う) says

    I’m hoping that ponyboy manages the complex transition over to this thread.
    I’d kinda like to chat.
    If not …
    oh well
    plenty more where that came from

  91. says

    @ Ogvorbis

    That was heartfelt and honest.

    My attempts at Thunderdome nastiness are failing miserably… :(

    (There was the idea, once bandied about, that if a thread such as this was left unmoderated, it would descend into chaos. As it is – and one may have predicted – the opposite has shown to be true. Woe are the tardigrada.)
    …

    Now for some *real* nastiness on Urban Dictionary:

    Freethought Blogs :
    A bunch of whiny attention whores. They claim to do all sorts of great things for the atheist movement, yet all they do is bitch and moan about supposed misogyny that doesn’t exist. They manufacture controversies just so they can get more traffic and earn more ad revenue. If anyone dares to call the site out on their bullshit, the writers will send their moronic fans after them to bully them into silence. See Justin Vacula for an example of this bullying.

    Freethought Blogs? You actually like that site? It’s full of the biggest idiots in the entire atheist community!

  93. chigau (違う) says

    jeez theo, what else are you doing in your spare time?
    anything happening on the insurrection?

  94. says

    jeez theo, what else are you doing in your spare time?

    Nuthin’, just hangin’ up some new artwork ’round here.

    anything happening on the insurrection?

    Do not underestimate the power of Art! First we develop our Social Capital ™ via our capacity to project the artifacts of our vast and unstoppable Minitrue propaganda machine into teh interwebz. Next, we work on the expansion and resourcing of our Repressive State Apparatus ™ . Finally, insurrection!

  95. says

    @ponyboy
    Just because one instance of “expendable” is equivalent to “more powerful” doesn’t mean that all instances are. In this case, being “expendable” means that you don’t get protection. That can be either because you have so little worth that you don’t deserve it or because you’re so powerful that you shouldn’t need it.

    Men have been stereotypically considered stronger and more capable that women. As a result, it also falls to men to take the dangerous jobs. This is part of the whole gender dynamic; men are the strong breadwinners, women are the little porcelain dolls.
    This hurts both genders, since the men are shoved into dangerous situations that they might not be able to handle (with the understanding that if you refuse, you’re not a “real” man), while women are excluded from any such activity because they’re considered too frail and helpless, no matter how competent they actually are.

    First, it’s nice to know how weak you think women are
    Piss of, shit stain. Obviously, I was talking about commonly held ideas about women, not my own personal views. If you can’t keep up with something that simple, it might be better if you just stay out of this.
    Men were (and to some degree, are) expected to do the fighting because of the perception that women wouldn’t be able to. Better?

    Women are expected to be weak, and many act accordingly.

    Pre-fucking-cisely. That’s my point.

    I was paying attention. All I heard was that trolls made rape threats and that meant men were evil cavemen.

    You know, if you’re going to claim that you’ve been paying attention, it’s a good idea not to immediately demonstrate that you haven’t.

    I eagerly await your next installment of dishonesty and bullshit.

  96. says

    This line

    First, it’s nice to know how weak you think women are

    was supposed to be blockquoted too.

  97. says

    ponydumbfuck, infesting the lounge again:

    “That is a common part of modern feminism. Feminism isn’t just about women, you know. It’ also about how gender roles harm men. If you were paying attention, you’d know that.”

    I was paying attention. All I heard was that trolls made rape threats and that meant men were evil cavemen.

    I don’t even know what to call this level of reading fail. “Men are evil cavemen”?! Lol. no. no one actually said that.

    “Stop the melodrama, the draft is being abolished in more and more countries ”

    But some countries still force men to fight, kill and be killed against their will. Maybe if they were forced to wear veils people would actually care about how their lives are being taken from them. Or if they were being raped instead of being marched to their deaths. No, wait. Men get raped in prison all the time and people think it’s funny. Yeah, men have it real good compared to women.

    more stupid fail.
    1)So because not all countries HAVE abolished the draft, that means feminism doesn’t care about men? By that logic, the fact that women are raped and are forced to wear the veil means that feminism doesn’t care about women, either. Total fucking reasoning fail
    2)Show me the feminists at FTB who find rape in prison funny. There aren’t any. That you think there are just means you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

    Men only controlled women because they were expected to keep them safe. If women were expected to protect themselves, men wouldn’t have wasted their time trying to control women?

    ROTFLMAO
    1)women needed “protection” because they were considered possessions. protecting a woman was like protecting your house.
    2)women are and have always been found at fault for not protecting themselves. when they’re killed, it’s their own fault; when they’re raped, they weren’t careful enough; etc.

    “fucking love this kind of bullshit. as if it weren’t the case that men were doing their very fucking best to keep women out of these jobs.”

    Not in Canada. The disparity still exists in the police force, military, fire departments, construction and just about any job that might get you hurt or killed.

    “not in canada” my ass. Canadian mining companies have been sued by women because of hostile work atmosphere; the RCMP has had a bullying/systemic sexual harassment problems since forever, and they’re only finally getting around to trying to maybe address it; etc. All these jobs are doing their fucking best to keep women out by making sure the environment is toxic as hell, so don’t bullshit me about “not in canada”

    When a tragedy occurs and the news reads the number of people who died, what do they say after? “Not just men, but women and children.” Why? Because men are expected to die, but women and children, that’s a REAL tragedy. And is that quote from the bible or a religious leader? I’m talking society, not schizophrenics.

    1)your ableism has been noted
    2)this is a religious society; the opinions of religious people are consequently rather relevant. And once again, i point to anti-abortion as a pretty obvious example of how fucking little this society cares about women.
    3)headlines never say “not just men, but also women and children”; they say X people, among them Y women and X children” (because men are just “people”, while women and children are a special sub-type of “people” and even that has been quite rare. Here’s a list of disaster-headlines i just found, for example:
    http://www.ambriente.com/today/ note that gender is almost unmentioned in the headlines

  99. says

    Amazing, Dr. Myers. I didn’t want to admit it, but certain people were right about you. I wanted to discuss the issue that men have to deal with unwanted cultural and societal expectations, just as women do. About what can be done to bridge the divide and show both sides have a stake worth fighting for in changing cultural perceptions.

    like fuck you did. If that were true, you’d have come here to the thunderdome, where people have pointed you and where people have responded to you.

    Problem is, once you take the side of men, even when you equally take the side of women, you become something that must be destroyed.

    more self-servind self-deception, I guess, given that this is a strawman of epic proportions. Again, PHMT is part of modern feminism; a successful part, given that men are increasingly more likely to be seen stepping out of their old roles with less and less social backlash (again, see Sweden’s parental leave)

    Apparently my crime is that I refuse to say women had it worse, or that men had it better.

    “crime” is pathetic hyperbole; but yeah, denying reality is hardly gong to make you popular around here.

    Never mind the fact that I am a bisexual male who hates gender roles, did a 40 page essay on queer theory and the bending of gender norms for my Feminism class and who adores the freedom I have gained from telling both gay and straight men and women to take their ideas of what I am supposed to be and to go fuck themselves. I must be a misogynist brute who thinks raping women is just another form of obedience training.

    that’s not even a strawman, since no one actually bothered describing you in any way. it’s pure fabrication.

    Why else would I think men have problems to deal with, just like women?

    as opposed to the straw-feminists in your head? because the ones here also think men have problems. See also: PHMT

    Maybe because I have my own experiences with men and women, like when four women sexually assaulted me at a party and tried to strip me naked while ignoring the multiple times I said “No”, and “Stop”. I was barely able to keep a hold of my boxers, but that didn’t stop their hands from grabbing whatever they wanted, regardless of what I wanted.

    right. you were sexually assaulted. that’s fucking horrible. and very likely, the idea that men always want it contributed to that. again, that’s what PHMT is: it hurts men.

    Or when a man cornered me in a gay bar and tried to stick his hand down the front of my pants. He received a broken wrist for not heeding my requests to keep his hand to himself. Had I done that to one of the girls’ wrists or hands, I would have been in the wrong.

    again: PHMT. Because the trope is “men always want it, women never do”, it is very likely you wouldn’t be believed that it was self-defense. But what the everglorious fuck makes you think that the feminists here, or PZ, think that’s ok!?

    Labeled an abuser of women, because “There’s no excuse to hurt a woman”. Another gender disparity. Maybe I could have pressed charges against the women, but then again, I’m a man, so I must have wanted it, right? RIGHT?! You try telling police officers four girls sexually assaulted you and not be laughed out of the precinct.

    PHMT. we get it. and i”m sorry the bullshit patriarchal tropes have led to so much harm to you. But again, why do you think anyone here thinks that’s ok?

    The point is we all suck.

    no, the point is the kyriarchy and the roles it imposes on people sucks.

    And until we all get off our high horses, and stop wearing our scars like badges that give us credibility on issues like this(myself included), there will be no progress.

    fine. take your high horse and fuck off. because none of the shit you said has any relation to the reality of this place.

    Because right now it is very apparent that all anyone cares about is wining the argument about who has had it worse.

    I don’t know about “anyone”, but it’s pretty fucking clear that what you care about is being able to stay on your fucking high horse, reality be damned. because none of the stupid shit you’ve accused people here of is actually true. which you’d know if you’d get off that poor horse

    And we honestly think we can all achieve equality like this? How do you make things better when the only thing being argued over is who the bigger victims are? My opinion? NOBODY! Can we get to work now?

    who the fuck is “we”? you’re the one who came here to argue with phantoms of your own imagination, since people here already work on equality, and work on dismantling not just gender roles, but the gender binary as a whole. But you gotta be able to face the reality of kyriarchy and intersectionality to be able to do that, instead of railing at things you imagine people might say to you, while chickening out of actually reading what they’re actually saying to you.

  101. says

    @LykeX

    Just because one instance of “expendable” is equivalent to “more powerful” doesn’t mean that all instances are. In this case, being “expendable” means that you don’t get protection. That can be either because you have so little worth that you don’t deserve it or because you’re so powerful that you shouldn’t need it.

    there’s another aspect to that, actually: consider how ridiculously high historical rates of death-by-pregnancy were; that probably produced a very skewed sex-ratio. so you had a lot of “spare” guys… how to fix the problem, socially? well, you could keep the women from dying; or, you could turn the spare men into priests and soldiers.
    Or, compare it to the FLDS “lost boys”: when the patriarchs are supposed to have multiple wifes, and the birth ratio stays at its natural level, that will also produce an overabundance of men; so the lowest-status ones get kicked out.
    Another version of this: the higher status of sons over daughters possibly leading to gender-selective abortion or female infanticide. Result: fuckloads of single men with no hopes for family; again.

    Basically, Patriarchies tend to produce situations in which there’s a lot of single guys with no chance of ever de-singling. And those, if not somehow dealt with, will destabilize the society and become a threat to the patriarchs. So you can accommodate them somehow (e.g. in all-male, celibate priesthoods), or you can make them go away somehow.

    So yeah: very low status guys are usually very very fucked in patriarchies

  104. says

    @ Jadehawk

    or you can make them go away somehow.

    This was a serious problem in the middle ages amongst the well-to-do. As only the first-born (males only, obviously) could inherit, you ended up with a vast supply of educated, militarily-trained louts with nothing to do. Sending them out to the crusades fixed the problem for quite a while.

  106. mythbri says

    Ah. The old “not in canada” fallacy.

    I can imagine that it’s frustrating to not be living in the U.S. and yet have assumptions continually made that circumstances in the U.S. either define circumstances everywhere, or that cultural problems in the U.S. are cultural problems everywhere, or that nearly everything on FTB (being composed of many U.S. bloggers) is discussed in a U.S.-based context. Us U.S.ians are famous for our egotism, thinking that everyone’s priorities are

    1. The United States of America
    2. All those weird foreign countries

    But yeah, I tire of the people who use the “Not in Canada” or “Not in Europe” or “Not in Australia” defense for cultural problems that do extend beyond the borders of the U.S., though they obviously manifest in ways specific to the country in question.

    Conversely, it must be frustrating for non-U.S.ians to hear people in the U.S. say smugly, “Not in Amurrica.”

  107. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    But yeah, I tire of the people who use the “Not in Canada” or “Not in Europe” or “Not in Australia” defense for cultural problems that do extend beyond the borders of the U.S., though they obviously manifest in ways specific to the country in question.

    Word. Especially when they are completely wrong. Which isn’t a fallacy as such. But yeah.

  108. David Marjanović says

    As only the first-born (males only, obviously) could inherit, you ended up with a vast supply of educated, militarily-trained louts with nothing to do. Sending them out to the crusades fixed the problem for quite a while.

    They weren’t yet educated in those times; and primogeniture wasn’t universal – among the Franks, everything from farms to the Empire was divided among all surviving sons, delaying the problem a few generations till everything became too small. (On the kingdom scale, that meant endless infighting from Clovis to Charlemagne, and then again for another century or two.)

    But yeah, the crusades fixed a lot of problems for a while.

  109. David Marjanović says

    Ponyboy!

    You try telling police officers four girls sexually assaulted you and not be laughed out of the precinct.

    Laugh? Why would they laugh?

    Because of their patriarchal prejudices! That’s why! Let me list a few:

    1) women are weak, so they can’t do any actual damage, so stop crying like a girl;
    2) look at the less-than-a-man who let something as weak as woman dominate “him”, LOL;
    3) (as you said:) men always want, women always can – and then he complains, LOL? Man up, man!
    4) compare the connotations of “stud” and “slut”.

    Number 3, at least, is something that many women believe as well, because it’s what everyone keeps telling them. It’s fucked up – it’s the patriarchy going around and hitting you on the back of your head from behind.

  110. Ogvorbis, broken failure. says

    You try telling police officers four girls sexually assaulted you and not be laughed out of the precinct.

    Ponyboy:

    I am a man. I was raped for a period of two years when I was younger. One of the reasons I said nothing was that, even when I was nine or ten years old, I had already internalized toxic patriarchy — which included the idea that only women and girls can be raped and that if I was raped, that made me a girl. So I call bullshit on your attempt to use the patriarchy to excoriate feminism.

  111. ck says

    mythbri wrote:

    Conversely, it must be frustrating for non-U.S.ians to hear people in the U.S. say smugly, “Not in Amurrica.”

    From what I’ve seen, American denialism seems to take a slightly different tactic. Assuming you can get the person to even agree that a particular situation even exists and is a problem, I generally see it crop up when discussing something that has been addressed (in whole or part) in several other countries. Invariably, when the tactics other countries have used to solve or reduce the problem are discussed, they are instantly dismissed because the country in question is not the United States with endless bullshit reasons about the population or cultural differences. The U.S.’s problems with health care, gun violence, poverty, minority protection, environmental protection, education and many others are all dismissed by either asserting that it would never work with a population as large as the United States, or that cultural differences make the idea fundamentally incompatible and unable to work Stateside.

    It’s tantamount to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, “NAH NAH, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

  112. says

    I can imagine that it’s frustrating to not be living in the U.S. and yet have assumptions continually made that circumstances in the U.S. either define circumstances everywhere, or that cultural problems in the U.S. are cultural problems everywhere, or that nearly everything on FTB (being composed of many U.S. bloggers) is discussed in a U.S.-based context.

    my experience has been rather a complete denial of the fact that problems that exist in the U.S. are not somehow nonexistent in Europe.
    In Europe, “cunt” apparently doesn’t mean vagina
    In Europe, there’s no rapes in elevators
    In Europe, everything is fucking magic, apparently

    *rage*

  114. chigau (違う) says

    wtf. my comments keep on disappearing into the ether

    It’s because they have gay marriage in Minnesota now.
    God®’s aim is very bad.
    He hasn’t come close to Rebecca Watson.

  115. Amphiox says

    But yeah, the crusades fixed a lot of problems for a while.

    The crusades exported the problem elsewhere for a while.

    my comments keep on disappearing into the ether

    Hey now. If you have evidence that the luminiferous ether exists, refuting Michelson-Morley, that would be a big deal!

  116. chigau (違う) says

    There is something about this time of night the diurnal cycle.
    Hello.
    Is there anybody out there?

  117. says

    But yeah, the crusades fixed a lot of problems for a while.

    A very long while – from the days of Peter the Hermit (1096), and not forgetting the Northern Crusades ’til the overunning of Granada in 1492, they served as an ideal way to mop up all that excess testosterone.

    everything from farms to the Empire was divided among all surviving sons,

    Ok, I understood that the landowners generally practiced primogeniture whereas the nobles, as you say, kept splitting up their property. Where these intersect (and create spare knights) is when the resulting castellans suddenly realise that one cannot split a castle in half.


    education

    What little there was. It is delightful to read Milton’s impression of the Scholastics (which movement was bracketed almost precisely by the times in question):

    [students of] the Scholastic grossness of barbarous ages ….They, having but newly left those grammatic flats and shallows where they stuck unreasonably to learn a few words with lamentable construction, and now on the sudden transported under another climate to be tossed and turmoiled with their unballasted wits in fathomless and unquiet deeps of controversy, do for the most part grow into hatred and contempt of learning, mocked and deluded all this while with ragged notions and babblements while they expected worthy and delightful knowledge; till poverty or youthful years call them importunately their several ways and hasten them with the sway of friends either to an ambitious and mercenary or ignorantly zealous divinity…

  121. chigau (違う) says

    just in case …
    my #118 was about theophontes’s #116 Milton quote.

  122. says

    Au contraire 2IC!

    I absolutely loved reading that. He really knocks it out of the park! (If he was not dead, he should be commenting here…. hey, wait! … this is Teh Zombie Thread ™ !

    @ Jadehawk

    wtf. my comments keep on disappearing into the ether

    My access is intermittent and convoluted (I have to call up TD via my “History”)

  123. chigau (違う) says

    theophontes
    I find reading (in my head) “Classic” English literature painful.
    If I read it aloud it is beautiful.
    Your Milton passage fits the bill.
    [They™, in high school, made us read Romeo and Juliette.]
    [At a time when we could have gone to see Zeffirelli’s version.]

  125. chigau (違う) says

    and, really, doesn’t

    tossed and turmoiled with their unballasted wits in fathomless and unquiet deeps of controversy

    work better if you go out onto your porch or balcony and proclaim it?

  128. consciousness razor says

    [They™, in high school, made us read Romeo and Juliette.]
    [At a time when we could have gone to see Zeffirelli’s version.]

    I’d enjoy seeing it of course, but when the language is archaic and/or unfamiliar (and you know, if you haven’t already read/seen it a million times), it’s easier to follow and notice more of the details when you have it there in front of you, not changing or getting erased by the next moment. You can refer back to something said a minute ago, or pick apart the structure of a sentence or phrase to figure out what it means. Trying to do that with a performance really only works when you’re fluent, and even then it takes a lot of attention the whole time.

    tossed and turmoiled with their unballasted wits in fathomless and unquiet deeps of controversy

    How many trolls would this not describe?

    There are many who are untossed and unturmoiled, because no matter how much they try they’re simply too boring. People tend to prefer chew toys with a bit of substance and a fairly distinct taste/aroma. Without that, all you really have is a watery (faintly yellow?) puddle that some poor, soon-to-be-forgotten troll has left behind and has probably forgotten it himself/herself. Nobody wants that. Sad as it may be, I would guess that the vast majority of trolls who have ever lived all died from attention-starvation.

  131. says

    And I just had to scurry back to share my new, shiny word here:

    Abecedarian

    Abecedarian insult “Sir, you are an apogenous, bovaristic, coprolalial, dasypygal, excerebrose, facinorous, gnathonic, hircine, ithyphallic, jumentous, kyphotic, labrose, mephitic, napiform, oligophrenial, papuliferous, quisquilian, rebarbative, saponaceous, thersitical, unguinous, ventripotent, wlatsome, xylocephalous, yirning zoophyte.”

  132. consciousness razor says

    theophontes:
    I would say they both count. They’re evangelists and totally suck at it. They probably realize that evangelism here is futile, and mostly just want to raise some kind of doubt. (As if we aren’t doubting enough already.) They provoke us with their half-baked, malformed arguments. We react by shredding it to bits, maybe after first refashioning it into something like a coherent series of thoughts. That’s validating enough to do it again, without having learned anything. They don’t converse with us in a meaningful way. They are trolling at us and preaching at us.

    And I’d say trolling isn’t purely for the sake of irritating people anyway. They generally have some other agenda. Otherwise, they’d lose steam fast: they’d quit or constantly switch to other “random” topics which could be just as irritating. Instead, what we get are MRA trolls, racist trolls, libertarian trolls, godbotting trolls, etc. — often more than one theme, but there’s almost always at least one.

  135. Ogvorbis, broken failure. says

    theophontes & CR:

    The big problem was that both A.R. and I were splitters, so both Godbotosauridae and Trollodonidae got really complicated really fast. So many different ways trolls can manifest.

  136. says

    Abecedarian

    Abecedarian insult “Sir, you are an apogenous, bovaristic, coprolalial, dasypygal, excerebrose, facinorous, gnathonic, hircine, ithyphallic, jumentous, kyphotic, labrose, mephitic, napiform, oligophrenial, papuliferous, quisquilian, rebarbative, saponaceous, thersitical, unguinous, ventripotent, wlatsome, xylocephalous, yirning zoophyte.”

    Word.

  137. joey says

    Amphiox here:

    The discussion was that absolute inherent dignity and ABSOLUTE inalienable rights do not, for a practical matter, exist in the real world.

    But how typical of joey to deliberately excise the MOST IMPORTANT WORDS pertaining to the discussion to try to make some kind of pathetic talking point.

    Adding “absolute” to either of those things is unnecessary and redundant.

    Is there such a thing as inherent dignity that is only relative/subjective? Likewise, how can an inalienable right not be absolute?

    ———————-
    Tony here:

    You think you’re going to convince anyone here that their worldview is wrong, yet you cannot accept one simple fact: you have NO evidence to back up your theologically based claims, which the vast majority of the commenters (I cannot say all, becuase I do not know for certain) here reject.

    What “theological based claim” are you talking about? That viable fetuses shouldn’t be terminated if live birth is an option?

    ———————-
    theophontes here:

    I gather you are trying to construct a hypothetical in which an essentially normal birth is terminated just prior. And somehow we should rise up in moral indignation at the idea. Or rather, if you want to place yourself on the moral high ground, we should just say we are fine with that. Aaargh, atheist monsters are we! What you describe is a pretty rare and unusual situation, joey. It is also not one that is generally allowed (assuming a healthy birth is about to take place), as there are restrictions on when a birth may be terminated. What is more likely in the real world, is that the pregnancy is carried forward those extra, hypothetical, 5 minutes and the baby put up for adoption. -theophontes

    Gosnell is still part of the conversation, right? -me

    Holy fuck, are you still trying to pin the fucking Gosnell-tail onto the Pharyngulite donkey? I think we have all expressed our disgust and contempt for Gosnell by now. -theophontes

    I was just making sure we were still talking about the late-term abortions that Gosnell performed, which were done at 24-weeks and beyond. I wasn’t trying to construct “a hypothetical in which an essentially normal birth is terminated just prior”. I was referring to the numerous cases in which Gosnell delivered very premature, yet viable babies. These women didn’t seek adoption (obviously if they did, they wouldn’t have gone to Gosnell…or they would have at least complained when they realized their babies didn’t come out alive). These women wanted their fetuses terminated. It’s just that Gosnell chose to terminate them outside the womb. My main question has been whether there is any practical difference terminating the fetus inside the womb or waiting “those extra 5 minutes” to terminate the baby outside the womb (which is what Gosnell has done numerous times).

    So, would it have been acceptable if they were terminated while still inside the women as opposed to outside? -me

    I have said what I have to say.

    True, you may have said what you wanted to say, but you still avoided answering the question.

    ——————–
    LykeX here:

    We’re still talking about America, right? Land of the free, home of the people who kill abortion doctors? If you’re going to claim America as a place where abortion is easily available… then that’s exactly the kind of bullshit I’ve come to expect from you.

    No, I never claimed that abortion is “easily available”…whatever that means.

    I maintain that in any place where my assumptions hold, you don’t see these kinds of cases. I invite you to prove me wrong.

    First tell me your description of “easily available”, and if there is a place on earth where you think abortion is “easily available”. And if there is no place on earth where abortion is “easily available”, then you’re absolutely correct that I won’t be able to cite such late-term abortion cases in a place that doesn’t exist. Convenient, huh?

    And besides, the extent to which abortion is available doesn’t impact the wrongness of terminating a viable fetus. It’s a meaningless (and purposeful) distraction to the conversation.

    You’re missing the point. Why didn’t they get the early term abortion? Why did they wait? For fun? Or because they couldn’t actually get these oh-so-easily-accessed early term abortions?

    And as I’ve said this is a distraction to the debate at hand. Either terminating late-term viable fetuses is wrong, or it’s not wrong. Would bringing up the accessibility of abortion be relevant if we’re debating the ethicality of a woman ditching her newborn infant in a dumpster?

    ———————-
    Amphiox here:

    joey’s little “hundreds” of cases is another deliberate piece of obfuscating dishonesty of his part.

    Dude, why don’t you just read the report? You don’t even have to read the entire thing…you just have to make it past the first two sentences of the report…

    This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. -p.1 {emphasis mine}

    And, as has already been repeated by deliberately ignored again and again by joey, this is in fact murder, and is already covered and prohibited by existing law.

    Yet Planned Parenthood seems to want to overturn such laws.

    ————————-
    omnicrom here:

    You said that you didn’t know what the Pro-choice side wants and believes. This is a lie. You have been in numerous thunderdomes, people have explained in detail what the Pro-Choice side believes and why. You bring up someone who is “Pro-choice BUT” to try and obfuscate it to make it seem you don’t know what you do. This is intellectual dishonesty.

    How am I lying? I’m talking about specifics. Sure I understand that pro-choicers are generally for abortion. But what precisely does that mean? What exactly are the limits? Are there any limits?

    Does “pro choice” mean you agree with the status quo that late-term abortions should be restricted?
    Does “pro choice” mean you agree that if the health of the woman is not at risk, then abortions of viable fetuses should remain illegal?
    Does “pro choice” mean you agree that the woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy at any time for whatever reason?
    Does “pro choice” mean you agree that the woman should be allowed to terminate her fetus at any time for whatever reason?
    Does “pro choice” mean you agree in “after birth abortions”?
    Does “pro choice” mean you agree with what Heather McNamara opined in this piece, where she never differentiated between a fetus and fully born baby?
    Does “pro choice” mean you disagree with BAIPA?
    Does “pro choice” mean you disagree with the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003?
    Does every pro-choicer agree with what the Planned Parenthood representative said in this video?

    Maybe you can tell me the official pro-choice platform by providing a definitive answer to each of the above questions. My take is that you’re probably just as confused as I am about what “pro-choice” means.

    You bring up a smoke screen by making a gun control comparison which is totally invalid. Considering the main goal and focus of the Pro-Choice movement is bodily autonomy for women (which you lie and say is not and does not fully answer your questions when it does) the right to bear arms is not equal to it as an analogy.

    You obviously didn’t get the point of the analogy.

    And no I do not support laws that would make it illegal to terminate a viable fetus for two reasons:

    Thank you for answering the question. Now let’s examine your reasons…

    One is the law has no power because the correct abortion for a viable fetus is birth…

    That makes no sense. That’s like saying laws making rape illegal “has no power” because correct sex is consensual. O…K…

    …and two the real reason for these laws is as a club to try and force on the Anti-Choice party line.

    No, the real reason for laws against the termination of viable fetuses is to prevent the termination of viable fetuses (which we both think is wrong).

    Late Term Abortions are the result of a lack of early term abortions or considerable personal tragedy on the part of the women.

    You can say these same things could also result in a mother abandoning her infant in the dumpster, but such reasons don’t justify the act.

    And many Anti-Choicers couldn’t be happy, it’s never about the foetus (excuse me “unborn baby”), it’s about punishing women for sex.

    Just to be clear, what exactly is this “punishment” of which you speak? Is this “punishment” giving birth to a live child, or is it the live child itself?

  138. joey says

    Janine here:

    Today is the thirtieth anniversary of one of the greatest rants ever recorded by a baseball manager, then Cubs manager Lee Elia. One does not need to be a fan of baseball nor of the Chicago Cubs to appreciate this work of beauty. Needless to say, it is not safe for work.

    I am a fan baseball and the Cubs, and surprisingly this is the first I’ve ever heard of this rant. But it’s somewhat understandable since I officially started my Cubs fandom the following year when Jim Frey managed the Cubs in the magical season of 1984. I think I can still remember the starting lineup and rotation of those 84 Cubs. Jody Davis was my favorite player at the time…primarily because his first name sounded like mine.

  139. joey says

    Just FYI, I made a (long) post prior to the one above that is awaiting moderation.

  142. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Just FYI, I made a (long) post prior to the one above that is awaiting moderation.

    I can hardly wait.

  143. says

    It’s out of moderation. I don’t think you’ll be thrilled. I glanced at that long-ass thing full of babbling and my hand hovered over the spam button until I saw it was supposed to go to the Thunderdome, and then I figured, screw it, it’ll get the reception it deserves.

  144. says

    @joey

    And many Anti-Choicers couldn’t be happy, it’s never about the foetus (excuse me “unborn baby”), it’s about punishing women for sex.

    Just to be clear, what exactly is this “punishment” of which you speak? Is this “punishment” giving birth to a live child, or is it the live child itself?

    Seeing that you don’t know, I think that disqualifies you from making decisions in this area. You’re showing just about zero empathy with that question. I would hazard to guess that this is a problem with most anti-choicers.

  145. chigau (違う) says

    joey, What do you think about contraception?
    i.e. prevention of pregnancy

  146. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    How am I lying? I’m talking about specifics.

    For starters, your god doesn’t exist and your babble is work of mythology/fiction, making your theological morals nothing but inane and unsupported bullshit.

  147. says

    @joey

    First tell me your description of “easily available”, and if there is a place on earth where you think abortion is “easily available”.

    I would refer you to my own country, Denmark. Abortion is legal, no questions asked, for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. You can get it by seeing your own doctor, any other general practitioner, a hospital or clinic and the procedure is free.
    Later abortions are an options, after consultation with the doctor. Usually, these are done as a result of developmental disorders found in screenings done after 12 weeks.

    You can get counsel from your doctor, but there are no rules about looking at ultrasound images, listening to heart beats or mandatory waiting periods. The mandatory information includes information about the procedure itself, about your rights with regards to economic and practical support, and about the fact that you can, at any time, change your mind and cancel the abortion.
    You can also speak to specialized workers in reproductive clinics, if you prefer. These also provide post-abortion counseling, if you need it.

    If you’re younger than 18, parental consent is required. However, if there is some conflict with the parents, you can get dispensation, where a social worker is assigned to evaluate the case instead of the parents.

    And naturally, condoms and other forms of birth control are easily available. Condoms are sold in most convenience stores and I think the pill is available without parental involvement (I’m a dude without children, so I’m a little fuzzy on that). Obviously, sex education is standard in the public schools, including comprehensive information on the purpose and use of birth control.
    The medical schools run a volunteer service that comes out to public schools and offer information on reproductive health, so if your local teacher is an idiot, there are ways around that.

    So:
    1) Proper information on pregnancy and birth control
    2) Birth control can be found easily and cheaply
    3) Abortion is legal, free, and widely available, without waiting periods or unnecessary restrictions

    Under those circumstances, I wouldn’t expect to see cases like Gosnell. I would expect that illegal, late-term abortions would be incredibly rare and only occur in extreme cases. It would not occur often enough that any quack could set up shop. He wouldn’t have enough customers.

    There might conceivably be a case or two somewhere, but I don’t remember any off the top of my head and a quick google gives me nothing.

    And as I’ve said this is a distraction to the debate at hand. Either terminating late-term viable fetuses is wrong, or it’s not wrong.

    But, we already settled that. I gave you my opinion and you agreed. Why are you dragging this back up?
    Seems to me that you’re the one trying to dodge the point I brought up; that anti-choice policies increase the number of late-term abortions, not the other way around.

    You’re the one who brought up Gosnell and now you don’t want to discuss a relevant point of that case, namely: How come these women even went to him? Isn’t that a relevant question? If we want to prevent a certain scenario, isn’t it relevant to ask how it came about?

    My contention remains that the reason they went to him was that normal abortion options had been restricted to such a level that they felt they had no other choice. It’s my position that anti-choice policies promote quacks like Gosnell, whereas easy access to abortion works to limit such cases. That position still stands unrefuted by you.

  148. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Joey, more fuckwitted, inane and leading meaningless questions. No evidence presented to support your OPINION. Ergo a teal deer post full of nonsense. Try real evidence, not your theology, which is nothing but bullshit until you prove your deity exists and your babble isn’t a book of mythology fiction. You pretending they are meaning doesn’t mean that the theology isn’t based on twin lies.

  149. opposablethumbs says

    I understand that pro-choicers are generally for abortion

    You understand nothing, joey. Pro-choicers are for choice. It says it right there in the name.

    Pro-choicers are in favour of women and men having full reproductive autonomy – i.e. fact-based sex education (and none of this abstinence-only rubbish), free access to effective contraception and, in the case of women, free access to abortion services. Abortion means terminating a pregnancy; whether or not this involves terminating the foetus depends on whatever is best medical practice – from the point of view of the life and health of the woman – in each case.

    Anything else is obfuscation – your usual MO, then …

  150. says

    You understand nothing, joey. Pro-choicers are for choice. It says it right there in the name.

    You have to make allowances–after all, the “pro-life” moniker is obviously an outright lie. Life is not the point. Continuation of the hierarchical structure which keeps women subordinate to men via forced pregnancy and forced birth, regardless of how many women have to pay with their lives, is the point. Since his side lies through their teeth, naturally he assumes everyone else is doing so as well.

  151. says

    My main question has been whether there is any practical difference terminating the fetus inside the womb or waiting “those extra 5 minutes” to terminate the baby outside the womb (which is what Gosnell has done numerous times).

    Again. This is an extreme case and one that should be avoided if at all possible. It is the kind of desperate thing that happens when religious bigots try and tell women what they can and can’t do with their own bodies. Through delays in gaining access to abortion (I have gone into this in detail upthread, with citations) such situations do occur. But ask yourself, in all honesty: Is such a situation more likely in a country like Denmark, with rational and empathic regulations in this regard, or in a country that is morally corrupted by the above religious bigots fucking with the process for their own selfish purposes? These bigots that prevent or restrict access to safe abortions. (Click that link, joey)

    True, you may have said what you wanted to say, but you still avoided answering the question.

    You are a very frustrating person to discuss anything with, as you keep giving me reason to suspect that you are arguing in bad faith. I provide you (along with the likes of LykeX) with all the dots, yet you refuse to connect them. En fin:

    So, would it have been acceptable if they were terminated while still inside the women as opposed to outside

    Give me one single example from any country (like Denmark, as mentioned above) which has humane, rational abortion laws where this has occured. Your argument is based on a murderer’s wrongdoings not in the context of the outcome of sensible abortion laws.
    Further I cannot commend a situation, as you described, where the woman in question was in any way endangered. In reality (google it, joey), the birth would proceed and the child either taken up by the mother or put up for adoption.

    ….

    While we are having a Q&A session could you answer me this from your goddist perspective:
    Is there any moral or ethical tenet of value, in all of christiandom, that is uniquely christian?

    This is a simple question. Xtians like to claim such moral pearls of wisdom as the following, as their own:

    Matthew 7:12 – Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

    This is, of course, complete hogwash. Beyond mere common sense (at least for sociable apes), the Chinese have been spouting this same for 500 years before “Matthew” was born.

    Ok, I trust you understand my challenge to you (feel free to get your goddist buddies to help you otherwise.)

  153. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Oh, and Joey, you still haven’t proved you have your deity’s permission to have a say in the decision of the woman and her doctor. Or that your OPINION is even relevant to their joint medical decision. That is what choice means. You and your inane fuckwitted OPINION are irrelevant and stay outside. That alone takes everything you say out of the picture.

  155. Esteleth, the most colossal nerd on Pharyngula says

    The difference between killing the fetus in utero and subsequently expelling it and expelling and then killing the born infant is night and day.

    But, you see, joey doesn’t get (or, more likely, doesn’t want to admit) that the point of abortion is the cessation of pregnancy. That, is the point is the expulsion. Once the expulsion has occurred, it is no longer a pregnancy + fetus, is is a nonpregnant woman + product of conception.

    The point of abortion is not to kill, the point is to convert a pregnant woman into a nonpregnant woman.

  157. says

    Oh wait, this is Thunderdome.

    *Deep voice*
    Curse you until eternity, theophontes! I vow unending revenge on you and your favorite stuffed toy.

  159. omnicrom says

    joey the liar @137 posted

    How am I lying? I’m talking about specifics. Sure I understand that pro-choicers are generally for abortion.

    Incorrect.

    joey have you ever considered how hard it is to convince people they’re wrong when you don’t understand what they believe? I mean you said yourself in the last Thunderdome that you’re here to change as many minds as possible to your goddist anti-woman views on abortion right? How on Earth do you think you can convince people they’re wrong when you know nothing about what we Pro-choicers believer?

    But of course the above paragraph is pointless. joey is intellectually dishonest and refuses to argue in good faith. joey has been told again and again and again in every single thread he’s ever been in what pro-choicers believe and why. However joey continue to pop in and beg the same questions and try the same tired intellectual masturbation and run the same arguments that have been answered time and time again.

    joey, how do you think you are going to convince people here you’re right when you lie like a rug? Worse than that not only do you lie but you lie obviously and flagrantly. I mean this seriously, how do you think that you’re going to win people’s hearts and minds over to your religiously motivated worldview when you so perfectly encapsulate the utter dishonesty of religion?

  161. says

    Wow. I’m not surprised he thinks that, but I thought at least he had enough sense not to say it out loud.

    And just to preempt anyone who wants to make the dictionary atheist argument, I’ll point out that the idea that women should serve men requires a justification; it’s not a default position. Since no natural argument can be made in favor of that idea (since that would be the naturalistic fallacy), without a god, you’ll be hard pressed finding any way to justify such a position.

    Therefore, I think it’s quite fair to say that atheism at least strongly implies that such a position is wrong, for the same reason that we accept that the statement “god exists” is wrong; lack of justification for belief.

  162. says

    I’ll point out that the idea that women should serve men requires a justification; it’s not a default position.

    It is (to a very large extent) the default – de facto – position right now. A simple fact that needs no “justification” per se. The issue is more that Vacula (and his acolytes) appears supportive of this iniquitous state of affairs.

    I do think the ‘logical conclusion’, absent biblical admonitions to the contrary, of how we as a (global) society should interact with each other, involves allowing every person to be the best that they can be. Proscribing the actions and power of women undermines all of us. This much is logical.

    For a self absorbed, priviledged person like Vacula, the above may not seem “logical”, at least not to his own narrow-minded sensibilities, and certainly not in terms of his goals. Fortunately the outcomes of these two opposing world views are measurable. Justin loses.

  164. chigau (違う) says

    mythbri
    for joey
    I’m recycling a link from Chis Clarke
    tiny kittens
    This is a live-stream and if you’re lucky, you can watch the kittens sleep for 16 or so hours a day!
    or people scooping kitteh-poo!

  167. says

    What happened to joey?

    What always happens: He waits for a week or two until everybody has forgotten what he last wrote and then he come in and talks crap again. It makes it less likely that people will notice when he’s repeating questions that have already been answered.

    Or it would if he hadn’t done it so often that we’re on to him.

  169. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    I do not have much use for most comic book superheros (And yet I love The Tick and The Venture Brothers. Go figure.) but I was highly amused by these superhero make overs. Siouxsie Sioux as Wonder Woman! Ian Curtis as Batman! Billy Idol as Aquaman. *snicker*

  170. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    I would try to figure who Greg Ginn, Bob Mould, Grant Hart and D Boon should be but I do not know enough about comics.

  172. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    LOL. I’d have pegged Billy Idol as Mermaid Man. ;-)

    (I love the exchange rate on that comic, though: 60c, 20p: $3 to the pound! That’s so 1950.)

  173. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    So I very stupidly decided to read my China travel guide section on etiquette. It had the whiff on an iceberg’s tip and so I investigated further. Online. ZOMG, the shit is baroque. I thought I was adept with chopsticks. I guess I’m just adept a stuffing my face with them. So many chopstick* oriented mores! and that’s just the mother loving beginning.
     
    I mean, I struggle with such things here in Texas. I am truly fucked now.
     
    I’m just going to practice saying “I am sorry”, and I will say this over and over to everyone that I meet.
     
    *Why are so many rules of etiquette centered around things that you have to like, fucking do? Eating. Getting dressed. Shitting. I can avoid golf and monopoly for a month. Or longer. Or attending bridal showers. Or what have you. But I’m going to have to eat. I’m going to fuck it up badly.

  174. Owlmirror says

    If at the beginning of every meal you pick your nose with a chopstick, no other chopstick-related faux pas you may make will be worse.

  175. Amphiox says

    Sure I understand that pro-choicers are generally for abortion.

    As usual, joey, you understand nothing.

    Pro-choicers are general for choice.

  176. says

    joey:

    What “theological based claim” are you talking about? That viable fetuses shouldn’t be terminated if live birth is an option?

    Oh, I’m sorry, did you have some NON religiously derived argument for your opposition to abortion? From every goddam stupid fucking piece of shit I’ve read from you, you present as a godbotter striving to win the coveted “gotcha” from the mean ole atheists here.
    Newsflash, asshole: you’re not that clever.
    You believe in one specific, yet curiously ill defined god.
    Your opposition to abortion stems from that delusional belief.

    Who gives a flying fuck if the fetuses are viable when the WOMEN involved should be the primary concern?
    What *they* want should take priority.
    If the woman involved wants the fetus to be delivered, then that’s HER choice.
    If she does NOT want the fetus delivered, then that’s HER choice.

    Your opinion matters not one goddam bit.

    Stop pretending as if you have any say in the matter you delusion godbotting, lying idiot.

  177. says

    Either terminating late-term viable fetuses is wrong, or it’s not wrong

    Oh fuck me.
    Are you ever going to explain what is so fucking special about viable (or otherwise) fetuses?
    Or are we supposed to just accept your narrative-without any justification- that they’re so preeeeeeeeeeecious that they have to be given any and every opportunity to survive?
    If you think the latter, you’ve forgotten (and yes, it would be forgotten, because people have reminded you over and over and over again) where it is you continue to comment: a blog where many of the commenters value science, logic, reason and skepticism (note: I’m not talking about the hyperskepticism of certain Pitstained individuals).

  178. says

    Esteleth:

    The point of abortion is not to kill, the point is to convert a pregnant woman into a nonpregnant woman.

    To understand this, joey would have to reject his FETUS FIRST (otherwise known as FEMALE INCUBATORS FOR THE SPECIAL ONES) position.

  179. says

    @ AE

    I’m going to fuck it up badly.

    No you are not!

    (Anyhow, you can surreptitiously SMS me for advice … ;)

    @ Amphiox

    I get the impression that joey believes that there is a class of people who get pregnant in order to feed their craving for having abortions. Them and a whole crowd of groupies cheering them on. (Methinks joey is actually fighting the demons in his own head.)

    @ Tony

    You believe in one specific, yet curiously ill defined god.
    Your opposition to abortion stems from that delusional belief.

    Delusional. Not least because joey fails to admit to himself, and us, that his god is responsible for the abortion of up to 30% of viable pregnancies. He likes to hide behind the euphemism “miscarriage” rather than admit to the simple fact that YHWH delights in murdering viable babies in the womb.

  180. chigau (違う) says

    Antiochus Epiphanes #173
    I don’t know about China but I have long been convinced that the Japanese have alot of rules (in behavior and language) just to fuck with the foreigners.
    [I say this as a current student of Japanese language and a full blown Japanophile.]

  181. chigau (違う) says

    theophontes #179

    (Methinks joey is actually fighting the demons in his own head.)

    yup

  182. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Owlmirror: See. That’s the kind of shit I might do anyway.

    Theophontes: I will likely be in touch. As soon as I figure out this SMS.

    chigau: that’s actually very comforting. I’m comfortable being fucked with.

  183. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Sorry also for ignoring the joey discussion. I haven’t the stomach for it.

  184. says

    @ chigau / AE

    alot of rules (in behavior and language) just to fuck with the foreigners.

    Not the case in China. Though one could make gaffs, as a foreigner, the Chinese hosts would be more upset at the thought of their guest being upset at the thought that the host might be upset by the gaff.¹ They will make huge allowances for differences in habits and behaviour.

    The most embarrassing experience you are likely to encounter is the shear volume of praise you will receive for any (no matter how pathetic) attempt to comply with Chinese culture or language.

    Holding your chopsticks, ganbei-ing and being able to utter the simplest of pleasantries will immediately put you in high esteem. The Chinese culture is naturally very friendly and accommodating. (The problem is more one of too-much-of-a-good-thing. One can sometimes feel smothered by kindness.)

    …
    ¹ This sentence may look awkward. It is not. It is a short and pithy, perhaps overly simplified, description of the situation.

  185. says

    @ AE

    I will likely be in touch. As soon as I figure out this SMS.

    theophontesathotmaildotcom

    Though most of our conversation we can conduct here (the Horde might be interested), we’ll need to email each other for me to send you my more personal details.

  186. chigau (違う) says

    theophontes
    The Japanese™ also praise the foreigners ability to use ‘chopsticks’ without putting out an eye.
    I just being bitter about は,が,を,に,へ, and all the other 日本語 annoyances.

  189. says

    @ John Morales

    Au Contraire!

    It matters very much what is being eaten. On average (at least in China) I find using chopsticks far easier than knife and fork. Hong Kong is unusual in that chinese food is often eaten with knife (or spoon) and fork. I soon give up in frustration and call for chopsticks.

  190. says

    (The problem is more one of too-much-of-a-good-thing. One can sometimes feel smothered by kindness.)

    QFT!

    the Chinese hosts would be more upset at the thought of their guest being upset at the thought that the host might be upset by the gaff.

    True also. The whole complex Chinese social etiquette thingie gave me a splitting headache. Especially when the family of 10 is gathered together to play host to the foreigner. At least they feed you beer until you pass out.

    In my experience the Japanese are much more strict and obsessed with their rules of social engagement.

  191. John Morales says

    theophontes:

    It matters very much what is being eaten. On average (at least in China) I find using chopsticks far easier than knife and fork.

    What?

    Then you’re doing something wrong; if you need a knife, chopsticks won’t chop it.

    (The fork alone is superior)

  192. John Morales says

    rorschach,

    In my experience the Japanese are much more strict and obsessed with their rules of social engagement.

    I wouldn’t even try; I’d be a barbarian to them, thanks.

  193. says

    @ rorschach

    At least they feed you beer until you pass out.

    Beer!? You were lucky! In my day, we were forced bottles of Moutai up the nose with a straw while shotgunning crates of Hennessey! And that was before breakfast!!!

    …

    One can opt out of having to ganbei everyone. Either say you are ill (you are otherwise going to be) or down only the first glass. Thereafter simply shout “baan-bei” and drink only half (or a quarter… or just make the motions). As long as you make the symbolic gestures you are fine. (Most of the time. This is less true the further northeast one goes. Don’t go there.)

  194. says

    if you need a knife, chopsticks won’t chop it.

    Depends. Fish for example is easily chopped with chopsticks. Or chicken. Or Tofu. And for a steak you don’t have to ask for a knife anyway.

    On the other hand, I find eating say peas with chopsticks, while technically feasible, a bit tedious and timewasting.

  198. John Morales says

    I don’t disdain to use my fingers as eating utensils.

    (They’re built-in!)

  199. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    One can opt out of having to ganbei everyone. Either say you are ill (you are otherwise going to be) or down only the first glass. Thereafter simply shout “baan-bei” and drink only half (or a quarter… or just make the motions). As long as you make the symbolic gestures you are fine. (Most of the time. This is less true the further northeast one goes. Don’t go there.)

     
    Why can’t they put this kind of thing in a travel guide?
     
    I’ll shoot you an e-mail later today, and that way you’ll have mine too.
     
    I’m used to doing fieldwork in places where I’m much more concerned with simple rules of survival than etiquette. In this regard Yunnan should be a breeze. I just find the latter (for no good reason) to be more frightening.
     
    I got to be very effective with chopsticks as a child. I was a very hungry little boy, and when food was limited, my brothers and sisters couldn’t get enough if I was at the table, and eventually my father couldn’t either. In one of many failed attempts to retard my gastronomic prowess, my mother decided that I would have to eat everything with chopsticks. A momentary obstacle only.

  200. says

    @ AE

    Apparently, at “meet the parents” in China, the future-parents-in-law will look carefully at the potential son-in-law’s manner of holding his chopsticks. If he holds them far back on the sticks, he will take their daughter to a far-away city. If he holds them up close to the food, he will live on a farm nearby. (I do not know if there is a similar story for the daughter-in-law. Perhaps it is the same.)

    I can vaguely understand the logic behind it, but leave it for you to puzzle out.

  201. chigau (違う) says

    theophontes #200

    I can vaguely understand the logic behind it, but leave it for you to puzzle out.

    Chinese people are weird?

  203. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    Does anyone have a spare desk? I have a desk but it’s at work and I’m at home.

    It’s just that I need to *headdesk* because of this:

    Campbell believes that many women have forgotten their biological, and for her, God-given function. “He created her with a womb. And in fact that’s the most distinguishing characteristic of a woman. In the American Webster’s 1928 dictionary, it says that woman is combination of two words: womb and man. She is a womb-man.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22526252

    In the meantime, I guess I’ll *facepalm* until reinforcements arrive.

  205. chigau (違う) says

    The God-given function of Man is to squirt into a vagina.
    After that we may as well kill him and eat him.

  206. says

    I can vaguely understand the logic behind it, but leave it for you to puzzle out.

    We have a similar ‘test’ in these parts, y’all. If the future son-in-law eats with a fork and knife, he’s taken’ ’em city bound. If he eats with his fingers, he taken’ themselves to a nearby trailer park.

  208. ChasCPeterson says

    This is kind of interesting. Ms. A. Smith seems to have re-posted the founding document of the sl*mepit, complete with comment thread, back to the NG server.
    link

  211. says

    No need to read the the usual suspects hashing out their irrational anger about “elevatorgate” for the first time, Tony. It’s the same old same old. By now you’ve heard it a thousand times.

  212. David Marjanović says

    Thereafter simply shout “baan-bei” and drink only half

    Do you mean bàn, meaning “half”?

    In the American Webster’s 1928 dictionary

    …If so, the dictionary was blatantly wrong. The well-documented development started at wifman, “female human”.

  213. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    Thank you, DDMFM. About 35% of my outrage was at the bad etymology. X-D

  215. says

    @ David Marjanović

    bàn … yes, fourth tone. My ‘aa’ sound must be squished.

    You want it to sound half way between bàn bēi (half glass) and gān bēi (dry glass). Devious, I know. But such is the way of the tardigrade, grasshopper.

  216. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    I don’t disdain to use my fingers as eating utensils.

    (They’re built-in!) – John Morales

    Peripheral digital devices.

  217. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Methinks joey is actually fighting the demons in his own head. – theophontes

    You may remember that when he first showed up, not only did he pretend to be (his ludicrous caricature of) pro-choice, he also pretended to be an atheist who, if he could just get rid of the tiny seed of doubt that there might be an afterlife in which he’d be held accountable, he would be entirely selfish. Maybe he really is one of those rare religious believers who is only held back from a career of plunder, rapine and slaughter by fear of his god.

  218. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    To bad Fear of God™ isn’t preventing joey from annoying people on the Internet™.

  219. consciousness razor says

    joey also pretended to be a really bizarre straw-determinist at one point. I don’t even want to remember where that went.

  220. omnicrom says

    joey to me seems to be a textbook Liar For Jesus. Considering how flagrantly disingenuous xe’s been in my every interaction with them I think xe fits quite nicely into that category of people who Bear False Witness but think they’re justified because god. That’s been my experience after reading Fred Clark’s blog, Clark did an excellent job outlining the offensive mental pretzels that certain Real True Christians ™ tie themselves into to spread the good news about misogyny and homophobia and all that jazz. joey seems to be one of those people that as Clark would say “Chooses to pretend to believe” that by lying, lying, lying, lying, and lying xe’s fighting on the side of angels, xe knows that xe is flagrantly dishonest but since xe’s pretending we’re satanic baby killers it’s okay.

  221. says

    @SallyStrange let’s not take up this blog with not-very-relevant meta-stuff that would include your comments elsewhere on teh Internets. Suffice – for me – to say I have no confidence in your sincerity and you’re free of course to make any assumptions about me too.

    Wherein David Jones accuses me of being dishonest, and cites unnamed internet sources as support. Please, David, let me in on these smears against my character. You brought it up, it would be discourteous to refuse to explain.

    Hopping over here from the Red Crayon thread, because he claims that it would be too off-topic to continue the conversation there.

  222. Amphiox says

    On the other hand, I find eating say peas with chopsticks, while technically feasible, a bit tedious and timewasting.

    Hold the bowl close to the mouth, and scoop them in with the chopsticks. Works with all fine-grained foodstuffs. Works best if there is a slightly sticky type of gravy involved.

    Granted it is easier with a spoon, but the point of chopsticks is that they are simple, cheap, and flexible, and can act as many different utensils (knife, spoon, fork, tongs, tweezers, etc) all in one. Jack of all trades and all.

  223. ChasCPeterson says

    just juxtaposin’:

    Ulysses 19 May 2013 at 9:05 am link

    [drosera 19 May 2013 at 8:15 am:] Better a hundred times a whiner than once a plagiarist, is what I always say.

    I have no idea what you mean by this comment.

    Ulysses 18 May 2013 at 8:00 pm link

    Philosophers are overrated as moral authorities. Martin Heidegger argued that philosophy, Western Civilization’s chief way of questioning, has lost sight of any goals it seeks because of the process of philosophizing. So the ends become obscured by the means.

    Ulysses 19 May 2013 at 6:08 am link

    As for my paraphrase of Heidegger…

    ‘kipedia:

    In [Being and Time] and later works, Heidegger maintained that our way of questioning defines our nature. It is argued that philosophy, Western Civilization’s chief way of questioning, had lost sight of the being it sought, in the process of philosophising. Finding ourselves “always already” fallen in a world of presuppositions, we lose touch with what being was before its truth became “muddled”.

  224. ChasCPeterson says

    eating say peas with chopsticks, while technically feasible, [is] a bit tedious and timewasting…
    Hold the bowl close to the mouth, and scoop them in with the chopsticks. Works with all fine-grained foodstuffs. Works best if there is a slightly sticky type of gravy involved.

    I believe it was the great Anon. who wrote:

    I eat my peas with honey.
    I’ve done it all my life.
    It makes the peas taste funny,
    But it keeps them on the knife.

  225. Vilém Saptar says

    X-posted :

    I haven’t seen strange gods or Caine post in these past few days. Are they on a break?

  226. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    Hmmm, click on cm’s link or Chas’…? Not sure I can handle both.

    reply:

    No need to read the the usual suspects hashing out their irrational anger

    *twitch!*

    What? ;-)

  227. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    just juxtaposin’

    Yeah, I have a comment in moderation on that thread at about #130: the only things you can find about D at the SP are references to D’s posts here, and that membership at the SP has been explicitly disavowed by an admin.

    As I concluded: “Oh, well, Internet justice is swift and capricious …”

    I guess I’m just a bit grumpy about people congratulating themselves for being right when they’re not. ~:-|

    —

    In unrelated news, I spent this afternoon looking at peacocks, black swans, and a 900-year-old castle. I also freaked out kid #2 by mentioning the “treecreeper“, which she thought would be something from Minecraft.

  228. says

    FYI, bit late, but responding to problems with the @hashspamkiller having to abide by Twitters demented rate limits… @aratina has created this from the blocklist ->
    http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=128

    GreaseMonkey/TamperMonkey script that killfiles the Slymers in any Twitter page. Can look at any hash free of assholes :)

    Hail to Aratina!

  229. chigau (違う) says

    Vilém Saptar #225
    Caine is alive and well on her own blogs.
    strange gods is on a break (from Pharyngula).

  231. dexitroboper says

    It turns out that Oglaf has the correct response to Ron Lindsay. It’s Fuck off back to your box, you little shitlip.

  232. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Nick Gotts

    I’m not that huge a fan of Labour anyway, ideologically I’ve always been a better fit for the Lib Dems, but after the debacle that was the Blair/Brown years there is small likleyhood of me voting for them, especially with that whiney nasal lackwit trying to be everything to every person that they currently have in charge. He simply does not inspire my confidence.

    On the EU, I am vehemently in favour of staying. The benefits of leaving would be more than outweighed by the costs; besides which it is impractical to open an industry to competition and then go back on the decision. For practical purposes, actually impossible in a free country as it would require the forced closure of all competing business, surely? And quite apart from all that I greatly dislike the short-sighted Little-Englander Nationalism endemic to the Euroskeptic movement.

    And I don’t think that mere competition will be enough to kill off the NHS; the vast majority of people are simply not rich enough to afford private health care or simply see no need to when they already pay taxes to support the NHS. Dismantling it would require deliberate break-up and sale by the government, something which I really do hope they never, ever do due to the huge loss of jobs it would create and the outright immorality of taking away the only realistic option many people have when it comes to healthcare. “Any society can be judged by how it treats it’s weakest members” may be a cliche, but for me it rings true.

  233. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @cm #203

    He created her with a womb. And in fact that’s the most distinguishing characteristic of a woman.

    Quite apart from the rest of Campbell’s ridiculousness, am I the only one who has considered that, since we all wear clothes (something to do with a talking snake and an apple, I dunno) a womb isn’t actually that great a distinguishing feature? I’d have thought the possession of a set of breasts would be a far more reliable indicator.

  234. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Thumper, Atheist Mate,

    it is impractical to open an industry to competition and then go back on the decision. For practical purposes, actually impossible in a free country as it would require the forced closure of all competing business, surely?

    No it’s not. There are (at least) three options: nationalization, with or without compensation for the shareholders – the latter would require a revolution; or, in most cases (e.g. the railways, local waste collection services, those parts of the NHS hospital already wholly or partly privatised, such as ward cleaning and non-emergency ambulances), simply taking the service back into public operation at the end of a contract.

    And I don’t think that mere competition will be enough to kill off the NHS; the vast majority of people are simply not rich enough to afford private health care or simply see no need to when they already pay taxes to support the NHS. Dismantling it would require deliberate break-up and sale by the government

    The break-up has been going on for years – notably under New Labour – and is being accelerated. What do you think the current “reorganisation” to put financial power with hundreds of “clinical commissioning groups” is about? It will remain tax-payer funded for the time being, but these funds will be gradually reduced while ever more services will be put out to tender, raising costs and cutting pay and conditions for staff; and the CCGs will be “encouraged” to “bring in private money” and offer more “choice” to those who can afford it. The needs of the poor will be shoved further and further down the list of priorities. The scumbags in power – and that includes the LibDems just as much as the Tories – would mistake any residual pangs of conscience for a touch of indigestion.

  235. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Nick Gotts

    Yes, that’s what I was talking about. The full nationalisation of an already privatised industry would require the closure of of any competing businesses within that industry, with or without compensation, as you said. It’s still forced closure and the establishment of a monopoly. I don’t think such a move can be justified in a free society; the public have the right to choice, I simply feel that in a fair and just society a “free” (as in tax-funded) or at least heavily subsidised (but I would preferr free) healthcare system is simply a must. If you are talking about the re-nationalisation of particular facets of that industry which were previously outsourced to privatised companies then the possibility does of course exist that the state can take over that particular facet after the contract has expired, yes; but in practice that would still force a closure of the private business due to it not having any… well, business. That said, your third option seeems reasonable, but I certainly wouldn’t support the first.

    Yes I’m aware of the insidious mini-break ups and calculated de-funding. I believe, firmly, that the public should have a choice in their healthcare provider but see no reason at all why this should necessitate the break-up of the NHS and thus direct harm to those who simply cannot afford private healthcare. If you can afford it, good for you and you should have that option. But it is simply inhumane to take away healthcare provision from the poor in the name of choice, not to mention hypocritical since you are depriving them of a choice; the only practical choice they have. I am an NHS user myself.

  237. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Thumper,

    Privatisation has been theft on a vast scale from the public over the past few decades, and has played a large part of the huge increase in inequality over those same decades. Recovering the proceeds of theft is justice, and in most cases, “choice” has been entirely illusory, since most of the services privatised are natural monopolies (railways, gas, electricity, water and sewerage, airports, rubbish collection), or have simple been excuses to cut the pay and conditions of lower tiers of workers in hospitals, schools, council services, prisons etc, where again there is no element of choice for the public. Aside from the banks, which have been revealed in the last few years as vast criminal conspiracies, I do not advocate nationalising businesses outside these categories. I think you’ve just fallen for Thatcherite lies.

  238. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Nick Gotts

    Actually I entirely agree that services such as those you mentioned should be nationalised. The only advantage to the public of privatisation is choice, so there is little point privatising anything if said choice does not appear. Trains are my favourite example; people catch trains depending on when they need to get somewhere. If the journey takes an hour and you need to be there at 16:00, you’re getting on the one that leaves at 15:00, or closest beforehand. Due to the nature of railways you can’t have more than one going to the same destination leaving at the same time, so the whole concept of privatising the railways is simply ludicrous.

  239. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    How have I fallen for Thatcherite lies? I am entirely confused by that comment.

  240. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    IThumper@239,

    I understood you to be opposed to the reversal of privatisation. Where we may differ is on medical and educational services. I think “choice” is an illusion there. If private medicine is allowed more than a very marginal role, as is obviously intended by the current government, it will cherry-pick the easy and profitable areas, and provide greater convenience for the rich in terms of when and where they get treatment. The NHS will become a service for the poor. A service for the poor becomes a poor service. The same is true of education, where I consider private schools should be taxed and regulated out of existence: they are simply a mechanism for insuring the inheritance of class privilege.

  241. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Nick Gotts

    Morning Nick :)

    Sorry, I wasn’t clear. It depends on the industry. If allowing private companies to exist in that industry provides a choice for the consumer then that should always be allowed. I do not think that a state-owned monopoly has any place in a free society and if you have the extra cash to pay for a service which you deem to be better then you should have the right to do that. Sticking with our example of medicine, personally I can’t afford to but I wouldn’t begrudge anyone who can. But there are certain essential services where there simply must be a tax-funded free-at-the-point-of-service choice for those who cannot afford expensive private companies. And there are others where privatisation provides no choice and simply results in a poor, profit-driven service (railways). If I had my way, the NHS would remain as it was in it’s heydey, the railways would be nationalised, and there would exist a nationalised electricity/gas company (the BGC was dead and buried by the time I was born); but I would not forbid the existence of private medical or electricity/gas companies, though obviously no private rail companies could exist for practical reasons.

  242. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    tl;dr:

    Essential services such as medicine, public transport or power should be nationalised but competing private companies should not be banned outright where it is possible to allow them.

  244. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Thumper,

    And there are others where privatisation provides no choice and simply results in a poor, profit-driven service (railways).

    But that would (and I agree, should) be a state-owned monopoly.

    and if you have the extra cash to pay for a service which you deem to be better then you should have the right to do that.

    That depends on whether it either entrenches class privilege (as it does in education), or diverts resources, such as skilled personnel trained at public expense, from the public service (education and health).

  245. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    Nick Gotts

    Yes.

    I would agree that private schools do entrench class privilege, but I wouldn’t be so prescriptive as to outlaw them. As long as those who cannot afford to pay for education from their own pocket are provided for, I am happy. I am basically of the opinion that governments should stay out of their citizens’ lives as much as is practical, but also see the provision of essential services at reduced rates as a basic duty for a government. But as long as those services exist for those who need them I will not begrudge anyone the right to pay a bit more out of their own pocket for what they percieve to be a better service. I don’t like private schools; I don’t like what they stand for, what they perpetuate, and, going by my own experience, as a general rule of thumb I don’t like people who went to them (though this is by no means a hard and fast rule) but I cannot demand they not be allowed simply because I don’t like them. So I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on that point.

    On the diverts resources front, I assume you mean, for example, a doctor being trained by the NHS and immediately leaving for a private company where they will make more money? I agree that needs to be controlled, and so would propose that there be a clause in their contract demanding X years service before they are allowed to leave. That seems perfectly fair to me.

  246. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @John Morales

    I said I’d get round to it eventually :) Thanks.

  247. says

    Thumper

    I would agree that private schools do entrench class privilege, but I wouldn’t be so prescriptive as to outlaw them. As long as those who cannot afford to pay for education from their own pocket are provided for, I am happy

    So, in other words, you have no problem with people exercising their financial power to actively disenfranchise and impoverish the already underprivileged, and don’t think that the government should interfere in this process?

  248. Beatrice (looking for a happy thought) says

    As long as those who cannot afford to pay for education from their own pocket are provided for, I am happy.

    provided for ≠ provided for adequately

  249. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    I would try to figure who Greg Ginn, Bob Mould, Grant Hart and D Boon should be but I do not know enough about comics.

    Wow, I’m really late on this one, but Greg Ginn would definitely be Black Bolt. I’m thinking Beast Boy for Grant Hart. D. Boon could be The Thing. Mould is tough… Dr. Fate?

  250. says

    So, David Jones claims that he never refuse to speak to me on the grounds that I was dishonest. Let’s review the evidence. First, there was the part where I wondered what it’s like to be inside the head of someone who was “gobsmacked” at the idea of not having any moral authorities. David responded with a baseless personal insult:

    It’s really rather fun [inside David Jones’ head –ed.]. Clearly more fun than the dim interior of yours, which I’m picturing as a hardly-lit underground lake with a small walnut-like brain floating in the middle of the blackness.

    To which I responded:

    How picturesque! I’ll take it as a compliment. But I’m still curious, and I’m sure David is too, what it is that left you feeling “gobsmacked,” as you put it, at the idea of people consciously rejecting the idea of moral authority.

    Skipping over a few comments (including a nice reference to Monty Python’s philosopher drinking song), we come to a comment by John Morales, responding to something Ulysses said:

    @Ulysses

    Why do you bother?
    151
    John Morales

    19 May 2013 at 6:40 am (UTC -5)

    [OT + meta]

    David Jones, perhaps Ulysses finds you an itch to be scratched.

    (why yes, I like answering rhetorical questions!)

    I then seconded this sentiment with the following comment:

    I don’t understand the question. Why does anybody bother? Myself, I’m just curious at the moment.

    Then David Jones said:

    @Sallystrange, agreed. You’re very curious.

    Nice and content-free. Another mild personal attack. I noted his refusal to engage on the substance of what I was saying:

    So that’s a “no” on engaging in courteous conversation and answering direct questions, then. Got it.

    David Jones then said:

    @SallyStrange I don’t think you’re being direct and honest so, no.

    David Jones claims that I was wrong to interpret this as a refusal to speak at all. Rather, it was a refusal to be courteous to me.

    Of course I wanted to know what the hell he was talking about:

    On what basis do you claim I’m not being direct and honest? What specifically do you think I’m being dishonest about?

    David Jones refused to detail the source of his allegations:

    @SallyStrange let’s not take up this blog with not-very-relevant meta-stuff that would include your comments elsewhere on teh Internets. Suffice – for me – to say I have no confidence in your sincerity and you’re free of course to make any assumptions about me too.

    And that pretty much brings us up to the present moment.

    Look, David Jones, I’m sorry. I thought you meant that you refused to talk to me because I’m dishonest. Apparently you just meant that you were going to be a jerk to me because I’m dishonest. My bad. I’ll cop to the mistake, though I’m sure you can understand where the lack of understanding comes from, especially since you never returned to respond to my other questions.

    Regardless of whether your refusal was of speaking in general or speaking courteously, I still want to know on what information you’re basing this assessment that I’m dishonest and insincere.

    I mean, I wouldn’t want to accuse you of lying about me without finding out more about why you formed that conclusion–that wouldn’t be honest or fair of me.

  251. says

    Thumper
    Also:

    But as long as those services exist for those who need them I will not begrudge anyone the right to pay a bit more out of their own pocket for what they percieve to be a better service.

    Also, the problem with this is that, for instance, many parents perceive bible school as a better service than real school, and if they are allowed to make that choice, they will forever be depriving their children of an education.

  252. David Jones says

    So, David Jones claims that he never refuse to speak to me on the grounds that I was dishonest.

    Indeed I do.

    My bad. I’ll cop to the mistake

    And you agree…though you did take a rather long route to the admission.

    that wouldn’t be honest or fair of me.

    I’ll say it again: I don’t believe you to be an honest person. I think you’re not a plain dealer. I think you’re not sincere. I’ve already proposed we shouldn’t clutter up this blog with such meta stuff.

  253. consciousness razor says

    That depends on whether it either entrenches class privilege (as it does in education), or diverts resources, such as skilled personnel trained at public expense, from the public service (education and health).

    I put health in the former category as well as the latter.

    As long as those who cannot afford to pay for education from their own pocket are provided for, I am happy.

    Would you really be “happy” so long as poor people only get enough to scrape by and continue being poor?

    I am basically of the opinion that governments should stay out of their citizens’ lives as much as is practical, but also see the provision of essential services at reduced rates as a basic duty for a government.

    Is it not “essential” to ensure everyone has access to the best (not the bare minimum) quality education possible?

    I don’t like private schools; I don’t like what they stand for, what they perpetuate, and, going by my own experience, as a general rule of thumb I don’t like people who went to them (though this is by no means a hard and fast rule) but I cannot demand they not be allowed simply because I don’t like them.

    But you just said it’s not “simply because I don’t like them.” You just said it entrenches class privilege. That is definitely not just a mere preference, which we can toss out as unjustified or as having arbitrary implications on policy. “Freedom” (or “choice”) is another word for power. So the question is whether we want to empower everyone, or only those who already have it and want even more without limit. Why would that make anyone happy, even those in the latter category? In the short term, in isolated cases if you sincerely don’t care about others’ happiness, perhaps it could in some sense, but I wouldn’t call that genuine happiness.

  254. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    Thumper, you should probably explain you’re talking about the UK. Or not, if this suffices. ;-)

    —

    It’s not at all clear to me that forcing the 8% of UK children who are privately educated out of those schools and into the state system (minus however many of them would go overseas instead) would make any meaningful difference to the latter.

    (My suspicion is that newly-outlawed private sector teachers probably wouldn’t “go public”.)

  255. says

    I’ll say it again: I don’t believe you to be an honest person. I think you’re not a plain dealer. I think you’re not sincere. I’ve already proposed we shouldn’t clutter up this blog with such meta stuff.

    Mmm hmm. So you claim that I’m an insincere liar, but you refuse to explain why. The “clutter up the blog” is not a valid excuse, because Thunderdome is exactly set aside for this sort of meta discussion, or whatever people want to talk about. You’re here. So, explain. You can’t make allegations like than, then refuse to back them up, and expect to be treated as an honest dealer yourself.

  257. David Jones says

    You can’t make allegations like than, then refuse to back them up, and expect to be treated as an honest dealer yourself.

    As a matter of fact but probably annoyingly for you I’m free to hold any opinion of you I wish. And as I’ve pointed out, you’re perfectly free to do likewise. And obviously even more annoyingly for you, I’m under no obligation to explain anything at all to you. And you’re free to make of that what you will.

    I think you’re insincere. I think you’re dishonest. Clear?

  258. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I think you’re insincere. I think you’re dishonest. Clear?

    And if you won’t explain why, you give prima facie evidence you are insincere and dishonest. Think about that before you keep making vague insinuations.

  259. David Jones says

    My insinuations aren’t vague. They’re not insinuations. Aside from that you’re spot on.

  260. consciousness razor says

    As a matter of fact but probably annoyingly for you I’m free to hold any opinion of you I wish. And as I’ve pointed out, you’re perfectly free to do likewise. And obviously even more annoyingly for you, I’m under no obligation to explain anything at all to you. And you’re free to make of that what you will.

    I think you’re insincere. I think you’re dishonest. Clear?

    Clear as mud. You express your opinions on matters of fact, and don’t even see an obligation to explain them. I suppose if you wanted to make sure no one took what you have to say seriously, this would be a good, solid move. That’s what I make of it.

    By the way, was I wrong to think you’re some flavor of goddist? I never got an answer about that.

  261. says

    It’s clear WHAT you think, but it’s not clear WHY you think it.

    Nor is it very evident why you think it’s totally cool to just drop in, accuse me of unnamed, unspecified instances of dishonesty, and then refuse to back up your allegations.

    I think you missed the conditional part of what I wrote: IF you make allegations of dishonesty but refuse to back them up, THEN you cannot expect to be treated as an honest person yourself.

    Would you like to be treated as an honest person, or as a liar, around here? If the former, back up your allegations. If the latter, continue on as you have been.

  262. David Jones says

    By the way, was I wrong to think you’re some flavor of goddist

    I’m an atheist, if that’s what you’re asking.

    I suppose if you wanted to make sure no one took what you have to say seriously

    Couldn’t care less. I don’t know you from Adam. Why should your opinion concern me in the slightest? Are you someone special? Are you very important? Are you peculiarly admirable? Do you live next door? Are you remarkably wise? Is there any reason at all I should give a flying fuck about the vague mess of prejudices and reflexes that make up your opinions?

    I don’t think so.

  263. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    My insinuations aren’t vague.

    Actually they are, since you won’t explain them in enough detail to justify yourself. But then, when folks continue to post like that, I stop (and I think many others too) giving a shit about what they have to say. As it is nothing useful, just their ego at work.

  264. David Jones says

    I stop (and I think many others too) giving a shit about what they have to say. As it is nothing useful, just their ego at work.

    Great. So you’ll stop trying to interact with me then. Well that’s wonderful news.

  267. Amphiox says

    re #257

    You are indeed free, David Jones, to do as you wish. But free actions are not without consequence. And so the last clause of the statement kicks in.

    You have, through your own free actions, exposed yourself as that most odious of all dishonest dealers – the hypocritical kind, and henceforth you shall be treated as such.

    Your claim that your insinuations are not vague is also an obvious, self-evident, flat-out lie.

    Truly you are pathetic.

  268. Amphiox says

    We will talk ABOUT you if and whenever we want, David Jones. Dishonest dealers of your type deserve no other considerations.

  269. consciousness razor says

    I suppose if you wanted to make sure no one took what you have to say seriously

    Couldn’t care less.

    Noted.

    I don’t know you from Adam. Why should your opinion concern me in the slightest? Are you someone special? Are you very important? Are you peculiarly admirable? Do you live next door? Are you remarkably wise? Is there any reason at all I should give a flying fuck about the vague mess of prejudices and reflexes that make up your opinions?

    I don’t think so.

    What do I have to do with it? What I said doesn’t depend on me, or anything about me, at all.

    Why are you commenting here? What use could you have in writing comments, if you refuse to give them any substance or justify them? What do you hope to achieve? Do you think this is a place where you are communicating with other people, or do you think this is a dumping-ground for your private thoughts?

  270. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    So you’ll stop trying to interact with me then.

    No, I’ll just make sure you know your word is *floosh* treated as sewage, as that is what it is. Now, show some intellectual maturity, and either tell us why Sally Strange is what you claim she is, or stop your snide and immature insinuations. Welcome to reality, which you don’t control.

  271. says

    I’m just curious if David Jones fell for the Thunderf00t rape threat lie, or if there’s some new and different smear about me floating around on the internet. I like to keep track, you know.

  272. Ogvorbis, broken failure. says

    For someone with no axe to grind, David Jones sure is grinding away at an axe.

    If you claim someone is dishonest, not to be trusted, the rational thing to do would be to back it up. But I guess I (and everyone else) are supposed to believe you through faith?

  274. says

    Thumper, you should probably explain you’re talking about the UK. Or not, if this suffices. ;-)

    I’m perfectly aware of that; it’s not like there aren’t parents in the UK who prefer religious schools, though.

  275. David Jones says

    @SallyStrange I don’t (or didn’t) know anything about Thunderf00t and his allegation about a lie about a rape threat. I don’t really hang around here or similar blogs much – it’s much too febrile and self-regarding.

    I hope the police took action about the threat?

  276. says

    Oh my gosh, David Jones spoke to me! And without any (obvious) insults!

    Have you changed your mind about my honesty, David Jones? Or are you just a hypocrite?

  278. David Jones says

    Or are you just a hypocrite?

    See, @SallyStrange, the charge of hypocrisy would only make sense if your previous claim – which you backtracked on, even half-heartedly apologised for – had actually been true.

    But it wasn’t, was it? And you accepted it wasn’t. Yet here you are again, making the assertion that I’m being hypocritical simply by addressing you.

    Well, look. Saying that I don’t promise to be courteous to you and that I think you’re insincere and dishonest doesn’t imply I would never under any circumstances speak to you. Does it. And in fact your earlier insincerity is underlined in your latest message, isn’t it.

    Back to my question: what did the police do about the rape threat? Was it just the one man or several? Was he connected to some extreme online group? Is he connected to any of the other threats made against prominent women online? Is he now safely behind bars?

  279. says

    You can’t make allegations like than, then refuse to back them up, and expect to be treated as an honest dealer yourself.

    As a matter of fact but probably annoyingly for you I’m free to hold any opinion of you I wish.

    That’s not what Sally said. You’re responding to a phantom. What she actually said is right there. You even quoted it. Do pay attention.

    There’s a difference between “holding an opinion” and “making an allegation, not backing it up and still expecting to be treated like an honest individual”.

    Notice how those two are actually quite different?

  280. consciousness razor says

    You sure are an entitled one, aren’t you, David?

    Given your disregard for everyone here, I’m sure lots will jump at the chance to answer your questions. I don’t know the details, so unfortunately I can’t answer, but please let me know if I could make you a sandwich or something instead.

  282. David Jones says

    your disregard for everyone here

    Everyone?

    still expecting to be treated like an honest individual”.

    did you miss the bit where I’ve already said, repeatedly, that I think @SallyStrange is dishonest and insincere? Why do you think I’d have any particularly high expectations of the way she’d respond?

    I am, though, interested in the response of the police. I think this stands to be a good test of claims of The Patriarchy and Rape Culture. If they ignored her report or did nothing about it or responded in an ineffective way, that would lend support to such a view. If they responded promptly and dealt with the offender properly and if there was just one isolated offender then it might suggest things aren’t as bad as some make out.

    So I’m interested, @SallyStrange. What happened when you reported the threat of rape to the police?

  283. John Morales says

    David Jones, your squirming is futile; you made a call about SallyStrange that you could not sustain and your hypocrisy is evident by your disdain of the principle of reciprocity no less than your dishonesty is evident by your ongoing misrepresentation of SallyStrange’s claim.

    (I like that; chew-toys don’t tend to last long around here)

  284. Ogvorbis, broken failure. says

    did you miss the bit where I’ve already said, repeatedly, that I think @SallyStrange is dishonest and insincere? Why do you think I’d have any particularly high expectations of the way she’d respond?

    Oh, we’ve seen that. Kinda hard to miss. But when you were asked to back up that assertion with some evidence, you claim you don’t care enough about it to respond. But you keep responding. Why are you here?

  285. says

    did you miss the bit where I’ve already said blah blah blah

    No, I didn’t. I very specifically responded to what you were saying in direct response to a particular comment made my Sally. What I was pointing out was that what you were saying didn’t actually address what she was saying. Whether or not you think Sally is being honest has no real impact on the fact that what you said was a complete non sequitur.

    Thinking that Sally is dishonest is one thing. Thinking that you can make an allegation, back it up and still be regarded as honest is another.

  286. hotshoe, now with more boltcutters says

    Back to my question: what did the police do about the rape threat? Was it just the one man or several? Was he connected to some extreme online group? Is he connected to any of the other threats made against prominent women online? Is he now safely behind bars?

    My, my, you sure can type a lot of words for an entity with only one hand free for the keyboard.

    How much more rape fantasizing are you going to have to do to get yourself off? Whatever the amount, you should do it in private. It’s unseemly to do it in public like that.

  287. consciousness razor says

    your disregard for everyone here

    Everyone?

    Do you expect an answer from me? You can’t answer it yourself?

    Let’s take a look at what you’ve already said:

    I suppose if you wanted to make sure no one took what you have to say seriously

    Couldn’t care less.

    To me, it looks like that’s a “yes, everyone.”

  288. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    If they ignored her report or did nothing about it or responded in an ineffective way, that would lend support to such a view. I

    Gee, I lay a 100 e-ducats if reported, nothing was done. The report was circularly filed.

  289. David Jones says

    Well, @hotshoe, there wasn’t actually a rape but the threat of one and my questions are about the effectiveness of the police response. I find your remarks a little unpleasant and somewhat creepy.

  290. hotshoe, now with more boltcutters says

    I find your remarks a little unpleasant and somewhat creepy.

    Well, that’s a good start! I find your presence more than a little unpleasant and completely creepy.

    I wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.

  291. says

    So SallyStrange asks David to back up his allegations and he refuses to do so for…reasons. Yet he sees no problem playing 20 questions with her.
    I’ll take arrogant, dishonest, hypocritical MRAs for $1000 Alex.

  293. says

    Oh, now you want information from me? Wow, that’s really entitled. I don’t think so. Not until you back up your allegations.

  294. JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness says

    Eveyone’s picked out WTF is wrong with David’s comments wrt Sally, but I want to point out this:

    #282
    David Jones

    I am, though, interested in the response of the police. I think this stands to be a good test of claims of The Patriarchy and Rape Culture. If they ignored her report or did nothing about it or responded in an ineffective way, that would lend support to such a view. If they responded promptly and dealt with the offender properly and if there was just one isolated offender then it might suggest things aren’t as bad as some make out.

    Utter stupidity to thing that one example means things aren’t as bad…What one rape gets prosecuted so there’s no rape culture? Pffffffffffffft.

  295. says

    JAL:
    To add to that, there’s a post on Pharyngula’s front page about Rape Culture. There are links that are easy to find here, as well as multiple FtB blogs. This guys is digging in his heels trying to maintain that MRA worldview of oppressed men and reality cannot change his mind.

  296. chigau (違う) says

    So who is this David Jones and why does he have a thing for SallyStrange?
    I’ve followed most of the interaction on the other threads but I’m not sure why I should care less about what DJ has to say.

  297. Ichthyic says

    I find your remarks a little unpleasant and somewhat creepy.

    nice bit of projection there.

  298. John Morales says

    chigau, if you’re familiar with the “Which path shall we take?” thread, your question is answered.

    If not, I inform you that IMNSHO he’s a blundering, blustering anti-feminist snipe that thought SallyStrange was a worthy example of uppityness and was unprepared for the response.

    (Hey, a chew-toy is a chew-toy!)

  299. chigau (違う) says

    John Morales
    Yes, I’m following that thread but I wonder why SallyStrange in particular.
    and what ever happened to eliott1?

  300. David Jones says

    Don’t tell me you didn’t report a serious, credible rape threat to the police, @SallyStrange? That would be unforgivable.

  303. John Morales says

    David Jones:

    @275: @SallyStrange I don’t (or didn’t) know anything about Thunderf00t and his allegation about a lie about a rape threat. I don’t really hang around here or similar blogs much – it’s much too febrile and self-regarding.

    @300: Don’t tell me you didn’t report a serious, credible rape threat to the police, @SallyStrange? That would be unforgivable.

    It amuses me that your putatively unknown something initially was about the Thunderpod and his allegation about a lie about a rape threat but now has become about not reporting a serious, credible rape threat to the police.

  305. David Jones says

    @John Morales – really, until the last few weeks I’d never heard of Thunderf00t, never heard of ‘MRAs’. I just assumed the rape threat we’re talking about here was serious and credible otherwise it would seem to be a bit of a storm in a teacup. That’s always possible of course.

  306. chigau (違う) says

    you talkin’ ta me?

    … you can follow my very entertaining …

    yeah, like, that’s gonna happen

  307. David Jones says

    Please yourself., It’s just the Beagle diary. You won’t get infected by my view of @SallyStrange.

  309. John Morales says

    David Jones:

    I just assumed the rape threat we’re talking about here was serious and credible otherwise it would seem to be a bit of a storm in a teacup.

    It’s obvious you assumed stuff absent any evidence, but you are supposedly addressing this: “I’m just curious if David Jones fell for the Thunderf00t rape threat lie, or if there’s some new and different smear about me floating around on the internet.”

    SallyStrange keeps asking you to provide the evidence upon which you assert her mendaciousness, and you keep trying to hide behind a cloud of flatulence.

    (All you’re achieving is to make yourself stinky)

  310. David Jones says

    @John Morales … now I’m confused. Are you saying my assumption was incorrect and the rape threat wasn’t credible?

  311. chigau (違う) says

    John Morales

    hide behind a cloud of flatulence

    sniny
    —
    David Jones
    gad but you are a weenie

  312. John Morales says

    David Jones — again: “I’m just curious if David Jones fell for the Thunderf00t rape threat lie, or if there’s some new and different smear about me floating around on the internet.”

    What is so very hard for you to get?

    SallyStrange keeps asking you to provide the evidence upon which you assert her mendaciousness, and that clarification states exactly as much.

    (Now you plead obtuseness)

  313. says

    You’ve gotta love David Jones.
    Displays the dishonesty he condemns in others.
    Clad in his hypocrisy, he denies the existence of rape culture and patriarchy, despite the wealth of evidence available at the touch of his unoccupied hand.
    Despite refusing to answer legitimate questions that he *should* (if he cared about being intellectually honest) answer, he not only continues to refuse, but has the gumption to make his own questions and repeatedly ask them.
    Now, as he begins his descent into creepy territory with the persistent attention he is paying to SallyStrange, he has the gall to call someone else creepy.
    I guess in the mythical world he inhabitant, rape culture is non-existent, patriarchy is a lie, and repeatedly asking a stranger about the details of a rape threat is not creepy.

  314. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    On the advice of cm: Everyone is aware me and Nick Gotts were discussing the UK, right?

    @Dallillama #247

    So, in other words, you have no problem with people exercising their financial power to actively disenfranchise and impoverish the already underprivileged, and don’t think that the government should interfere in this process?

    I fail to see how demanding an adequate, free-at-point-of-service public school system while also allowing private institutions to exist means that I’m OK with any of that. Please explain.

    And #251

    Also, the problem with this is that, for instance, many parents perceive bible school as a better service than real school, and if they are allowed to make that choice, they will forever be depriving their children of an education.

    I would quite happily introduce legislation demanding that any religious stuff has to be kept to RE. The UK already has laws saying Evolution must be taught, because it’s part of the national curriculum and even private schools have to follow that. Putting sensible legislation in place to ensure that children across the country recieve a decent education is not the same as outlawing private schools.

    @Beatrice #248 and Conciousness Razor #253

    When I say provided for I absolutely do mean provided for adequately. Allowing private schools does not mean I’m in favour of sub-standard public schools, nor does allowing private medical practices mean I am in favour of a sub-standard NHS. I use the NHS and was educated at a comprehensive, as do/were my entire extended family and as will my children (if/when I have some), so I’m hardly going to be in favour of them being “barely adequate” am I?

    @Conciousness Razor #253

    But you just said it’s not “simply because I don’t like them.” You just said it entrenches class privilege. That is definitely not just a mere preference, which we can toss out as unjustified or as having arbitrary implications on policy. “Freedom” (or “choice”) is another word for power. So the question is whether we want to empower everyone, or only those who already have it and want even more without limit. Why would that make anyone happy, even those in the latter category? In the short term, in isolated cases if you sincerely don’t care about others’ happiness, perhaps it could in some sense, but I wouldn’t call that genuine happiness.

    It entrenches class privilege in the sense that it is percieved as better than public schools and allows the existence of “Old Boy’s Clubs” where the right school tie will get you a job. The way to fix this is not to get rid of private schools and deprive the citizens of a free society the right to make their own choices, the solution is to improve the public school system to the point where the perception no longer exists. Freedom and choice are words for power in the sense that they empower those who have them, but would you preferr to level the playing field by disempowering those with power, or empowering those without? Making private schools illegal is draconian and totalitarian and does nothing to empower those who need it, and I simply will not support it.

    @cm #254

    It’s not at all clear to me that forcing the 8% of UK children who are privately educated out of those schools and into the state system (minus however many of them would go overseas instead) would make any meaningful difference to the latter.

    (My suspicion is that newly-outlawed private sector teachers probably wouldn’t “go public”.)

    I’m afraid I’m not sure of you’re meaning. Are you in favour of allowing public schools because disallowing them would have no positive impact on the public school system, or of dissallowing them because doing so would have no negative impact?

    Your final point is a good one. Dissallowing them would probably result in a net loss of teachers and simply increase demand on an already overstretched public school system. I’m in favour of improving the public school system to the point where private schools simply are not necessary or percieved as better, rather than outlawing them now.

    OT Who is this David Jones pillock and what is he blathering about? At #257 he seems to be under the impression that he is free to express opinions without having to explain them or to back them up. I believe there are soapboxes available at Speaker’s Corner for that purpose.

  315. opposablethumbs says

    Just had a quick read of the latest chewtoy so far. I’m amazed that someone JAQing off as hard as David Jones is in this thread can actually type at the same time.

    Eeuw. What a nasty little creeper this is.

  316. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    John Morales … now I’m confused. Are you saying my assumption was incorrect and the rape threat wasn’t credible?

    Are you ever going to prove it wasn’t credible? Prove a negative. That is up your alley.

  318. md says

    Antrepro, to your characteristics of a troll, in order.

    Insincerity: I don’t really know how to disprove this. It is odd though that you now accuse me of insincerity after agreeing with me.

    Snide one liners: Guilty. Shall we go down the list of comments and classify them as snide or not? Many trolls here if that is the defining characteristic.

    Dont have conversations: Not true. I often respond as best I can as honestly I can. Yes Im snide and sarcastic sometimes, but I try to respond to accusations and questions. Often times its me against many. Im not complaining, but I dont’ have time for everyone. I just had a short non-contentious conversation with Maranjovic on the FB rape video thread yesterday.

    Seeks conflict: I was unaware arguing/debating/disagreeing with people was frowned upon here at Pharyngula.

    Global warming denialism: Untrue. I think climate change is real. Im unsure how serious it will prove to be. I think some of the proposed solutions may have side effects worse than the as yet unseen consequences of CC, but I think the science is sound enough to warrant strong concern. PZ is a strong supporter of the anthropogenic theory of CC and travels quite a bit. I note the potential conflict of interest.

  320. says

    PZ is a strong supporter of the anthropogenic theory of CC and travels quite a bit. I note the potential conflict of interest.

    PZ is probably contributing more GHGs to the atmosphere by living in a house with electricity, as are you. This line of “reasoning” is fucking stupid – it reveals an unwillingness or inability to analyze systems instead of isolated events.

  321. md says

    Sally,

    Living in a house with electricity is considerably up the ladder on the priority of needs than globe hopping by jet to atheist conferences.

  322. David Marjanović says

    The largest part of the global demand for energy comes from heating. Insulating all existing buildings by materials and techniques that are commercially available right now would cut the energy demand of households by 80 %.

    And what do you mean by “as yet unseen consequences” of climate change? The sea is rising, the glaciers are melting, the permafrost is melting, there are now long heatwaves every summer, evaporation and therefore precipitation have increased, and the weather patterns in winter have shifted to allow cold arctic air to reach lower latitudes. And as a direct consequence of CO2 rather than temperature, the sea is becoming more and more acidic.

    On to Namesake Jones. Maybe it helps if I portray this as a culture shock? You have fallen among the scientists and proposed a hypothesis (that SallyStrange is dishonest) without even trying to present any evidence. That’s… an unaware thing to do. Trying to change the topic was even worse. Go ahead and show us she’s dishonest; we’re waiting.

  323. David Marjanović says

    Planes use much less fuel per distance and passenger than cars do. I’m not sure about trains, but they’re a bit rare on oceans and in the US…

  324. broboxley OT says

    interesting, job blocks the lounge but not the dome. Wonder if its the 419 in the url

  325. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    I would agree that private schools do entrench class privilege, but I wouldn’t be so prescriptive as to outlaw them. As long as those who cannot afford to pay for education from their own pocket are provided for, I am happy – Thumper

    So, you’re happy with the entrenchment of class privilege. That’s at least one point on which we differ absolutely. I do you the courtesy of assuming you are not also happy with the entrenchment of ethnic, gender or other forms of privilege (do correct me if I am wrong), but why is class privilege different?

  326. says

    Living in a house with electricity is considerably up the ladder on the priority of needs than globe hopping by jet to atheist conferences.

    Therefore only oil fuel executives should be allowed to travel by plane without criticism. Right? Seriously, this is silly. Every single activist trying to prevent climate change contributes to GHG emissions on a daily basis. I have to drive around, sometimes long distances, in order to promote home energy efficiency measures. How many people will insulate their house due to my efforts? Will it make up for the several pounds of CO2 my ancient truck put into the atmosphere on my way to the presentation? I don’t know. If yes, it was worth it. If not, we’re probably doomed anyway. The fact that that is true is part of the problem we are trying to solve. Persnickety carping about hypocrisy because climate change activists participate in the same system that everybody else does is not helping fight climate change. Activism – education, organizing, lobbying – does. And yet those things require people to travel. Shall we insist that unless they can find solar-powered land ships to travel on, people fighting to change the system should stay home? Sounds like a recipe for defeat. I view people like you, who seize on apparent inconsistencies to inhibit, rather than encourage, activism, as enemies to the cause of mitigating climate change. You’d rather not have to do anything about it, so you just sit around pick-pick-picking at people who do. Disgusting, really.

  327. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    PZ is a strong supporter of the anthropogenic theory of CC and travels quite a bit. I note the potential conflict of interest. – md

    You’ve got the definition of “conflict of interest” about as wrong as possible. If PZ was an anthropogenic climate change denialist and did a lot of travel, it would at least make some sort of sense to accuse him of a conflict of interest, because he could reasonably be suspected of propagating that view in order to justify his frequent flights, to himself or others. You could reasonably argue that his travel habits are inconsistent with his acceptance of the scientific consensus on climate change, but that’s an entirely different thing. Tell me, md, is everything you do completely consistent with the beliefs and principles you hold?

  328. Dhorvath, OM says

    Thumper,
    Why would a person of means educate their children outside of the public system were it not a notable benefit to them to do so? That an option is available to everyone is not my sole goal, but that the option that is available to everyone is the best that we can make it. Does spending money on private schooling provide any benefit to those who aren’t in private schools? Is the public school system made stronger by using those resources for private education than if they were invested directly in the public school system?

  329. consciousness razor says

    Freedom and choice are words for power in the sense that they empower those who have them, but would you preferr to level the playing field by disempowering those with power, or empowering those without?

    That’s supposed to be an either/or question?

  330. md says

    Planes use much less fuel per distance and passenger than cars do. I’m not sure about trains, but they’re a bit rare on oceans and in the US…

    David, Im not a scientist so I dont have the expertise to evaluate the claim. Suzuki presents some statistics here to the contrary. Can I read your sources?

    http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/air-travel-and-climate-change/

    This makes it less than clear which produces more CO2, car or various jets, depending on how many people in the car:

    http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/math-how-much-co2-released-by-aeroplane/

  331. says

    The point, md, is that you’re fucking stupid for trying to turn “but you contribute lots of GHGs when you travel!” into a bludgeon to beat people who are actually trying to reduce GHG emissions–I mean, actually doing something to effect change at a SYSTEMIC level–over the head with.

    Sure, let’s talk about which has the bigger CO2 footprint – a year’s worth of driving or a bunch of plane trips. There will be a lot of variable to control for and it’ll be good practice in basic math skills. But that’s really not the point.

  333. md says

    The sea is rising, the glaciers are melting, the permafrost is melting, there are now long heatwaves every summer, evaporation and therefore precipitation have increased, and the weather patterns in winter have shifted to allow cold arctic air to reach lower latitudes. And as a direct consequence of CO2 rather than temperature, the sea is becoming more and more acidic.

    Are all these trends absolutely unquestionably related to increased CO2? Sea levels have risen and fallen prior to the industrial revolution. Glaciers have advanced and retreated in the past. It has been hotter in the past, and it has been colder in the past. Point is that the climate is extremely dynamic and there are not a fixed set of parameters it has fluctuated between in the past, so the evidence that climate is fluctuating outside of recent averages is not sufficient to prove the case.

    All that said, these trends you identify may well have consequences to us or animals that we may well want to prevent. And what are the consequences of the cure?

    Perhaps you might want to argue that having the land underneath Bangledeshi’s feet covered in ocean water is a bad thing. Id agree with you. But I also believe that making it harder for Bangledeshi’s to get homes with electricity is a bad thing as there are an great number of health benefits that come along with electricity and running water. I also believe that making it harder for Bangledeshi’s to enjoy the pleasant luxuries like flying to Islamic or atheist conferences is a bad thing. Its lower down on the priority list, of course, but spiritual health and communion with distant friends ought to be available in the developing world too at some point.

    So when I say consequences, im thinking about how both CC and potential cures/preventative measures will effect humans, primarily. I dont think a glacier rising or falling is in itself a bad thing. How will it effect us?

    To put it slightly different, imagine another world: suppose we had complete green energy and anthropogenic CC was not a concern. Suppose also that based on historical trends* scientific consensus predicted that the glaciers were set to advance again and many millions in NA, Northern Europe, Asia, the Andes, etc etc were in the path of advancing glaciers were most likely going to crush everything in their path. How should we act? Its the ‘natural’ outcome of the planet that the glaciers should advance, but with tremendous consequence to human civilization. Personally Id probably advocate both ditching the green energy to try and warm things a bit while at the same time preparing for the worst.

    *The Wisconsinan stage, the latest series of glacial advances and retreats began possibly 70,000 years ago and ended only 10,000 years ago. In fact, we can’t even be certain that we are not in fact still in the Ice Age and merely enjoying a warm period between two glacial advances.

  334. md says

    But then, you are a libertarian, right?

    No. Fair confusion though, I read them on occasion and probably sound like one on occasion. There was a time when I thought it important to have a consistent ideology. No longer. Im still a registered Democrat and suspect i’ve voted for Democrats as much if not more than any other party.

  335. says

    Are all these trends absolutely unquestionably related to increased CO2? Sea levels have risen and fallen prior to the industrial revolution. Glaciers have advanced and retreated in the past. It has been hotter in the past, and it has been colder in the past. Point is that the climate is extremely dynamic and there are not a fixed set of parameters it has fluctuated between in the past, so the evidence that climate is fluctuating outside of recent averages is not sufficient to prove the case.

    Name one thing is science that is “absolutely unquestionably” anything.

    Go ahead. We’ll wait.

  337. broboxley OT says

    Also MD you probably dont realize that most, if not all by now, of the electricity used where PZ lives is generated by alternative sources. So perhaps he can take a trip in an airplane and still contribute less personal c02 than most

  338. David Marjanović says

    http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/air-travel-and-climate-change/

    The only figure there illustrates grams of carbon per tonne of freight. The comparison for passengers is two clicks away. OK, so I’m only right for long-distance flights (not perverse ones like Amsterdam-Hamburg or Zurich-Munich) and for cars with unreasonably low numbers of people in them (though those numbers, 1 and 2, are the most common ones).

    Are all these trends absolutely unquestionably related to increased CO2?

    *headdesk*

    Tell me, how many nines in the p value do you want?

    Sea levels have risen and fallen prior to the industrial revolution.

    Yeah, always in connection with temperatures (and the spreading rates of midocean ridges, which change much more slowly).

    Glaciers have advanced and retreated in the past.

    Yeah, temperature.

    It has been hotter in the past, and it has been colder in the past.

    Yeah, always attributable to factors that aren’t operating right now: changes in insolation (look up Milanković cycles… usually spelled the French way with “tch”), changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere (from flood basalt eruptions or the uplift of the Tibetan plateau above the treeline or the Azolla event or suchlike.

    Shit, man. Do I need to reinvent the entire science of climatology, from scratch, in front of your eyes!?!

    Point is that the climate is extremely dynamic and there are not a fixed set of parameters it has fluctuated between in the past, so the evidence that climate is fluctuating outside of recent averages is not sufficient to prove the case.

    You act as if the possible factors hadn’t all already been looked at.

    You seem to believe the climatologists know just as little as you do, and you seem to believe they don’t even get the idea of doing the most blindingly obvious research.

    I’m out of words.

    But I also believe that making it harder for Bangledeshi’s to get homes with electricity is a bad thing as there are an great number of health benefits that come along with electricity and running water. I also believe that making it harder for Bangledeshi’s to enjoy the pleasant luxuries like flying to Islamic or atheist conferences is a bad thing. Its lower down on the priority list, of course, but spiritual health and communion with distant friends ought to be available in the developing world too at some point.

    I’m all for renewable energy – already providing 20 % of Germany’s enormous needs, and rising. Insulating houses cuts their energy needs of households by 80 %, so there’s lots of potential for saving energy (and directing it elsewhere). Lots of roofs are suitable for solar panels…

    I dont think a glacier rising or falling is in itself a bad thing. How will it effect us?

    It very directly affects the people living downstream of that glacier: once it’s gone, they may only have drinking water when it rains. And while it’s going, they’ll suffer more and bigger floods than before.

    To put it slightly different, imagine another world: suppose we had complete green energy and anthropogenic CC was not a concern. Suppose also that based on historical trends* scientific consensus predicted that the glaciers were set to advance again and many millions in NA, Northern Europe, Asia, the Andes, etc etc were in the path of advancing glaciers were most likely going to crush everything in their path. How should we act?

    No idea; I’d need to know a lot more about that hypothetical world before I could form an opinion.

    In fact, we can’t even be certain that we are not in fact still in the Ice Age and merely enjoying a warm period between two glacial advances.

    Milanković cycles can be calculated in advance. Of course they have been. The next ice age is scheduled to begin in 50,000 years and reach its maximum* in 100,000 years.

    That’s assuming we’re not preventing it right now. All else being equal, that period will be cooler than it would be if the cycles were different, but it may not get cold enough to qualify as an ice age – CO2 takes a while to get out of the air.

    There’s a paper on this; I have the pdf at home, I’ll look it up later. It was in Nature or Science**, and I think it came out in 2001.

    * The last one was 18,000 years ago.
    ** Somehow, my memory loves confusing these two.

  339. David Marjanović says

    how many nines in the p value

    Whoa. Looks like my head took some damage from desk contact. How many zeroes do you want in the p value?

    Also, I forgot to close the parenthesis in front of “Shit”.

  340. says

    Thumper

    …and allows the existence of “Old Boy’s Clubs” where the right school tie will get you a job.

    This is exactly the probelme that we’re discussing, and it won’t go away by itself no matter how good public schools are, because the people who send their kids to those schools are doing it because they want to make sure that they associate with the ‘right’ people and get the tie that will guarantee them a position of power and influence, while simultaneoulsy making it vastly difficult for those who didn’t go to the ‘right’ schools.

    but would you preferr to level the playing field by disempowering those with power, or empowering those without

    Both. It’s the only way to get there.

    and does nothing to empower those who need it,

    Well, not directly, but it disempowers those who need that, and therefore levels the playing field for those who need empowerment.

  341. consciousness razor says

    Shit, man. Do I need to reinvent the entire science of climatology, from scratch, in front of your eyes!?!

    It would be pretty cool if you did.

    But even then, md would probably disappear “inexplicably” for a while, then come back later with the same shit as if it never happened. In the parlance of denialist trollology, this phenomenon is known as “repeatability” (see here, for example). While the causes of such disappearances are currently unknown, the three leading candidates are fleeing from vast liberal conspiracies, conducting research on wikipedia, and masturbating/circle-jerking.

  342. md says

    David,

    Were the conclusions of this paper already covered in the science of climatology? It doesnt seem like they have been. If they had, people wouldn’t make hockey stick looking predictions on the relationship of CO2 levels to temperature as a straight one for one. There seems to be some new temperature equilibrium being reached, well below previously predicted high temperature levels. I’ll be up front with my bias, I want to eat my cake and have it too, and this seems like mildly good news in that direction. What are your thoughts?

    http://www.uwe-merckens.com/bilder/Wetter/ngeo.pdf

    If this paper is correct am I wrong in interpreting it as good news?

  343. md says

    fleeing from vast liberal conspiracies

    I don’t believe CC is a vast liberal conspiracy. But when Naomi Klein makes a statement like:

    “climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative.”

    I raise my eyebrows. I don’t share her pre-existing progressive demands.

  344. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    So I introduced kid #1 to My Side of the Mountain.

    Now he wants to run away and live in a forest.

    I love it when a plan comes together.

  345. broboxley OT says

    cm #344 when he finds out how much disposable income you need to run away and live in a forest, his mind will change

  346. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    Dhorvath:

    Does spending money on private schooling provide any benefit to those who aren’t in private schools? Is the public school system made stronger by using those resources for private education than if they were invested directly in the public school system?

    Well, in the UK, private education is not tax-deductible. People are paying for the school after they’ve already paid for state sector (likely at the 40-45% marginal tax rate). This is very different from ‘school choice’ voucher schemes in the US and the like …

  347. says

    I don’t believe CC is a vast liberal conspiracy. But when Naomi Klein makes a statement like:

    “climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative.”

    I raise my eyebrows. I don’t share her pre-existing progressive demands.

    That’s not an argument at all. That’s just an observation that you don’t agree with Naomi Klein’s policy proposals. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant to whether the factual nature of the climate change crisis adds urgency and legitimacy to that set of policy proposals.

    Dumbass.

  348. consciousness razor says

    I don’t believe CC is a vast liberal conspiracy.

    Yet you think this: “Point is that the climate is extremely dynamic and there are not a fixed set of parameters it has fluctuated between in the past, so the evidence that climate is fluctuating outside of recent averages is not sufficient to prove the case.”

    So what exactly do you think climate scientists are missing (unintentionally, because they’re not conspiring) that you think you understand better?

    I raise my eyebrows. I don’t share her pre-existing progressive demands.

    Who cares?

  349. consciousness razor says

    Well, in the UK, private education is not tax-deductible. People are paying for the school after they’ve already paid for state sector (likely at the 40-45% marginal tax rate). This is very different from ‘school choice’ voucher schemes in the US and the like …

    I went to private schools for K-12 in the US, which were more or less the same. They weren’t tax-deductible. They were Catholic schools, so the schools were subsidized like any religious institution in the US, but not my parents who paid my tuition (and for lunch, materials, uniforms, etc.) in addition to taxes for public schools.

  350. says

    Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant to whether the factual nature of the climate change crisis adds urgency and legitimacy to that set of policy proposals.

    Nor does it have any relevance to whether they will produce the other benefits progressives seeking. (Hint: They do)

  351. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    md

    There seems to be some new temperature equilibrium being reached, well below previously predicted high temperature levels.

    No, there doesn’t. There has been some slowing of the increase in surface temperatures, but we have a good idea where the extra heat has gone – into the deeper ocean. Do you think it’s going to stay there indefinitely?

    I’ll be up front with my bias, I want to eat my cake and have it too, and this seems like mildly good news in that direction. What are your thoughts?

    That any real decrease in the rate of warming is a good thing if it gives us longer to come to grips with the problem but has the disadvantage of giving lackwits like you – and more importantly, politicians – an excuse for inaction, and for continuing to lick fossil fuel lobby arses.

  352. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    conciousness razor: “so the schools were subsidized”

    Directly? Or by virtue of being tax-exempt? Genuine question: I don’t know and I’m curious …

  353. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Well, in the UK, private education is not tax-deductible.

    UK private schools are given charitable status. Yes indeed, entrenching class privilege counts as a charitable object.

  354. yazikus says

    @cm

    So I introduced kid #1 to My Side of the Mountain.

    Now he wants to run away and live in a forest.

    I love it when a plan comes together.

    I spent hours perfecting my falcon screech as a child. I pretended to tan leather. I had a hide out in a tree. Where on earth did you find a copy?

  355. consciousness razor says

    I want to add that I’ve never been “rich” by any stretch of the imagination, nor were my parents. They struggled to pay for it, so that my siblings and I could go the classy private schools. I never saw my father much, since he worked to the bone at a factory, on night-shifts and weekends most of the time. I didn’t have the opportunities or the social networks of the rich kids who went there (not that Catholics offered much to be desired in the first place, as you can imagine). And I never could see how my education was generally any better than the public school’s, with the obvious exception that Jebus makes everything better. There are still priests who’ve gotten away with all sorts of abuse, glorified football coaches teaching theology or history or science or whatever slot they need to fill, underpaid teachers who find it an easy entry-level position and move on after a year or two, all with very little oversight or accountability or educational standards. Other than the drifting first-year teachers, it’s still basically the same incestuous circle-jerk of nepotists, with some of my classmates teaching there now. (Sibling #1 & spouse are sending their kids through the same system now, with similar results, so I hear some of the riveting details and gossip from time to time, which I’m supposed to be happy about.)

  356. md says

    an excuse for inaction

    But inaction can sometimes be a good thing, Nick. It can protect smart guys from being their own worst enemy. Case in point: Paul Ehrlich. In the sixties and seventies Paul thought that there were too many people in the world and we would run out of food and most of us would starve to death from famine. In order to avert this disaster of rapid, forced depopulation he recommended that we voluntarily rapidly depopulate. Paul is a smart guy, smarter than me, more educated than me, and was stupendously wrong in his predictions. Inaction allowed for billions more to experience life. Paul’s course of action would have deprived them.

    Paul Ehrlich has now decided that in order to avert the forced, rapid depopulation that climate change will bring us we should voluntarily rapidly depopulate. Am I really a denialist if I’m skeptical of a guy’s motives with a track record like that?

  357. cm's changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) says

    Where on earth did you find a copy?

    Amazon. And I don’t mean the tropical rainforest. ;-)

  358. David Marjanović says

    Were the conclusions of this paper already covered in the science of climatology? It doesnt seem like they have been. If they had, people wouldn’t make hockey stick looking predictions on the relationship of CO2 levels to temperature as a straight one for one.

    o_O As long as everything else is equal, CO2 is the only influence on temperature. Everything else is currently equal, and the paper in question confirms that: there won’t be any major changes in insolation in the next 50,000 years.

    But when Naomi Klein makes a statement like:

    I forgot who she is, but she’s just pointing out the fact that reality has a well-known liberal bias. :-| See comment 347 and especially 348. Oh, and, keep in mind that global warming is only a partisan issue in the US and perhaps now Canada; elsewhere, no mainstream political party tries to doubt it.

    we have a good idea where the extra heat has gone – into the deeper ocean

    Thanks, I hadn’t seen that one.

    Do you think it’s going to stay there indefinitely?

    I do. But the deep ocean won’t stay a net sink of heat indefinitely.

  359. David Marjanović says

    Am I really a denialist if I’m skeptical of a guy’s motives with a track record like that?

    *blink*

    Why do you act as if that Ehrlich guy were thousands of climatologists? Who in Hell, Arizona, cares about him or his motives???

  360. md says

    Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant to whether the factual nature of the climate change crisis adds urgency and legitimacy to that set of policy proposals.

    I agree it bears no relevance to the factual nature of climate change. It raises the question of Naomi Klein’s motives. Here is someone who had a prior political agenda for other reasons unrelated to CC. Comes now climate change and I’m supposed to believe that all her prior political wants can be perfectly reformulated as preventions/cures for climate change and that there aren’t other things to consider. I have a hard time believing that.

  361. David Marjanović says

    Who is she even? She’s neither a climatologist nor a top politician, right?

  362. md says

    Why do you act as if that Ehrlich guy were thousands of climatologists?

    I don’t. He’s an example of a human being, smart, educated, absolutely sure of his scientific conclusions and willing to make radical policy proposals based on them, who was proven to be wrong. I am grateful politicians largely ignored him.

    I am more afraid of other human beings than I am of the climate. The climate has no ego, no agenda, nothing to prove, and no desire to rule or control me. We can adapt to the climate, within reason. Men with egos, agendas, and the desire to rule have done far more damage to my fellow man than the climate.

  363. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Am I really a denialist if I’m skeptical of a guy’s motives with a track record like that? – md

    No, you’re a denialist because you reject the consensus of relevant scientific experts – and a dishonest one as well, since you keep bringing up garbage like this. Neither Paul Ehrlich, nor Naomi Klien, nor Al Gore are climate scientists, nor was Ehrlich part of a scientific consensus in the ’60s and ’70s.

  364. Dhorvath, OM says

    Well, in the UK, private education is not tax-deductible. People are paying for the school after they’ve already paid for state sector (likely at the 40-45% marginal tax rate). This is very different from ‘school choice’ voucher schemes in the US and the like …

    I know that people are willing to pay more to improve education when it is for the benefit of their children. I don’t believe that doing so on a per child basis is a best use of resources.

  365. consciousness razor says

    I agree it bears no relevance to the factual nature of climate change. It raises the question of Naomi Klein’s motives. Here is someone who had a prior political agenda for other reasons unrelated to CC. Comes now climate change and I’m supposed to believe that all her prior political wants can be perfectly reformulated as preventions/cures for climate change and that there aren’t other things to consider. I have a hard time believing that.

    Do you have a hard time believing that reality might be consistent? And that it might have a liberal bias?

  366. says

    I agree it bears no relevance to the factual nature of climate change. It raises the question of Naomi Klein’s motives. Here is someone who had a prior political agenda for other reasons unrelated to CC. Comes now climate change and I’m supposed to believe that all her prior political wants can be perfectly reformulated as preventions/cures for climate change and that there aren’t other things to consider. I have a hard time believing that.

    Sounds like you’re casting about for excuses to doubt the importance of taking action on climate change. You tried science denialism, that’s not working out. Now you’re onto guilt by association. Naomi Klein thinks it lines up with her policy proposals therefore it’s suspicious.

    Here’s an idea: present an example of a policy proposal Naomi Klein supports and demonstrate how it won’t actually help address climate change. Otherwise, STFU with your stupid-ass whining. Sucks to be publicly wrong, don’t it?

  367. Sili says

    md,

    We can adapt to the climate, within reason.

    Would mind terribly defining
    1) We
    2) The climate
    3) Within reason

    And if you could then spell out to me – I may be a bit slow – how your sentence is to be interpreted. Preferably with references to determine its validity.

  368. consciousness razor says

    It’s like Naomi Klein had said this:

    “As I’ve been saying for years, making sure people have fresh drinking water prevents them from dying of dehydration. We still have problems with this. Also, we now know that having fresh drinking water also prevents them from contracting certain diseases.”

    Then, after trying and failing to debunk the disease theory as well as methods of preventing it, you say:

    “I agree it bears no relevance to the factual nature of [diseases or disease prevention]. It raises the question of Naomi Klein’s motives. Here is someone who had a prior political agenda [preventing dehydration] for other reasons unrelated to [disease prevention]. Comes now [disease prevention] and I’m supposed to believe that all her prior political wants can be perfectly reformulated as preventions/cures for [disease prevention] and that there aren’t other things to consider. I have a hard time believing that.”

    What’s so fucking unbelievable about that? Killing two birds with one stone is just fucking impossible, or improbable, or what?

    The part you have trouble believing is apparently that you are wrong. Too fucking bad, md.

  369. Amphiox says

    Am I really a denialist if I’m skeptical of a guy’s motives with a track record like that?

    BEHOLD!

    An actual real ad hominem fallacy, without a single direct insult at all!

  370. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Are all these trends absolutely unquestionably related to increased CO2?

    That and methane from farting livestock and/or from natural gas production leakage. Don’t you understand basic science at all?

  371. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    md,

    Somehow, you’ve failed so far to point out that Al Gore is fat, and therefore we shouldn’t take any action to mitigate climate change. Why is that? It has just as much validity as the reasons for inaction you have been putting forward.

  372. Amphiox says

    Men with egos, agendas, and the desire to rule have done far more damage to my fellow man than the climate.

    This is factually, and demonstrably wrong. Climate changes triggered the Black Death epidemic that wiped out over a quarter of the entire population of Europe at the time. That one example of climate produced damage outweighs nearly all the acts of men with egos, agendas, and desire to rule put together.

    And that is just one example. We haven’t even included the many climate induced famines in China and India, and elsewhere.

    If is also irrelevant to the current issue, since modern climate changes are directly tied to and produced by men with egos, agendas, and desire to rule.

  373. dustbunny says

    I don’t know if this news has made it over to the US yet, but a truly horrendous attack (all press and government are saying ‘terrorist attack’) was carried out by two men described as “Islamists” in London, UK. I won’t describe it here so people who don’t want the awful details aren’t subjected to them.

    Trigger warning for just about everything!
    link from The Independent

    I have to go to a business dinner now, but I don’t think I can stomach food after this…

  377. Ichthyic says

    We can adapt to the climate, within reason.

    I’m betting you think that the warming climate will simply mean moving the breadbasket currently in the Midwestern US North to Canada?

    I sure here that a lot these days. People thinking that somehow everything will just adjust, and we will have the same availability of agricultural land as we do now.

    If so, have you ever actually looked?

    here’s a clue: how long do you think it took to form the delta topsoil that has been the source of the NA breadbasket for so long?

    Is there a delta in the Middle of Canada?

    hmmm…

  379. Ichthyic says

    all press and government are saying ‘terrorist attack’

    doesn’t sound like one.

    sounds more someone trying to justify murder by saying it was an honor killing.

  380. Ichthyic says

    I don’t. He’s an example of a human being, smart, educated, absolutely sure of his scientific conclusions and willing to make radical policy proposals based on them, who was proven to be wrong. I am grateful politicians largely ignored him.

    I know Paul personally.

    He actually WASN’T wrong.

    have you ever actually read Population, Resource, Environment? I’d wager you haven’t.

  382. Ichthyic says

    In order to avert this disaster of rapid, forced depopulation he recommended that we voluntarily rapidly depopulate.

    you do know he was making his predictions based on current levels of production and reproduction, right?

    you do know that reproductive rates across huges swaths of assorted continents, like NA and Asia and Europe have actually significantly DECLINED, right?

    you do know that production methods he could never have predicted were put in place to try and stem the problem, right?

    no, of course you don’t.

    because you’re an ignorant fuckwit.

  384. Ichthyic says

    1. The EPA must make science-based decisions regarding regulation of chemical substances on the weight of the “best available science.”

    2. The EPA’s safety evaluation of chemical substances needs to be streamlined and functional.

    3. The EPA’s determinations based on these safety evaluations will trump all determinations or actions by state or local governments.

    4. Trade secrets, intellectual property and other confidential business information will be protected with upfront substantiation.

    5. The EPA’s decision-making process must be completely transparent.

    sounds good.

    OTOH, I have read similar legislative attempts going all the way back to the mid 80s.

    I really hope there will be a significant number of cosigners this time.

  385. mythbri says

    @Icthyic #384

    The co-sponsors:

    Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
    Mike Crapo (R-ID)
    Dick Durbin (D-IL)
    Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
    Charles Schumer (D-NY)
    James Inhofe (R-OK)
    Tom Udall (D-NM)
    Susan Collins (R-ME)
    Joe Manchin (D-WV)
    Marco Rubio (R-FL)
    Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
    John Boozman (R-AR)
    Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
    John Hoeven (R-ND)

    Some of those names surprise me, which is why I want to be careful in my analysis.

  386. md says

    you do know he was making his predictions based on current levels of production and reproduction, right?

    yes I do. Malthus made the same mistake.

    you do know that production methods he could never have predicted were put in place to try and stem the problem, right?

    Again, yes. And again, if he’d studied his Malthus he’d know that new production methods can never be predicted so making future predictions off current trends are deeply problematic. Ehrlich doesn’t need a crystal ball, he needs humility.

    you do know that reproductive rates across huges swaths of assorted continents, like NA and Asia and Europe have actually significantly DECLINED, right?

    And with the exception of China, this has largely been voluntary and im quite pleased with that. Assuming they don’t go so low as so we disappear. I note that famine has had little to do with these declining rates.

    Tell Paul to drop a note here on the Thunderdome if he ever feels like gambling again.

  387. md says

    should be blockquotes around that third “you do know that reproductive….”

    apologies.

  388. says

    Inaction allowed for billions more to experience life.

    This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever seen posted in comments here. Or perhaps anywhere.

  389. John Morales says

    md:

    yes I do. Malthus made the same mistake.

    There is was no mistake about the fundamental truth; when resources are limited, so perforce is growth.

    Again, yes. And again, if he’d studied his Malthus he’d know that new production methods can never be predicted so making future predictions off current trends are deeply problematic. Ehrlich doesn’t need a crystal ball, he needs humility.

    And if you’d studied reality, you’d know that new production methods can only asymptotically approach full utilisation, whence upon growth must cease.

    Tell Paul to drop a note here on the Thunderdome if he ever feels like gambling again.

    His gamble was about metal commodity prices, and nothing to do with AGW.

  390. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Yawn, MD is showing himself to be an idiotlogical objector to AGW. There is no science there. No surprise from a liberturd, whose words I always take as being something less than the truth, except as seen from their delusional and unevidenced theology.

  391. md says

    This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever seen posted in comments here. Or perhaps anywhere.

    Let me guess, Chris Clarke, you view Norman Borlaug as history’s biggest monster.

  392. omnicrom says

    md exactly what are you looking for?

    You’ve been garbing yourself as though you’re a Very Serious Person ™ who wishes to be Completely Certain ™ about climate change. Climate change is a fact, what is the evidentiary standard you demand before you can conclusively finish your Very Serious Consideration ™ on the existence of climate change? In science the best we can get is 99.9 repeating % certain. How many decimal places do you want 99.9% out too before you Very Seriously ™ conclude that reality is real and thousands and thousands of climatologists with a dozen stadiums worth of data are indeed correct?

    You have been doing a merry little dance around reality for as long as I’ve been here md. Now put up or shut up, if you are intellectually honest and really do have honest Very Serious Doubts ™ that somehow haven’t been assuaged by the cavalcade of people providing bushels of data then lay those problems out and tell us what criteria are needed to answer them. If you are not being intellectually honest then do continue like this, you will have started as you meant to go on.

  393. John Morales says

    Let me guess, md, you view Dr Pangloss as literature’s greatest philosopher.

    <snicker>

  394. md says

    omnicron, you havent read or digested my early posts, particularly #318.

    I do not doubt the basics of CC. I do not doubt that increasing c02 levels exacerbate climate trends that will be harmful to us and the planet. I wonder how bad it will be. Will it be apocalyptic? Will it problematic? Will it be annoying? Will it be a mild bother we can overcome with a few sea walls?

    I question the policy proposals. I think the cost of a proposal ought to be weighed against its benefit. I think cheap fossil fuel energy also has a lot of good things in it for human beings and making it more expensive could have negative side effects on human beings. Particularly the most poor among us.

    Let me try a different tack. I dont mind a tax on oil and diverting that revenue into renewable energy research. I think it would be fantastic if we invented or perfected a suitable substitute for fossil fuels. I note with approval a recent study that tells me that solar panel technology has now advanced to the point that all solar tech in place in the world produces more energy then what is required to produce solar panels. This is fantastic, I look forward to when more people can afford to put them on their houses.

  395. Ichthyic says

    yes I do. Malthus made the same mistake.

    it’s only a mistake in hindsight, fool.

    And with the exception of China, this has largely been voluntary and im quite pleased with that.

    well, ladida.

    what a pathetic wanker you are. seriously.

  396. Ichthyic says

    I wonder how bad it will be. Will it be apocalyptic? Will it problematic? Will it be annoying?

    you know, there ARE things you could do to help alleviate yourself of your ignorance as to what the impacts are likely to be.

    but, you won’t.

    because you’re a pathetic wanker.

  397. Ichthyic says

    This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever seen posted in comments here. Or perhaps anywhere.

    It was also completely wrong, given all the things the idiot actually ACKNOWLEDGES have happened in the same fucking post.

    it’s in “not even wrong” territory.

  398. Ichthyic says

    Tell Paul to drop a note here on the Thunderdome if he ever feels like gambling again.

    there’s no need. I’m here.

    I told you. He wasn’t wrong.

    you simply haven’t a clue why I am saying that, even though I tried to explain it to you.

    you’re simply too ignorant (and i mean that as both insult and simple fact) for me to even begin to educate you.

    you don’t want to learn, you want to pretend you know stuff.

    Dunning Kruger should attract your interest.

  399. omnicrom says

    md

    I see you haven’t read or digested many of this thread’s earlier posts. Amphiox at 372 has mentioned warming famines in Asia. Ichthyic at 377 talked about the problems with flooding. Those are merely two examples, but as Ichthyic at 396 pointed out that if you were intellectually honest about your JAQing off you have access to a massively powerful interconnected series of computers that contain tremendous amounts of data on the problems that can arise from global warming.

    Oh and since you haven’t provided details on what standards you require before you can accept a piece of evidence meaning you can continue to worm out of taking climate change seriously that means that in the race between intellectual honesty and intellectual dishonesty, intellectually dishonest is the winner. As though there was any doubt.

  400. md says

    Citing Dunning Kruger as a retort to me after I post a series of questions that I do not know the answer to, AND after I cite a famous smart scientist who was famously wrong about a couple things is a non sequitur, Ichthyic.

  401. John Morales says

    md @400, whether or not it’s a non sequitur is irrelevant to its truth-value.

    (Regarding non sequitur claims, care to be specific about how he was wrong in relation to AGW?)

  402. Ichthyic says

    you don’t know the meaning of “non sequitur”, either.

    I question the policy proposals.

    this is why it isn’t a “non sequitur”, you dipshit.

    you are entirely ignorant of ANY information needed to intelligently question any legislation regarding the impacts of climate change, and you’ve made that abundandtly clear.

    instead, you pretend you understand the issues involved by citing the idea that since Malthus was incorrect in his figures in hindsight, NOT EVEN IN THEORY, mind you, that somehow this has relevance to your knowledge of the topic at hand?

    in fact, if anything, you citing Ehrilich and Malthus is the non sequitur here.

    run along.

  403. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Citing Dunning Kruger as a retort to me after I post a series of questions that I do not know the answer to,

    You act like you should be the expert rather than listening to the experts. That is Dunning Kruger in action. You aren’t smart enough to know you are wrong, which you are. In fact, if you presuppose you are wrong at all times, you will be correct more often than not.

  405. Ichthyic says

    I’m ALMOST curious what md would think that Malthus would say if he was alive today and had met Borlaug and seen the results of his work.

    oh wait, we already know! my bad.

    “you view Norman Borlaug as history’s biggest monster.”

    …yeah…

  407. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    md,

    I do not doubt the basics of CC. I do not doubt that increasing c02 levels exacerbate climate trends that will be harmful to us and the planet.

    It’s this kind of thing that convinces people you’re dishonest. Exacerbate what climate trends? Insolation has shown no secular trend over the past half-century, the Milancovitch cycle would if anything have produced a slight cooling, as is also the case for volcanic eruptions. Those are the known non-anthropogenic forcings (as opposed to feedbacks) of medium-to-long term climate change. There are other anthropogenic causes: aerosols (which tend to cool), black carbon (which warms), other greenhouse gases. All this information is readily available, so if you don’t know, it’s because you don’t want to know.

    I wonder how bad it will be. Will it be apocalyptic? Will it problematic? Will it be annoying? Will it be a mild bother we can overcome with a few sea walls?

    The best evidence is that it will be very bad indeed if we don’t take urgent action. Again, this information isn’t hidden. Try looking at the last IPCC’s report on “Impacts”. It’s free. Oh but I forgot: one or two errors slipped through in thousands of pages summarizing the state of scientific knowledge, so you can dismiss the whole thing. In addition to climate, there’s also the acidification of the oceans. We’ve little idea what the effects of that will be – but of course to a fool like you, that means we shouldn’t do anything about it.

    I question the policy proposals. I think the cost of a proposal ought to be weighed against its benefit. I think cheap fossil fuel energy also has a lot of good things in it for human beings and making it more expensive could have negative side effects on human beings.

    So focus on ways of rapidly cutting GHG emissions which fit with your ideological preferences, if you can find any. Read some of what Nicholas Stern said – he’s no anti-capitalist radical, FFS. I think he’s wrong, that far more radical changes are needed to the way the world is run than he can bring himself to admit (he’s admitted he wasn’t “alarmist” enough), but that’s where debate should be – not on pretending we don’t know enough to mandate urgent action.

    Particularly the most poor among us.

    Like you give a shit about the poor. It is, of course, they who will overwhelmingly suffer first and most from climate change.

  408. says

    md

    Are all these trends absolutely unquestionably related to increased CO2? Sea levels have risen and fallen prior to the industrial revolution. Glaciers have advanced and retreated in the past. It has been hotter in the past, and it has been colder in the past. Point is that the climate is extremely dynamic and there are not a fixed set of parameters it has fluctuated between in the past, so the evidence that climate is fluctuating outside of recent averages is not sufficient to prove the case.

    All that said, these trends you identify may well have consequences to us or animals that we may well want to prevent. And what are the consequences of the cure?

    I was just posting some stuff. I haven’t read the last 50 comments, but I will, but as soon as I started to read your posts I had to go take a shit. You are a troll. Okay:
    Hansen recently published a paper called Perceptions of Climate Change: The New Climate Dice (pdf), then authored several op-ed columns based on its conclusions. He has the temperature number we’re looking for, the global warming increase that leads to a sizable mass extinction event. In his conclusion, he says (my emphasis and paragraphing):
     
    Although species migrate to stay within climate zones in which they can survive, continued climate shift at the rate of the past three decades is expected to take an enormous toll on planetary life.
     
    If global warming approaches 3°C by the end of the century, it is estimated that 21-52% of the species on Earth will be committed to extinction (3). Fortunately, scenarios are also possible in which such large warming is avoided by placing a rising price on carbon emissions that moves the world to a clean energy future fast enough to limit further global warming to several tenths of a degree Celsius (29). Such a scenario is needed if we are to preserve life as we know it.
     
    See the paper itself for the references. Footnote (3) refers to Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, volume 1 of the IPCC Assessment Report 4, the most recent. You can read sections or download the PDF here.

    Hansen’s follow-up op-ed in the New York Times was just as stark (again, my emphasis and some paragraphing):
     
    Game Over for the Climate
     
    … Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now.
     
    That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.
     
    What Hansen is saying is what our chart above also says — that global warming of 3°C (or 5.5°F) hasn’t been seen since the early Cenozoic, millions of years before the dawn of man. He also says 3°C — whenever it arrives — is the mass extinction point, potentially the start of a new geologic era.
     
    Why Staying Below 3°C Global Warming Matters
     
    We need to keep James Hansen’s number in mind for two reasons. The first is that even if we stop global warming at “just” 3°C, it’s a disaster. Imagine living in a world in which the earth is so warm that 20–50% of species are going extinct. Imagine the chaos, the death from disease, starvation and war, the global population migrations. Now imagine that this all happens in the next 90 years. The compression is stunning.
    = = =
    So, We are looking at a mass extinction event. We won’t make it out of this century, and before Obama is out of office, the Arctic may be ice free in the summer.
    = = =
     
     
    I don’t know if anyone knows our individual GHG footprints for livestock consumption. I have quit eating beef and pork except for once a week or so, although I drink milk every day, but now I don’t know about that being a good idea, obviously:
    In 2010, global greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector totaled 4.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide (COv(2)) equivalent, up 13 percent over 1990. Agriculture is the third largest contributor to global emissions by sector, following the burning of fossil fuels for power and heat, and transportation. In 2010, emissions from electricity and heat production reached 12.5 billion tons, and emissions from transport totaled 6.7 billion tons.

    Despite their continuing rise, emissions from agriculture are growing at a much slower rate than the sector as a whole, demonstrating the increasing carbon efficiency of agriculture. From 1990 to 2010, the volume of agricultural production overall increased nearly 23 percent, according to data compiled by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for its program, FAOSTAT. FAO released a new Greenhouse Gas Emissions database for agriculture, forestry and other land use changes in December 2012, which can be found here.

    According to FAO, methane accounts for just under half of total agricultural emissions, nitrous oxide for 36 percent, and carbon dioxide for some 14 percent. The largest source of methane emissions is enteric fermentation, or the digestion of organic materials by livestock, predominantly beef cattle. This is also the largest source of agricultural emissions overall, contributing 37 percent of the total.

    I can’t even get pissed off at a troll; it is so pathetic that I can’t take it seriously. Those arguments and questions you asked have been thoroughly debunked and answered for ten years already, and I just feel sorry for anyone that is that intentionally ignorant. Show some respect for yourself.

  409. says

    333
    md

    22 May 2013 at 12:55 pm (UTC -5)

    Are all these trends absolutely unquestionably related to increased CO2?

    You are a fucking moron. I mean it. YES, THEY ARE UNQUESTIONABLY RELATED, FOR. FUCKS. SAKE.

    To put it slightly different, imagine another world: suppose we had complete green energy and anthropogenic CC was not a concern. Suppose also that based on historical trends* scientific consensus predicted that the glaciers were set to advance again and many millions in NA, Northern Europe, Asia, the Andes, etc etc were in the path of advancing glaciers were most likely going to crush everything in their path. How should we act? Its the ‘natural’ outcome of the planet that the glaciers should advance, but with tremendous consequence to human civilization. Personally Id probably advocate both ditching the green energy to try and warm things a bit while at the same time preparing for the worst.

    *The Wisconsinan stage, the latest series of glacial advances and retreats began possibly 70,000 years ago and ended only 10,000 years ago. In fact, we can’t even be certain that we are not in fact still in the Ice Age and merely enjoying a warm period between two glacial advances.

    How fast do you think glaciers advance? Even if it did ice over, it wouldn’t happen over a period of decades! And it is easy to produce waste heat and GHG’s, so that whimsical fairy fantasy of yours would be easy to deal with compared.
    30 to 50 percent of species don’t go extinct during a fucking cooling event, and especially not in 50 to 100 years!
    It is fucking so fucking drastic right now that it is beyond scary. C’mon, man

  410. says

    Nick Gotts (formerly KG)

    It’s this kind of thing that convinces people you’re dishonest.

    Personally, I think he is a troll.

  411. says

    To answer peoples musings about oolon/ool0n on this thread : https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/05/22/david-silverman-a-principled-atheist/
    Posted here to not derail with my FTB-life story :)

    I was not technically banned for fence sitting. I was banned for posting in a thread I was told not to post in.
    https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2012/10/12/well-i-wont-do-that-again/

    I was rather annoyed by that as it seemed to imply I had something to do with the @SammyBoals shit head. PZ wasn’t to know but the Slymepitters like to blame anything that looks “Too Far” on “FTB trolls” as damage limitation and since I was the token FTB troll for them as I was posting there… Well it made it look like he was saying that was me in some way.

    I’ve never sockpuppeted, don’t see any fun in annoying people and them not knowing its me! That’s all I’d ever do as a “troll” is annoy people. I only agree to the troll label because the pitters called me that and a “troll of trolls”, that’s pretty cool, even if not true. (Actually I did post a couple of tweets from @braveher0 when we stole it from @ElevatorGate, but its no fun being an anonymous parody)

    …he could have been entirely summed up over his many irritating posts as saying over and over: “Can’t we all just get along?”

    Yup, I argued that not all the pitters are assholes. I never stood up for any of the overt bigotry/bigots but for some reason felt I had to argue for the other side and how some of the pitters are just reasonable people who have allied themselves with the pit for reasons (miffed at Pharyngula mainly)… However Sally Strange in the repudiation thread said why am I spending time defending a minor point about people who have chosen to ally themselves with disgusting bigots. I didn’t back down there but it got through my thick skull, eventually, seeing the MLK quote about “silence of friends” brought it home. An instance where I should have “Shut up and Listened”!

    Interestingly despite that question about me plus the pitters constantly calling me a “troll”, “two-faced”, accusing me of being the one who did a sexual photoshop job early on during Nugents dialogue, downloading child porn, and generally asserting everyone at A+ and FTB despise me (Projection there!) … No one at FTBs has ever spread any lies about me, or even spoken about me after I was banned (As far as I know) … Whereas the pitters discuss me constantly, despite them knowing I find that endlessly amusing! How sad have you got to be to find discussing one commenter over and over and over interesting, I’m even getting bored discussing what a condescending arse PitchGuest is.

    John-Henry, I agree that oolon is basically a good guy, but IIRC he got in trouble here because he would not ever drop the topic even in inappropriate threads, and insisted on quoting slymeshit when it was upsetting people.

    Yeah that’s the other thing I’m not proud of, annoying (hopefully not too often upsetting) people like Ophelia, Stephanie and commenters by saying what’s being discussed at the Slymepit. Unfortunately my amusement at Pitter smears and threats led me to take bad decisions about how others might parse them. So I stopped reading the Slymepit, and apart from the odd link I mostly accidentally followed I’ve not read more than a couple of posts there this year. I’m a lot better off for it and really they repeat the same shit over and over about how blogger/commenter X is sooo stooopid and they are sooo much more intelligent, what do you miss? My few months posting/reading there have given me all the insight I could ever want or need. I seem to be annoying people I don’t want to annoy a lot less as a result, I think.

  412. md says

    The best evidence is that it will be very bad indeed if we don’t take urgent action. Again, this information isn’t hidden. Try looking at the last IPCC’s report on “Impacts”. It’s free. Oh but I forgot: one or two errors slipped through in thousands of pages summarizing the state of scientific knowledge,

    Okay Nick, one last to convince you im not a troll. First, some things about me. Im not a scientist, obviously. Don’t have a science background. Just an average joe trying to make sense of the world and do the right thing. My opinions aren’t important by themselves, though I think it is mildly important that you try and convince me (not me, necessarily, but people like me that you encounter in your life) on some level, because Im fairly representative of half educated average joes around the world who are trying to make sense of the world and do the right things and in a democracy average joes in the aggregate wield some power.

    Onto the science. Im reading this paper. Two writeups on it.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/19/new-paper-shows-transient-climate-response-less-than-2c/

    http://www.uwe-merckens.com/bilder/Wetter/ngeo.pdf

    Averages joes like me arent qualified to analyze the quality of the science presented, so we look for shortcuts. One such shortcut is the reaction of respectable people. I think Climatologist James Annan from the JAMSTEC Yokohama Institute for Earth Sciences in Yokohama, Japan, is respectable, though im not totally sure he doesn’t sell Range Rovers on the side. In response to the above, he notes:

    —the “likely” range for equilibrium climate sensitivity using the full 40y of data seems to be about 1.3-3C (reading off the graph by eye, the lower end may be off a bit due to the nonlinear scale). So although the analysis does depend on a few approximations and simplifications, it’s hard to see how they could continue to defend the 2-4.5C range.

    The ‘they’ in this case meaning the consensus (prior to this paper) view at IPCC.

    Matt Ridley has this to say:

    “The most likely estimate is 1.3C. Even if we reach doubled carbon dioxide in just 50 years, we can expect the world to be about two-thirds of a degree warmer than it is now, maybe a bit more if other greenhouse gases increase too. That is to say, up until my teenage children reach retirement age, they will have experienced further warming at about the same rate as I have experienced since I was at school.”

    This is just one paper. Nic Lewis and Ridley and Annan are just smart people who could very possibly be wrong. I don’t think im wrong to interpret this as disagreement among experts as to what the likely impact will be. I believe im correct that there will be large differences in impact if the climate temperature equilibrium settles at 4.5C higher than 1.3C. I interpret all this back and forth as people not completely knowing where the things are going to settle and feel im rationally justified in maintaining my skepticism against rash measures in the meantime.

  413. says

    It took me one second to find this:

    Nic Lewis

    December 19, 2012 in uncategorized
    Tags: ipcc leaked draft, Steig et al

    Nic Lewis- who? IPCC expert reviewer no less.

    Nic Lewis. A semiretired successful financier from Bath, England, with a strong mathematics and physics background, Mr. Lewis has made significant contributions to the subject of climate change

    Nic Lewis’ academic background is mathematics, with a minor in physics, at Cambridge University (UK). His career has been outside academia. Two or three years ago, he returned to his original scientific and mathematical interests and, being interested in the controversy surrounding AGW, started to learn about climate science. He is co-author of the paper that rebutted Steig et al. Antarctic temperature reconstruction (Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre and Jeff Condon, 2011, Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction, Journal of Climate – print version at J.Climate or preprint here).

    Quotes are from a Matt Ridley article in the Wall St Journal and his own bio in Judith Curries blog – So Nic Lewis has a math degree from Cambridge and after a career in finance he retired to take up climate change scepticism. Nic Lewis is not in complete climate change denial- from a comment from Judith Curries blog

    I fully accept that, as a result of basic radiative transfer physics, CO2 warms the planet, However, my present view is that the observational evidence for climate sensitivity being 2–4 times its base level, as a result of net feedbacks, is fairly weak. I also think that the politicized and dogmatic nature of the AGW debate has led to bias in the scientific process and to some extent compromised its integrity. I would particularly like to see, as a matter of routine, climate research papers make easily available all data and methods information in the detail required to replicate studies. I also think that the peer review and publication process is biased against papers that challenge mainstream views, and should be reformed.

    Nic Lewis’ main contribution to the ‘debate’ is his co-authorship with Ryan O’Donnell [computer science] Steve McIntyre and Jeff Condon paper criticising Eric Steig’ study in Nature 2009 his rebuttal is found here .

    He’s a fucking computer scientist, md, not a climatologist. His shit it rebuked thoroughly.
     
    Any more questions?

  414. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Dhorvath #328

    I see what you’re saying, but how will disallowing private schools cause the investment that previously went to private schools to be invested in public schools instead? In the UK public schools are funded by taxes which you have to pay, regardless of whether you choose to send your child to private school. If you do so, you must pay for that private school in addition to your taxes.

    @Dallillama #340

    I agree with your first point and that it is a problem, but disagree with your second. I will not sanction the disempowerment of one group in order to narrow the gap with another. My aim is to improve everyone’s quality of life, not to improve some a bit and lessen others a bit so that they meet in the middle. It is wrong to deliberately disempower people, the fact they are higher up the ladder does not make it OK. The goal should be to move those lower down the ladder up to the same rung, not to move those at the top down.

  415. says

    This is where I got the info for nic lewis, md. He is well known: 
    the Climate Denier List(where the above #412 is from)

    a list of scientists, real or imagined, pundits and loud mouths
    About

    a blog which is pretty self explanatory.

    Being irritated by laptop denialists [i.e. those with so much time to cut & paste misinformation on every comment page] it seemed logical to track down what was really said and by whom. If you find a quote claiming it is all grand conspiracy or a lie, junk science, new religion just include the quote and who said it in the comments on this page.

    A word about the term ‘Denier’, no one denies the climate has not constantly changed and although a frequent meme of ‘deniers’ the concern is not that climate changes over time [many thousands of years] but the relatively stable climate that human life has flourished in over the last 6,000 years is changing rapidly and it is caused by human burning of fossil fuels.

    The difference between climate [AGW] sceptics and deniers is the former do not deny basic physics, scientific observations and accepted theory but may take issue with method or conclusions. In this respect all scientists are sceptics. The denier is entirely different.

    1/ deniers will happily hold contradictory views as long as they oppose AGW science.

    2/ deniers lend weight to an argument based on x paper is right and u v w y z papers are therefore wrong. If a single paper is to turn around accepted theory then such a new theory needs extraordinary evidence.

    3/deniers are incredibly unsceptical of any argument against AGW

    4/deniers want to be taken seriously and have a grown up debate but quickly descend to name calling, attacks and out right lying and then accuse others of being unreasonable. Being grown-up means accepting the overwhelming evidence when it is presented. It is about being mature and not changing the subject, or cherry picking data or using the internet as place to seed doubt.

    5/deniers confuse science and politics. If you think governments are looking to tax and control you [join the club!] fine. But to believe that their is a global conspiracy by science either present some actual facts or accept you are also denying reality.

    Deliberate attempts to seed doubt and to ignore facts and accepted explanations [such as the no warming since meme] is the definition of denier.

    All links and bios have been checked for accuracy, however if any one has been misrepresented do comment and corrections will be prompt.

    If you want to read real science, and how all these deniers you read have been debunked, go here. It’s called RealClimate

    Index
    Filed under:

    Extras

    — group @ 1 December 2004

    In addition to the category indexing on the side bar, we have set out a more thematic index here to help you find your way through the content on the site.

    Themes: Aerosols, Arctic and Antarctic climate, Atmospheric Science, Climate modelling, Climate sensitivity, Extreme events, Global warming, Greenhouse gases, Mitigation of Climate Change, Present-day observations, Oceans, Paleo-climate, Responses to common contrarian arguments, The Practice of Science, Solar forcing, Projections of future climate, Climate in the media, Meeting Reports, Miscellaneous.

    If you are looking for introductions to the whole topic, start here.

      
    Then, head on over to grist and read How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming

    Below is a complete listing of the articles in “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:

    Stages of Denial,
    Scientific Topics,
    Types of Argument, and
    Levels of Sophistication.

    Individual articles will appear under multiple headings and may even appear in multiple subcategories in the same heading.

    You are climate change denier and a troll. You fit 2, 3, 4, and 5 from the list above.

  416. alwayscurious says

    md,

    What is the worst possible thing we might do by pursing a fix to CC if it turns out to not be a thing?

    –Reduce dependence on nonrenewable energy sources
    –Redirect government funding to new projects rather than continue to subsidize century old technology
    –Put in higher safety factors than necessary for sea walls, etc
    –Have cleaner air, water, and natural spaces than we’ve experienced in decades
    –Contribute to agenda Y pushed by policy group D rather than agenda X pushed by policy group R.

    Am I missing something here? Nothing seems all that terrible to me at all. But please, find something actually bad to add to this list.

    I haven’t heard a cogent argument about the ills of planning for CC should it be less bad than expected or nonexistent by some miracle technology coming out tomorrow (just wait, tomorrow, I’m sure of it). I am biased against doom & gloom economic arguments because we’ve demonstrated pretty clearly we can screw our economy just fine ourselves, thank you very much, without the environment contributing one iota. Thus far, I believe the projection is that CC will hurt our economy badly (and environment, in case you care about more than simply humans & their cows)–less so if we take steps now rather than wait. So truly, what do we have to lose??

  417. Hekuni Cat, MQG says

    cm’s changeable moniker:

    Now he wants to run away and live in a forest.

    So did I. But that was a very long time ago. :D

  418. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    md,

    First, it’s not my responsibility to convince you; it’s yours to educate yourself, and to do that you need to go to experts, whose expertise is readily available online, for example here and here – sites run by actual climate scientists. I admit I don’t believe you are actually willing to do so. Prove me wrong: do some serious reading on the subject.

    Of your “experts”, only one is a relevant expert: Annan. Nic Lewis is a financier. Matt Ridley is a banker and free-market ideologue (and Watts Up With That, to which you link, is a denialist site packed with lies). However, I think if anything it’s Annan spinning the results, not the authors as he claims: the new results really don’t change central estimates of either transient or equilibrium sensitivity much – the former a bit more than the latter. They do reduce the likelihood of the higher end estimates, which is good news – but it’s only one paper. However, the threshold of “dangerous climate change” that should be avoided has been set (somewhat arbitrarily but by intergovernmental agreement) at 2C above pre-industrial levels (we’ve already had an increase of around 0.8C).

    Have you actually looked at the IPCC Impacts report yet? Because if not, the obvious conclusion is that you are not open to being convinced. While 2C may not sound much – particularly if you think in Fahrenheit, like most Americans – it’s not distributed equally across the world, or across time: I’ve seen an estimate of around 10C-12C increase for the hottest days in New York City. Moreover, both floods and droughts will be more frequent in a warmer world – warmer air holds more water vapour, so rain is less frequent, but heavier. If you’ve ever spent time in the tropics, you’ll likely have seen that they are both wetter when wet, and drier when dry, than temperate regions. Even the lowest feasible estimates of climate sensitivity show that we have essentially zero chance of avoiding the 2C increase this century without urgent action.

    I believe im correct that there will be large differences in impact if the climate temperature equilibrium settles at 4.5C higher than 1.3C.

    You are, but this suggests you haven’t even got to first base. These are estimates for the equilibrium climate sensitivity, a measure of the effect of doubling CO2 levels. That is not a “temperature equilibrium”, both because other greenhouse gases (mainly methane and nitrous oxide) are also increasing, and because unless we cut emissions, atmospheric levels will go well over double the pre-industrial level before we begin to run short of fossil fuels. This post shows the expected mean temperature rise under various combinations of equilibrium climate sensitivity and GHG emissions. In order to understand the urgent need to act, you also need to remember the lag time in building energy infrastructure (power stations, grids, distribution systems) and energy-using equipment (vehicles of all kinds, buildings, industrial plant) necessary if emissions are to be curbed. Indeed the sooner we start, the better the chance of avoiding both disastrous climate change, and the need for radically authoritarian measures.

    I interpret all this back and forth as people not completely knowing where the things are going to settle and feel im rationally justified in maintaining my skepticism against rash measures in the meantime.

    That’s because you are determined to remain ignorant. I was recently at an open conference on the politics of oil and gas, which included industry representatives. I heard none of them claim action was not needed now, although they were still claiming a switch from burning coal to burning natural gas to generate electricity was a good idea (it does reduce emissions in the short term, but investment in gas infrastructure crowds out investment in low-carbon infrastructure now, and maintains a vested interest in fossil fuel use for decades).

  419. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    It is wrong to deliberately disempower people, the fact they are higher up the ladder does not make it OK. – Thumper

    So, you would have considered it wrong to disempower lords by ending serfdom. Wrong to disempower the monarch and the aristocracy by giving the masses the vote. Wrong to disempower slavers by freeing slaves. Wrong to disempower men by allowing women to vote and own property. Nice to know.

  420. Dhorvath, OM says

    Thumper,
    When people of means to use private school act on a problem with public school by putting resources into private school to the benefit of their own they see it as a solution. They generally don’t agitate for better public school nor do they invest extra resources in improving public schooling. When the class who has the most to offer in terms of making public schooling improve don’t focus on improving it, well, that’s an opportunity lost. Were those with the most wealth instead concerned about public schooling because they are also tied to it’s success do you imagine they would idly accept the status quo or work to effect a better system?

  421. md says

    Nick, ive skimmed the IPCC reports for years, as I said somewhere way up thread, I think the available science warrants strong concern. You mention being at an oil and gas conference and none of them argued actions should not be taken. Great, I also don’t think actions should not be taken. I said ‘rash’ actions. What does that mean? Im not exactly sure, its an admittedly vague phrase. But I think we’re close to wanting the same things when you say smart action now means less chance of authoritarian actions later. In the meantime, sure, im for investing in alternative energy and for replacing nat. gas for coal and oil where applicable. Im sure there are many other things of which I know nothing about that could contribute to the answer. Its those ‘authoritarian’ measures you hint at that I instinctually oppose.

    Of your “experts”, only one is a relevant expert: Annan. Nic Lewis is a financier.

    Below are the names (excuse the weird formatting, I copied them from a PDF) that co-authored that Nature Geoscience paper along side Nic Lewis. You can go for yourself on that paper and look where these folks work. Some examples include: Max Planck Institute for Meteorology; Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford; NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

    Alexander Otto
    *, Friederike E. L. Otto
    ,
    Olivier Boucher
    , John Church
    , Gabi Hegerl
    ,
    Piers M. Forster
    , Nathan P. Gillett
    ,
    Jonathan Gregory
    , Gregory C. Johnson
    ,
    Reto Knutti
    , Nicholas Lewis, Ulrike Lohmann
    ,
    Jochem Marotzke, Gunnar Myhre
    ,
    Drew Shindell, Bjorn Stevens
    and Myles R. Allen,

  423. Ogvorbis, broken failure. says

    Do you refer to this Nathan P. Gillett?

    The idea that stratospheric ozone depletion has been a factor in driving a stronger circumpolar vortex (and restulting cooling inside the vortex, with warming outside) has been gaining support. In 2003, Nathan P. Gillett and David W. J. Thompson published results of a modeling study supporting this effect durint the spring and summer. “The results,” they wrote in Science, “provide evidence that athropogenic gases have had a distinct impact on climate not only at stratospheric levels but at the Earth’s suface as well” (Gillett and Thompsan 2003, 273; Karoly 2003, 236-237).

    A man with expertise in anthropogenic ozone depletion. Sounds like he knows his stuff. And supports the idea that anthropogenic products are affecting the Earths climate.

    I wonder how many others on that short list are also suspect?

  424. Amphiox says

    Suppose also that based on historical trends* scientific consensus predicted that the glaciers were set to advance again and many millions in NA, Northern Europe, Asia, the Andes, etc etc were in the path of advancing glaciers were most likely going to crush everything in their path. How should we act? Its the ‘natural’ outcome of the planet that the glaciers should advance, but with tremendous consequence to human civilization. Personally Id probably advocate both ditching the green energy to try and warm things a bit while at the same time preparing for the worst.

    You do realize, don’t you, that in that scenario ditching green energy would be just about the LEAST effective and LEAST efficient attempt at a solution that anyone could imagine?

    If you really wanted to change natural the climate trajectory of your planet, as opposed to simply adapting to it by moving or figuring out a technology that lets you build cities inside glaciers, you’re talking geoengineering and/or terraforming. And you would want to do those things in a CONTROLLED fashion. You’d keep your green energy and instead directly pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere on an industrial scale separately. And you’d probably want a greenhouse gas that is more effective than CO2, without anciliary effects like ocean acidification or unpredictable impacts on your food crops, and one that does not persist very long in the atmosphere, so you can keep a TIGHT control of its levels by modulating your production rates.

  425. vaiyt says

    Anecdote on the case of public vs. private schools.

    Sometimes, public education is not enough, some other factors have to be considered as well. Our local public university, for example, has been a privileged boy’s club for quite some time. The way campuses (campi?) are set up means that not having a personal car makes it increasingly difficult to attend classes. Another factor is that basic education is very poor on the public level, so poor students are at a serious disadvantage when facing the steep entry exams.

    It wasn’t always that way. In past decades, public schools were the best and most prestigious of all, and provided some measure of opportunity for poor people that managed to power through the racism, classism (both rampant among the students AND the staff) and other difficulties to complete their courses. A progressive devaluation of public services, thanks to a corporatist military dictatorship and a spat of Libertarian-influenced democractic governments, has left those schools in shambles.

    Funny is, as much as private schools are better than public schools nowadays, the number of private universities that have the quality and research output of public universities IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

  427. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    md,

    Come on, try reading for comprehension: I didn’t question the expertise of the authors of the Nature Geoscience paper, but those of some of the people placing their own denialist interpretation on it.

    Great, I also don’t think actions should not be taken.

    In the meantime, sure, im for investing in alternative energy and for replacing nat. gas for coal and oil where applicable.

    Without considerable government action of one sort or another to direct investment into low carbon generation and away from fossil fuels, it’s clear the change won’t happen fast enough. Without heavy taxation or rationing of energy use, emissions will carry on growing. Replacing coal or oil by natural gas is not an effective measure – it’s another diversionary tactic by the oil and gas corporations.

    Im sure there are many other things of which I know nothing about that could contribute to the answer. Its those ‘authoritarian’ measures you hint at that I instinctually oppose.

    We absolutely need people, particularly those in rich countries to change their behaviour – to travel and particularly fly less, to eat less meat and dairy, to buy and use fewer electrical appliances, to be more willing to adapt to changes in temperature by donning or doffing clothes – that is, we need the “social engineering” so dreaded by the right. We absolutely need to direct investment. What I meant by “authoritarian measures” is the kind of outright destruction of democracy and personal freedoms that are likely once serious disruption to food production, and large-scale attempts to migrate away from areas that are worst affected, begin to take hold.

  428. says

    We absolutely need people, particularly those in rich countries to change their behaviour – to travel and particularly fly less, to eat less meat and dairy, to buy and use fewer electrical appliances, to be more willing to adapt to changes in temperature by donning or doffing clothes

    Rather than change these types of behaviour, we could just have less kids. No amount of turning down the thermostat will compensate for Jim Bob‘s unconstrained ejaculations

  430. md says

    Come on, try reading for comprehension: I didn’t question the expertise of the authors

    That was unclear to me, as you put scare quotes around experts, and called Nic Lewis a financier in a way that could be interpreted to be pejorative and without mentioning his other modest scientific relevance, and Nic is listed as one of the authors of the paper. I understand that Matt Ridley is not a climatologist. I don’t know anything about Nic Lewis, he may not deserve to be listed as a coauthor with those other names, OTOH am not sure that having a previous career as a financier disqualifies one from co-authoring a respectable science paper, but he has along with 13 others with expert sounding titles and places of employment. How about we chalk that up to an honest misunderstanding?

  431. omnicrom says

    How about we chalk that up to an honest misunderstanding?

    An honest misunderstanding requires both parties to be misunderstanding honestly.

  432. says

    md, did you read my link above to the list of climate change denialists? Do you understand that it is not just about CO2, but methane and NO and others?
    Did you read that climate change is happening faster than predicted?
    That the number one threat to mankind right now is desertification, that 42% of arable land has desertified, and that 50% of the earth’s surface is given over to farmland already?
    That it isn’t just the water levels, it is the disruption to ocean currents that will cause the most upheaval of climateweather patterns?
    That after the collapse of ocean fisheries(on top of crop failure), there will be no food for 5 billion people, and that war will break out like it has already over scarcer and scarcer resources?
    That disease is also to escalate out of control, and not just human illnesses, but plant and wildlife disease?

    It isn’t a fucking financial question any more. If you would read my post above it shows how a 3° rise in avg. global temp will cause a mass extinction of 29 to 52% of fucking species, that is worse than most mass extinctions in geological history, and would start a new geologic period?
     
    We won’t make it out of this decade before the Arctic is ice free, and it hasn’t been ice free for 3 million years. So then(the chart on the fucking page I linked to) to permafrost will become the number one source of GHG emissions, and it doesn’t matter how much chicken shit cry baby futile dollars are spent going natural gas, or anything, it is already too fucking late.
    There is no fucking time anymore for dipshit financial considerations.
    Fuck

    Hansen recently published a paper called Perceptions of Climate Change: The New Climate Dice (pdf), then authored several op-ed columns based on its conclusions. He has the temperature number we’re looking for, the global warming increase that leads to a sizable mass extinction event. In his conclusion, he says (my emphasis and paragraphing):
     
    Although species migrate to stay within climate zones in which they can survive, continued climate shift at the rate of the past three decades is expected to take an enormous toll on planetary life.
     
    If global warming approaches 3°C by the end of the century, it is estimated that 21-52% of the species on Earth will be committed to extinction (3). Fortunately, scenarios are also possible in which such large warming is avoided by placing a rising price on carbon emissions that moves the world to a clean energy future fast enough to limit further global warming to several tenths of a degree Celsius (29). Such a scenario is needed if we are to preserve life as we know it.
     
    See the paper itself for the references. Footnote (3) refers to Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, volume 1 of the IPCC Assessment Report 4, the most recent. You can read sections or download the PDF here.
    Hansen’s follow-up op-ed in the New York Times was just as stark (again, my emphasis and some paragraphing):
     
    Game Over for the Climate
     
    … Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now.
     
    That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.
     
    What Hansen is saying is what our chart above also says — that global warming of 3°C (or 5.5°F) hasn’t been seen since the early Cenozoic, millions of years before the dawn of man. He also says 3°C — whenever it arrives — is the mass extinction point, potentially the start of a new geologic era.
     
    Why Staying Below 3°C Global Warming Matters
     
    We need to keep James Hansen’s number in mind for two reasons. The first is that even if we stop global warming at “just” 3°C, it’s a disaster. Imagine living in a world in which the earth is so warm that 20–50% of species are going extinct. Imagine the chaos, the death from disease, starvation and war, the global population migrations. Now imagine that this all happens in the next 90 years. The compression is stunning.
    = = =
    So, We are looking at a mass extinction event. We won’t make it out of this century, and before Obama is out of office, the Arctic may be ice free in the summer.

    Go and fucking read the links we are providing and quit focusing on puke that supports your piss-poor bullshit point of view, and look at something else.

    Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
    First, it’s not my responsibility to convince you; it’s yours to educate yourself, and to do that you need to go to experts, whose expertise is readily available online, for example here and here – sites run by actual climate scientists. I admit I don’t believe you are actually willing to do so. Prove me wrong: do some serious reading on the subject.

    Now go read the two links I posted here
    I don’t believe you for one second. I do not think you want to learn at all. You are a fraidy-cat that is too scared of facing reality, and you think that if you keep trying and get someone to agree with you, them climate catastrophe isn’t already happening.
    FUCK
    You’ve got some spectacularly good people here that have researched this stuff, that have critical thinking skills and separate the wheat from the chaff. We don’t have time to go through every one of your links and authors one by one. We already know how to find out whether something is reliable, and we have given you inks that explain how to tell.

    Now leave me alone while I go listen to some Anthrax ;)

  433. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    OTOH am not sure that having a previous career as a financier disqualifies one from co-authoring a respectable science paper, but he has along with 13 others with expert sounding titles and places of employment. How about we chalk that up to an honest misunderstanding?

    Sorry, from your history posting here, I chalk it up to deliberate lying and bullshitting on your part. You see, your problem is you presume something based on idiotology, and then look for data to support your idiotology. Same as your financier. What you have to do is the look at all the data/evidence first for AGW, and make up your mind based on those facts irrelevant of the consequences. Then, and only then, should the idiotology be examined for corresponding to the scientific reality, and tossed if it doesn’t work. Your idiotology of burying your head in the sand doesn’t work.

  434. alwayscurious says

    md,

    I do not doubt the basics of CC. I do not doubt that increasing c02 levels exacerbate climate trends that will be harmful to us and the planet. I wonder how bad it will be. Will it be apocalyptic? Will it problematic? Will it be annoying? Will it be a mild bother we can overcome with a few sea walls?

    You position is entirely inconsistent. You believe the science is sound, worthy of serious concern. But don’t want to take any action because the consequences are unknown?!? If you truly believe the science is sound & worthy of taking serious–that CC is happening as a result of human action & it will be harmful–why would you sit on your hands about the consequences, described through the same process by the same scientists? WHAT is of serious concern that garners lukewarm commitment to a solution?

    I question the policy proposals. I think the cost of a proposal ought to be weighed against its benefit. I think cheap fossil fuel energy also has a lot of good things in it for human beings and making it more expensive could have negative side effects on human beings. Particularly the most poor among us.

    Cheap? Government subsidizes fossil fuels at multiple levels: it’s cheap at the pump because a sizable part of the of the cost comes out of income taxes. And we’re now to taxation fairness. Beings the poor pay disproportionately to what they get, I’d say they are already experiencing the pains of cheap fossil fuels.

  435. consciousness razor says

    So, you would have considered it wrong to disempower lords by ending serfdom. Wrong to disempower the monarch and the aristocracy by giving the masses the vote. Wrong to disempower slavers by freeing slaves. Wrong to disempower men by allowing women to vote and own property. Nice to know.

    To add to that, I want to know whose “choice” it is that would be taken away. (Who had a choice in my #355?) When you look at education from the students’ persepective, rather than their parents’, you lose the idea that it’s some kind of commodity that can be purchased. You lose the hidden assumption that parents own their children and should be allowed to dictate whatever kind of education they receive. (Talk about “draconian”! Again, see #355.) This all puts the quality of education, the interests of students and the public, after the parents’ vaunted freedom to spend their money however they want. But education is a public interest, not some private concern that we shouldn’t meddle with.

    I doubt you’d say it’s “draconian” to claim people’s private spending decisions should be limited, when it comes to, say, nuclear weapons: it’s clearly in the public’s interest that people aren’t to allowed to buy them. Are we “disempowering” people by restricting what choices they have, regulating the market or banning sales altogether? Yes, we certainly are, and that’s a good thing, despite how the word may sound when taken out of context. The same kind of rule applies with education, because you’re simply confused if you disregard all of the other effects of a policy, by putting the focus on whether or not some person has “freedom” to spend as they wish.

    Notice that whether or not it’s a “good” decision, to “buy” an education for their little child-slave, is wholly irrelevant. It just doesn’t matter if it really is a good or bad private school, so long as that’s their perception and they have the money to assume that “risk” (for their children, and for the society which needs educated citizens, even though they get little or no say in the matter).

    So like I asked, who is this person with freedom anyway? It’s definitely not the student. It’s definitely not everyone else who cares what happens to the student. So why should anyone care?

  438. Ichthyic says

    Just an average joe trying to make sense of the world and do the right thing.

    Liar.

    that sums it up really.

  439. Ichthyic says

    Nick, ive skimmed the IPCC reports for years

    liar.

    what’s more, even if you HAD been doing this, it’s clear you wouldn’t even understand what is there, even though it is designed to be understandable by layfolk.

    you’re just an obvious fucking liar.

    why are you bothering to try and convince anyone otherwise?

    run along and go lie somewhere else.

  440. joey says

    mikmik:

    And many Anti-Choicers couldn’t be happy, it’s never about the foetus (excuse me “unborn baby”), it’s about punishing women for sex. -omnicrom

    Just to be clear, what exactly is this “punishment” of which you speak? Is this “punishment” giving birth to a live child, or is it the live child itself? -me

    Seeing that you don’t know, I think that disqualifies you from making decisions in this area. You’re showing just about zero empathy with that question. I would hazard to guess that this is a problem with most anti-choicers. -mikmik

    Tell me mikmik, what is this punishment? I seriously would like to know.

    If the “punishment” is having to raise the child, the woman has the option of giving the child up for adoption. So she doesn’t have to undergo this “punishment”, at least in most developed nations.

    However, if the “punishment” to which you and omnicrom refer is the actual process of giving birth to a live baby, then in the case of a late-term pregnancy of a viable fetus (which has been the primary focus of this discussion), omnicrom (and others here) would still want this “punishment” to befall on the woman since live birth is advocated instead of termination of the fetus. If “pro-choice” only means choice to terminate the pregnancy as opposed to choice to terminate the fetus, then in the case of a late-term pregnancy the woman actually has no choice to not be “punished”.

    So what is this “punishment” again?

    ———————–
    LykeX:

    1) Proper information on pregnancy and birth control
    2) Birth control can be found easily and cheaply
    3) Abortion is legal, free, and widely available, without waiting periods or unnecessary restrictions Under those circumstances, I wouldn’t expect to see cases like Gosnell. I would expect that illegal, late-term abortions would be incredibly rare and only occur in extreme cases.

    Even if illegal, late-term abortions (note that in Denmark “late-term” is considered after 12 weeks whereas in America it’s after 24 weeks) are incredibly rare, they are still illegal. The question is whether you are actually in favor of these late-term abortions remaining illegal. Are you? If so, then you believe in an abortion restriction.

    And as I’ve said this is a distraction to the debate at hand. Either terminating late-term viable fetuses is wrong, or it’s not wrong.

    But, we already settled that. I gave you my opinion and you agreed. Why are you dragging this back up?

    Because I’m not finished discussing it. If you think it is wrong to terminate a viable fetus, then why exactly do you think it’s wrong?

    You’re the one who brought up Gosnell and now you don’t want to discuss a relevant point of that case, namely: How come these women even went to him? Isn’t that a relevant question? If we want to prevent a certain scenario, isn’t it relevant to ask how it came about?

    Sure it’s relevant. But if we truly want to prevent a certain scenario from happening, then doesn’t it also make sense to be sure that the scenario remains illegal?

    Would it make sense to do all that we can to reduce/eliminate the factors contributing to rape culture if at the same time we don’t believe rape itself should be illegal?

    My contention remains that the reason they went to him was that normal abortion options had been restricted to such a level that they felt they had no other choice. It’s my position that anti-choice policies promote quacks like Gosnell, whereas easy access to abortion works to limit such cases. That position still stands unrefuted by you.

    If that is your contention, then so be it. There is probably nothing I could say that would make you change your mind about this. But refuting the above is not my contention. I would just like to know the following from people here…

    1) Do you feel that terminating late-term viable fetuses is wrong? (which you have already answered)
    2) Should there continue to be laws restricting the termination of late-term viable fetuses?
    3) If you do think it is wrong to terminate late-term viable fetuses, why precisely do you think it’s wrong?

    ———————-
    theophontes:

    My main question has been whether there is any practical difference terminating the fetus inside the womb or waiting “those extra 5 minutes” to terminate the baby outside the womb (which is what Gosnell has done numerous times).

    Again. This is an extreme case and one that should be avoided if at all possible.

    WHY should it be “avoided if at all possible”? It was the choice of the women who went to Gosnell to NOT have a live baby result after the procedure. So are you in favor of restricting the woman’s choice to terminate her viable fetus? If so, why?

    So, would it have been acceptable if they were terminated while still inside the women as opposed to outside

    Give me one single example from any country (like Denmark, as mentioned above) which has humane, rational abortion laws where this has occured.

    I don’t understand how one could consider Denmark’s abortion laws more “humane” and “rational” than America’s considering Denmark gives only half the amount of time (12 weeks) for unrestricted abortions as America (24 weeks)…unless of course you’re pro-life.

    Further I cannot commend a situation, as you described, where the woman in question was in any way endangered.

    Consider that Gosnell, in addition to being charged three counts of first-degree murder of newborns, was also charged with “21 counts of abortion of the unborn, 24 weeks or older”, it is evident from the ruling that at least 21 women were not in any way endangered. Gosnell wouldn’t have been charged for such crimes if the women were endangered considering such abortions aren’t illegal.

    Do you believe Gosnell should be charged for these 21 counts of illegal late-term abortions?

    Is there any moral or ethical tenet of value, in all of christiandom, that is uniquely christian?

    No. You don’t need to be a Christian to believe in inherent human value.

    ——————–
    Esteleth:

    The difference between killing the fetus in utero and subsequently expelling it and expelling and then killing the born infant is night and day.

    I asked if there were any practical differences. The practical motive for both procedures is to not have a live baby after the procedures are completely over. Either way, the goal gets accomplished.
    ——————–
    omnicrom:

    joey have you ever considered how hard it is to convince people they’re wrong when you don’t understand what they believe? I mean you said yourself in the last Thunderdome that you’re here to change as many minds as possible to your goddist anti-woman views on abortion right? How on Earth do you think you can convince people they’re wrong when you know nothing about what we Pro-choicers believer?

    Then why don’t you help me out what you pro-choicers believe and answer the questions from my last post. Here they are again…

    Does “pro choice” mean you agree with the status quo that late-term abortions should be restricted?
    Does “pro choice” mean you agree that if the health of the woman is not at risk, then abortions of viable fetuses should remain illegal?
    Does “pro choice” mean you agree that the woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy at any time for whatever reason?
    Does “pro choice” mean you agree that the woman should be allowed to terminate her fetus at any time for whatever reason?
    Does “pro choice” mean you agree in “after birth abortions”?
    Does “pro choice” mean you agree with what Heather McNamara opined in this piece, where she never differentiated between a fetus and fully born baby?
    Does “pro choice” mean you disagree with BAIPA?
    Does “pro choice” mean you disagree with the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003?
    Does every pro-choicer agree with what the Planned Parenthood representative said in this video?

    (you can see the links in the original post)

    The reason that you intentionally ignored answering the above questions is because you know there is no one-size-fits-all “pro choice” position. Even in this very thread you will find two “pro choice” advocates who disagree that terminating a viable late-term fetus is wrong.

    ————————
    Tony:

    What “theological based claim” are you talking about? That viable fetuses shouldn’t be terminated if live birth is an option?

    Who gives a flying fuck if the fetuses are viable when the WOMEN involved should be the primary concern?
    What *they* want should take priority.
    If the woman involved wants the fetus to be delivered, then that’s HER choice.
    If she does NOT want the fetus delivered, then that’s HER choice.

    Who gives a flying f*ck if the fetuses are viable? For starters, LykeX, theophontes, and omnicrom feel that the viability of the fetus actually matters if you’re talking about terminating it.

    Are you ever going to explain what is so fucking special about viable (or otherwise) fetuses?

    Sure. A viable fetus is special because it’s a human life.

    So just to be clear, you disagree with the posters here who say that it is wrong to terminate a viable fetus if live birth is an option. Is this correct?

  442. Ichthyic says

    wow you’re quite the windbag.

    but just starting with this:

    Tell me mikmik, what is this punishment? I seriously would like to know.

    I can already tell that one: you’re totally ignorant of what gestating and giving birth entails, both biologically and societally, and two, you really DON’T want to know.

    thus, I can reasonably and with evidence conclude you are both ignorant and dishonest.

    there was really no reason to continue.

  443. chigau (違う) says

    joey
    What do you think about contraception?
    i.e. prevention of pregnancy

  444. Ichthyic says

    I’m tired of joey, too.

    I’ve never seen him before, and I’m already tired of him.

  445. chigau (違う) says

    Ichthyic
    I’ve never seen him before…
    Really?
    joey is one of only three residents of The Quarantine Level of the Dungeon.
    If he posts anywhere outside The Thunderdome, it means instant™ banning.

  447. chigau (違う) says

    Ichthyic
    Maybe you could lure joey out of the Thunderdome.
    I can’t because he doesn’t seem to read my comments.

  448. consciousness razor says

    Tell me mikmik, what is this punishment? I seriously would like to know.

    One set of punishments you’ve left out is publicly shaming them when they get an abortion (by protesting at a clinic for instance), requiring useless and invasive procedures when they do, or making it virtually impossible for many women to get one in the first place. Even while it’s legal, anti-choicers don’t want many hospitals to perform them, private insurance or the state to cover them, nor do they want them anywhere near women, so that they have undergo a huge ordeal, just to do what is in fact their legal right. And of course, some even want them outlawed in cases involving rape or incest, or argue it couldn’t be “legitimate rape” if they do get pregnant because of some bullshit.

    All of which serves no purpose other than feeding these pious fuckwits’ twisted sense that pregnant women deserve to suffer as much as possible for what they have done, when all they have done is disbelieve in your religious garbage and instead make their own fucking decisions about what can and should happen to their bodies.

    Oh, but none of that follows your script. My fucking apologies.

    However, if the “punishment” to which you and omnicrom refer is the actual process of giving birth to a live baby, then in the case of a late-term pregnancy of a viable fetus (which has been the primary focus of this discussion),

    It’s been the primary focus, for a mind-boggling length of time, for no apparent reason.

  450. says

    I’ve already pre-ordered the Meyer book, and plan on ripping it to shreds as soon as I’ve finished it. The Cambrian explosion is cause to doubt evolution? Really? What a maroon.

  451. says

    @ joey

    If you think it is wrong to terminate a viable fetus, then why exactly do you think it’s wrong?

    Your god, YHWH, absolutely loves to murder viable fetuses (“babies” or “persons” in goddist-speak) in the womb. Obviously it cannot be wrong then. You still haven’t responded to this simple fact.

    doesn’t it also make sense to be sure that the scenario remains illegal?

    Still trying to run other peoples’ bodies I see. Are you a goddist because you are RWA, or are you RWA because you are a goddist?

    There is probably nothing I could say that would make you change your mind about this.

    Indeed. I think the problem here lies with you, joey.

    WHY should it be “avoided if at all possible”?

    Er,… like avoiding putting the woman at risk.

    It was the choice of the women…

    They had a choice did they? You have not been reading my links have you?

    So are you in favor of restricting the woman’s choice to terminate her viable fetus?

    No. I would suggest more choice not less. The earlier the better. Choices like… well, joey, this is not so hard: Full and unrestricted access to sex education, contraception, early term abortions, … the list goes on. Tackling the issue in a humane, rational manner will help. Unlike your godfapping.

    America (24 weeks)

    Are you living under a rock? Women are being prevented from exercising that right.

    unless of course you’re pro-life.

    Is all your life spent in such black and white?

    In this debate, the religious right like to term themselves as “pro-life”, whereas they really mean “anti-choice”.

    If you mean “pro-life” in the sense other than religious sense indicated above, then yes I am pro-life, in a general sense, and pro-choice, in the sense of a woman’s right to control her own body.

  452. says

    joey

    If the “punishment” is having to raise the child, the woman has the option of giving the child up for adoption. So she doesn’t have to undergo this “punishment”, at least in most developed nations.

    However, if the “punishment” to which you and omnicrom refer is the actual process of giving birth to a live baby, then in the case of a late-term pregnancy of a viable fetus (which has been the primary focus of this discussion), omnicrom (and others here) would still want this “punishment” to befall on the woman since live birth is advocated instead of termination of the fetus. If “pro-choice” only means choice to terminate the pregnancy as opposed to choice to terminate the fetus, then in the case of a late-term pregnancy the woman actually has no choice to not be “punished”.
    So what is this “punishment” again?

    How do you suddenly change ‘pregnancy’ into ‘third trimester viable fetus’? That’s dishonest. It starts the minute she is possibly pregnant, as in the case of the morning after pill, and the minute she decides to terminate. That is when the punishment starts:

    1. The insult of taking away her autonomy.
    2. Making the woman into a hostage; forcing her, against her will, to behave in a certain way contrary to her choices.
    3. Mental anguish.
    4. Physical anguish
    – I want to point out that all these, so far, are tactics of an abuser and misogynist-
     
    5. Making a woman sacrifice her time
    6. Possibly entailing her to a life threatening situation, and holding her captive to that fear.
    7. Financial punishment – the costs of pregnancy, and loss of pay – perhaps job. Let’s not forget that forced maternity leave might be part of the oppression.
    Having to carry a child to term and give birth, then turn it over for adaption, is an emotionally devastating process, so we’re not just talking emotional anguish, we are talking about, possibly, a long term sentence of depression, PTSD, and the like.
    I also want to point out that pro-lifers would make a woman carry an non-viable fetus to term. My sister carried her anencephalic fetus to term, and it fucked her up, giving birth and watching it die. She is personally against abortion, so it was her choice, but I can’t imagine what that would be like to be forced to do that.
     
    It’s 4AM and I woke up here to insomnia, so this stuff is just off the top of my head, as a man, so this is probably not even the half of it.
    If you don’t understand that making a person enter into a scary, debilitation, emotionally destructive, situation against their will isn’t punishment, I doubt your humanity.
     
    It’s punishment in exactly that “you went and got yourself preggers, now suffer the consequences.”
     
    (I apologize if I haven’t done this justice. I also know that I haven’t looked at what this could do to the male, although it is mostly secondary in comparison, I would think)

  453. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Joey, why should I care about your theology based morals, if they are based on the twin lies of your imaginary deity existing, and your babble not being a book of mythology/fiction? Making your theological moral even more bullshit. You have trouble with abortion? Don’t have one.. Meanwhile, shut the fuck up about the subject as you have nothing cogent to say on the subject. Women have a right to bodily autonomy. Deal with that concept elsewhere. There is nothing you can say that will change that fact, as the only way to change that fact is to demean and degrade the woman. You are one dumb fuck.

  454. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    joey: consider a nym change…ready?
     
    Mere joey
     
    Huh? Good, right?

  455. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Just an average joe trying to make sense of the world and do the right thing. – joey

    Liar. An “average joe” doesn’t spend months obsessively posting on a blog where he is generally loathed, starting off with comprehensive and long-maintained dishonesty about his real beliefs.

  456. Ogvorbis, aquaskeptic groupie! says

    Has Joey the Liar come up with one new argument in all these months? Has Joey the Liar changed his argument even one iota in all that time?

  457. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Has Joey the Liar come up with one new argument in all these months? Has Joey the Liar changed his argument even one iota in all that time?

    Nope, same old lies. Utter and total presupposition. Ergo, can’t put up the solid evidence to change minds, can’t shut up like a person of honor and integrity would do. Confirming his status as Joey the Liar.

  458. pakicetus says

    @ PZ Myers

    I’ve already pre-ordered the Meyer book, and plan on ripping it to shreds as soon as I’ve finished it. The Cambrian explosion is cause to doubt evolution? Really? What a maroon.

    Of course, the “Cambrian explosion” is a target, because it used to have no organisms “lower” in the strata. But, in the 50’s, there was discovered, the “Ediacaran fauna”. Which, totally destroys their claims. And, then they feature, Louis Agassiz, who lived before the discovery of genetics. I think, they should actually present what evolution predicts, an then tackle it.

  459. Dhorvath, OM says

    Joey,

    I asked if there were any practical differences. The practical motive for both procedures is to not have a live baby after the procedures are completely over. Either way, the goal gets accomplished.

    Part of the practical motive for an abortion is to not carry a fetus to term, to not go through labour, to not have the associated health impacts that these things offer both during pregnancy, during labour, and subsequent to birth inflicted on a woman unless she chooses to risk them. So yes, there is a difference right there between giving birth and not giving birth: labour. This is not an event to be undertaken lightly and no one should get to say who does and who doesn’t go through labour save the person who is pregnant.

  460. opposablethumbs says

    joey really is doing a bang-up job, isn’t he. How many times is it now that he has pretended he thinks the goal is to terminate a foetus – after being told, time and again, that the goal is to terminate a pregnancy? And yet, here he goes again, right back to the same old lie he started with.
    To get that wrong once could be stupidity and ignorance; to return to exactly the same equivocation numerous times is deliberate misrepresentation (aka lying).
    You’re quite the object lesson, joey. A long-drawn-out one, certainly, but anyone who cares to read through your spiel across all the threads can see it becoming ever clearer: start by lying about what you believe; then JAQ off at length, while lying about what you think others believe; then pretend everything others have said about the subject was never said, lying (as here) about your JAQuestions having been answered.
    And this is what goddism makes of a man clearly intelligent enough to string two sentences together; a profoundly dishonest despot, one who longs to impose his religious beliefs on women everywhere and hasn’t even the integrity to admit it.

  462. Beatrice (looking for a happy thought) says

    Almost entirely irrelevant to anything, but I had a thought (surprise!) reading the title of PZ’s latest post,
    Thugs in cheap suits are not paragons of human rights     .
    I doubt thugs in expensive suits would be any better, I’d expect them to be more dangerous thanks to more financial backing. Although, I’m guessing the phrase has more to do with lack of class than lack of money, but that just makes the classism in it more obvious.
    It’s interesting to see how classism creeps into everyday speech without one even noticing.

  463. Owlmirror says

    joey:

    I don’t understand how one could consider Denmark’s abortion laws more “humane” and “rational” than America’s considering Denmark gives only half the amount of time (12 weeks) for unrestricted abortions as America (24 weeks)…unless of course you’re pro-life.

    You consider abortion on demand during the first trimester, and abortion contingent on minor hurdles to be overcome during the second trimester, to be consistent with pro-life?

  464. Dhorvath, OM says

    Anything to back us into the corner of agreeing that there is a line so Joey can argue about where that line ought to sit.

  465. Owlmirror says

    God Made Dad & Mom

    “Dad, can we pray for Jimmy and his dads?”
    “That’s a great idea.”
    Micheal prays, “Dear Jesus, please show Jimmy and his dads the truth about how you made them and how much you love them.”

    I see that Wonkette has more information about the book, including noting that the family visits the zoo “where he learns that animal families consist of a male, a female, and their offspring”, it says there.

    This exuberant depiction of different sexual and reproductive strategies might be a nice antidote to their toxic (and pathetically bullshit) naturalistic fallacy.

  468. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    How about an FAQ for Joey? It would *hopefully* help.

    Joey couldn’t find a FAQ and understand it even with the aid of a clue book, a map, a GPS, and a compass.

  469. omnicrom says

    joey you’ve still failed to respond to my point:

    You lie repeatedly and claim you don’t know what the pro-choice movement believes even though everyone in this thread who has bothered to respond to your pathetic windbaggery has told you exactly what the Pro-choice movement believes. But pretending for a moment you actually DON’T know what we believe, how are you going to go about doing what you said you were here for? Remember last Thunderdome when you said

    I intend to convince many of you that much of your worldview is wrong. Simple as that.

    How are you going to convince us our worldview is wrong when you completely fail to understand our worldview? And yet you remain joey. You either DO understand what the pro-choice side believes and are a liar or you are incredibly incompetent as a rhetor. The correct answer of course is both. You are an insipid liar joey. Leave.

    Oh, by the way joey do not lie about me. When you say that I feel that it matters whether the fetus is viable before you terminate it you are Bearing False Witness which I believe your god has a problem with. You are pulling that tired old bait and switch confusing the “Fetus” with the “Pregnancy”. The viability of the fetus should not affect whether or not the abortion should be terminated. That you perform this bait and switch reflects the fact that you actually do understand the pro-choice position and are thoroughly disingenuous. I have no reason, therefore, to answer your inane slew of questions and tell you things you already know. Why bother? You aren’t actually interested in debating as much as trying and failing to proselytize the joys of religiously motivated misogyny.

    Fuck off.

  472. John Morales says

    pakicetus, true, but hey! The new front page redesign is in the cards!

  473. John Morales says

    PS, pakicetus, a redhead is a person with red hair (and the Redhead is a specific person) whilst a Read Head is the sensor for magnetic recording devices.

  474. chigau (違う) says

    pakicetus
    I thought you meant a FAQ to explain the entity-known-as- joey to other people.

  477. omnicrom says

    I would correct that, chigau, by saying “Nothing has been permitted by joey to penetrate”. Considering that joey has been Bearing False Witness for years there’s no way that joey doesn’t know how dishonest they are.

  478. PatrickG says

    I’ll just mostly shutup now and go lie down. What is wrong with me, I feel like I’m losing my mind.

    I feel fairly confident that a number of people in this forum are familiar with this feeling.

    Make sure you’re taking care of yourself. Be with good people, do good activities, do whatever you can. My remote ineffectual thoughts are with you. :)

  479. Ichthyic says

    joey has been here for years.

    oh, it’s THAT joey!

    man, thought that clown was long gone by now, and this was a new Joey.

    reminds me of Air Force Dave, and anyone who ever ran into him would know why.

  481. omnicrom says

    I suspect it was moved by the decree of the tentacled one. Perhaps when the dread P’Zh’Mhuyurs made the decree that the thread was over he meant that he would end the thread manually.

  482. says

    Joey:
    Did you flunk reading comprehension in grade school?
    I think abortion should be available to women at all times. Full stop. Neither you, nor anyone else gets a say. The decision to keep the fetus to term or abort should be decided by the woman involved, with her doctor providing all the relevant information for making whatever decision she chooses.

  483. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    We have to try. You can contact me, via , or discuss the content on here.

    You can waste your efforts, but I’m not even going to attempt such a thing. I don’t have time to waste.

  485. Beatrice (looking for a happy thought) says

    Great, I decide to take a look at B&W just as StevoR has also decided to visit and unload there.
    *barf*

  487. Beatrice (looking for a happy thought) says

    …
    I’ll just go read Brute Reason. Yeah, that’s good.

  489. Amphiox says

    The practical motive for both procedures is to not have a live baby after the procedures are completely over.

    This is a blatant falsehood, joey.

    And it has already been explained you extensively why this is a falsehood.

    And you have the nerve to repeat such a transparent lie, yet again.

    You are pathetic.

    Rot in your preferred version of hell, you odious bearer of false witness.

  490. Ogvorbis, aquaskeptic groupie! says

    Joey still does not understand, even after dozens of explanations, that an abortion ends a pregnancy. What an ass.

  491. chigau (違う) says

    joey understands
    he is bearing false witness for Jesus
    (for which he will burn in Hell for all eternity.)

  492. says

    Jeez, they’re everywhere. “David Jones”, it turns out, is “Metaburbia”, a clueless nuisance I had to block on twitter. And now I discover that he’s been JAQing off on Skepchick as well as here, and there’s a suggestion that he’s been frequenting the slymepit (although I haven’t confirmed that). The banhammer strikes again.

  495. Amphiox says

    I would just note here that joey’s apparent obsession with the “giving birth to a live child” as a punishment for a woman, and his utter inability to comprehend that the process of being pregnant is the punishment we are talking about, echoes right out of the bible, where god punished all women with the pain of childbirth for Eve’s sin.

  497. Ogvorbis: Arkranger of Doom! says

    I feel like I have earned a badge of honour here at Pharyngula. Andywatson showed up on the Thugs thread spouting all of the free speech, harrassment is acceptable, Vacula-esque nonsense. I linked to Nugent’s anti-human rights quotes and was branded a liar. Not just a liar, an amoral liar. And then Andy was willing to argue with others about me but, when I chimed in, ignored me. Amoral liar. Ignored. I think I may have earned a mention in the Symepit (no, I am not going there to look — I did once and felt ill).

  498. ChasCPeterson says

    I was going to link this from the cheap-suited thugs thread, but the link is to the sl*mepit and it got bot-denied (of course), and/but it’s not quite on-topic enough to copy-paste the whole thing over there–it’s long–so here it is over here instead.
    What happened, somebody quoted somebody else as saying “I hope that other strong women come forward who can group together to drive away the PZ/Watson bigot-bullies” and I said “you’re in luck!” and linked to this:

    We, The Women Undersigned, Feel Welcome in Mainstream Secular, Atheist and Skeptic Groups

    We, as women of the secular/atheist/skeptic community, find that our claims are weighed on their merits, rather than weighed on our gender. We believe such courtesy must be extended to everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, political/ideological affiliation, community ranking or social class.

    We do not find the community to be misogynist. We feel safe and welcome here. While we can’t deny that sexism may show itself in isolated incidents, as it would in any community, we do not find such potential incidents to be in any way reflective of the wider movement.

    We believe the underrepresentation of women and minorities in secular/atheist/skeptic activism should be studied objectively and discussed openly, without reliance on ideological adherence or appeals to emotion.

    We do not require protection from misogyny as demanded by the ideological camp of Freethought Blogs, Atheism Plus, Skepchick, and Secular Women.

    We believe that if anti-harassment policies are enacted at conferences, they must address existing problems accurately in a way that acknowledges all concerned parties without overstating the pervasiveness of infractions. Such policies must also include safeguards to prevent their abuse as speech-limiting weapons against critical examinations of beliefs. Some of us do not personally require any policy protections beyond those already provided by existing law: we already feel empowered, as individual adults, to effectively respond to harassment if it occurs.

    We have found ourselves marginalized by the actions and moral proscriptions emerging from Skepchick, Freethought Blogs, Atheism Plus and Secular Women. We feel silenced, overlooked and mocked. This ideological camp claims to speak for women, but refuses to listen to us. It also speaks hatefully of men, but refuses to listen to them. Examples include the constant censorship of blog post criticism, the continual assumptions of guilt by association, and the popularity of a meme which disparagingly mocks our desire to communicate: “Freeze Peach.” Such behavior creates a divisive, unwelcoming, judgmental atmosphere which has had a chilling effect on free and open discussion.

    Some women in the secular/atheist/skeptic community are afraid to use our real names, let alone attend conferences, because we fear being smeared and attacked by this ideological camp, as has happened to other women.

    We are aware that the silencing tactics, accusations, shaming and smearing campaigns employed by representatives of Skepchick, Freethought Blogs, Atheism Plus and Secular Women have included calls to interfere with the careers and personal lives of valuable contributors to the secular/atheist/skeptic movement. We are witnessing an effort to purge supposed undesirables from the movement for reasons of political affiliation. We do not condone this.

    We are aware of a current campaign, headed by Amanda Marcotte and others, to remove Ronald A. Lindsay from his position as CEO of the Center for Inquiry. We do not support this effort. Mr. Lindsay has shown strong, caring support of women and their rights, and has bolstered this support by encouraging equality, inquiry and critical thinking. We support Mr. Lindsay’s ongoing role as the CEO of the Center for Inquiry, and we acknowledge the risk he has taken in speaking his mind.

    If we’re going to work together, men and women must continue to listen to, and care for, one another. Let’s keep on furthering the movement’s effort to educate anyone who will listen about the nature of critical thinking, about the need for open dialogue, and about the value of compassionate, rational ethics. If we can’t do it, no one can.

    [Now, this is explicitly a draft-in-progress. My understanding is that comments and signatures have been solicited from the following:

    Harriet Hall, Karla Porter, Sara Mayhew, Maria Maltseva, Stef McGraw, and Miranda Celeste Hale…Paula Kirby, Mallorie Nasrallah, Kristina Hansen, Stef McGraw, Miranda Celeste Hale, EllenBeth Wachs, Barbara Drescher, Rebecca Bradley, AmbrosiaX, Cara Coleen, Jennifer Keane, and Naomi Chambers.

    And so revision is expected. But I thought it worth leaking anyway. Because, I mean. A petition.]

  499. joey says

    Amphiox:

    The practical motive for both procedures is to not have a live baby after the procedures are completely over. -me

    This is a blatant falsehood, joey.

    And this is a blatant falsehood by quote-mining outside the context of the discussion.

    Please go back and look at the context in which I made the above statement. It concerned the practical difference of two different types of late-term procedures (see my reply to theopontes here, which originated with my reply to theopontes here). One is where the late-term, viable fetus is expelled from the womb first before killing it (Gosnell has been charged with three first-degree murder counts of this), and the other is where the late-term, viable fetus is terminated inside the womb before it is expelled (Gosnell has been charged with 21 counts of this).

    So, do you think Gosnell should have been charged with those 21 counts of killing the fetus inside the womb, keeping in mind he would not have been charged if the woman’s health was at risk.

    —————–
    Just popped in for a few minutes to respond to the above. I’ll respond to the rest when I have more time.

  500. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I’ll respond to the rest when I have more time.

    Your evidenceless response was worthless and meaningless. If your imaginary deity doesn’t exist, and your babble isn’t a book of mythology ficttion, what you post based on those twin lies utter and total nonsense. No evidence presented whatsoever….