This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
Heatwaves in Japan, severe flooding in western China, all to be blamed on PZ closing the previous Thunderdome at 666 posts.
PZ truly is Emperor Nero of Rome.
@ StevoR
From this [Ed: portcullised] very thread:
Linkypooh
In the context of your above-quoted comment, this becomes particularly creepy.
We read only too well. And you articulate your prejudices in your writing. There is nothing ambiguous about it.
Hail Tpyos:
assplodeasplodeDon’t use Josh‘s name in vain. Reread his #14.
…
@ Lofty
That’s PZ666 now. In time honoured tradition.
How to demonstrate that you’ve experienced an epiphany (If such a thing actually occured):
Live in accordance with the contents of said epiphany.
How to not demonstrate you’ve experienced an epiphany:
Shout to the high heavens about how you’ve changed, and really, I was totes rational before.
SteveoR
Yeah, that’s what’s happening.
You just keep thinking things like that if it helps sleep at night and brush aside all the real and accurate criticisms of you here.
I highly recommend clicking on the link for the pictured Marine, not only are there more awesome screenshots and concept art, but the explanation is fantastic. Nice job, Unknown Worlds! And thanks oh tentacled overlord for linking it.
Still cleaving to that pathetic self-delusion that you are *just* “disagreeing”.
You are pitiful, StevoR.
@ 3. theophontes (恶六六六缓步动物) :
You left out the context. I was responding to this item on Ophelia Bensons’ blog :
https://proxy.freethought.online/butterfliesandwheels/2013/06/forced-marriage-and-murder-in-turkey/#more-8774
Now reading about that made my feel extremely angry and upset.
Made me wish that Dilan’s murderers could somehow, somewhere, if only face some sort of justice for what they’d done to her. Know, fuck yes, some of the same agony and torment they’d forced her to suffer.
Because she – Dilan, a human individual that I guess you might classify as “brown”* and who was Muslim for whatever little that matters, deserved better and shouldn’t have been brutally murdered by anyone let alone her own family – suffered unjustifiable unjust agonies. I wished there could be some justice for her. Wish that those who inflicted pain and death on Dilan were made to pay something, somehow some part of pain for doing they so horribly did to her.
Doesn’t reading that make you feel the exact same way, theophontes (恶六六六缓步动物)?
Don’t *you* wish Dilan could be revenged in the “next life” if only there was one or at least that there were some consequences for her brutal murder on those who butchered her so savagely?
If it does then why criticise me, if not, dafucks wrong with you?
If you cannot and do not feel as I do in regard Dilan’s murder then I don’t understand you and can only guess that you must be the sort of heartless sociopath you wrongly imagine me to be.
(Ironic, if I understand that word right.)
What? Because I’m human and have strong emotions where justice and the unjust suffering of others is involved? Fucking hell dude, really? I don’t understand how the fuck you could object to with this!
Its “creepy” that I’m angry at the late murder victim Dilan’s story and wish there could be justice? That makes *me* a bad person in your opinion?
Yet you claim I’m some fucking monster!?!
Did you actually read the fucken link I provided y’all? Clearly seems not. Did you quote me in context and fairly. Also clearly not. You wanna play fair just occasionally?
No, you don’t know me or read me well at all.
I’ve stated what I think umabigously on occasion and its pretty much the exact reverse of what I’ve been caricatured as being here.
I don’t support any sort of bigotry.
I don’t hate individual Muslims (Like, oh, say Dilan or Aisha, 9 y.o. “wife” aka rape victim of the 50+ year old “prophet” or Taslima Nasreen, ex-Muslim & now blogger here among so many others) although I do hate their horrible ideology founded by a seventh century, child raping, mass murdering, genocidal, deluded, plagiarising warlord who took only the worst bits of the slightly better religions he stole from and set them in “eternal” stone.
I do NOT support genocide or warfare except in self-defence when it is forced upon us.
I do believe in a “live and let live” philosophy where if they leave us the fuck alone we do likewise although I hate to see what they inflict upon their own in, say ,Syria or Iraq where y’know, sectarian Islamists keep killing others that have very slightly different beliefs to theirs. Also y’know how the majority of Muslims treat their women, wrapping them head to toe in burquas, not allowing them outside without permission and accompaniment of their male jailers, correction,family members -or is that both?
(That not seem misogynist as fuck to you coz it sure does to me! But hey, being “Left wing” means automatically supporting the most uber-right-wing death cult of all mainstream religio-ideologies or so ‘twould appear.)
Hah. That was a quote. It wasn’t my typo then but someone else’s. Even though yes, I cannot type for shit I know.
Okay I will.
But it wasn’t just Josh who was saying that either.
PS. Ashes update : England 2nd innings – 203 runs for 5 wickets. Prior 16 and Bell 47 batting
* “Brown” as in Latino, Sth American, Arab, Hindu, Sihk , Catholic and a thousand other things that, really, who gives a stuff. Dilan was a human. I am a human. You are a human. All of us are individuals and “race” is a bullshit social construct pseudo-scientific crap that we *should* deny even exists – because it doesn’t even if the harmful myth that it does, does. Those that believe in people being “brown” or “white” or “black” or anything else are talking out their rectums and we all know it so let’s stop acting otherwise. We are PEOPLE, individuals, dammit!
@7. Amphiox : I am in your view? Why?
@StevoR:
We generally do not like torture, revenge, and justice by the sword here.
I move that all of SteveORs posts be henceforth known by this term.
O-O
No, there is nothing to be gained from revenge. Wishing for more brutality as an antidote to brutality sounds pretty damn savage to me, and won’t do anything for Dilan.
No. I wish that Dilan could live, I wish that Dilan never met her murderers, I wish that Dilan had better. I can’t easily alter a culture that makes what her murderers did conceivable, but I am sure that viewing torture and murder as acceptable methods for dealing with some issues, whatever they may be, increases the likelyhood that they will be extended to other issues as well. I would that no one is ever intentionally hurt in the manner that Dilan was.
self-defence
forced
Doug Hudson,
The Marine is taken from the game Natural Selection 2, a game I am not surprised PZ would link to. ;)
It’s actually a fantastic cross between competitive FPS and RTS which I totally recommend for anyone who likes such games. There isn’t really genetic drift in the game though, and their take on evolution is “pokemon-style” (metamorphosis) but, you know, suspension of disbelief!
So far, so good.
And here, in the very next sentence, you explain that by “justice” you mean ridiculous revenge. You want to add agony, torment, anger, and thirst for revenge to the situation. You want to add skulls to the skull throne, as if you could drown the blood god in blood.
We’ve been trying to give you a What the Hell, Hero? moment.
It’s a little baffling that you’re not getting it.
Oops! You did it again.
No!!!
I wish that her murderers be taken out of circulation, kept in a place where they can’t harm others, and receive all the psychiatric treatment that might snap them out of being dangerous. (Disclaimer – psychiatry probably hasn’t progressed that far. But, as I said, I wish.)
You’ve called yourself a utilitarian. Let me place a few utilitarian arguments in front of your eyes.
What good would revenge do??? It wouldn’t make Dilan alive again, it wouldn’t teach anyone anything, it wouldn’t even deter anyone who thinks they won’t be caught. It obviously wouldn’t do anything to get the honor culture out of people’s heads.
This – education – is the only thing that can prevent this particular kind of horror in the future.
Oh no. Empathy doesn’t automatically or logically lead to a desire for revenge. You’re just an unthinking berserker instead of the utilitarian you claim to be.
Oh yes. The abyss has stared back into you – hard. The fact, the undisputed fact, that you want to fight monsters doesn’t mean you’re not one yourself.
I wonder. Does he know that when Germany invaded Belgium in 1914, they were invading the neutral country in order to defend themselves from the French? Does he know that when Turkey decided to eliminate the Armenians, they claimed it was an act of self defense? That when the USSR committed genocide against the Ukrainians in the 1930s, this was viewed, by the USSR, as an act of self defense? Does he know that when Germany invaded Poland in 1939, they were invading in order to defend themselves and ethnic Germans in Poland (many of whom did not speak German)? Does he know that the German government decided to pursue a genocidal solution against Jews, Gypsies, and other groups, and claimed they were doing it out of self defense? Does he know that Germany invaded the USSR and claimed it was self-defense? Does he know that Japan initiated war with the United States, England, Australia, etc. as a declared act of self defense? Virtually every aggressor in every war has claimed that they are defending themselves. Virtually every group that has carried out genocide claims they were defending themselves.
Good company, StevoR.
@SteveoR (#8):
This is a crucial sentence –
“If you cannot and do not feel as I do in regard Dilan’s murder then I don’t understand you and can only guess that you must be the sort of heartless sociopath you wrongly imagine me to be.”
Okay, so openly proclaiming that anyone who doesn’t feel as you do is a sociopath is not a sign of reasonable discourse, period. But assuming that’s hyperbole, there’s still the problematic phrase “feel as I do.” It’s problematic because you’ve made it (intentionally?) unclear as to how we’re to parse that.
Is “feel[ing] as [you] do” constituted by:
1) Desiring justice for Dilan’s murderers? (“Made me wish that Dilan’s murderers could somehow, somewhere, if only face some sort of justice for what they’d done to her.”) As DavidM points out, that seems reasonable.
2) Is it wanting to inflict pain on the murderers? (“Know, fuck yes, some of the same agony and torment they’d forced her to suffer.”) Again, DavidM has astutely pointed out that this is a problematic interpretation of ‘justice’, and certainly not one that everyone would agree with.
3) Or is it, specifically, wishing that “Dilan could be revenged in the ‘next life'”?
By claiming that anyone who doesn’t feel as you do is a “sociopath,” you are claiming it is sociopathic to:
A) Desire justice AND believe that ‘justice’ consists of something other than inflicting pain on the murderers.
B) Desire primarily that none of this had ever happened, to the point that it ‘washes out’ any aggressive feeling toward the murderers.
and/or, depending on how whether (3) is the most accurate representation of “feeling as you do,”
C) Desire justice that may or may not consist of inflicting pain on the murderers but still, for unrelated reasons, not ‘desire’ that there be an afterlife.
If you can’t grasp how all of these positions are rational positions to take, you suffer from a severe lack of imagination and/or intelligence.
I guess everyone sometimes has fits of anger and a wish to harm others who are doing despicable acts. I accept that I have these feelings but think I’m able to distinguish emotional venting of frustration from actual morality.
But “punishment” in an “afterlife” has no consequences on actual reality. Nor does punishment (torture) in anyway contribute to removing harm from society. I might be able to wish for some kind of atonement – that the killer be given a possiblity to mitigate the injustice of their crimes through selfless service to others, that people harming others be helped to understand what the actual harm they are inflicting is, to prevent them from continuing certain behaviours but torturing people for their crimes only adds to the net harm in society/ the universe. Imagining a karmic afterlife (next life?) stabbing of Dilan’s murderer really isn’t attractive.
Those that believe in people being “brown” or “white” or “black” or anything else are talking out their rectums and we all know it so let’s stop acting otherwise. We are PEOPLE, individuals, dammit!
Tell that to people being labelled thus and experiencing discrimination or privilege based on that labelling. But StevoR, I think people’s complaints were against you consistently getting angry about injustices perpetrated by people of colour or from the orient, in adverse proportion to those perpetrated by white people or westerners.
I don’t think the “majority” part of your statement is accurate.
Borked blockquote:
I also often notice the “race doesn’t exist, just people” talking is used by racists and those wishing to deny the existence of systematic racism or specific instances of racism. Just as the “feminism is pointless, we should just want *equality*” argument.
This statement made my brain BSOD so bad that I don’t even remember reading it in the original comment. It wasn’t until several people quoted it that I went back and read it again.
How does one commit genocide in self-defense? “You came at me with a knife, so I killed you, your immediate family, your cousin’s family, and everyone else in the city”? Or on a more global scale, “You launched a rocket at us, so we killed you, everyone at the military base the rocket was launched from, everyone related to them within 3 steps, and their immediate families, too”?
How does this make any sense? And no, the context does not make it any better.
I don’t know how genocide can ever be considered self-defense. There would have to be some pretty extraordinary circumstances, I dare say impossible.
StevoR:
This song and dance really is tiresome. It’s like you and joey tag team the Thunderdome, alternately doling out revenge fantasies and idiotic godbotting arguments.
You STILL have not addressed the sheer ineffectiveness of the drone campaign.
Nor have you addressed the fact that innocent people are getting killed in the drone strikes. The only conclusion I can reach is that you really do not like Muslims and want to see them dead.
You compound your offensiveness with this revenge fantasy schtick you’re going on about.
Revenge serves no purpose.
How does more pain and suffering make the world better? You revel in living by a barbaric moral code, yet claim you are totes misunderstood.
You have NOT repudiated your comments about daisy cutters.
You have NOT repudiated your stupid racist comments about the superior ways of the west.
You have yet to acknowledge that the artificial construct RACISM is a construct that does affect people. You are blinded by your privilege. If you were a person of color you might likely feel different. But no, by your disgusting words, you dismiss the experiences of people everywhere.
“Racism is not real”, so George Zimmerman really had no bias agsinst Trayvon Martin.
“Racism is not real”, so African-American and Hispanic American women making less than white women is not a sign of institutionalized racism.
“Racism is not real” so the disproportionate targeting of blacks and Hispanics in Stop and Frisk searches must have some other explanation than racial bias.
“Racism is not real” so the presence of tremendous numbers of African Americans in the prison system has nothing to do with racial bias.
I find you and your comments disgusting, barbaric and the antithesis of Humanism.
Get thee gone.
You are not welcome here.
jeez, Stev-o. You are pathetic.
Is this somehow enjoyable to you?
Do you really think that by constantly asserting denials people will forget the impression you’ve made in the past?
Do you think that reacting to every slight by once again turning the discussion toward youyouyou will ever get less annoying?
If your honest answers to these questions are no, no, and no, then you really ought to take the advice you’ve been receiving for months and months now: pack it in and go away.
Why keep wallowing in the mess you’ve made here?
Perhaps StevoR, like William Lane Craig does not understand what genocide means. Or how to Google a topic.
eh, the sentence was poorly constructed but I’m sure the ‘except in self-deense’ thing was only supposed to go with ‘war’, and that ‘genocide’ was supposed to be unmodified.
There are plenty of fair and well-deserved reasons for castigating Stev-o, but his crap can still be read with a modicum of charity.
Armenians threaten the Great Nation of Turkey — eliminate them. Jews threaten the Aryans of the Third Reich — eliminate them. It has been done. Most recently in Rwanda.
Still the flaming douchebag of idiocy, racism and unspeakable violence, I see. You aren’t interested in justice, SteveO. You’re only interested in being the same type of human as those who murdered Dilan. Justice, even when it works correctly, is rarely satisfying, because it cannot go back and make bad things not happen. It cannot bring people back to life, whole and untouched. The most it can provide is a certainty that those who commit such acts will never again have the opportunity to do acts again.
I have never wanted to do horrible things to the man who raped me and tried to murder me. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, ever. He’s in prison, he’s been in prison for decades. No matter what anyone did to him, it would not change what happened to me, it would not make me the person I was before I walked into that parking lot one night long ago.
To do the things you wish to do and indulge your feelings means you are, indeed, the same type of person as those who murdered Dilan. Hardly something to be proud of, to say the least.
Also, genocide is not a self defense response. Genocide is a planned act of extreme aggression.
Why in the fuck did you come back here? Things were much nicer with you gone.
Chas,
Fair point. I’ve come to expect the worst from him, so I admit to not thinking about how he could have just made a mistake in writing.
(If anything, I should know about poor sentence structure)
@Yellow Human
#20
Well… if a whole group (as defined in genocide, could be based on any definition) wants your group dead and some of them had successfully killed some of you in the past… killing them all will at least stop them from wanting you dead.
Not exactly a rational response, but that’s one reason/excuse.
To be more pessimistic, as long as there’s limited resource in the world, there will always be justification for genocide in terms of self-defense. If all else failed, the reason/excuse can always be “They’re eating food that could be keeping more of us alive!”
Kind of like that cold war era mentality on nuclear war. “If there’re two American and one Russian left, we won.”
I guess StevoR is alluding to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, more infamously to the Dresden firestorm or… perhaps.. yes, I have it, I think he was talking about the Amalekites!
@=8)-DX
#30
I don’t think “Hiroshima and Nagasaki” and the Dresden firestorm constitute genocide by any definition. The victims of said attacks, on the other hand, did commit genocide pretty much be the book (if there’s a book on how to commit genocide, that is).
Warfare may be justifiable in self-defence, but genocide never is. If you possess the power to commit genocide against your foe, you have the power to defend yourself against that same foe without resorting the genocide.
Real life is not a science fiction novel like Ender’s Game.
I wonder if StevoR has enough self-awareness to realize the irony of how he is echoing Orson Scott Card?
There’s no such thing as genocide in self-defense. Genocide, by definition, refers to indiscriminate killing of anyone belonging to a certain group, with no regard for the actions of the people involved.
Genocide, “in self-defense”, is just plain genocide. It’s an excuse used by horrible assholes in their attempts to seem like the good guys.
If you dispute that, please provide a concrete example of “genocide in self-defense”. Extra points if you can do so without invoking aliens.
Mature decent people understand the difference between justice and revenge. What StevoR wished for the perpetrators of Dilan’s murder was nothing but a primitive, atavistic revenge fantasy. It was not justice in any way, shape, or form.
I thought that I did — including Turkey, Germany, the USSR, and Rwanda. I did not say that I agreed that these crimes against humanity were committed in self defense, only that the perpetrators of the genocide used the self-defense excuse.
@Amphiox
#32
Regarding the last point, I would argue that it’s not that clear depending on how one defines genocide.
Given the current field of destructive technologies, it is possible for someone to possess a capability to just wipe out another group of people but lack the capability for a more measured response (or the opposing force’s action make measured response extremely difficult).
Of course, it won’t exactly be genocide since you’re not exactly deliberate or systematic about it. But the end result would be the same, you killed a whole bunch of people belonging to a certain group.
@LykeX
I think genocide’s definition includes that such killing being deliberate and systematic against said group of people.
Of course, I don’t think it matters that much to said group of people whether they’re being killed because we hate them or because they happen to be in the same city as the people we want to kill.
The hallmark of justifiable self-defence is that the response is proportionate to the threat. Just because it is easier to wipe-em-all-out that it would to mount a more measured defence doesn’t mean doing so is justified.
Short of the threat being IMMINENT genocide against yourself, there is no other scenario wherein initiating a genocide is proportionate as a response. Not even the case where they are *planning* genocide against you.
If for example they are threatening a couple of suicide bombings against you, and your only active option is genocide because everything less extreme is impossible (a situation which is highly unlikely to be the case in real life), then frankly the moral response is passive defence, and if they succeed despite that in hitting you, to absorb the damage and rebuild.
@Amphiox
#38
Hm… I would like to take back part of my previous statements. My thought on measured response included not killing civilians. But given that if one’s ONLY capability is some form of retaliation, then a measured defense would be a promise to inflict the similar, or slightly more, damage in response (regardless of civilian/military statue). Basically, it’s a form of defense by retaliation If a society has the capability to commit genocide, they’re likely to have a capability to respond in a way that may be less… genocidal?
Then there the argument of what amount retaliation counts as “reasonable” (population? per capita population? adjust for GDP?).
Amphiox
I’d go further; justifiable self defense is using as little violence as is reasonably necessary. That said, I think Chas is right here. StevoR probably meant “I’m against genocide and war, with the exception of war in self defense”
During the Cold War, this philosophy was called MAD.
But the thing is, passive defence is always possible. It may not always be the easiest or the most effective, but it is always possible. Instead of retaliating or threatening to retaliate by swinging your sword, you can always raise your shield.
I think this probably applies to powerful nations only. As an USanian, I’m pretty much against any military solution. However, I’m not sure that I would feel the same way had I been born Bosnian.
I was trying to find a charitable interpretation of StevoR’s I do NOT support genocide or warfare except in self-defence when it is forced upon us. made sense. Presumably he meant “indiscriminate killing” or something. Drone attacks or carpet bombing or nukes? I have no idea what genocide in self-defence could mean except that it probably wasn’t “systematic extermination of groups of people”.
What? What? (Revisionist alert, revisionist alert!)
@Amphiox
#41
Or do both?
Raise the shield first, and promise that the sword will follow if they got pass the shield.
@=8)-DX
#43
Are you claiming Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan didn’t commit genocide?
Are you claiming that the victims of the Dresden firestorm were committing genocide?
…Oh, wow, I didn’t even see this.
Dude.
The burqa3 is local fashion in some places in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. You’re not going to find it in Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, or Bangladesh, which is probably number 2 off the top of my head, or Egypt, which is probably number 3. You also won’t find it in Turkey, a country of seventy million.
(On the other hand, there’s this Haredi sect in Israel where a few hundred women wear such a thing.)
Perhaps you confused it with the combination of 3abāyah (the cloak part) and niqāb (cloth that covers the face except the eyes). That’s found from Egypt and Somalia to India, and especially common on the Arabic Peninsula. …Have a look at the “criticism” section of the niqāb article, BTW.
Heh.
*facepalm*
The idea, which should be really obvious, is that the perpetrators didn’t all live in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden, and that plenty of innocents lived in those places as well.
Sure you can. But you don’t have to.
Retaliation is escalation. It invites counter-retaliation, and an endless cycle of tit-for-tat strikes. You have to factor that possibility of escalation into your assessment of the strategy’s utility.
The thing that StevoR never seems to be willing to grasp is that for the scale of threat that Islamic extremism actually poses to the West, passive defence alone is a perfectly viable option. We are more than strong enough to stop their attacks most of the time by passive action (border security, police action, strikes only against threats that have already penetrated our own borders, etc), and more than resilient enough to absorb and recover from the damage of the few attacks that might get through. We are so much more powerful than they that we can essentially No Sell their threats against us.
In retaliating we are saying that we are not willing to risk absorbing those few, comparatively minor hits, and would rather strike back and do damage against them that is RELATIVELY far more severe to them than anything they can hope to inflict on us, relative to each side’s total power and capacity. By retaliating and pre-emptively striking we are essentially saying that we consider OUR civilian lives more valuable than THEIR civilian lives. And that, at its heart, is a racist, bigoted assertion.
Good post, Amphiox.
Yeah, I always have a rather odd, sick feeling when US news reporters report 200 bomb-attack victims as a boring daily occurance and then wax tearful about two US troops shot dead. Each country protects its own, but “our citizens dying are more important than yours” is just horrid.
There is a Dr. Suess book called The Butter Battle Book which is about the eighties defense policy of nuclear MAD.
Its even been animated and placed on youtube.
PZ plays the lyre? He has to make a YouTube video of that!
Aleem Dar. Discuss.
For me that was a “Aleem Dar. Google. Discuss.” Something about a top umpire unsatisfied with a crooked ball. But then I know nothing about cricket =P.
And a second message we send when we pre-empt in this manner is that we are afraid. We are sending the message that we have a glass chin. That our society, powerful as it is, won’t tolerate even the smallest injury. That we are afraid of paper cuts.
And that gives solace to our enemies and encourages them to continue to attack us. It makes them think that “you know, even if we lose 100 of our side for every one of them we kill, we can still win.”
So this sort of indiscriminate pre-emption will enrage the populace and radicalize them against us, while simultaneously encouraging the leaders to continue to organize attacks against us. It is stupid all the way around.
It is tiresome that I live in Orange County, the Bible belt of California. Rick douchebag Warren fleeces one half of the Birchers, and then there is new age psychic plus “quantum thought shifter” claiming to solve murders and autism.
Wish you’d get some of your snarkiest ones directed to bomb this Patch fluff piece: http://bit.ly/1aA8jdy, PZ.
Prima facie evidence StevoR is a bigot, and will remain a bigot until he decides otherwise. He is being considered a bigot by both his mouth and hand. His mouth says bigot 24/7/52. Shutting the fuck up and leaving is always an option. He needs to make us of that.
StevoR, I’m late to this party, but your expressed desire for torture-filled revenge for Dilan’s death reminds me a little too much of Pratchett’s “”Remember-The-Atrocity-Committed-Against-Us-Last-Time-That-Will-Excuse-The-Atrocity-That-We’re-About-To-Commit-Today! And So On! Hurrah!”” from Thief of Time. Or the ever-popular suggestion of rape as punishment for rapists.
Talk about your frictionless inclined surfaces!
–
And decidedly Bronze Age in flavor. “If we don’t get every last mother’s son among them, they’ll strike back! And more thoroughly!”
–
I dispute your definitions of “self-defence” and “forced”.
I swear that everything StevoR writes on the subject reads, to me, like some variation of “Wharr garbl! Barbarians at the gates!”.
Can we send out a troll signal or something?
A Craigslist ad?
A Bizarro Missed Connections?
Progressive atheists seek challenging regressives for stimulating “conversation”?
There has been more than enough of StevoR and joey.
@ StevoR
On revenge:
Speech and videos here:
Malala Yousafzai’s Speech To UN (Full Text)
Youtube links.
She is a deeply religious young Muslim.
She is a victim of terrorism speaking up.
She is the way of the future.
Thanks theophontes.
Yes. That. Bravo!
Very tricksie, Chris #667,668
chigau @64:
Indeed!
There are many who comment, post or co-blog here that I would like to meet someday and shake the hand of. Chris Clarke is one of them.
Well, yes. He’s quite literally scared out of his mind.
Oh. When I found this subthread yesterday, those 2 comments didn’t exist yet, but the previous subthread was closed.
Anyway, from 668:
Wow.
The “meaning” behind things? Check out Heider and Simmel (1944).
(Unless one is autistic, one cannot help but see all manner of intentions from what are merely shapes shuffling. The meaning? Mean triangles? Watch the vid.)
CC: Smoking crater?
Spanish lady come to me, she lays on me this rose.
It rainbow spirals round and round,
It trembles and explodes
It left a smoking crater of my mind,
I like to blow away.
But the heat came round and busted me
For smilin on a cloudy day
Comin’ around, in a circle.
@ Chas
One cannot expect the hordlings to find the linky by themselves, dear GAWD ™ ! Linky.
(Speaking of dear GAWD ™ ! – please tell me we did not wear such short shorts…)
I need to get me some of those roses.
@ AE
In the recent Comfort video he asked if one could create a rose. Indeed I can:
Now that just from memory. Imagine what one can do with a little imagination. Magical colours. Gods even!
fuck you blockquote gremlin. Fuck you hard.
@ Rev
The blockquote gremlin is sex positive, licentuous even. You are only encouraging it.
I’m going to Home Depot™ where I am known and loved.
Rev, the blockquote gremlin has a name — Borkquotia. Part of the Tpyothean pantheon.
I hate that motherfucker
Rev:
Home Depot? or Borkquotia?
Borkquotia
Chigau:
No tricksiness intended. Replying to comments from the back end apparently allows me to post comments to closed threads. I wanted the opposite of that.
But just so the intended recipient can’t claim he didn’t see what I said, here’s the copypasta:
StevoR:
I tolerated your racist, self-aggrandizing, whining bullshit far longer than I wanted to. I told you you were no longer welcome in my threads after I had had enough. I suspected that you had made an honest mistake in posting to the dihydrogen monoxide thread, which is why I merely deleted your comment rather than consigning you to the bit bucket.
Why, yes, what a great idea. Why don’t I ask FTB’s tech people to write a WordPress plugin and then after that ask PZ to change the Cascading Style Sheets to alter the design of the entire blog so that you don’t have to worry about checking the fucking byline of a post to see if it’s by the co-blogger that has told you he doesn’t want you around.
You will note, if you lurk in the thread we’re talking about, that a significant number of regulars disagree with me on what I’ve said there. As have a number of new folks. Their comments remain.
You? You have abused my niceness, and I’m all out until I see some actual self-reflection on your part. And I’m not holding my breath.
Once, six times, what’s the difference.
Honestly? Six emails isn’t that much, especially as I was gratuitously cc’d on what you were sending PZ for most of them. But the question remains: do you know what it is, this concept “the truth”?
Get over yourself. If I hated you you’d be a smoking crater.
I think the culprit here is Extendia (of Mark Uplan Guage). Computers are the worst Syntax Nazis.
I received this today and thought it deserved wider distribution. I have the same question. Why is there so little outrage over the state of the economy or for that matter the growing security state?
I fear an explosion coming probably before I die (I am not young either)
uncle frogy
From the first breath of life to the last, our lives are being stolen out from under us. From infant care and early education to Social Security and Medicare, the dominant economic ideology is demanding more lifelong sacrifices from the vulnerable to appease the gods of wealth.
Middle-class wages are stagnant. Uemployment is stalled at record levels. College education is leading to debt servitude and job insecurity. Millions of unemployed Americans have essentially been abandoned by their government. Poverty is soaring. Bankers break the law with impunity, are bailed out, and go on breaking the law, richer than they were before.
And yet, bizarrely, the only Americans who seem to be seething with anger are the beneficiaries of this economic injustice — the wealthiest and most privileged among us. But those who are suffering seem strangely passive.As long as they stay that way, there will be no movement to repair these injustices. And the more these injustices are allowed to persist, the harder it will be to end them.
Where the hell is the outrage? And how can we start some?
io9: The rise of the evolutionary psychology douchebag
*delurking*
Chris, thank you for that. And the bunny videos.
Chas & Theophontes @ 70-71, thank you for that. Last time I saw Jerry was Shoreline 95. Damn… that long ago.
*relurk*
Yeah, murderers. the lot of them. Even the babies. They surely would have grown up to become evil genocidal murderers. At least there’s good precedent in the Bible for that kind of behaviour…
+++
Speaking of other event in the States, If a woman in Texas wishes an abortion, does she just have o shoot the fetus?
Only if she has reason to believe it might be black.
drewl:
I’m a bit bemused by the bunny picture showing a bunny being bathed; it took me a second look to realise it was not an acid bath.
(Bunnies can be rather vicious, BTW — even the floppy-eared variety. And no, I’m not referring to Bun-Bun! :) )
*hands beatrice the title of “professional cynic”*
I ran into Daniel C. Dennett‘s new book in the bookstore today. “Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking”. Plopped it open onto a page about Conway’s “Game of Life”. Again he suggests we should conceptualise this in biological terms.
Why Professor? Why?
You are playing into the hands of the [gumby] Ray Comforts and the Ken Hams [/gumby] of this world. The whole point of the rules is that they are stone cold dead (as you in fact rewrote them!) Don’t go and confuse the issue. Such ambiguities /allegories/ metaphors are the toe-holds of the goddists.
Giliell,
I am only a humble amateur :)
@ Caine
For you: Cupcake Ipsum
Beatrice, you’ve gained a level, that’s all. :)
Theophontes:
Very sweet, thank you.
This was occasioned by some of the discussion provoked by the Zimmerman verdict, but wasn’t directly relevant in any of those threads. But here goes:
I believe that it is unethical that the legal profession promotes a dress code in the court room. In doing so – and especially when applying it to defendants, but also when applying it to witnesses and even when applying it to officers of the court – we endorse the expectation that looks can be used to judge both credibility and guilt.
We shouldn’t be asking defendants not to fly gang colors in our courtrooms in order to defend themselves. The jurors are smart enough to get the references to gang membership as appeals to character and guilt by association. Dressing a gang-associated defendant as a lawyer just concedes that if such a person looked like a gang member, that would be a useful indicator of guilt. If looking like a gang member is a useful indicator of guilt, then certainly **being** a gang member would be a useful indicator of guilt.
Instead, judges and prosecutors should be flying gang colors during trials of gang defendants.
If we wish to discourage judging someone by their appearance we wouldn’t tell the accused that they have to dress as who they aren’t to convince a jury.
We would have officers of the court dress in multiple ways – though in the short term to counter past prejudice we might need specific counter measures like prosecutors flying gang colors in trials of gang defendants and prosecutors cross-dressing in trials of trans defendants – thus showing that the court believes that persons from any walk of life can be respectful, respected, credible, and competent members of society and even the administration of justice.
I think dress codes as currently practiced in Canada and the US are absolutely immoral.
**Moreover** where dress codes for race – “hoodie” in Martin’s case – dress codes function as racist immorality and where they code for gender they function as sexist and trans oppressive immorality.
Defend dress codes for court officers, defendants, and witnesses as you will, but I don’t think there’s a single argument for their ethical enactment that holds a full thimble of water.
@beatrice, 88:
First – oh, snark!
Second – I had reason to fear bodily harm and/or death is perfectly acceptable reason to shoot a child to death, but insufficient reason to have a third trimester abortion? Why, precisely?
Your snark gets right to the heart of more than one serious issue. It was a gorgeous bit of insight presented in a perfectly packaged and pithy bit of prose.
I’ll remember that one for a long time.
CD:
I see what you’re saying. I have a friend who’s a PD who is also an expert at tattoo cover up. She shouldn’t have to be.
What? Matlock in gang colors, not a very white grey suit? Does not compute. (*Matlock reruns are on Hallmark Movie Channel, and are on by her choice in the morning while I’m getting the Redhead fed, bathed, and dressed for the day*)
And when she covers up, tattooed punks (and tattooed others) really believe that people like them aren’t welcome in the justice system and that no advocate will be able to relate to them. This is an access to justice issue as well, where people don’t feel that they can get a lawyer who won’t judge the merits of their case on whether or not they love Bikini Kill. What’s the point of getting an initial consultation when the justice system literally considers your appearance in the courtroom to be an (potential) affront to the administration of law? Why would the lawyer think you are credible and thus take your case?
I’m not at all surprised to see you sympathetic (and, oh, BTW, good to be talking to you again – it’s been a ridiculous few months and I’ve gotten out of the habit of writing in even when I have time), but so many people think that it’s okay for judges to hand down contempt citations for dress code violations. It sickens me and makes me deeply concerned for the access to and fair administration of justice.
I agree but unfortunately the reality is that juries, like any population, are prejudiced.
Dressing defendants in “court attire” is an attempt the level that, albeit a minor resolution.
@Rev BDC:
Sure, but that’s the simplistic response that misses the actual question/problem.
The question is not whether voluntary changes of attire by defendants should be permitted, but whether compulsory adherence to certain dress codes should be maintained by the court, especially when the court openly justifies such codes by saying that they serve the purpose of upholding court credibility.
The problem is thus that the court system is nakedly saying that the right response to stereotyped judgements on credibility is to endorse the stereotype as useful for the profession, not to unmake the stereotype. Why should we permit the court to make statements as to the credibility of witnesses based on attire? Why not make the court for everyone instead of making everyone for the court?
If we are to have “court attire” it should be the same for everyone.
Orange coveralls, anyone?
Doesn’t this kind of thing happen at annonymous and behind-doors trials? Like with trials of minors or with minor witnesses. I’m no lawyer, but the confused mess of information about this sitting in my skull makes me want to know more.
Could we have audio-and-text-descriptions-only trials? Could some computer-algorithm-based guilt probability estimate become part of legal procedure to decrease bias (I’m thinking of the up-and-coming computer assisted diagnoses procedures being implemented in hospitals)?
That’s what I was about to say. Choir robes, maybe? Something that eliminates the possibility of all of the clothing-based judgments that get passed the second the person walks up to the stand.
I think Crip Dyke makes a very interesting point about attire in courtrooms, and actually one that I have considered at great length. I have served on many juries – civil and criminal – and have watched the jury deliberative process play itself from the inside. I have also been a direct party to the other side, i.e., eliminating potential jurors from a trial based upon prejudice (both surprising and unsurprising). It is quite illuminating.
First, to the issue of forced attire in a courtroom. We are social animals. I repeat, we are social animals. As such, we are ALL guilty of preconceptions/stereotypes when evaluating people on physical appearance. Even if nudity were the norm and normative dress coding for stereotypes was completely eliminated, we would still encounter people manipulating their appearance. It is my unfounded belief that no societal structure could eliminate this desire AND that if one could enforce non-normative dress it would kill the freedom of identity that expression should allow.
So, we are left with imperfect social beings that utilize confirmation bias and stereotyping to make presumptive conclusions about people. If you claim yourself different, I would argue either your ignorance or willful denial of an easily proven attribute.
The question then becomes, how do we recognize and mitigate these distortions in a legal setting?
Early on in Western jurisprudence, some aspect of privilege became formally recognized when the system of a peer jury was introduced. Functionally, it was recognized that it wasn’t ‘fair’ that a Lord could reasonably pass judgment on a life’s circumstances with which he had little in common. Now, the Lord’s didn’t like this, as the privileged often don’t, but bloodshed provided a partial answer to privilege.
Now, after many centuries of the common person gaining privilege, (e.g., a woman’s right to vote) Americans still face significant distortions in the peer process of judgment. For example, if Zimmerman would have been found guilty, would it have been reasonable for his defense to argue that six women and no men would be able to adequately address the circumstances of two men confronting each other at night? Truthfully, I think this is a fair question that could be argued both ways.
I sat on a perceptively all non-black jury that sent an African-American man away for a sentence of 70 years (I wanted to give him life), for the crime of holding a man hostage, threatening his life, and cutting him on the arm in a relatively minor fashion. Please believe me when I say that I felt that sending the criminal away was a tragedy of life and circumstance, and I felt that I had no other choice BASED UPON MY CONSCIENCE and not the law. It’s not really worth going into, but he was clearly a repetitive and extremely violent predator, who, without question, would continue to act as such with his freedom. This opinion was not gained upon race and dress, and yet, when the judge asked the jury at the end of the trial, if we had any problems or suggestions, I answered that I had a potential problem with the fact that more than four apparently African-American jurors were excluded leaving a jury with none.
However, in my same hometown, Brian Deneke, a tattooed, hoodie wearing, leather-clad non-normative dresser was run over by Dustin Camp – literally referred to by his peers as a “white hat.” Long story short, Dustin was sentenced to probation – without question due to the perception of Deneke and Camp in the community.
Trayvon and Deneke shit happens because we are social animals, and class people as “fuckwits” and “racists” and erect strawpeople ALL THE TIME (e.g. Gary Younger asking “Or is it open season on black boys after dark?” with a second by PZ.)
Because we have to live – WE WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO LIVE – in an imperfect setting of social animals with each one of us contributing to the imperfections, we must always be mindful of those imperfections. As such, it seems to me that the most workable solution is to allow for dress in the courtroom that is ‘normative’ for the participants with admonitions that this shall be purposefully excluded as a means of determining judgment.
And yes, it’s still imperfect.
@Barfy
I agree with you to some extent, but I can’t tell if I agree with you completely.
I certainly agree that the question is how one responds to prejudgement and biased decision making.
However, you seem to be considering court action as if the history you detailed doesn’t need a counterweight for the court to function in a fair manner.
While it might seem unfair to force judges and prosecutors to -shock! horror! – wear jeans and plaid and bandanas, in an environment where the court itself has a history of asserting that sartorial choice can be evidence of credibility (and even worthy of punishment, through contempt charges), I believe that there is a moral duty to do something to reverse the effects of the courts own bias-enhancing policies. This doesn’t place on the court a duty to continue such policies until human nature changes, but rather continue such policies until all damage from past policies has been undone.
What do you see as a remedy policy, or do you oppose a remedy policy and want only neutrality moving forward?
@Crip Dyke
There IS a moral duty to do something to reverse the effects of the courts own bias-enhancing policies!
The problem lies in, what I believe, is a fact of human nature, i.e. that bias and prejudice will always be present in every person. This, in no way, excuses the fact as acceptable. On the contrary, it becomes immoral to not acknowledge the bias in oneself(as long as one holds the worldview that bias and prejudice often leads to false conclusions).
Ironically, courts in this country do acknowledge the role of clothing in influencing juries, and as such, will go so far as to actually dress the defendants in “acceptable” garb, depending on the severity of the contemplated sentence.
I do propose a remedy, albeit one that may be rather cumbersome at first.
First, I do not want neutrality. This is a false construct. Both the courts and the participants have to recognize that there will never be a blind justice. However, they must actively work towards that goal in a way, that someday, may be seen asymptotically.
I want to answer more, but truthfully, my wife and I are binge watching Homeland, and I’ve got to go, if I know what’s good for me.
I will be back tomorrow.
@barfy
yeah, this is what makes it so morally reprehensible. If the court was entirely unaware that clothing was used to assess credibility, it would be one thing. Instead, the court is acutely aware of it and chooses to impose dress codes that accentuate the differences between the administrators of justice and the persons most frequently subject to the jurisdiction of the court.
it is a *knowing* embrace of bias-enhancing policies that makes such policy merit not merely an educational response – they have the education since they recognize the problem – it merits a condemnatory and contemptuous one.
I condemn this policy and hold it in contempt. Further, unless and until I hear an argument with actual good evidence behind it that says no possible change in the dress code would enhance justice, I will treat actions that perpetuate such unnecessary injustice with contempt.
Oops, meant to go on:
In a phrase, good for you.
@ chigao
Yes,yes, I can take the hint. Our unisex (sans codpiece) uniforms are in the mail as we speak.
@ Crip Dyke / barfy
Sadly, there is very little rational thought going on even with the very best of intentions. The courts attempts to display accused in the best possible light through, for example, providing normative clothing, are probably the least bad way to deal with a bad situation.
Kahneman‘s book (referred to upthread) gives a rather shocking example from Israel, where applicants for parole had their cases adjudicated by a group of judges. Only 35% of requests are granted. However researchers noted something strange about the pattern of granting parole:
Fatigue, hunger, wrong intuitions, subliminal bias …. these innocent enough things are enough to fuck a person’s chances before we even come close to examining egregiously anti-sociable aspects, such as racial or other discrimination.
I remember barfy…
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/04/20/radfem2013/comment-page-1/#comment-606183
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/05/16/creeps-get-what-they-deserve/comment-page-1/#comment-620834
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/04/02/ellenbeth-wachs-recounts-her-experiences/comment-page-1/#comment-595098
@chigau
And, your point?
Chigau:
Yes, so do I. That’s why they reside in my killfile, and have done for quite some time.
@Crip Dyke #96
In principal, I agree with you. In practice, that’s going to result in a lot of people going to jail when their lawyer could have got them off if they’d been wearing a suit. Sometimes reality sucks, and while I agree that something needs to be done to change that, I can’t see any way of changing this particular aspect of reality without sending a lot of people to jail who don’t necessarily deserve to be there.
@barfy #113
I think chigau’s point is that, providing one disregards the reset rule (and this being Thunderdome I think that’s allowed), you are a douche.
I remember you too. I agree with chigau.
@Thumper
So, I am a douche.
Let’s explore that.
What constitutes my douchedom?
You know, let’s
skip that, and explain to me the relevance to the conversation at hand.
And I am telling you that you need to be very careful with your answer, because I can almost guarantee that it will make my point. Fair warning.
Then we can get back to any of the previous threads if you would like.
@Thumper:
Is it more effective to have a gangster wear a suit but be known to be a gangster, or to have a prosecutor wear gang colors and make it clear that looking like a gang member, even being a gang member, isn’t evidence that this person is guilty of this crime.
Why is upholding the status quo more effective at keeping the innocent out of prison?
Also note: my proposal is *not* that defendant cross dressers can’t dress conventionally or defendant nudists can’t dress at all. My proposal is based on the impact of the policies and actions of the court and its officers and imposes only on the court and its officers.
Do you have any evidence that dressing a gangbanger in a suit while the prosecutor is dressed as a gangbanger is less effective at preventing false conviction than dressing both gangbanger and prosecutor in suits?
Why, if no evidence is available, should we intuit this would be so?
Barfy:
The point?
Perhaps it is that some people do not want to conversate with you given your prior douchiness.
The links chigau provided are ample evidence.
I personally hadn’t even considered that there was a courtroom dress code*. It would explain all of the suits. The idiot that I am, I would just show up to a hearing in whatever I was wearing. Lately, that doesn’t include shoes.
*Resulting from what can only be a mix of privilege and naïveté.
@Tony
OK. Let’s look at “prior douchiness” as a valid construct not to conversate.
First, in all honesty, I have no real idea what constitutes “douchiness” or being a “douche”. (and because it gets old, I won’t use scare quotes, anymore.)
I think that you might mean that I:
-am incapable of understanding
-choose to be argumentative
-am a troll, purposefully derailing discussion
-am hiding my true intentions as an MRA or Libertarian
If you want to discuss these or any others, I truly am a much more open mind than what I believe you think I am. But, please, point to a specific. Name calling is pointless.
Second, once again, what does my being a douche have to do with courtroom attire. The subtext is that my opinion should be discounted because I am a douche.
@Crip Dyke.
Has this “judges and prosecutors should be flying gang colors during trials of gang defendants” policy been tried anywhere? It sounds all very well on paper, just like ideas of casual wear for all participants, but is it really implementable? What about witnesses? What about people who wear suits during their day-jobs? What about multiple key trial witnesses wearing different clothing styles – how would one escape the random biases that would occur (if the judge is dressed more like the victim than the accused, how would that influence a jury)? How would it actually work?
I mean seeing the judge, prosecution and defence in multiple different kinds of clothing during a trial might help the jury disconnect clothing and facts, but it seems a rather complicated thing to implement compared to a general relaxation in these kinds of dress-codes for courts, as well as the cultural pressure for acceptance of people of non-standard appearance that is necessary notwhistanding.
@Caine
If I am in your killfile, then what would prompt you to comment?
Your subtext reads: This person is a fuckwit. Don’t waste your time.
So, don’t. Or do.
I’ll be happy to talk with you anytime. I try not to give up on people no matter how dense or hardened they seem. Admittedly, I do get tired some times. Anyway, there are so many things wrong with your simple comment, it would be impressive if you were able to point out a few of them. I would be surprised if you could.
So, yeah. I’m calling you out. And, by the way, if you call me names, try to remember that names don’t scare me, intimidate me or bully me. AND, because that is the discourse you might choose, it’s pretty damn hypocritical if you consider my name-calling as derailing, douchy or mean spirited.
I’ll try to match your tone and discourse, and if I amp it up a notch – well, you don’t get to set the tone.
BTW, for those of you calling me a douche…I’m waiting, you cretinous fuckheads.
Better yet, as you might consider it, Don’t Feed The Troll.
Troll= anyone who matches discourse, who doesn’t agree, who isn’t intimidated, and who won’t shut the fuck up.
Prove me wrong, and shut the fuck up.
BTW…it has been instructive to see how many regulars puke on the page, think they’ve contributed and just derail a rather interesting discussion on clothing in the courtroom.
Trolling Motherfuckers.
It takes all sorts and all strategies. Sometimes puking is constructive criticism =D. But yeah I kinda get your greivance. It’s so easy to be called an asshole here. Probably because most people have their share of assholish opinions (everyone’s got one), and the more erudite people here don’t mince words. I think I am or was on somepeople’s killfile before as well. Being ignored by a community you respect is as shitty as being called a troll/asshole. Lot’s to learn.
You cannot derail in the Thunderdome.
If you are in someones killfile, I believe they will not see your comments, so addressing anything to that person is a waste of time.
*Lots
Damn Tpyos™.
=8)-DX:
When someone waltzes in and announces themselves to be a troll, they should expect certain reactions. Barfy has made any amount of noise about being a troll and an asshole for quite some time. They have certainly gone out of their way to be a noisome douchecake on many a thread which deals with sexism or feminism. Some of us had enough. I’m not obliged to give assholes the time of day.
@ =8)-DX
The solution I propose only controls/limits attire options for officers of the court, so controlling witness attire is not relevant. In fact, the proposal is that witnesses and defendants be able to wear anything at all they like.
I don’t know that in the short term it would impact trials positively. I do know that punks and skaters and sex workers and unassimilated immigrants and trans folk and many, many others tell me that they wouldn’t approach a lawyer b/c they don’t believe that any lawyer would actually take them seriously/believe their story because X.
Enough people serve on juries and as witnesses seeing lawyers dressed like they are will get around by word of mouth and undo this damage to access to justice.
Also, enough exposure to people considered our most upright citizens – the ones we trust to administer the law fairly and honestly – wearing the clothes of poor folk and outcasts, and the association of honesty and fairness with a certain dress will fade, giving more people a fair shake to be judged on their actual testimony and actions.
Would their be problems in some situations? Would it be possible for a judge to be dressed more like a witness than a defendant on a particular day? Sure.
But that’s already possible, and when it happens now, it happens specifically because the witness is wealthy and willing to dress in the attire of the mainstream wealthy, as that is the attire mandated for judges and prosecutors these days. Instead of a predictable bias, consistently benefiting people of one group, we gain an unpredictable bias. Justice isn’t perfectly fair, but it does actually become blind.
and in the long run, it does become more fair.
Moreover, although I made a specific proposal that there be no dress code for court save for court officers and these persons would be required to dress in ways that countered stereotypes contrary to the fair administration of justice, the actual implementation of that would (for me) absolutely have to be empirically based. If over time it showed that racial disparities fell faster when all prosecutors wore propeller beanies combined with below-the-head wear consistent with my original vision, then my original vision would be modified to never mandate hats or bandanas and consistently compel propeller beanies for as long as that was an effective tactic in promoting justice.
Something else I’d like to see? QC are the prosecutors and the defense counsels, and, should a defendant elect not to obtain personal counsel, would be randomly assigned both to cases (though within ranges, e.g. persons with certain senior positions might be available for random selection to death penalty trials, persons below that seniority would not be eligible for selection to that case) but also to defense and prosecutorial roles. You would never know from one case to the next whether you would be defending or prosecuting someone. Likewise, since you couldn’t know who would prosecute and who would defend, the salaries for defenders and prosecutors would be exactly equal. In theory, over a long enough career, you would actually spend half your time on defense and half on prosecution.
If we believe in justice, and we believe that a strong adversarial system is the best route to achieving it, why wouldn’t we implement such a system?
Crip Dyke
I agree entirely with this portion. ISTR reading about a jurisdiction that did so, but I can’t recall where, and it might only have been someone advocating for it.
Caine is not obliged. But, it is my belief that s/he can’t without burbling into a foaming, rabid spewer of hate and invective. THAT is Caine’s legacy. But, I still have hope. Prove me wrong by engaging in a thoughtful DISCOURSE and not a debate with name-calling. I’m capable of both.
BTW – douche is not OK.
Here’s why:
1.) It is gender specific.
There is no gender specific pejorative that I can think of that can be justified. My son’s girlfriend wants us to use “wimpy ballsack” instead of “pussy” because a pussy can take a pounding and a ballsack is pretty delicate. Although, I do think it’s funny in an appropriate context, it is never appropriate to use gender specific pejoratives in a mean-spirited fashion.
2.) It infers that a vagina is dirty or diseased and needs to be cleaned out, and that I’m the one to do it.
Huh? I can’t even make sense of this meaning. If you are trying to say that I think vaginas are dirty or diseased – I don’t. I really like vaginas. A lot. A whole lot. I can’t recall ever saying or thinking anything different. I respect VAGINA.
And, to the comment that you can’t derail in the Thunderdome. I say that you can. Fuck you. You did, Troll. You can claim that the word ‘derail’ has a different meaning in the Thunderdome, and as such, you didn’t Troll – but, you did derail in the worst way. You’re a Troll. You’re a motherfucking Troll. Live with it, Caine, Tony and Thumper.
You see, MY definition of Troll includes any attempt to derail a discussion by diminishing an argument, NOT on the argument made, but by diminishing the status of the person making the argument. Very UN-Freethought of you. AND YOU’RE GUILTY AS CHARGED, TROLLS.
Just do what you ask of others and simply apologize. Surprise me.
From this paragraph it looks like there are a number of hurdles to jump (skip, fly?) over here:
* making people consider alternative strategies for promoting justice are worthwhile (rather than the usual, sometimes relevant: “tough-on-crime”, “better laws” and “social safety net” popular solutions).
* changing viewpoints of the legal system – judges, prosecutors and the general public are highly attached to notions of court decorum and respect for the law. Neglecting dress is seen as a strong sign of disrespect, not just in courtrooms.
* Get rid of the notion of “suits” or “formal attire” as a social equaliser. I think many people have the idea that taking any group of men in suits and women in (shit it’s hard to avoid feminist issues here) formal attire, one cannot distinguish their social status just from looks alone. That’s not really true of course, but people view it that way. The guy with 10 identical freshly ironed pale blue shirts has an advantage over the guy who thinks each new hole in his T-shirt is a sign of the latest fashion and that proudly showing what you ate that day is a sign of honesty, has a disadvantage.
* Previous point: people think it works, and in some ways it does: how to convince people that your solution which rejects this idea, will work better.
@barfy:
Uh… dude(ette).. you just went apeshit on the thread. Even if you’re right: calm down. Sit down. Ingest some coffee with your preferred beverage. Eat a cucumber (it actually helps!)
As for douche: I think it was disparaged as a cuss-word here sometime back, I personally don’t use it but I remember a good appraisal of why it should remain: a douchebag is something pointless, harmful and obsolete, *especially* when concerned with women’s issues. I would compare it to a penis-extender as analogous with men.
The only negative implication of “douchebag”, is that it implies that being near or in vaginas is “icky”. But since everyone here knows vaginas are self-cleaning ,and from other context I don’t think anyone is thought to be implying that. An MRA using douche(bag) as a derogatory term has different implications than the feminazi-hivemind-pharyngu-horde using it. =/
Hence, the old joke†.
—
† As a scouser, I am allowed to use this.
Yep, I’m with you =8)-DX. It’s a lot of work.
In particular, though, I can start with the 1st and 2nd of your points.
Part of what I believe is so pernicious is near the end of your point 2:
This has to go. Soon. Fast.
Right now the appearance of me qua me in a courtroom is seen as an affront to the administration of justice. How F’d up is that, that the existence and presence of those most in need of justice constitute an affront to the court?
So long as judges and prosecutors believe that they are being disrespected when I wear an iPod into the courtroom before it’s in session, and that under my suitcoat I’m wearing a faded WonderWoman shirt or a decidedly less faded I Was Kidnapped by Lesbian Pirates from Outer Space shirt (see: here), then I am compelled to act dishonestly or suffer the wrath of (and potential ejection from) the court. Prosecutors would be less likely to give fair deals to my clients, etc., etc., etc.
To one of your points:
Isn’t it appropriate to distinguish “casual wear” from “slovenly wear”? Dirty/torn/clothing or semi-nudity (as the youth of very-low trouser levels should know – your belt shouldn’t be bellow your buttock line!) Is it OK to walk into court in a speedo or bikini? (In Florida one should almost hope…) Where’s the line? Is this the same line-problem as with the “how women shouldn’t dress inappropriately in work” (bullshit) line?
And then I see the problem with human tendencies: I feel better in a shirt in formal settings. I feel very uncomfortable in a T-shirt when people are wearing suits. Fitting in with the group relaxes everyone. (c.f. pensioner tourist clothing…)
AAARGH! That link gives me so much deja-vu.. I MUST have read it, but then it conflicts with memories of other lesbian comic artwork! AAAARGH!
@barfy
The whole Douche as an insult thing is, I believe, derived from the fact that a douche as you describe above is A Useless Tool of the Patriarchy. So, when you call someone a douche, you are calling them A Useless Tool of the Patriarchy. Just FYI.
It’s not about slovenly wear: it’s about the combo of being trans and unable to get clothing that fits both shoulders and boobs *with* a deep philosophical commitment to expression of solidarity with people who have diminished access to justice *and with* a deep philosophical commitment to honesty.
How can I dress in clothes that I can afford and that render me approachable to the outlaws of society and meet the expectations of the court? If I don’t, I may avoid certain problems (this is somewhat theoretical now as law students can get away with things advocates can’t, but I can represent clients under supervision of a member of the bar starting next summer), but I feel deeply dishonest and as if I have betrayed truly important principles.
I have a couple used suits (the ability to remove shoulder pads helps them fit …approximately) but there are no silk blouses that fit, even if i could possibly wear them and feel honest. Let’s be clear: I’m pretty much never mistaken for butch, but I just don’t do the overt signals of femme. No makeup (another court no-no), no sequins, no shirts that pull apart at the seems if you rub against a wall momentarily, and so on. I can do an academic-looking suit, but even that feels incredibly awkward to me unless I’m wearing an activist or geek t-shirt underneath.
It just is what it is. I can’t be me qua me and not be seen as an affront to the dignity of the court.
Why should that be? Why shouldn’t I be able to dress in clothes that allow me to be my most relaxed and focussed? Isn’t that in the interest of my future clients?
Anyway, it’s not about slovenly. Slovenly is for home.
Thanks Crip Dyke, that clarified a lot of where you’re coming from and the inherant problem of “court attire”.
Any court dress-codes should take into account that all participants should be allowed to feel comfortable in their own skin (outer and inner) rather than just arbitrarily deciding what is “contempt of court”.
yazikus #136
Yup.
—-
Bless your heart, barfy.
In unrelated news, today, in a body of water outside the Place Of Work™, there were baby grebes.
Super cute, and much more vocal than their parents, who do their communication with head-dancing.
You mean like, The Mating Habits of the Earthbound Human.
Aiiieee!
I’ve been to Twilo. (Also, the Tunnel, before it was shut down.)
Can I take the fifth?
So I watched like 20 minutes, and, um, no. Sorry.
I am calm. I like engaging in discourse, but I don’t like people acting like cowardly bullies (see Caine talking about me TWICE and then running away)
Also, why am I the one being criticized. Call them out for the Trolls that they are acting like.
If you call me a useless tool of the patriarchy, prove it, motherfuckers. Cause, yup, it’s a pretty significant insult. BTW, what’s the word for “useless tool who loses skills of critical thinking when it comes to feminism”?
Wait, I got it.
Caine, PZ, Ing.
See threads listed above by Chigau.
AND
Chigau, I can’t help but sense a tinge of sarcasm in your “bless your heart.”
If I am wrong, PLEASE tell me. If I am wrong, a sincere thank you. I’ll take a kindness wherever I can get it.
As to my TONE – this is the Thunderdome. Like I said, I’ll try to match tone, and most certainly prefer a discourse.
But, I don’t like people who act like cowards (Caine), Bullies and Name Callers (Thumper and others), and people who act like puking hypocrites and Haters.
barfy, if you detected a “tinge of sarcasm”, then you need to adjust your meter. That was more in the nature of a dead fish upside the haid.
–
When I was a kid, there was a lagoon within probably 10 miles of my house (more like 20, As The Kid Bikes, but who was counting?) that had a permanent population of grebes. At least, my grandfather said they were grebes, and who was I to argue?
–
I don’t know, cicely. Was it blunt with sarcasm or dripping with condescension? I think there’s an argument there for honest pity and condescension.
And when I read “court dress”, this is what I imagine.
I’m in favor.
:D
–
Well, Crip Dyke, I have always thought of dead fish (suitable for haid sup-siding) as being both blunt and dripping, so I’d say it’s a win/win.
–
I have gone totally to pity.
Barfy, why do you have a nym synonomous with resembling vomit? It seems totally appropriate for the reaction you induce. Time for some introspection, perhaps, or a nym change.
@ Crip Dyke
You seem to be faced with an example of the prisoner’s dilemma. As much as everyone can agree with you that there is a need for people to get beyond their bias with regard to clothing in court, there is a very real advantage to just go with the system.
If I were a gang banger, I would certainly dress as neatly and conventionally as possible, in order to reduce bias against me in court. This caters to my immediate need top minimise my own sentencing, even if it reinforces that very bias generally.
toptoTo all the useless limp tools of the PZarchy (Squidbrains?)
You are NOT CAPABLE of arguing one simple point.
ONE SIMPLE POINT
ONE SIMPLE POINT
ONE SIMPLE POINT
ONE SIMPLE POINT
I repeat – one simple point
A troll may be a person who derails an argument NOT on the argument made, but on diminishing the status of the person making the argument.
That’s what happened here. I am the victim. I’m not sorry that I don’t act like a victim.
And, chigau, I honestly tried to give you the benefit of my doubt. And, in an appropriate patronizing and condescending matching tone – stick your pity up your unbleached (I’m guessing) ass.
Want to talk to me in a rational way – OK
Want to hide behind specious name calling, killfiles and condescension – well, you get what you deserve.
One thing I have noticed with certain of the Hivemind demonstrated here so readily, is that when directly addressed with someone willing to stand up to their strategy of “bully-name call – hide”, they get all plausibly deniable. Except it’ s not plausibly deniable, because it’s all their on this thread alone.
How about this for a change? Why don’t you squidbrains actually address ONE SIMPLE POINT and leave the condescension and patronizing and name calling to somebody who is actually cowed by your adolescent tactics. Maybe, just maybe, you might be surprised by how I am capable of communicating.
And if you think that I’m discussing tone – BINGO!
I don’t like this tone and I don’t like your hyprocrisy. Thanks for proving my point, you sarcastic, patronizing, condescending fuckwits.
As a side note, did anyone here make the comparison to the actual original discussion?
Instead of a jury considering the actual facts and arguments, they were blinded by an immaterial prejudice. I sure am glad that I didn’t have any of them serving with me on the real juries.
“because it’s all there…”
not “their”
theophontes
Have you seen Mary’s Monday Metazoan?
Aaaaaand…. (wait for it)
DRAMA! (oh no wait, that wasn’t it)
@barfy – your last 5 comments have been complaints about being called names by some regulars who remember previous comments of yours they didn’t like. Your one point there was that you consider “douchebag” to be sexist (because gender-specific) and an offensive word to use. Several people explained why this word isn’t considered to be sexist by many people here. So far that’s all the debate.
Previously you were actually nicely conversing with Crip Dyke and others about dress-codes in courtrooms and you made general commentary on your experience as a jury as well as the general difficulty of removing bias in the social animals humans are. Fine. Oh and you’ve also done some odd name-calling and summary rejection of PZ and several regulars… for.. something else not currently being discussed and you’re annoyed that we’re not discussing your … um whatever it is?
Where’s your “ONE SIMPLE POINT” that hasn’t been addressed? And why don’t you just participate in the discussions here like everyone else who wants to? I’m almost genuinely interested to hear what point you think you made in argument of what that was ignored or shouted down by the people you were in discussion with. I might be missing something, I’ve only re-read parts of the thread (and your comments), but I’m getting a strong feeling you’re not interacting meaninfully any more.
Barfy
If you had actually demonstrated the capacity to make some kind of vaguely legitimate point, we would almost certainly be willing to have a discussion with you about it. However, since your arrival on this blog, you have failed to demonstrate this capacity, and been an asshole as well. Because of this, no-one wants to talk to you anymore, and people here are not shy about expressing those feelings. In short, fuck off you tedious troll.
Hey Friend, I did that. You were all like “What does Douche even mean? It sounds sexist!!!! Because vaginas are not so terrible!” and I gave you the break down of Douche as an Insult.
–
Response?
And by the way, barfy, you’re the first person here to start referring to yourself as a troll and discussing whether or not you’re a troll. Doesn’t that deserve a round of headdesks?
I know that wasn’t aimed at me, but I tried to draw a tardigrade riding a battle rat last weekend and completely failed. I know that image well.
barfy:
As far as I know, your point was argued with pretty well before you decided to fly off the handle against people sounding the troll alert.
Not everyone is willing to indulge in Calm, Rational Discourse(tm) with you. Not everyone is williing to pretend you haven’t been anything but an obnoxious asshole in previous threads. You took a dump all over the floor the first time you visited, now you come back and you want to be treated BY EVERYONE like a normal guest. Please.
@cicely, #148:
Awww, so nice to be appreciated. You saw what I did there…
‘crip dyke
Theophontes made my point at #151 far more eloquently than I could :)
@ barfy
No problem, happy to do so. Come back
soonnever.Obviously, I’ve come late to the barfiness…
One simple point? Sure: Take this stupid claim
Only a fool believes that something that they imagine is an factual state which will always be present is not acceptable, inasmuch as that is tantamount to not accepting reality.
—
There. I have addressed a simple point, and thus provided an existence proof of my capacity to do so; this demonstrates that the barfy one was either wrong or else that I am not an useless limp tool of the PZarchy.
(Let this be noted for future reference)
What’s up with annejones? She dumped a load of posts about Teh Gay Agenda™, and then vanished… just like she opened a whole shiny new blog for the purpose of discussing evolution with people who aren’t Creationists, and then abandoned said blog after its inaugural post.
Curious, that
From the evidence of annejones’ behavior, it would seem reasonable to conclude that annejones is either unwilling to, or else incapable of, engaging in discourse about topics of interest to her; apparently, she would rather disgorge a monologue and ignore all responses to her verbiage.
As I said, curious.
If anyone’s in the mood for some scadenfreude, you can go see Sky News mistake “crocodile, frog, fish and plant fossils” for mammals.
It made me giggle.
@ chigau
Yeah, how cool is that ‽ We certainly have the attention of The Powers That Be ™ …
@ Thumper
*blush*
Yeah, a bit of a self-perpetuating problem I am afraid. I don’t actually think the court system is the best place to start such reforms either. Even if the problem becomes rather in-your-face there.
@Thumper, Vaiyt
Once again, thank you for proving your inability to argue my ONE SIMPLE POINT.
Seriously, is there anyone out there who doesn’t resort to name calling?
You do it to me – you’re going to get it back, you fuckwit, trolling, shitmeister squidbrains.
Once again, waiting for someone to argue against the one simple point. I don’t know any way to make it clearer and more unambiguous.
Don’t like me, fine. There’s a killfile. I’m always willing to talk.
But if you name call, condescend, patronize, strawperson or ESPECIALLY hide from me while smearing me (like Caine), I’m not backing down.
I believe this is the future in which John Morales planned a reference to his 164. I offer this humble comment as such a reference.
Also yazikus’ argument re: douchebag as insult.
There, I’ve argued two simple meta-points.
Meta-meta?
Ooooh, flattery!
What point are you still wrangling on about? If you state it in a simple sentence, then I’ll be happy to argue/agree/disagree with it. I can’t really think of anything of substance you’ve written that hasn’t been adressed by someone.
What point? Must be something so obvious or oblivious it isn’t worth responding to.
I sit corrected.
:)
Make that, “blunted upside the haid with condensed pity drippings”.
With scales on.
:D
–
@Crip Dyke, #162:
:)
–
More like a swing and a miss.
–
Why the fuck are you talking about bleached asses, Barfy?
One simple point=
A troll may be a person who derails an argument, not on the argument made, but on diminishing the status of the person making the statement.
I said it in different versions, but same/similar meanings repeatedly.
It would be fun if someone could point to themselves as acting like a troll and apologize. I promise that I will forgive and be happy to move on. If you can’t resist the urge to call me a douche, fool, fucking idiot (PZ), douchecake, douchebag – if I get offended when you’re trying to offend me, you can’t act all surprised. Strike that. Squidbrains can act surprised and indignant. They’re already acting at maximal capacity.
And for those of you who tell me to never come back…fuck you. Unless I break the rules, you’re not the boss of the playground.
@John Morales
I don’t mind you calling it a stupid claim, at all. Bash it, rip it, tear it to shreds. It’s all good. But, call me a fool…Fuck you, Shit eater. Your nearly incomprehensible and horribly tortured statement is a strawperson. Next.
For the rest of you…
I have been trying really hard to think of a suitable analogy to what happens often here on Pharyngula. This is the best I can come up with so far.
Jenny is in the seventh grade. As is often the case, there is a clique of kids who hate Jenny. Truthfully, Jenny likes the kids in the clique. Problem is, Jenny likes discussion, is very opinionated and enjoys the challenge of having her ideas challenged. They have wrangled many times in the past about all sorts of things. Not the least of which is how girls and boys should behave. Let’s just say that Jenny’s beliefs are non-normative with the clique’s worldview.
Every time Jenny talks, her views are like a screeching record to the clique. “Can’t Jenny hear the screech?”, they ask. Can’t she understand that we would like her if she just shut up? If she continues to talk, we have no other choice but to drown her out by calling her names. You see, we, as the hegemonic clique, don’t recognize our own privileged status, and instead of responding with respect and patience, it’s way easier to name call and offend, watch Jenny seem to spin out of control, and plausibly deny that we had anything to do with it. Then, we can go home to Mommy, and ask her, “Why does Jenny have to be so mean? I’m just calling her what she is – a douche, fucking idiot, etc. It’s not my fault she can’t see it. She’s a fucking idiot.”
Mommy says, “You’re right. She is a fucking idiot. I don’t like Jenny either. So, whenever Jenny has something to say, make sure that you remind everybody what a fool she is, so that no matter what she says, on any topic, people won’t listen. And don’t you listen either because time is short, she’s proven she’s a fucking idiot and she can never change.”
“I’m sure glad that I’m never wrong, Mom.”
“Me, too.”
OK, to be fair, PZ never said “don’t you listen”, which is one of many reasons why I respect Pharyngula and PZ,
BUT,
Why don’t you test me Please.
Let’s talk about something – anything. If you are respectful, I’ll try to be respectful back. If I’m not, call me on it. I’m not perfect.
What part of fuck off are you having trouble understanding, shithead?
That’s it? “Trolls” are people who keep making the arguments that they won’t admit they have already been refuted–usually multiple times even in the same thread if they bothered to read everything. And they keep repeating the same shit over and over, like Joey the Presuppositional Philosophist, and you are doing on this thread. By doing so, they diminish themselves and demonstrate their real lack of solid evidenced arguments. We don’t have to discuss what the “trolls” want discussed in their way, which is what they want, or take their opinions seriously if unevidenced. We can discuss it however we want.
cubist #165
Yeah, annejones comes around every now and then. Every visit goes pretty much like that one. Does some Gish Galoping, presents utter nonsense as if it were objective proven facts, then vanishes for a few more weeks. Pretty pathetic.
This is what we call a disproportionate response.
(Aside, by and large, Moral’s statements are only incomprehensible to those unwilling to think)
Um, no, that would be a derailer. A troll is a person who engages in trolling: posting antagonistic and/or offensive comments to prolong a debate for bad-faith reasons usually due to personal amusement or satisfaction.
No, that would be an ad hominem fallacy.
I don’t claim to be the sharpest chisel in the set, but it was pretty clear to me.
It might be an example of the naturalistic fallacy, but it’s not a strawperson.
—
See, and I didn’t even have to use rude words!
As it is always in life, people can only ingest so much nonsense, that there regularly comes the time when they are full to the brim and feel the need to relieve themselves. annejones felt fit to excrete her particular turd in the open for all to see. I think she was hoping we admire it and comment on the fragrance and texture.
(Not meant in any way to disparage Teh Gays: annejone’s turd was an attempt to distract from the bright and shiny rainbow of equality.)
Shit I feel that post ended all sarcastic condescending or something. I actually DO beleive in the shiny rainbow of equality! I have a rainbow tie (will wear at soonest possible occasion)!
Nerd of Redhead, cm, Jacob Schmidt – good job!
Not that you need my approval, but, thank you.
@ Jacob,
I agree. It was a disproportional response. It’s my way of saying that when you name call, you don’t get to set the meter.
@cm
I disagree. But, OK.
@Nerd
You don’t have to discuss it their way. That’s what I was doing. And I remember a post by PZ talking about how to define a troll. My perception is that it wasn’t as easy as you make it seem. Anyway, I was trolled (my definition) and you don’t have to accept it as such.
“Already been refuted” is often in the eye of the beholder. For instance, your eye.
Dallilama,
I’m going to assume that you were addressing me. If that’s not the case, I’m sorry for the following.
What part of fuck off are you having a hard time understanding, you witless dustbag of the discarded chitin of cockroaches…you elephant shitstain on the Mona Lisa…?
In other words, I think that MY ‘fuck off’ is way bigger and better than yours, so, I win, fuckface, until you can come back with some better insults.
AND,
like every little brother said to every big brother…you’re not my dad. You’re not the boss of me.
AND,
what organization declared you the membership chairfuck, you pusillanimous puswart?
Just wondering.
OR,
you could be nice.
Your choice.
Why is there shit all over the carpet? My goodness.
Barfy, who gives a shit about being nice to a person who is so immature they can’t stand criticism? Think about that, while we call the WHAAAAMBULANCE.
Barfy barfs barfily.
With what? Why? You should really be more specific, you know.
barfy:
Whether you mind or not is irrelevant, and there is little else to say about a claim that what you hold to be an unchangeable fact is unacceptable other than it is foolish; I suppose I could add that unless you’re a simpleton, it is also perverse.
(It is also foolish to refer to your own claim verbatim as a strawperson, BTW)
—
Your best is worse than feeble, for your attempted analogy (metaphor, actually) breaks down in the very first sentence — this place is nothing like a school for children (for one thing, the only people who are here are those who have chosen to do so, and they can of course leave at any time).
(You failed miserably)
Portia, did you drag something in from the pavement in those boots? Oh, perhaps because its a drama shitfest in certain parts of the free-expression gallery.
Heh. These boots are covered in soot, ash, and the crushed spirits of racists and misogynists.
Barfy:
Channeling StevoR there, I see.
—
You’ve already been tested (and bested), Barfy — your character and your competence are both evident.
(As is your need for respect, O needy one)
Barfy, your unevidenced opinion on anything and everything can be dismissed. All you appear to want to do is not have your insipid opinions criticized and evidence demanded. Why is that? You know your opinions aren’t congruent with reality? Because, if they are, you can cite third party evidence from
http://scholar.google.com
On a point of order:
barfy’s original† complaint (way back in chigau’s first link) was that, by failing to condemn #radfem2013, PZ was implicitly endorsing a formulation of feminism that was inherently sexist.
This is, I suggest, unlikely to the be the subject of much research in the social sciences, funding being what it is. ;-)
It was also a bit strange given that PZ was in fact, condemning #radfem2013.
—
† Possibly not original original. But for this breakout, the first …
(Although.)
Nice.
We’ve been without a chewtoy for too long.
Way back from April? Long time to not be able to post legitimate arguments with evidence….I’m busy caring for the Redhead, but not that intellectually constipated.
Portia, though in the grander scheme this undersells it dramatically, if someone put a gun to my head and forced me to give one short reason why I like you, I would have to say Thunderdome-27, Post 191.
Psychology of wealth: Money on the Mind.
(How money turns people into arseholes.)
…
@ PZ
The shortcut to Thunderdome links to the old iteration.
Has done since Chris posted there after it closed.
Dalillama, correlation and causation need not be linked; I suspect PZ manually updates the transition and just plain forgot, this time.
John, the link worked properly prior to that; I used it a couple of times.
Dalillama, hm… OK, that is suggestive.
(You have a point)
@ John Morales
Our lifeblood of disaffected, arbitrary lurkers cut off? Misdirection of linkies as punishment for our subversive deviousness in fomenting insurrection from the Thunderdome? To much praise of teh kittehz, engineers, physicists, tardigrades and the like?
:D:D:D
That appears to be her MO. On her first visit, she babbled so much that people suggested she make her own blog. She did and then never responded to what anyone said.
Not the sharpest spoon in the lake.
theophontes (恶六六六缓步动物)
Psychology of wealth: Money on the Mind.
(How money turns people into arseholes.)
On the plus side, you are more likely to get run over by, and win a lawsuit against, a rich snob.
Douche is a perfectly acceptable insult. Many people understand the harm using a douche can cause to a woman and realize it is not a gendered insult. If douching were beneficial to women, the argument against it would stand.
The Thunderdome, like the Lounge, are open threads. Contrary to what idiots might claim, you cannot derail a thread where anyone can talk about anything.
Barfy seems offended that some people do not like hir and choose not to engage. Xe also does not grok that whining to someone who has killfiled you is as useless as joey coming here to convince anyone that their worlview is wrong.
Thats two threads where people seem to think “fuck off” is anything other than an intentionally rude way of saying get lost. Elind idiotically thought it was an argument and barfy seems to think it is a command from on high.
Random derail:
….I think I might have found the only sensible use of the term “even more alpha”: Working on experimental features on an app that’s still in alpha, itself.
A random comment from me too:
I’ve read some of Ally Fogg’s posts, and they’re not bad, but the comment threads are full of MR”A”s. The only thing that can make them bearable is observing John Morales play with food.
Over here, we feed them till they explode.
It works.
Oh no. It implies that you’re a completely useless, in fact even harmful, product that people are told to buy for no good reason. It implies you’re phony, dishonest marketing.
BTW, thank you for providing the first example I’ve seen of someone confusing “infer” (reach a conclusion) and “imply” (implicitly claim without explicitly saying so – literally “fold in”). Many people have complained about other people confusing these words, but I’ve never seen it happen. :-)
Uh, dude, you don’t get to have your own definition of a technical term!
Troll = someone who says something in order to make the audience angry, the goal being that the troll can laugh at the angry reactions.
You misunderstand.
People here don’t resort to insults.
They make hypotheses and test them. Whether someone is a troll, or even just an asshole, is a testable hypothesis; if you fit the criteria, you are one, and people here won’t shy away from calling a spade a spade.
If you can’t stand the heat, what are you doing in the chemistry lab with your head in the fume hood and the sandbath set to 400 °C?
Is this the part where you pout and threaten to stop breathing until you pass out?
*snicker* *guffaw* *snort*
Sigh, so much right with Davids post above, but then he goes and uses Celsius, rather than Fahrenheit. It’s like he forgot that everyone else in the world is supposed to follow the US…
::ducks::
Don’t you mean, ahem, Centigrade?
::ducks even lower::
Tony:
752 F. :D I’ve long been in the habit of using both, ’cause I think we ‘mericans are about the only ones who still use Fahrenheit.
*snortlerofl*
–
Caine!
*pouncehug*
–
Hallo, Cicely! :returns hug: Still waaaay too busy, but I’m taking a few days off before my brain fries completely.
@John Morales
I do have a need to be treated respectfully. But, no, I don’t need your respect. Don’t want to treat me respectfully – OK. But, don’t go crying to Mommy when I’m mean and disrespectful. Or, go crying to Mommy – maybe you’ll get a few hugs. Anyway, you set the tone but not the meter. I’d rather just converse respectfully.
Also, if you want to, remove the school as the place for the children. Substitute something else. It’s just when I read things like, “Barfy barfs barfily” and “call the WHAAAMBULANCE” and “chew toy” and “what part of fuck off don’t you understand, shithead”, I call that EVIDENCE of the emotional maturity of the writer. So, yeah, acting like children.
In fairness, my response to emotionally immature name calling, piling on and such could be deemed emotionally immature. I’ve actually thought long and hard about how to deal with it and with you all who engage in it, and the best I could come up with was what I have been doing. When people use tactics like bullying, experience has taught me that retreat and reason doesn’t work. So far, unfortunately, I’ve been right. So, I enter into the discourse at your level and slowly train the dogs to stop barking by just barking louder. That way, when you want to bark, we can all bark together in a way that resonates with you. I’m hoping that pretty soon, you’ll just get tired of all the barking. And I apologize – you and others are not dogs – it’s just a metaphor.
And, I don’t hold it to be an unchangeable fact. I believe it to be inherent in the nature of being human. I’m guessing that you do, too, because it you don’t, you believe that people can live a life without bias, prejudice or stereotyping. I personally just can’t imagine anything but a philosopher’s wet dream of a world – and not even then – where this could be the case. Anyway, if you can, enlighten me.
@Nerd
I did post evidence. I took a massive, unconstipated shit of evidence. And, as you’ve said, a troll is a person who keeps making the same arguments that have already been refuted. PZ and others have been refuted in the radfem thread. As far as PZ, radfem, etc., I’m very comfortable with the evidence provided. It’s not my fault that the fem-goggles that so many of you wear are polarized in a way that doesn’t allow their viewing. So, anyway, I feel like I’ve said enough on radfem.
If you honestly want the repetition – I’ll do it when you can construct a “what I think you’re saying…” narrative to me that I believe fairly characterizes what I was trying to say. cm came damn close, but missed it when s/he talked about PZ refuting @radfem 2013. Until then, nope.
Oh, and I am a vocal, ardent and active feminist, so when people call me a douche (as I have learned in this thread its derogatory definition), I am going to get pretty offended.
Now, to Nerd, John Morales, cm, chigau and some others –
I like conversing with you. I’d rather it be a dialectic than a debate, but that’s your choice. And I know that this may come off as patronizing, but I think that I could learn a lot from all of you. If you don’t want to, then no hard feelings from me.
::wanders off to grab some popcorn to munch on while waiting for John’s response to whiny barfy::
Actually, well done on not assuming gender. For what it’s worth, I’m a “he”.
I didn’t talk about PZ ‘refuting’ @radfem 2013. I said PZ condemned the stuff that was posted under the hashtag #radfem2013. (@whoever would indicate a twitternym, for what it’s worth.)
You can’t refute a tweet like “WTF is up with assholes who insist on telling lesbians to fuck men” because it doesn’t even make a statement–it asks a question, and a question that’s nonsensical and offensive.
So all that’s left is to condemn: to say that the tweeter is an appalling @person.
I checked radfem2013. Barfy offered his OPINION, but not one link to third party evidence. Ergo, no “plenty of evidence”, as his opinion will never be evidence. Just OPINION.
Barfy, which of the following three paragraphs is the most convincing:
1) Evolution has been shown to occur.
2) Evolution has been shown to occur, try Lenski.
3) Evolution has been shown to occur, Lenski 1, Lenski 2.
The third statement contains evidence. The others, opinion.
barfy:
1. If you’re OK with your need not being met, it’s not really a need, is it? It’s just a desire.
2. Your hopeful wishfulness amuses me.
3. You still don’t get this place, do you? You do your thing, and others do theirs.
So what?
1. No! Really? :)
2. You’ve characterised your best as emotionally immature, which is that to which you were objecting and which you claim you wanted to change.
3. This should have preceded 2, the which is indicative of your thought-process — first you come up with a purported tactic, and only then do you come up with its motivation.
4. Such a noble goal!
5. Seems to me it’s just your little fantasy by which you justify your desire to partake of the chit-chat here.
1. This is one reason why people laugh at you; you say the same thing in two different ways and thereby imagine they are two different things.
2. I was not disputing whether or not you or I believe it to be so, I was noting the foolishness of believing it to be so yet not accepting it.
3. Sure: instead of not accepting it and merely bemoaning it, accept it and find ways to ameliorate or obviate its effects (one way in which this has been done in a specific domain is called the scientific method)
barfy
Not one person here holds you in the same high regard you hold yourself.
You are a chewtoy.
and you don’t know shit about training dogs
@chigau
whenever you’re ready to talk, I’m here.
As to being a chewtoy, I would love to think of you as something different. Wait, that was mean. You’re not a chewtoy. Just an angry elf. And you’re right, I don’t know a whole bunch about training dogs (but probably more than you think I do), but I am demonstrating that I can train you. Sorry if that hurts. Oh, and since you speak for everybody now, maybe you won’t mind if everyone addresses themselves as “chigau”.
And I bet you wonder why some people accuse Pharyngula of being a hivemind. You’re the evidence.
@ John Morales
First, kudos for using your real name. My income in my community would definitely be adversely affected if I was outed, so I admit that I don’t have that courage (and I like money). People like you will make it easier for me when my time comes.
I didn’t say the same thing in two different ways. So, taking the gamble that you won’t consider this trolling because YOU don’t understand, I’ll repeat myself with some elucidation…NOBODY knows anything absolutely. NOBODY. No mathematician, physicist or biologist. That’s why we have the scientific method and falsifiability. That is core to my beliefs. But that’s just it, they are beliefs, subject to revision and disruption at any time. Including the NOBODY statement. It is not dogma or faith. So, when I say, “I hold it to be inherent in the nature of being human”, it is an assertion or working hypothesis that I have, so far, not seen falsified. So, show me.
barfy:
What’s to show? You claim that you believe X and that you don’t accept X; the truth-value of X is irrelevant to your foolishness, so your appeal to epistemic doubt is an irrelevance — and of course you are wrong regarding absolute truth (for example, do you deny the existence of tautologies?).
barfy
?
—
Do you think that is an actual photo of John Morales?
barf
This blog is a friendly space for people who find commenters like you ridiculous. Gettoverit or GTFO.
So? Big deal. Save your preaching for the religious.
LOL. I don’t know the Japanese for “angry elf dog trainer” but, chigau, if it shows up in your nym, I’ll applaud. ;-)
—
Hah! A friend of mine did a PhD in philosophy (and a well-argued one at that) off of Crispin Wright’s Truth and Objectivity. Who is this NOBODY of whom you speak?
http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Truth_and_Objectivity.html?id=7GbBTAGQvJsC&redir_esc=y
Stupid Google Books.
cm
working on it ….
“NOBODY knows anything absolutely. NOBODY.”
So you can’t be absolutely sure about this.
txpiper, your doltishness is not in dispute, you need not reinforce it.
(The barfy one said so in so many words, and you imagine you’re making a gotcha? Heh)
Txpiper, as you well know, everything you claim,:CITATION NEEDED.
Still no evidence for your imaginary deity.
There seems to be no Japanese word for ‘elf’.
There are several for ‘vomit’.
妖精 yousei or 小人 kobito
Please accept apologies in advance if what I say is nonsense, since I only gathered to below info using google-fu and with only a slight grasp of Japanese culture, with no grasp on the language:
Anyway, based on the superb methodology of just googling shit, it seems like “yousei” is typically translated as “fairy” and “kobito” is “short person” or “dwarf” (the most popular ones I have seen actually do look like very small elves, or more specifically, like a shorter Tingle from the Legend of Zelda series). Apparently “yousei” is considered close enough to elf but “kobito” doesn’t come up as often (probably if the elf was more Keebler than Tolkien). According to this site there are two other words that are close enough to elf: erufu (used in the title for the manga/anime “Elfen Lied” I think) and sennyo (which apparently is used to mean “nymph” or “fairy”).
Nope.
gobi’s sockpuppet’s meatpuppet elsewhere:
Your claim of disinterest is belied by the persistent entreaties and requests for further information to me you made in that thread.
I like it how now that you have the opportunity to engage me here, you claim sour grapes.
(heh)
My “Nope.” was not for anteprepro.
wait…
the piper is back?
Says the peddler of absolute (but evidenceless) truths.
JM shouldn’t you be calculating the digits of Pi or whatever it is caricatures like you do for fun…er I mean non-productive stimulation
More from The Adventures of Racist Asshat in The Human Rights Commission:
He just went on a tirade about how “rape is a terrible crime” that shouldn’t happen to any woman ever… in an address pleading to the president to veto a proposal to provide priority care for rape victims. Why? Because it included the morning-after pill.
Classy as fuck.
(to John Morales: I know you don’t feel obliged to care about the plight of women, so keep talking about art and spare me your opinions)
Ing, I dunno — it’s your caricature, you tell me what it’s supposed to do.
(Doesn’t it intrigue you that e^iτ=1 but e^iπ=-1 ?)
vaiyt, if you know you don’t feel obliged to care about the plight of women, then you should also know that there’s nothing stopping me from doing so without obligation. :)
(Are the only things you do those which you feel obligated to do?)
PS for anyone interested: http://tauday.com/tau-manifesto
Well, so much for the texpip’s insistence that he would not be posting in Thunderdome.
There is no need to be.
Hmmmm, txpiper’s glib one-liner is a response to barfy. You know, if we play our cards right, we could get a good ol’ fashioned Troll Fight up in here.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Don’t encourage
[please encourage]
John Morales
re: tau
I’m convinced.
Chinese:
小 —> little, small, young
Also a very common form of address in China: eg: If PZ is younger than you, you would refer to him as “Little Myers”, whatever his absolute age. If older: “Old Myers” (老)
人 —-> person
but together:
小人 ——> villain or 坏蛋
Long as ya’ll are pitting the chewtoys against each other, can you fit annejones in?
theophontes
I think they™ messed up when they picked
考古学
for archaeology
instead of
考老学.
Way cooler.
@ chigau
They ™ are always fucking up…
Repeating words is always far more emphatic. Could one ever refer to one’s wife as anything other than 太太 ?
John Morales, thanks for the Tau link. It made me feel I have some maths ability after all.
See, I was trying to teach some middle-school students the relationship between Pi and Diameter, and I really wanted a graphic demo. I couldn’t find one, so I had to tell them to just remember the formula/rule (which I hate doing). I set out to invent a graphic. Well, I never got a good one for Diameter, but Radius and 6.28 was a treat.
Here’s mine, and I’m not the first one with it: Inside your circle, draw in an hexagon, with vertices touching the circumference. Connect the opposite vertices of the hexagon with three lines, which pass through the center of the circle. The hexagon is now made up of 6 equilateral triangles, each side of which is the same as the radius of the circle. The outer hexagon is now clearly made of 6 radii, and the circumference of the circle is a bit more than 6 radii.
You can just look at the finished product and *see* 6.28-ish.
And then you have to talk and draw to get two radii to be a diameter, and divide again to get Pi.
So, yeah, I like it. (If your Tau guy agrees with me, he must be right.)
Menyambal, that’s quite elegant and fit for the purpose.
(For anyone curious, it’s visualised here, if for a different purpose)
I would much rather cut out the shapes from cooky dough. Weighing them on a scale will give the precise relationship between the areas of a square and a perfectly contained circle, and can be used (when baked) to lure good christian folk to the Dark Side.
*plays Zenon Mega Blast once more to improve aim*
Yep.
I’ve been saying this every few months for many, many years now. :-)
Uh, 小 is “small” and 人 is “person”… are you sure 小人 is understood as anything as specific as “elf”?
(“Elf” was a pretty specifically English concept, too, before Tolkien spread it.)
BTW, txpiper, you said you wouldn’t post in the [Thunderdome]. What changed your mind?
Come on, that is elf squeezed into the Japanese sound system.
:-o
♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥
You know, π is the only place in all of mathematics where the diameter instead of the radius of a circle is used. I’ve often wondered about this historical artefact.
Only if you’re his colleague. If not, he’s “Teacher/Professor Myers”… where “teacher”/”professor” means “Old Master”, again containing 老.
:-D
That used to mean “lady”, “Ms”, and reportedly still does outside the PRC.
Come, come to the dork side of the farce. =8-)
Yeah, so last time I was here, people defended the issue of gay rights by making appeals to free speech and how it wasn’t any of my business what consenting adults get up to in the bedroom. But please, get off your free speech soapbox, this isn’t an issue of free speech, even though homosexuals are the most intolerant of any group screaming for tolerance, that I’ve ever seen. It’s an issue of imposing the sodomite morality, or I should say the lack of morality, on all of America.
It includes:
-taking away parental rights and authority to teach their own kids proper morality, by getting their lifestyle into the curriculum of young school kids who don’t know any better.
-giving homosexuals who are not related to children the ability to gain custody over the actual biological parents of those kids.
-giving people who believe that marriage is nothing more than a contract between two individuals who have sex with each other, the ability to redefine marriage for the entire country.
-redefining and changing the meaning of what a parent is, to falsely pretend that 2 women or 2 men can be the parents of a child.
-LGBT people have no knowledge or experience with either marriage or family, and have no clue what either means, yet they seek to impose the sodomite version of each onto the 98% of the country that aren’t in their group.
-to teach little children that it’s ok for boys to act and dress like girls, and girls like boys.
-part of their group even actively trying to get rid of age of consent laws so that pedastery and child molestation can become accepted, with the imposition of “consent” from minors.
None of this demented behavior has anything to do with free speech. It’s all about corrupting the morality of an entire country, one child at a time.
I could keep going but if this isn’t enough to sway someone away from accepting the sodomite behavior as normal then nothing will work. You’re as corrupt as they are.
Annejones, you will not like this but you are a bigot. Few LGBT people desire to restrict who are are and what you do. But you fucking well expect all LGBT people to life by the standard of your of your big sky daddy.
And this makes you a terrible person.
Sorry, I will not disappear just because you feel bad that people like me exist.
Fuck off, Anne. You’re a disgusting human being.
I did get a minor laugh out of ‘LGBT people don’t know what families are’. Obviously because gay people are grown in isolation in labs, right?
annjones:
I don’t suppose you can back any of your bigoted bullshit up with actual evidence, can you?
Ogvorbis, annejones does not need to back up shit. That fact that her religion states this is enough for her. And she is so fucking entitled, she expects the rest of us to base our life, nay, our very existence on the fragments floating in her stilted little head.
Annejones, would you kick your child out of the house if that child came out as homosexual or transgendered?
Serious fucking question.
#263 Janine – if what you’re attempting to imply is the case, then you’re an idiot. There’s no such thing as a homophobe.
#264 Talkingstove – Parents are biological. You can “play mummy and daddy” all you want. It’s still not the real thing.
#265 Ogvorbis – It’s called common sense and actually looking at the world around you. I provided a link before and you dismissed it anyway.
Actually it’s the issue of you trying to impose your babble based bigotry on people who tell you to fuck off, and if homosexuals are a problem, PROVE IT WITH EVIDENCED NOT BABBLE BASED. You know, scholarly papers from http://scholar.google.com. Or shut the fuck up.
What lifestyle that is bad, as you haven’t proven bad and all you unevidenced claims are rejected as bigoted bullshit.
Funny and fucking wrong, as they grew up in households with partents, siblings, etc. You keep ignoring evidence, and keep repeating your bigoted presuppositions, Which is why you are told to fuck off. Until you keep your babble where it belongs, in your home and your church. Not in public.
Nope, that comes from perverts who also include heterosexuals. Liar. Can’t stop your lying.
The demented behavior is your religious based bigotry, which you pretend to be morality. YOUR MORALITY. Your opinion. AS THERE IS NO THING AS ABSOLUTE MORALITY, AS YOUR DEITY IS IMAGINARY. Show otherwise with solid and conclusive physical evidence like an eternally burning bush. Or you are proving your self to be a liar and bullshit on top of being a bigot.
So you’d say that to a man and a woman who could not conceive a child and instead adopted one, would you? ‘You’re just playing mummy and daddy’?
How very Christian.
#266 Yes. Unless you can show me either that the above listed things I talked about either aren’t happening or are actually good things for society.
Who are you to say it isn’t a family. Who the fuck cares what a bigot thinks, as they don’t think. Nor do you.
We do that. But without your imaginary deity and mythical/fictional babble that contains no real morality. Since your deity approves of many things considered crimes against humanity these days.
Do you also steal candies from little kids?
Sorry but that’s not how it works annejones. You made the claims, you back them up.
With a credible source.
Ahem, exactly one person has addressed a fraction of this. Could it all be addressed please?
-taking away parental rights and authority to teach their own kids proper morality, by getting their lifestyle into the curriculum of young school kids who don’t know any better.
-giving homosexuals who are not related to children the ability to gain custody over the actual biological parents of those kids.
-giving people who believe that marriage is nothing more than a contract between two individuals who have sex with each other, the ability to redefine marriage for the entire country.
-redefining and changing the meaning of what a parent is, to falsely pretend that 2 women or 2 men can be the parents of a child.
-LGBT people have no knowledge or experience with either marriage or family, and have no clue what either means, yet they seek to impose the sodomite version of each onto the 98% of the country that aren’t in their group.
-to teach little children that it’s ok for boys to act and dress like girls, and girls like boys.
-part of their group even actively trying to get rid of age of consent laws so that pedastery and child molestation can become accepted, with the imposition of “consent” from minors.
Where I come from, Sodomie is the word for bestiality.
That’s because the Bible contradicts itself several times on what the sin of the fictional Sodom is supposed to have been.
In particular, behold Ezekiel chapter 16, because the following verses remind me a lot of you:
“16:48 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.
16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
16:50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”
This is in fact OK, yes.
There isn’t even a uniform way boys or girls act or dress, if you look around the world or across time!
So, being the kind of unbelievable asshole that kicks her own child out of the house is a good thing for society???
Do show me how that works.
I really hope annejones has no children, and that she’s not able influence any children from position of authority or any kind of familial relationship.
…Hey! I just remembered a certain story about Solomon! It involves a sword. :-)
You’d kick your daughter out of your house. You’re evil. What makes you think you can talk about morality?
LOL. The kind of marriage that is recognized by the government is nothing more than a contract – regardless of whether they ever have sex with each other, BTW. There’s nothing holy about it and never has been. The state is not a church!
That’s just another version of forgetting the story about Solomon.
What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.
Depending on the definition, it’s more like 90 %.
Show me, and I’ll oppose them 24/7. I strongly suspect you’ve made them up, though, or you’re very confused about what “their group” is.
Let me spell it out for you: informed consent is necessary, and children by definition cannot give informed consent.
Wrong. Parents will still be able to teach their children whatever bigoted hateful thing they want.
I’m sure you’re doing a great job of it.
You mean adoptions? Uh yes. It’s a good thing for children to have parents that want them and can care for them.
Individuals who love each other getting the same rights and protections as others. This is a good thing. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that the whole two people who love each other thing is a foreign concept to you.
Happens all the time and frankly more frequently. Are adopted parents, parents?
Right because no LGBT person every grew up in a family. They were all born in test tubes and raised by Gay overlord robots in boot camps.
To teach children about the reality of life in that there is more to humanity that the little predefined boxes of male and female. Teaching about reality is a good thing. But again I’m pretty sure that reality is one of those concepts that you aren’t very familiar with.
You’re going to have to expand on this, though I’m pretty sure i know what you think you are talking about.
There.
You are welcome bigot.
Here I supply some handy Asshole-to-English translations of anniejones’ complaints:
“My kid is going to know that gay people exist! Waaaahhh!!!”
“Only the people who gave the sperm and egg has the property rights over the children!”
Or, alternately: “I’d rather they have no family at all!”
“I can’t stand the thought of other people marrying who they love! Even though it doesn’t affect me in the slightest!”
“I am not content in having my family, I must tell everybody else how theirs should be! There oughta be a law!”
“These people being free to run their family differently from me is the same as they forcing me to be like them!”
“I am going to repeat a tired lie because I’m an asshole!”
that = than but you get the idea
Well everyone but annejones probably.
You mean your bigoted “morality”. Not reality.
Citation need, as this doesn’t make sense. Typical from a bigot.
Actually, it is going back to the original concept. Nothing will change. Show that states that have same sex marriage are having problems. You can’t.
Gee, WHAT PART OF THEY GREW UP IN A FAMILY AND LIKELY MOM AND DAD WERE MARRIED ARE YOU HAVING TROUBLE WITH. You lie and bullshit, as this has no basis in reality. Just your bigoted mind spewing nonsense.
That is crossdressing, not homosexuality. Just can’t stop with the bigoted and stupid lies, can you?
Since scientific evidence indicates that homosexuals are born that way, there are three logical claims:
1) Your deity doesn’t exist, and evolution has a reason for continuing homosexuality in species.
2) Your deity exists, but MADE A MISTAKE
Dang, need to finish #281 as something triggered a keystroke post.
3) Your deity exists, and uses homosexuals to teach you tolerance, and you haven’t gotten the message.
You made the assertion that they are happening. Thus it is up to you to provide actual evidence. But you will lie your way around that one, too.
Doesn’t your version of god have something to say about liars?
According to the bible, Jesus had three daddies, none of whom were his biological father.
1) The Father of the Trinity (no body, not biological) provided the sperm, presumably creating it ex nihilo.
2) The Holy Ghost of the Trinity (also no body, not biological) introduced the sperm into Mary.
3) Joseph, who did not produce the sperm that formed Jesus.
Obviously, according to annejones, God is a hideous pervert, and Jesus’s family was disgusting and unnatural.
Right, annejones?
cm @231
I’ll bet that if you ask your friend if anybody knows anything absolutely, s/he would answer in that special long-winded speak that philosophers like to engage in, which, when burnt in a crucible, then spun in a centrifuge, would come out as, “we don’t know”, or “we don’t know, but…(another long-winded, but tasty word salad.)”
From reading your “hah”, I’m surmising that your friend knows something absolutely, or you think that s/he does. So, please ask your friend the above question, give me that answer, then inform me of that thing of which your friend knows.
So, I went to that absolutely unquestioned reliability source, Wikipedia, and looked up Crispin Wright, and after pushing through the box warning about lack of citations, found the idea of “superassertibility,” which will “effectively function as a truth predicate.” (Whereby), “Assertiveness is warrant by whatever standards inform the discourse in question.” This is Wikipedia, however, and despite my sarcasm, I am grateful for, and because it’s Wikipedia, I am aware of its significant limitations.
Now that I’m all tingly with the idea of superassertibility (no sarcasm), I’m still not convinced that this is absolute truth. The definition left me the way men often leave their women – unsatisfied (sexist -yes. funny – I thought so, but that doesn’t make it alright.)
I wish that I had the time in the very near future to read the Wright book, but currently, I don’t. I do find this stuff interesting, so, a sincere thank you for the reference. I am buying the book.
Although I might imagine that he would not care for me bringing him into this, there is some interesting work on Paraconsistent logic and the principle of dialetheism, most prominently by Graham Priest at the University of Melbourne and CUNY. I’m not sure that Paraconsistent logic is valid, but that’s kinda the point. This stuff was motivated, literally, by the word, explosion. In other words, it’s pretty disruptive. I admit freely that I’m a dumbass in this field. You might take a stab and teach me something.
Thanks cm.
Since annejones latest turd, I have been getting ads for “gay without god”.
Well, I haven’t seen him for 10+ years. These days I just stalk him in Philosophia Scientiæ.
Personally, I think absolutely is probably impossible but reasonably certainly is probably OK. *shrug*
If you won’t have time, why?! Also, you could read (most of) it on Google for free, first …
Shouldn’t it be both valid and invalid at the same time? ;-)
Annejones:
This may rock your bigoted world to hear-
I am a gay man.
I was raised in a family. I have a father, mother, sister, several grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, and nephews.
I was not indoctrinated into any hate filled religion like Christianity, Mormonism, Islam or Judaism like you were.
I like having sex with other consenting adult men.
I do not believe in any supernatural deity, nor any imaginary creatures. I believe science, logic, reason and empathy are the best tools we have for making sense of and improving ourselves and the world around us.
I have no desire to steal any children, I want the right to marry the man I love and adopt children to have a family of my own.
I do not seek to eliminate the rights of anyone, even detestable shitfaces like yourself.
You do not like that.
You are a homophobe.
You are the picture perfect example of the fear and hatred of that which differs from your tribe.
Thankfully more and more people are coming to realize that your toxic views are impeding society, tread on human rights and are the reason many teenagers commit suicide.
I hope one day that you will see how wrong, hateful, and bigoted your views are.
For now, I am content to say you are an utterly disgusting human being. Moreover, you are deluded to think THIS place would be welcoming to your brand of bigotry.
Did you take a wrong turn to the Phelps website?
How persuasive.
You knowledge of homosexuality and of being transgendered is match only by your knowledge about evolution.
Annejones, you are a bigot, a fool and a terrible person.
You have not even given one reason why everyone should share in your homophobia and transphobia. None except that your imagination insist that we should.
(No. I really do not like you.)
“Gays are icky, and immoral, and just like pedophiles, and should not have the right to exist!” *handwaves* “No homophobia here!”
Of course they’re not. If we could grow them in labs we wouldn’t need to turn the childrens gay.
annejones:
Nobody has to address it. You have said that these things are true, somebody has said that they aren’t. That’s all that it takes—the game is over. YOU, annejones, the person who made the assertions, has to SHOW that they are true. If you just say, “Uh-huh!”, we get to say, “Nuh-uh.” You need to do the work, not us.
BTW, your passive-aggressive tone is a standard part of the bullshit brigade.
Parents can teach their kids anything they want, at home or in church. Schools aren’t usually in the morality business, and if they did try, the parents could still disagree. You know, like now.
What are you imagining is going to be a homosexual curriculum, anyhow? At very most, there would be boys allowed to take Home-Ec classes, and girls allowed in shop classes, which is already the case.
What? That sounds like roving bands of gays will be allowed to raid home and kidnap children, legally. At very most, the sexual orientation of a prospective adoptive parent will not be considered as grounds for refusal—improper actions that directly affect the child, such as kidnapping, will be considered. And maybe someday, religion-fueled insanity.
Nobody believes that marriage is just a sex contract. Way to poison the well with your wrongness, weirdo.
Ceasing to deprive same-sex couples of the right right to marry will not redefine marriage for anyone else.
What is the definition of marriage, anyhow? Who defined it, and where is it written in law? (Notice that a lot of people are bustling around trying to define marriage their way, by making constitutional amendments and all—a blatant admission that marriage isn’t presently defined the way that they think it is.)
I am the parent of a child that is no blood relation to me, at all. The presence and gender of any other parent does not affect that one bit. (That kid thanked three “fathers” on Fathers Day, for what it’s worth.)
Also in my family is a person whose biological father had no knowledge of their child’s existence. Also there are a few parents with no parenting skills at all.
So, what EXACTLY are the parents of a child? Define your terms precisely, show where that definition is legally valid, and prove that everything else is a failure.
Heh. There’s a good chance that one of the parents in one of the mommy-and-daddy marriages that you personally know is actually gay or lesbian. Or bi. Or trans-something or other. Or, and this has nothing to do with gender preference, a child-molesting freakshow. Certainly the people that you know, annejones, are child-beaters and emotional-abusers.
Nobody is going to impose anything new on other folks. The hope is that crazy fucktards will no longer be able to impose their religious-but-nonscriptural craziness on the rest of the country. Especially people stupid enough to think that gay people know nothing of family. ESPECIALLY people who think that gay children must be expelled from their families.
Again, to cease to teach that it is wrong to dress and act the way you feel is right for yourself. To stop letting crazy folks make the rules. To stop with the shame and the hate.
To get caught up to this century, annejones.
Group? Where’s the group? Thanks for using a broad brush, there. Making everyone who is different from you out to be a raging sicko is very Christian.
Yeah, there are men who want to have sex with little boys. There are also men who want to have sex with little girls, and some who just want little children. Many of those men are married to women, and have children in their homes.
Think about this, in your warped worldview: Allowing same-sex couples to marry would reduce the number of frustrated gay men, wouldn’t it?
Annejones, you are warped, and whoever you get your craziness from is warped, too. Your hateful and delusional views are strongly religious, and aren’t supported either by your book or by reality.
Now say a big thank you to all the people who took time to address something they need not have bothered with.
Learn some logic, some honesty, and some courtesy.
And learn to spell pederasty.
@annejones
Let’s use our Common Sense to answer the following:
There are three things moving in the exact same direction, taking off at the exact same time. Me, traveling at 60 miles per hour. Annejones traveling at 600,000 miles per hour, And a beam of light traveling at just over 186,000 miles per hour (if it’s easier, imagine the beam of light to be a Zurich trolleycar). Now, according to annejones, would the beam of light be moving away from annejones:
1.) slower than it does to me
2.) faster than it does to me
Now, because this is an absurdly easy Common Sense question that could be answered by ANY ‘merican 6th grader without resorting to a book, I’m guessing that you won’t need a reference either, ’cause, after all, it’s Common Sense. We’ll get back to this a little later….
Next…
Please believe this when I say that there are many people – me, especially – who don’t want to live in a society based upon the edicts and ideas of your god. Some of them – like me – are literally willing to fight and kill people in wars to keep this from happening. Some of them – like PZ – are not. PZ, Martin Luther King and Gandhi may be right about their strategy, but I’m not as convinced. Anyway, if someone wanted to force a gay child of mine into a concentration camp to be re-trained into a straight person, I’m pretty sure there would be a tussle. Now, I’m not saying that you would do this, but I do think your worldview could easily lead to this as well as a whole bunch of other tussle-inducing actions. The reason I think this is because of your stance on gay marriage, for instance. If my sister wants to live with a woman, love and commit to that woman, have that woman bear a child through insemination to be raised jointly by my sister, and then you came along and forced them apart and took the child away – there’d be a tussle.
I want a society that allows me an optimum amount of freedom in my life. Not one that says I can commit genocide if my god says that I should (Yup, it’s in the Bible, as I’m sure you know.)
One other thing that may blow your mind…
I, and many others, would not want to live in any conception of Heaven that you or your god could invent. Really.
So, you think to yourself, that is so sad, but the boy is going to Hell.
YAHOO!!! I’m sure that I’d make the right choice if freely given. So, let me sincerely say this one simple prayer:
Dear Lord,
May you strike me dead and cast me into the fiery pit of indescribable torment, pain and constipation FOREVER. Please do it now, oh impotent one. Right now. Please God, I’m begging you. Kill me in a very painful way as a sincere answer to my prayer, so that others can learn from my foolishness, because only a fool wouldn’t believe in a God. Don’t just forsake me, place me into the hands of Satan. I’m still waiting…I’m still waiting…OK, I’m still waiting, but I have other stuff to do, I guess. Like love people.
By the way, God, if I was God, I wouldn’t let anybody suffer torment forever, whether they claimed they wanted it or not, but then, I’m not quite as righteous as you, I guess.
So, do you have a Common Sense answer to that question from above? It is a pretty damn simple one to answer by simply using Common Sense. Don’t be tricked into thinking this is a trick question – it is not. Your God won’t let you down. I promise that a quick prayer and nothing else but the good Common Sense that the Lord provided you will give you the exact answer. So, answer number one or number two. Remember that to ask ANYBODY ELSE or to CONSULT A BOOK OR REFERENCE EXCEPT THE BIBLE is an insult to the Lord, Our God, because it will be a clear demonstration of your lack of faith in his ability to provide a Common Sense answer.
Let’s say, beforehand, that you get the answer wrong. Then you probably just didn’t have enough FAITH. So, be careful. FAITH is the key. FAITH is trusting the unseen. FAITH is knowing that the Lord will provide the answer.
Certainly Annejones.
So the “Gay Agenda” is taking away your right to be a bigot? Oh heavens no! But seriously Annejones your views are horribly bigoted and intolerant. Also just because a child may be taught that some men like other men in school does not mean you cannot try to mold their young minds to hate and fear The Gay.
I hope you mean adoption by this because the way you phrase it you (probably intentionally) make it sound like gays are going around kidnapping children. Studies have shown that Gay parents and Straight parents who are identical in other attributes are identical in terms of outcome. If you are throwing a fit about children being adopted by gay parents then you actually DO NOT care about the children because to try and stop gay adoption is to try to keep them from possible parents and therefore leave them out in the cold. Fuck you Annejones.
The concept of Monogamous marriage is actually a new thing in the history of humanity, even in the bible marriage was less about love and more about cementing family alliances and consolidating power. And you also (probably intentionally) misconstrue what the “Gay Agenda” wants to change marriage to. The “Gay Agenda” wants to change the “Definition of marriage” from “A loving committed relationship between one man and one woman” to “A loving committed relationship between two adults”. If you have a problem with that new definition it is because you a homophobic bigot.
Why can’t they be the parents of the child? People in the thread have already answered your magical belief that the biological parents are automatically the best. There is absolutely nothing that says that 2 men or 2 women can’t be perfectly fine adopted parents except for your own bigotry.
This made me laugh. LGBT people have no idea how to be parents? The same is true of most Heterosexual people. Also LGBT people weren’t grown on a gay cornstalk you know, they have parents and families as well. It is telling though that you try and denigrate gays as “Sodomites” which demonstrates both that you don’t know your own bible and that you see gays only in terms of sex which is probably an unhealthy complex.
Why isn’t it? Gender roles are created by culture, people are acculturated to dress certain ways. Should culture change so that these roles are not as rigidly enforced I would have no objections. Once again your bigotry is showing.
Oh the old Gays as Pedophiles slander. Fuck you and your bigoted shitness Annejones. The big scary “Gay Agenda” is just as repulsed and opposed to NAMBLA as you are, even more so because fuckwits like you keep resolutely pounding at the drum to tar them with the same brush.
Now for some of your other choice quotes…
You did provide a link, but it was to a gay activist explaining how to make a bigoted culture less bigoted. Nowhere did you show that gays are evil child snatching Fae who want to rape babies and destroy all heterosexual marriages. In fact what you called “Common sense” appears to me to just be scared hateful bigotry Until I’m catapulted into the parallel universe where this is true you have not supported your case in the slightest.
You also called gays the “the most intolerant of any group screaming for tolerance” which is absolutely pathetic. You’re seriously playing the “You aren’t tolerant of my intolerance!” card? No, when someone calls you intolerant for being intolerant it isn’t intolerance, it’s telling it like it is. You are a homophobic bigot Annejones, there is no better descriptor for someone who would disown their own child for being gay. Fuck you.
Speaking only for myself, I do not want anyone willing to fight and kill in war advocating for any human rights.
Fuck you Barfy.
So, what goes on in here? Oh. Homophobic paranoia. How disappointing.
The desperate pearl-clutching over “redefining” marriage is always entertaining. Don’t worry, y’all can define your marriage however you want to. Nothing’s really being redefined anyway. Marriage is still the same contract it ever was, we’re just changing which people may enter into it together.
If the thought of something being “redefined” puts your underwear in such a twist, then you can do something useful and join me on the front lines of the war against redefining the word “literally”.
Annejones, would you support the State taking the rights of marriage away from heterosexual partners who remain childless? Would you ban widows and widowers from remarrying? Would you ban marriages between people not of your religious persuasion? Atheists even? Because if your definition of marriage is all about making babbies then many people already legally married aren’t fitting your crazy standards.
Please note, annejones, marriage currently is a right granted by the State and is not owned by your church. In reality it is about taxation and property inheritance and has nothing to do with how many children you are required to bear. All that gay people seek is to be included in the definition of marriage. They don’t seek to supplant your simple minded concept of marriage. Your favourite kind of marriage will still be legal.
Annejones, no bigoted delusional godbot has answered this question satisfactory me, so mayby you could elucidate:
How does the Redhead’s cousin marrying his long time partner hurt the 40 year marriage of the Redhead and myself? DIRECT HURT IS REQUIRED. The verbal gymnastics are always funny, but usually the question is ignored. Which means you know the answer, but don’t like it.
@annejones
Please explain how a school curriculum prevents you from teaching your child your perspective on morality.
Do you think it should be accepted as a principle that anything that anyone objects to should be removed from the curriculum? Or are you just asking that your personal opinion should be given preference over all others?
How is that different from giving heterosexuals who are not related to children the ability to gain custody over the actual biological parents of those kids?
Remember, if you simply refer back to the fact that they’re homosexual, you’re again asking that your opinion should count for more than anyone else’s.
You can have whatever definition you want. It just can’t be the legally binding one. If you think it should be, you need to explain why you think your definition should trump that of other people.
Legally speaking, marriage is a contract. Spiritually speaking, we don’t give a shit and you don’t get to ram your religion down other people’s throats.
That’s not a redefinition. First, the idea of non-biological parents go way back. Hell, it’s even in the bible. Remember Moses, the adoptee?
Second, if you think that gender should be such a big deal, you once again need to explain why your opinion should count for more than mine. I am of the opinion that how the parents treat the child is somewhat more important than their gender.
Neither do most brides, grooms or first-time parents.
No imposition. Allowing other people to live life how they want is not an imposition on you unless you’re an intolerable asshole, who can’t keep her big, fat nose out of other people’s lives.
Are you an asshole, Anne?
Not sure what that has to do with gay rights, but I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that you don’t know the difference. Still, you’re entitled to teach your children otherwise. That’s right, you’re legally entitled to each your children to be every bit as bigoted as yourself.
You’re just not entitled to require everybody else to agree with you.
Feel free to give an example of a mainstream gay rights organization that takes that position. I think you’ll find that the NAMBLA crowd is a distinct minority and a not very well-reputed one.
And, for the record, the fact that you even tried to make this argument moves you from the category of “clueless” to “vicious, lying shitstain.” Fuck me, you’re a revolting character.
Seriously? “Imposing the sodomite morality”? Getting kids to accept that gay people aren’t inherently evil is “taking away parental rights” and is opposed to “proper morality”? There are no such thing as non-biological parents? A magical, un-named definition marriage that is somehow, in some unspecified manner, more than a social contract between two people who love ( or, as anne sez, “have sex with”) each other? A “sodomite version” of family? That is somehow “imposed” on every single straight person? Bringing up a discussion of gender appropriate clothing into a discussion of gay marriage ? And, of course, bringing pedophilia into the discussion?
God fucking dammit, of course annejones would deny that homophobia is a thing. She has re-enterred this thread with one of the most bigotted screeds I have seen on the subject in a long while. Every fucking harebrained, hateful, wingnut talking point, all presented with the same venom, contempt, and paranoia of every gleeful homophobe.
Sure, anne, homophobia doesn’t exist. The spittle-flecked irrational hatred that you share with so many is just one of many irrational hatreds that just doesn’t have a name. We just shouldn’t bother to futilely label a special, unique little bigot-snowflake like yourself. Even though it seems, to our mere mortal eyes, that you are spewing the same shit as every other asshole, you are obviously an asshole without peer, whose shit is artfully distinguished from all the rest.
annejones:
It’s interesting that AnneJones doesn’t use the word “responsibility” there. And there is no mention of the children’s rights. All that matters is that the parents can do what they want to do to little people under their control (what if they want to have sex with the kids?). Authority and ownership, and the assumption that they have “proper morality” all figured out.
There’s also the assumption that the kids will never change from that teaching, and that young kids who don’t know any better can be indoctrinated for life, and never change. AnneJones and many other conservatives certainly live that way—they get hit shovelled into their heads in Sunday School, and they never think about it, and they never change. For the rest of their lives they are hateful, confused children, followers of the loudest blowhard they can give their money to.
Smart people don’t live like that. They consider what they know, they check for truth, and they don’t follow authorities. They grow up and they change their minds—usually once on a topic, and in one direction; toward truth. They don’t flip from cult to cult, they don’t vogue, they don’t worship.
When AnneJone’s argument depends on people being gullible sheep, she’s pretty much conceded that she is a sheep.
Speaking of sheep, the whole anti-gay game is sometimes supposedly based on common sense and the good of the nation all, but it really is driven by religion—everybody in the game is a Christian and using religious tactics, which isn’t well hidden. What is well hidden is that the Christian Bible has nothing in it against homosexuality. As usual, the preachers are preaching nonsense and earning profits, and the people are following false prophets.
*offtopic*
Seriously, Department of Why Was I Not Informed About This Before?
Frank Zappa plays the bicycle.
Zappa at his earliest
Most plangent.
Also, least moustached.
I’m going to bed.
“What is well hidden is that the Christian Bible has nothing in it against homosexuality”
After noting that my sins are no better than anyone else’s, I have to ask, are you just repeating something someone told you? You are quite wrong in your statement.
I rarely ever discuss this subject (and don’t intend to now) mostly because the exchanges quickly become rancid, as illustrated above. But in my view, the whole marriage deal is more about money than it is anything else. There is nothing keeping people from having a ceremony, wearing rings, setting up household and calling themselves married.
There are also other up and coming problems, and leave it to clowns in academia to lead the charge:
http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517
@Tony
DOUBLE FUCK YOU, Tony. And, just what do you mean by “Fuck you”? Are you saying that you want to fuck me. I’ve never had a man (I’m assuming that’s your identity, but I could be wrong – either way, no problem) , but I might consider it if it was for charity, enough money was involved (I’m thinking six figures), a sizeable portion of which came from you so that I understood your sincerity, and you were the one doing the fucking. There would have to be some ground rules, like no kissing on the mouth (I would be a whore for charity, after all) and the use of protection, and nothing painful (but I can get playful). Unfortunately, I can’t promise much in that I am fairly old, overweight and out of shape, but if you’re OK with seeing me in my underwear and not laughing, I’ll be game. Think of the possibilities. Even though I would insist on being anonymous, you could advertise “SIX-FIGURE FUCK FOR PEACE!” or “PACIFIST FUCK FEST”. Hey, that’s a damn good idea, now that I think of it. Why don’t you organize a pacifist fuck fest. You can take all the credit, cause, no, I’m not a pacifist, yet. But, you’re enlightening “fuck you” could be just the spark I may need to convert me. Or your love. Or your prowess in the bedroom. Something might work, because I really would like to be a pacifist. (I really would – no sarcasm)
I guess some of the things that hold me back are those little peccadillos like American slavery and the Rape of Nanking and dictators gassing their own people. But, wait, you’ve got the answer! You could fuck em. That would change people’s minds. How come I never thought of that. Coming is the answer. Great big gobs of syrupy come will most certainly change the minds of the warmongers. So, next time, when I’m considering the amazing work of people like Martin Luther King, I’ll just say, maybe he could have sponsored, “fuck a racist if you want to change their minds”.
It’s funny, cause when I do consider the work of Martin Luther King, I actually have been thinking that there may be a better way to fight evil and tyranny than violence, and that maybe I’m wrong, but when you say, “fuck you” , how could I not find that an enticing proposition? I get all hot just thinking it. Plus, I would have the added bonus of marching arm in arm in protest with a person who wants to do a whole lot more than holding hands.
Of course if you don’t mean it, am I supposed to take it as an admonition against violence that starts me on the path to pacifism, especially when I’m genuinely waffling myself? How could I not want to align myself with such a reasoned and patient argument? Bad Barfy. I need to recognize intelligence when I see it. Your “fuck you” was pure genius. So, I most heartily agree to give it back to you, and then some…Double Fuck You, Tony!
barfy:
My “fuck you”* is meant to denote that I have nothing but contempt and scorn for you and that I wish you would get lost.
You are talking about fighting and killing people in the name of *ANYTHING* as if that is going to make the world a better place.
Your response to annejones comes from a place of violence and barbarism that exists in opposition to Humanism.
Your position is reprehensible, and is part of the problem humanity faces: overcoming these violent tendencies and working towards a better future. One devoide of violence as a solution for anything and one that values humanity, rather than treating some humans as disposable and worthy of death.
I wasn’t fully certain of your douchiness before.
I am now.
You have proven yourself to be dishonest, and not interested in engaging in honest conversation. I am done with your stupid ass. Would that my phone had a killfile.
*this ridiculous game you are attempting to play with words might pass elsewhere, but it isn’t working here. You have encountered “fuck you” before, and fully know what it means. To try and construe this into some of sort of invititation to sex is just plain stupid.
You would do well to discontinue the use of “whore” here as well.
txpiper:
Fully citation for where the bible speaks about homosexuality. Not just “men laying with men”, but homsexuality, you bigoted christian shitstain.
We are waiting.
@annejones.
Oh, darn. I just re-read my comment at #293, I just realized that I royally screwed up.
The beam of light is moving at just over 186,000 miles per SECOND. I’m genuinely sorry if that messed you up.
My bad.
“Fully citation for where the bible speaks about homosexuality”
What for? I thought you were a happy, well-adjusted atheist? Never mind. I’ll comply, but only to show you that the citation is available in any translation you might choose. Is the NIV okay?
http://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:22-28&version=NIV
Since the lifestyle in question is no more or less moral than the sunshine and daisies lifestyle, the question of it being in the curriculum of school children has zero impact of any kind on parents teaching their children morality, period.
These disgustingly immoral screeds by annejones, on the other hand, do vividly demonstrate that the one thing which DOES interfere with parental “rights” to teach their own children the “proper” morality of their preference, and which therefore should never be allowed in any school curriculum, is annejones’ immoral bible.
Bravo, annejones, bravo! You continue to perform well as one of atheism’s more useful propaganda organs.
I…I didn’t know.
wow
Not knowing or caring about the individual in question or their circumstances (They might be some fake ally, they may be gay, etc), the problem humanity faces is not really that marginalized individuals exhaust their patience and seek to return to violence to obtain the just cause they seek. PAcificism is great. I am one – but the single most aggravating thing about calls for nonviolence is that they are disproportionately aimed at people with greater cause to be violent.
Use form letters less, you dishonest hack. Free Speech didn’t have shit to do with this place – it’s a nonsequitor in gay rights.
I know you idiots forget this, but half of us? Are women. ‘sodomy’ ain’t got shit to do with this. More to the point, are gay people putting a gun to your head and telling you to get married to another gay person? If not, you’re not really seeing imposition.
So it was okay to take away parental rights and authority to teach their children that being gay was normal, but now that y’all are recognized as wrong, you’re ALL FOR individual parental authority? Fucking hypocritical assholes. This ain’t about parental authority – this is about you not wanting your kids to hear shit from the schools about how being gay’s fine. You’re still free to be the pigheaded asshole you are in teaching them that it’s wrong though.
And? That’s fine when straight people do it – It’s not like we invented the concept of adoption.
See, this is just being childish. You could try to claim that two women can’t parent well, but they most certainly can parent. You’re this dry on arguments, aren’t you?
Factually inaccurate. Many of us are married to the love of our lives right now. Nearly all of us grew up in a family (as opposed to what? Wolves?) Heck, even if you’re stupid enough to only accept straight marriage… lots of gay people *were in straight marriages*. They weren’t happy. So were bi people (Although most of them probably were happy.)
And the problem with that would be…?
Citation or it didn’t happen. You’ve lied to my face repeatedly about my own goals as well as my own arguments, so if you can’t put some proof up, shut up. That said, there probably are gay people evil enough to call for it. Problem is, they’re outnumbered by the straight people who call for it.
Oh word, you found out my plans? Did you catch me lounging on my chair, petting my white kitty too? My secrets, they’re out!
FFS. I want gay people to have rights, and gay, bi, and trans kids to grow up happy with themselves. Nothing more, and nothing less. It’s not a disease we can spread, ya jackass.
I am they. Gimme your best shot, tough gal.
Most gay men don’t lay down with men like they do with women – because they don’t lay down with women at all. Problem solved!
Yeah!
I win!!!!!!
Tony has tecognized his emotional immaturity!
Tony wants to killfile me. That’s the Pharyngula equivalent of eating Thanksgiving dinner at the children’s table.
So, Tony joins Caine at the children’s table. When Tony and Caine are grown up enough to actually engage at a more adult level, I’m here.
Just like children, they are good at name calling, running away and throwing tantrums.
Oh, well. I have hope for both of them.
It’s correct if “Christian Bible” is limited to the four gospels. I note that the citation you offer is from the epistles.
Money, property inheritance, medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, conferring of citizenship to foreign spouses, and default child custody. I may have forgotten one or two things.
So what?
That doesn’t look like an objection. Are you offering grudging libertarian approval for same-sex marriage?
Bleh. Pedophilia is obviously more like heterosexuality than homosexuality. Who is more different from — heteros — any adult than a child?
No, it is the equivalent of wanting to continue reading this blog without seeing your comments.
txpiper:
I see nothing in your link about homosexuality. There are comments about men laying with men, but the most likely agreed upon definition of that would be same-sex sex. Homosexuality encompasses much more than sexual attraction.
TxPiper, we weren’t asking for advice from the Bible for our own enlightenment, we were asking you for what your book says that your regard as justification for your hatred toward homosexuals. You went where I thought you’d go, and you surely put your foot in it. This is what you linked to (with my bolds a few places):
Romans 1:22-28 (New International Version):
Who are they? No, that’s trivial. Or is it?
False wisdom would be things like claiming to know what God means—you might take that as a warning, religious people. Scientists do not claim to be wise, by the way—they check and double check to be sure they aren’t fooling themselves.
It’s a verse the Christians use to bludgeon science, and it backfires horribly. Of course, they don’t realize that.
See, idol worship. Scientists don’t worship anything. (I like that “mortal human being” sounds a lot like Jesus.)
This is still slamming some religious people for following a false religion. How will they be punished?
God gave them the gay. Well, they already had it—the way he made them—and God cut them loose to the desires they had, the desires he had made them with. God gave them.
I always like this one.
Most Christians have lost the truth about God. Most don’t read the Bible, most don’t read well, most agree that there are false prophets all around, most Christians agree that most other Christians are wrong, and are following a lie. Most Christians have exchanged the truth about god for a lie.
Most Christians worship and serve the created thing they call the Bible. They carry it, they thump it, they thumb it. There’s a word for that: “Bibliolatry”. God didn’t make the Bible, men created it, and men now read it instead of communicating directly with God. When you prefer your man-made book to the voice of God, you are most unwise.
If there is homosexuality in the world, Christians, it is God-sent, and it is your fault. Hey, it’s in your book.
Notice that the women finally get some recognition—damn, the Bible is patriarchal—but it doesn’t say what they did. (I hope it’s oral sex. God, I love oral.)
Okay, maybe that “same way” means that the previous verse refers to women doing homosex, but I argue that it means that they got the gay the same way—from God’s giving it to them.
“Were inflamed with lust” which was given by God.
“Shameful acts”? Why does it not say “hell-worthy” or “death-deserving”? It just says “shameful”. Which acts in particular are shameful? Why be ashamed? Is shame the point? Is shame the punishment? Are we done?
They “received in themselves the due penalty for their error”. That really sounds like doing gay sex is only an error, not a mortal sin, and is its own punishment. What else can be the “due punishment”, than, if God is satisfied? Yeah, maybe it’s meaning they get Hell later, but it really sounds like God was done, and anybody claiming otherwise is exchanging the truth of God.
One of the lies Christians believe, incidentally, is Hell—it really isn’t in the book, it’s just something they like to believe in. So God is probably done with the gays, here, and not planning to pop them into a place that he never made.
“They did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God”. You know waht that sounds like? It sounds like they didn’t bother to remember what God said, and to talk with him, they just plunked it all down in a book and carried that around. They retained nothing, and God gave them over to depravity—depravity of the mind.
“They do what ought not to be done”. Well, there’s a clear statement, finally, isn’t there? No! It’s a total change of subject. Notice that the verse starts with “Furthermore”. It’s a new topic, not the gay, and whatever it is, God gave them over to it, just like God gave the gay. And again, it’s just something that ought not be done, it isn’t an abomination before the Lord.
This bit of Romans is the most-often used part of the Bible when slagging the alternatively-gendered, and it is a steaming pile of claiming to be wise.
There’s a lot of gay around Jesus and his friends, and between David and Jonathan, but I’m going to stop here. Romans doesn’t say what TxPiper thinks it says. It does say he’s a fool.
Yes, nothing is stopping people from calling themselves married, aside from getting official state recognition for that marriage or all the legal benefits that come from that, such as spousal privilege in court, getting joint parental rights (including rights with stepchildren, adopted children, etc.), or something as minor as getting information and getting to make the big decisions when your spouse winds up in the E.R . Or, as you put it, “money”. “It’s All Just Words And A Piece Of Paper, Dude” is a very nice tactic to use. It’s just another way of defending Troo Heterosexual Marriage by ignoring what marriage actually entails in real life.
Oh, and that fucking article. Jesus fuck.
-That article selectively quotes in order to characterize B4U-Act as an organization attempting to define away pedophilia or something because they focus on combating the stigma associated with it. But you could always just check the organization’s FAQ:
Basically, their belief is:
1. You don’t help children by demonizing people attracted to the children.
2. Attraction to children shouldn’t be stigmatized, but acting on that attraction shouldn’t be accepted.
-Bit of a quotemine of this article. . It makes a big deal out of “overstated” from the sentence right after “That is, the findings of the current review should not be construed to imply that CSA never causes intense harm for men or women-clinical research has well documented that in specific cases it can.”
( Notable though : The tone of that article is questionable, and that article did cause quite a controversy at the time, and the APA’s statement on the matter was to clarify that their position is that child sexual abuse is harmful and that to condemn some of the language and conclusions of the piece. And, of course, there has been tons of debate about the methodology and conclusions as well. Almost making it a tad dishonest to bring it up in the first place.)
-Article complains that hate crime law might protect pedophiles. You know, for being assaulted for being attracted to children. The relevant quote specifically mentions that this protection should be available for all “‘philias”. The correct response to all of this is “good”. But I’m sure not wanting to let people get beaten into a pulp for having the wrong attractions is simply an unfathomable position to a drooling creationist wingnut.
-They mention this article because it calls pedophilia “a sexual orientation and unlikely to change” but neglects to make much note of the very first, italicized sentence of the article: “There is no cure, so the focus is on protecting children.” In the first paragraph also: “The goal of treatment, therefore, is to prevent someone from acting on pedophile urges …But neither is as effective for reducing harm as preventing access to children, or providing close supervision.”
Oh my, it is almost as if that disrupts the narrative!
-They talk about a retired professor speaking to Parliament. The transcript is here. They take quotes of the professor saying that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and thus hard to change as yet more evidence of the thesis (“Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits.”) Of course, again…
txpiper, you are either full of shit or you are credulous dumbass on yet another of various topics.
The texpip quoting something which doesn’t say what he thinks/pretends it says?
How shocking!
Yes, because pushing a button to not be bothered by the inane comments of one among the hundreds or so commenters here is just like moving oneself from one table to a smaller table populated by children. What a fucking ego for a man named after vomit. I assume if you were on a T.V. infomercial, selling your patented Upchucker, and someone changed the channel, you would storm into their home and chastise their actions as analogous to running away from a fight.
Okay, even if this were true, why should straight people get more money? It’s not like more children is in the country’s best interests – if anything, fewer is.
That said, your view is laughably wrong. Part of it is so that the next generation of gay people doesn’t have to have jackasses yelling in their faces about how they’re not married when they show off their rings with their spouse. Part of it is so that we can’t be kept apart by morality clauses stating you can only live with your husband or wife (This is still a thing, fyi). Part of it is for peace of mind (FYI, it’s insanely difficult to get a ‘stranger’, which is what a frightening number of hospitals consider a same-sex SO to be, in on medical procedures – that’s critical in an emergency.) Part of it is so that they have a stronger position for their husband or wife to get a green card. Joint deduction filing might be on one person’s mind, but it’s waaaaaaaaay beneath all the other benefits and recognitions straight people have with their marriages that assholes like you try to minimize.
barfy:
And herein lies the problem.
Where have I read all that banal bigotry of annejones before? 10 Reasons to Oppose Marriage Equality.
…
Kewl! Three chewtoys in the Thunderdome at one time. We should rig up a cage match.
Moved from Scroobius Pip speaks,
Johnny Vector
Sorry, you’re right: infrastructure is not included. But:
You think those for airports are trivial? It’s true that infrastructure is a larger proportion of rail energy costs than of air, but one also has to factor in the direct energy costs and transport infrastructure energy costs necessary to get to airports: both Oxford and Edinburgh airports are several miles outside the town.
gillt,
Here’s the link.
If you were that strapped for cash, surely you’d go by the cheapest mode, or even not go at all.
Hey, barfy, since you’re so good at analogies…what’s the pharyngula equivalent of the host at a Thanksgiving dinner party getting so exasperated with the arrogant jerk haranguing all his other guests that he grabs the jerk by the scruff of the neck and throws him out the front door? I’m sure there’s something similar we do here, I just can’t think of it right now.
Oh look, Nick, PZ is here. Will you check to make sure that he uses appropriate transport when traveling? I mean, if he won’t, maybe he just shouldn’t go to any conferences… or is it that his time is too valuable but gillt can travel longer or just stay home?
I am making a tone argument, I know, but the way you approached gillt irritated me.
Beatrice,
A reasonable point, but I have in fact raised it with PZ in the past. Also, short-haul air travel, where there are practicable alternatives, is a particularly glaring example of “fuck the environment”, which irritates me.
I do wonder what PZ’s “carbon footprint” is. Probably equivalent to that of some small Pacific island nations.
Nick,
I wonder what my carbon footprint is? Last year, going to and from forest fires (combined burned acreage of over 300,000 acres on those three fires) which involved 17 airplane flights, a majority of them of less than 400 miles (major airport to feeder airport (or vice versa)). Plus vehicle transportation (four wheel drive truck on all three fires). Sure, I wish I could travel by train to and from these fires, but, just as PZ (and everyone else here), my time is valuable. Especially when I am in pay status (which includes travel to and from fires). So am I also fucking the environment?
Of course you are.
As is everybody else using the “my time is valuable” excuse, even if true.
As is everybody on the east coast with their air conditioners running right now.
As am I, every time I start my Jeep.
Own it.
Ogvorbis,
Actually, if you’ve prevented many trees burning, you’re probably in credit! Getting to forest fires in order to extinguish them is likely one of the few cases in which the time saved by flying outweighs the excess CO2. (Yes, in case anyone’s goign to raise the point, I do know that the trees will eventually burn or rot, in most cases, but keeping the carbon locked up an extra couple of decades is worthwhile.)
As ChasCPeterson says, we all do our bit to fuck the environment. Just as we are all to some extent racist, sexist, etc. Does that mean we should never raise the issue of personal responsibility?
No air conditioner. Don’t own it.
As for my time, do you really think that the federal government would spring for me to spend 40 hours travelling (at my normal hourly rate (or overtime for normal lieu days or over 8 hours))? When I talk about time being valuable, there is more than one meaning.
My electricity usage is, for a house my size, in the bottom 2%. My natural gas usage, for a house my size, is in the bottom 5% (and that’s with old windows and minimal insulation). We have a gas dryer and choose not to use it.
Just because someone travels as part of his or her job does not mean that person is clueless about his or her carbon footprint.
So yeah, I am a Wasteroo.
IIRC, someone else commented on the ‘Dome link in the sidebar recently. I am having the same issue. I get sent to the last iteration, rather than the current.
@PZ
“haranguing” is often in the eye of the beholder.
Obviously, I don’t know the definition that you use. Please define it.
I promise that I will abide by the definition – all that I humbly ask is, that if it is applied to me, then please apply it with equal weight to everybody else.
But, if it’s just that you don’t like the content of what I argue, you’ve got to make a case more than, “Barfy, you’re a fucking idiot.”
Tell me the rules I’ve broken.
Or, make up some more rules, all I ask is that you apply them to everyone.
What I think, is that you find me tedious (fair enough, I try not to be repetitive, but I do honestly try to address the issues at hand. But that also includes tone trolling, name calling, derogatory comments and tantrums), argumentative ( it takes one to know one), and most egregiously in your eyes, I am absolutely unafraid of you or your minions name calling and insults. Don’t like my name calling and insults, fine. But, don’t then pretend like you’ve created a level playing field of discourse.
When you sense that I don’t like you or people like Caine, you are wrong. Dead wrong.
What I find highly objectionable is when you claim the word “Freethought”, define it in a video, and then proceed not to live up to it. It IS a mighty claim. I freely admit a policeman’s role – similar to the one you might claim in science education. Don’t blow it now.
I get that you want to protect the integrity of the Thunderdome from hijacking by me. I get that you sense some of your favorite commenters clicking out of good discussions because I am a part of them. I get that you think that I shouldn’t be allowed to set or develop ‘rules’ especially for a thread such as this.
BUT
You set the rules, not me. You make the claim “Freethought”, not me. It’s your role to live by your settings, or you become nothing better than the creationist/religious hypocrites that you decry.
It is sad, but clear, the implied threat of your comment – the Banhammer is poised.
But strike it down, and you’ve just proven all of my objections. If you allow me to continue, I promise that I will be just as vigorous as I have been in all of my comments – and will be especially vigilant towards any hypocrisy directed at me.
I will also follow all of the rules.
I will also point out when those rules are unequally applied.
I don’t want to be banned, but if I am, please know that there are no hard feelings. I’ll just be watching, waiting and hoping for you to grow up.
And you show here that you haven’t the slightest idea what the term means. No, it does not mean you get to say whatever you want, wherever you want, you ignorant fuckwit.
Annejones: I assume you think it’s ok if two women raise a child if it’s a widow and her mother. (Unless you think it’s better to force a widow to remarry.) What difference does it make, then, if a child is raised by the birth mother and the woman she loves?
Barfy: Is it your goal to run the regulars out of the conversation?
Protip: Freethought =/= freeze peach.
1) Correct
2) How? The most passive of people could still recognize an argument, and the ones perpetuating it.
3) Aside, I find it amusing when I see alternation between trolls whining about others reading into their motives and trolls whining about our supposed motives.
4) Do you understand that many of us feel contempt for you? Yes? Then the insults worked. “Fear” had nothing to do with it.
5) I, for one, like your insults. They betray hipocrasy and ad hoc thinking in your reasoning, and it makes me laugh.
Oh, you like Caine and PZ, but having nothing nice to say about them; you whine in a long tl;dr about PZ’s hipocrasy instead. Christ on a stick, man.
How so? Claims without justification have little merrit.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one. And here are some excerpts from The New Rules for the whiny self-important shitweasel who apparently has only the flimsiest grasp of actually everything they upon their yap about:
It also mentions something about “motor-mouths” but that might not technically apply. However, I do also recall that insipidity and stupidity are bannable offenses. You can cry all you want about unfairness and Rules, but The Rules are intentionally flexible and have always boiled down to the following principle: You only get to comment here if you don’t regularly disrupt conversations and/or annoy PZ. He is a patient but fickle overlord. And I would advise that simultaneously whining and chastising him is not a good way to prove your point, much less avoid the banhammer.
Just out of curiosity, did Ms. Jones ever answer my question from a long ago drive by and dump about just what she meant about “I’m not superduper mean to gay people”? Because I’m still waiting for an answer.
Caine:
No, I don’t believe so.
Of course, annejones is not fond of answering *any* questions.
Tony:
Damn. I have been beyond patient on that score.
Yes, I know. She seems to think her hit ‘n’ run technique is a winner.
So I found out today that instilling gender essentialism and sexist stereotypes into a 3 year old totally isn’t sexism.
Now, I like Ally. I do. He’s a good writer, and he seems to actually care. I think some of his criticisms are applied too broadly, but off the top of my head, that’s all I really don’t like. Maybe there’s more I’m forgetting.
A good chunk of his regulars are fucking idiots, though.
Didn’t Schala used to hang out here and have a clue? It’s really weird to see him being an asshole.
Ah, never mind, that was Shala. I was getting mixed up whether or not he’d properly named himself after the Chrono Trigger character or not again.
When you grow up, you will rue that statement Cricket.
The rules being unequally applied is part of the rules. It’s right there in thecommenting rules. This is not a new development.
Inspector Clouseau?
Lt. Drebin?
Hey, at least inspector Clouseau gets shit done.
Only by accident, though. ;-)
—
I’ve never really watched the PP films, it’s just pure coincidence (and maybe a bit of internet search optimisation) that guided me to a clip that demonstrates two of barfy’s characteristics: inability to use language correctly, and susceptibility to logic bombs. (No, wait! Beumbs.)
I have wondered this forever (since the 6th day of Genesis): what (if any) link is there between the thetrical Pink Panther and the animated version?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Panther
My work here is done.
:-)
I’m always amused by those who think discourse is them pontificating on something they know very little about, and think we must swallow their tripe hook, line, and sinker. We see this all the time with MRA’s, godbots, creobots, and IDiots. Discourse starts with an opinion backed by evidence. Here you need to link to the evidence, not allude to it, so everybody can see what you are talking about. The link can be the url in toto (i.e. http://scholar.google.com), or embedded with a descriptor like this: <a href = “url copy/paste of link”>description of link</a>. That allows everybody to be on the same page and discussion continue.
From experience with those who use the term, discourse typically mean people think they can lecture and must be right until shown wrong. In reality, you are wrong until you evidence yourself right. Your argument is only as good as your real evidence.
@ 339
I agree. It doesn’t mean I get to say whatever I want, however I want, you ignorant fuckwit.
@340
Absolutely not. What it means, is that it’s OK for me to give back what I get AND raise the bar, if I so choose, as to the directed or implied insult. That’s all. Saying that I don’t like it is a far cry from whining about it. From my perspective, I’ve seen a whole bunch of whining.
All that I am trying to do and say is that I will make every effort to match the tone, but remember, you set the tone not the meter.
It’s really as simple as, if you say “fuck you” or call me a “fuckwit”, you really have lost your right to decide if my tone or insults directed back at you are appropriate. For you to believe any differently is a flagrantly uneven playing field.
And because I find name calling childish – it is – AND because I find it even more childish to cry about it when directed back at you – think Scott Farkus in A Christmas Story – I am going to say so. Go ahead, call me childish, I can take it.
What I really REALLY REALLY want, is to simply discuss a topic as more of a dialectic. But that’s just what I want. I have no other power. I HAVE NO OTHER POWER. So, if you choose to engage me, that’s where I’m coming from. If you don’t like it, fine. I’ll engage you your way. JUST STOP CRYING ABOUT IT WHEN I DO.
I actually find this discussion even more insipid, tedious and silly than anybody reading this, believe it or not. But, I will not cede an advantage to you just because you think you’re better at it, or you can’t emotionally handle it.
I don’t want to hijack this or any other thread at all. What I want is to discuss stuff. Throw it up against the Pharyngula wall and have them wash it clean, not just throw more shit at it all day. If it’s shit, it’s fine to say so. If you call me shit, then I’ll throw some back.
And, Yellow Thursday, this is in no way directed at you. I don’t remember you in any way. I’m just trying to answer your question as best I can.
@341
I agree. Freethought does not equal free speech. I’m fine by the definition that PZ gave it.
@342
How does your contemptuous feelings for me have anything to do with making an argument, other than admitting you find it difficult to communicate with me without also acknowledging that your disgust may be coloring your judgment? What exactly is the purpose? To let me know that I have said or done something that you find objectionable? OK, back at you.
I have said many nice and complimentary things about PZ. I don’t remember saying anything complimentary about Caine, so here goes – I actually feel that Caine has demonstrated a large heart towards feminist issues – something also important to me – and I have learned the concept of privilege with Caine’s prompts – something enormously valuable to me for which I will be forever grateful. So, thank you Caine, and even though you won’t be reading this, maybe someone can pass it along.
@343
Hey, shitweasel. I don’t want to be the boss. Never did. Remember this one simple point, that I repeat because you obviously did not read or understand what I have said many times- and I capitalize for your sake – YOU SET THE TONE NOT THE METER, shitweasel. I talk to you in any fashion you desire. All I have said, is that I don’t like your tone, but you AND I are free to engage in it.
While I agree that insipidity and stupidity may be bannable offenses, I would ask that your demonstration of the same @343 should not get you banned, but since you now speak for PZ, I hope he’ll cut you some slack.
@350
I don’t know the reference.
@352, 353
Funny. Genuinely funny.
Thanks.
What you want is attention, barfy one.
(Which is fine, Thunderdome works best with practice specimens such as you)
I grew up watching the Pink Panther animated shorts, and first realised there was some connection with a series of ancient and boring (I later watched them again and saw at least the first one wasn’t bad at all) live action films somewhere in the early nineties.
Jimmy Page. Aged 13.
I’m not sure whether to love or hate YouTube.
(I’m sorry, I must atone! (That’s Rain Song.))
But, I must squee! Today I got a brand new keyboard to my 6 year old laptop (HP Compaq nx7300, it wasn’t one of the fastest ones even then, but it was built to last) and it’s exquisite as it was anew. It survived six years of hard wear, breadcrumbs, sticky bits of pot and the occasional beer bath, and the new one will certainly survive the the rest of the lifetime of this piece of machinery.
This barfy character is a real piece of work, huh?
Sorry, this was the wrong lounge. But yes, he is. And annejones too.
Dang, I think I’ll have to put barfy in the same class as StevoR. Troll to be ignored. They can’t learn until they shut the fuck up and listen. The problem is, they can’t listen, only preach….
barfy, there are creatures hanging about on the sea floor more intersting to debate than you.
He says, while posting a multi-screen BAAAWfest.
From the long, impassioned, rambling diatribes you have been giving, I don’t think you are the one who finds any of this insipid and silly, and I don’t think we are the ones who are having trouble with handling emotions.
I call you “shitweasel” and you respond by using the same exact insult, twice. While saying that I failed to comprehend something you said many times (but actually only said once and is of no relevance anyway) and yet not quite getting that the point of my quote was to show the puketastic one that Rule Number One is “there are no rules”.
Speaking of repetition: Did I mention Dunning-Kruger?
I don’t speak for PZ, I am telling you what you could easily find out for yourself if you had the least amount of sincere curiosity about the subject. But, no, the best you can do is so “NO, YOU!!1!”. Again, you are proving everyone else’s point, not your own.
“Childish” is really the perfect description. The number of your remarks, whether they are “sincere” argument or inept insults, that simply boil down to “I’m rubber, you’re glue…” is simply astounding. The projection and lack of self-awareness, the unwarranted sense of self-importance, the chronic inability to read accurately, the poor logic skills. All leading to a stumbling conversation with someone who seems either self-obsessed and over-emotional, or just plain inept and ignorant. The comparison to a child fits for only a very pessimistic view of children, for only the most annoying examples of failed conversations between an adult and an immature know-it-all. But once you have those caveats, it fits perfectly.
annejones =
Sorry, you made the claims, you show where your shit comes from, then we clean it up.
– – –
a)Oh. Daddy has a fucking affair, mommy brings home boy friends, daddy and mommy are fucking cruel freaks to each other.
b)Mommy and mommy, or daddy and daddy, or even two friends that want to raise a child and adopt: they are warm and loving towards each other and the child, they learn trust and loyalty and the ability to form healthy relationships based on healthy boundaries.
WHICH ONE IS A FAMILY?
Oh, look: Do gay parents raise healthier, happier kids?
A new Australian study shows that there’s a big happiness and health advantage to children of gay parents.
By Anne Hurley Jun 7, 2013 5:55PM
Are Cam and Mitchell of “Modern Family” among the best parents ever? According to a new and already controversial Australian study, the children of same-sex parents – Cam and Mitchell are little Lily’s two dads – are measurably healthier, happier and more well-adjusted than children of heterosexual parents.
The Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families, conducted at the University of Melbourne, examined 500 children ages 1 to 17. It showed that children with same-sex parents scored far higher for general health and family cohesion than did children of heterosexual parents.
Oh. Look:
Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones
MED prof’s finding comes as Supreme Court weighs same-sex marriage http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/
When the Supreme Court took up the issue of gay marriage last month, Justice Antonin Scalia claimed that experts debate whether same-sex parents are bad for children.
“There’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences are of raising a child in a…single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not,” Scalia declared.
Benjamin Siegel says Scalia’s contention is—not to get too technical—baloney.
Siegel, a School of Medicine professor of pediatrics, coauthored a report, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics the week before the court case, arguing that three decades of research concur that kids of gay parents are doing just fine.
“Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents,” Siegel writes with coauthor Ellen Perrin, a Tufts University professor of pediatrics and director of developmental and behavioral pediatrics.
It took me on google – About 142,000,000 results (0.33 seconds).
OH. LOOK!!
[onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/famp.12029/full]
Donor, Dad, or…? Young Adults with Lesbian Parents’ Experiences with Known Donors
By Abbie E. Goldberg, Katherine R. Allen
May 2013
Research suggests children of lesbian parents are satisfied with their current level of contact with their male donors. This study sheds light on how children are contributing to the redefinition and reconstruction of complex kinship arrangements. Participants in the study perceived their relationships with their male donors as strictly donors and not members of their family; as extended family members, but not as parents; and as fathers
– – –
LMAO!
% of Same-sex Couples Raising Children: States:
[docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Akrw3DX_QeLIdHZLWnFRbDhxVm1lWWlIZHk2ajVLYWc#gid=0]
– Looks to be around 20% on average. What does that spell, annejones?
– – –
go LOOK (links from: [williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/category/research/parenting/])
“
Adolescents in Lesbian Families: DSM-Oriented Scale Scores and Stigmatization
By Henry Bos, Nanette Gartrell & Loes van Gelderen
May 2013
The present study focused on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-oriented scale scores from Child Behavior Checklists completed by parents of the 17-year-old offspring in the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study. In comparison with the scores of an age-matched normative sample, no significant differences in scores were found. Within the NLLFS sample, adolescents who reported stigmatization scored higher on affective, anxiety, and conduct problems. Although overall psychological functioning of the NLLFS adolescents fell within the healthy range, stigmatization had a negative impact on the well-being of some adolescents.
Click here for the full study:
[williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/parenting/adolescents-in-lesbian-families-dsm-oriented-scale-scores-and-stigmatization/]
“
– – –
“
Adolescents with Lesbian Mothers Describe Their Own Lives
By Nanette Gartrell, Henny Bos H, Heidi Peyser, et al.
November 2012
Teens with lesbian mothers are academically successful and happy with their lives. These adolescents had strong family bonds, and they were nearly unanimous in describing their mothers as good role models. They also reported having numerous close friends—generally with same-age peers who were predominantly heterosexual. Teenagers were asked a series of questions about their everyday life experiences including academics, extracurricular activities, aspirations, friendships, family interactions, role models, health problems and wellbeing.
[williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/parenting/adolescents-with-lesbian-mothers-describe-their-own-lives/]
“
———————————-
See, annejones, if mandated the world to work according to your stunted perceptions and opinion there would be more fucked up kids, not less. Fewer happy families, not more.
That means you would rather have an unhappy, fucked up society, instead of an open mind.
mikmik:
Thanks for all that. Those are some good resources to have available for those of us interested in equality.
I am almost certain annejones will not click any of them, but they are of benefit to others here.
Not in any way endorsing-by-ignoring any of the points in annejones’ craptastic comment @262, but:
I’m just guessing that, in your opinion, a marriage without the benefit of your particular flavor of Christian Godsauce, is not a marriage at all; that everyone else is “doing it wrong”? Kinda like the No True Christian thing that forever and always comes up when someone of some other Christian persuasion does something you disapprove of/disagree with.
??????
I suppose that LGBT people are either found under cabbage leaves, or fabricated at a Factory of Evil, somewhere, rather than being born—frequently to married parents—into a family. And they certainly are completely unaware of the existence of both married couples and families in the society they grow up in and live in.
</sarcasm>
Conflation of homosexuality with pederasty. Nice one. You are aware that there are heterosexuals pushing for reducing or removing age of consent?
Later:
Which, of course, explains the calm and measured response of a man who is terrified that a gay man might look at him in the shower.
So an orphaned child is just shit out of luck, now and forever? Harsh. Cruel. Socially irresponsible. EVIL.
–
When did ‘calling people names’ start being an indicator of maturity level? Is that ‘common sense’ or are there some good studies to back that up?
Some time around when the abusers of society realized that their victims were starting to fight back.
@ cicely
But cicely! Don’t you understand? We only feel this way about her because of everything she writes here. But we are imperfect moral agents and cannot know The Truth ™ about annejones.
On the other hand YHWH is omniscient. He sees everything. Because He alone knows everything about annejones, only He can judge. annejones is a Good Person! Only YHWH knows this. But that is enough to let her sleep at night. She would be repulsive, even to herself, if YHWH turned out to be but a figment of her imagination.
….
Bruce Lee died 40 years ago. There will be an exhibition about him at the Heritage Museum here, starting today, but until I get a chance to report on it, The Horde will have to make do with a trailer from his breakthrough movie: The Big Boss
Theophontes:
Yeah. Ms. Jones is so gosh darn good, she’s not even super-duper mean to gay people. Whatever the fuck that might mean.
@ Caine
imho annejones is a bog-standard RWA, hiding behind an imaginary sky god. She IS super-duper mean.
…
Obvious, once one thinks about it: South Africa has exactly the same “Freeze Peach” mob that the rest of the world endures. Most recently a defence of rape culture in the interests of “its just a joke” culture. Unfortunately for the arseholes, things are changing even in conservative SA and a major bigot lost his job.
My comment:
Link here for chew toys.
*offtopic wave in rorschach’s direction*
England won’t declare until Root’s either out or makes 200. So, most likely, half a session, then most of 2 days to make 570-ish on a dying Lords pitch. Do you feel lucky? :-)
I said I’d not comment any more on the ‘Aaaagh Philistines’ thread, and I intend to honour that, so I’ve brought this ridiculous comment here:
Even when the ‘substance’ basically consists of ‘you don’t understand art. Fuck Off!”? Anyway, I’m done with that argument, I’ve already decided you lost, since all you could throw were personal insults, leaving the actual arguing about art to those who knew what they were talking about.
There is no Royal ‘one’, that’s ‘we’ you’re thinking of, as perfectly illustrated by Thatcher’s ‘We are a grandmother’ faux-pas. ‘One’ is simply formal English, you know, the language wot we speak when we want to speak proper, like. Innit.
Nick Gotts:
I apologize for my #336. It was rude and out of line and uncalled for. Sorry.
Nick Gotts:
I apologize for my #336. It was rude and out of line and uncalled for. Sorry.
Acolyte of Sagan, what’s your problem? You suffering from a stomach bug or something? Go sniff some bunny videos and calm down mate, you’re just making an ass of yourself.
Stevor still wants pre-emptive justice over at Ed’s
There is an oriental saying. Roughly translated, to goes like this:
The mother who birthed you is not as important as the mother who raised you.
Bunny video.
(Not one I’d wish to sniff, but)
Amphiox, speaking of oriental mothers, I once read an historical-fiction book where a Chinese officer had an affair somewhere out west. The girl born of that affair regarded the officer’s legal wife as her mother, and travelled a long way to get to her. It was an odd concept, at first, but it makes as much sense as anything else, really. I dunno if it was based on any real cultural concept or not. (I can’t find or recall any more than that, but I recall it was a good read.)
Cricket?
Banana getting old
(Safe to sniff)
Menyambal,
”When you prefer your man-made book to the voice of God, you are most unwise.”
Interesting exegesis on the Romans passage, but you lost me here.
”One of the lies Christians believe, incidentally, is Hell—it really isn’t in the book, it’s just something they like to believe in.”
Well, granted there is considerable confusion about hell, specifically in the differences between sheol and the lake of fire. But there are lots of references to it. How have you managed to dispose of those?
Pip considering how often you misinterpret things you post here that you think support your anti intellectual anti science stance, what reason does anyone have to think you have any clue about anything?
In case you haven’t noticed, our batsmen have been replaced by imposters. So I’m looking forward to Root making 300 and Australia being all out for 78 in reply.
;)
txpiper, I’m not surprised that you are lost. And that you fail to comprehend.
To repeat, a Bible, in whatever version you consider to be THE Bible, is a man-made thing. It is not dropped from Heaven, it is printed in a shop, from compilations of translations that scholars made, from copies of stories that scribes wrote down—and very possibly made up altogether. You can believe that it was inspired by God, and prayerfully translated, but a Bible is as man-made as any golden calf..
The people who revere their Bible, who treat it as a holy thing, who swear oaths on it, are idol-worshipping as much as if they were “a-wastin’ Christian kisses on an ‘eathen idol’s foot:” They believe otherwise, of course.
Now, in opposition to the Bible, and supposedly indubitably the voice of God, there is prayer. It’s like a cellphone to the boss, innit? You can communicate directly with the big guy in charge, any time you want. It’s not like the boss is too busy, because of the all-knowing, omniscient and omnipresent stuff, besides the loving and helpful stuff.
So I was saying that anyone who whips out the book, instead of praying, is doing it wrong.
Look at it like your best job ever, with the business owner as your mentor, sitting right next to you, kind and helpful, helping you learn and work (and maybe flirting with you, or asking if you want to meet his daughter, or grooming you to take over, or however you can imagine the love). Now, suppose there is some slight question in your mind. Are you gonna go check the notes the last guy left in the desk, the graffiti in the men’s room, or what somebody told you was the employee manual (why would the one-man shop need an employee manual?), or are you gonna ask the boss who is sitting next to you?
(Or, in a little different job scenario, are you gonna call headquarters on your cell phone, or wait ’til you can get online and see if there’s anything about your emergency in the company website?)
The guy that the Bible was supposedly written by is right there, right next to you, always. Smiling.
There are, and you should know this, Christian groups who refuse to read a Bible because they believe God will tell them anything they need to know. That, to me, makes good sense.
So, my point, again, is that prayer is surely listening to the voice of God, the Bible is not guaranteed to be God’s word, nor is it guaranteed to be directly relevant to your situation.
Why don’t you pray, instead of reading the Bible?
(My point is that reading a Bible is exactly what you’d be doing if there were no God.)
====
txpiper, I disposed of the Biblical references to Hell by believing whatever I want to believe, the way most Bible readers do.
Seriously, though, I read the bit in Revelation about the lake of fire, and it wasn’t the popular idea of Hell at all. It was like a lot of other stuff people believe about the Bible, a lot of cruel fantasy build on a few nonsense verses.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_of_fire#.22Lake_of_fire.22_in_the_Book_of_Revelation for the verses. They don’t say that everybody will burn forever, and the cruelest verse in there feels like an interpolation. And Revelations, for Christ’s sake? If Jesus didn’t say it, I don’t believe Christians need to believe it. So there.
And again seriously, the whole concept of Hell and damnation is so twistedly sick that I don’t want to read any more about it, to know that people worship a god that could do that, and I especially don’t want to know that people believe in Hell when they don’t have to.
So here you go, txpiper, I’m doing unto you: I hope that you spend eternity writhing in fire, screaming, dying forever, twisti … no, I can’t do that.
I hope you get over your religion and become a good person, txpiper.
I’d like to nominate Menyambal for a Molly.
For same-sex couples, end of DOMA doesn’t mean adoption equality –
http://www.today.com/news/same-sex-couples-end-doma-doesnt-mean-adoption-equality-6C10687368
Look at the cute picture!
annejones, you are evil.
—-
chigau, thanks.
Menyambal:
Yeah, sadly there are ass backwards states (like FL, where I dwell) more interested in discriminating against gays rather than providing loving homes to children. If I were in a better financial situation with a long term partner, I sure as fuck would adopt. I really want children.
People like annejones make me want to fucking puke with the lies they spread about gay people.
Menyambal,
”I disposed of the Biblical references to Hell by believing whatever I want to believe”
Well most people do. But that wasn’t the issue. What you said was that “it really isn’t in the book”. But it is. You’ve done this twice now for no good reason. Why don’t you make it easy on yourself and just believe whatever you want to believe without referring to the Bible?
You will notice that the regulars didn’t shovel it all over you for this:
“anyone who whips out the book, instead of praying, is doing it wrong”
I have to take this as an announcement that you pray, and that you get special revelation from the god you pray to. Can you reveal any enlightenment that you have received in your correspondence?
txpiper:
I’d expect nothing else from such a dolt as you.
(The parenthetical didn’t clue you in, of course)
Just like I would take it as announcement that you’re a pro baseball player if you said that anyone who is hitting themselves in the head with a bat, instead of hitting the ball, is doing it wrong.
I won’t speak for Menyambal, but it has been revealed to me that you’re an ignorant, dishonest shithead. Who revealed it to me? It wasn’t a god, I will tell you that.
Pretending to take a parenthetical as literal is a standard, oft-repeated, never surprising, always pathetic, piece of texpip dishonesty.
It would appear that Menyambal’s hope shall not be fulfilled any time soon.
txpiper:
Hell isn’t in the book. No pitchforks, no circles, no eternity. Hell is built off a couple of widely different verses in very different places in the Bible. Even the Lake of Fire stuff in Revelations is a line each in four different chapters.
You believe it’s there, like most Christians choose to, but that doesn’t mean it’s there.You practically admit that, with Sheol and all, but then your brain clunks and you start waffling.
Look, if you were picking out a nursing home to spend the rest of your life in, you’d ask for a little better documentation than’s in the Bible. Eternal life needs some damned good brochures, but neither Heaven nor Hell is described in any one place—it’s kludged together from random scraps, just like your thought processes.
I say what I say for very good reasons. Your failure to comprehend is a very bad sign.
txpiper, you read very poorly. Why are you basing your life, thoughts and morals on YOUR understanding of a very muddled collection of ancient writing? That’d be like me basing my life on what I can make out of the TV shows my daughter is watching in the other room, and I’m hard of hearing (apparently pregnant at age 16 is the style now, so I’ll have to see what I can arrange).
It isn’t about making it easy on myself. That may be how you live your life, txpiper, but I will pursue truth no matter how hard it is for me to take.
I refer to the Bible only to show you that YOU don’t know what it says, and YOU haven’t thought about what it does say. To me, it’s not a guide, it’s some twisted and scary shit, with lies, rape, incest, cruelty, genocide and superstition, and I know that because I have read more of it than most Christians have. (I can’t get through the whole thing, because it is so bad. I get far enough to realize once again that Christians are superstitious about it, and I despair for humanity, I really do.)
Well, you may have to take it that way, but a sensible person doesn’t.
Again with an un-needed and useless explanation: I do not pray. I am not superstitious, religious or an idiot. Simply, I think that if there is a god as described in the Bible (generally accepted popular description that I learned in Sunday School, at least), prayer would be better than reading the Bible. And, as I have said, there are Christians who agree with me—go hassle them if you want to be passive-aggressively snarky.
A different way, then: If, when you get to Heaven, you meet your very favorite historical inspirational-author person, what are you going to do? Let’s say it’s Ben Franklin, and you are in Heaven with _The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin_, and all of his other writing, all that you enjoyed on Earth, all on the heavenly equivalent of an iPad (okay, it’s Heaven, we’ll ALL have iPads).
In your hand, complete works; in front of you, the author. Now, are you going to keep gloating over the iPad, perusing all your old BF favorites, or are you going to up and chit-chat with Ben Franklin his ownself?
Or, simpler: In Heaven, are you going to sit and read the Bible? Or run around and meet the folks?
If praying istalking to God, what do you need the Bible for?
Why do you live your life exactly as if there were no God?
But you ask for revealed enlightenment from the god I pray to. It wants you to …. no, I can’t do that, either.
txpiper, why is it so important to you that Hell is in the Bible, and that Hell is real?
That’s a two-part question, because even if it is the Bible, you don’t have to believe it.
I say you want Hell to be in the Bible, and you want Hell to be real. I don’t know why you want Hell to be real, because I can’t imagine anybody being that cruelly, sickly, twisted.
I console myself with the thought that most Christian folks don’t really believe in Hell, or they don’t think about it, or they just reluctantly accept it. But every now and then I see people with the fire behind their eyes, and I smell the sulfur on their breath, and I hear them cackling about the sufferings of the damned ….
When I think that Hell is a made-up add-on to the Bible …
Hitler at least killed people before he burned them.
@ 20. Yellow Thursday :
Because I meant “warfare is okay in self-defense.” NOT genocide.
Could’ve phrased that better I know.
What #25. ChasCPeterson & # 40. Jacob Schmidt wrote – this :
is exactly right.
@21. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought
12 July 2013 at 11:23 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Certainly highly unlikely I agree although it is possible to imagine a scenario eg. the one used in the Ender’s Game novel which is admittedly extremely contrived and unlikely.
See my reply to #20. Yellow Thursday above.
@17. okstop – 12th July 2013 at 10:55 am :
Wish you’d remind a few others here of this like those who keep describing me as that. Seems to happen all the time that politicians and commenters who disagree are automatically regarded as lesser humans & frequently accused of being, at least like, sociopaths. Hint : its okay to disagree fiercely and still be an empathic reasonable and sane human who wants the best for the world.
Yes to both 1 & 2 here.
Some think that (2) is a problematic interpretation, I think it’s a normal human desire and feeling. Maybe not one which every single person on the planet shares and agrees with but most people would I’m fairly confident of that.
In this specific case, kind of although I acknowledge there’s no “next life” for this to happen in.
No. Desiring justice for Dilan and everyone else isn’t sociopathic however one personally views justice.
Huh? I’m not quite sure what you mean by that. Would it be vastly better if what happened to Dilan hadn’t happened? Of course! If there was a time machine and I had the option of preventing Dilan’s abuse and murder I would.
Does that hypothetical mean I or we should not be angry at what happened in reality or what in the alternative reality where we used time travel to rescue Dilan from her own family that we shouldn’t feel upset and angry at her family that we had to do so because what we know they do to her in this reality? Fuck no!
Again, I read your words there but am struggling to make sense of them as that sentence appears to be a non-sequiter word salad. Lets break it down :
(i) “desire justice” – yes.
(ii) That may or may not consist of inflicting pain on the murderers – yes. Those who’ve committed horrendous crimes like murder deserve to suffer painful consequences as a result of committing those crimes.
(iii) That for unrelated reasons not desire that there be an afterlife– huh? Well unrelated certainly. A desire of “if only” there could b justice somewhere sums up how I feel really.
The fact that there isn’t justice here (or in many other instances incl. the Trayvon Martin murder case) is what upsets and angers me. That’s regardless of whether there’s any mythological afterlife and since we know there almost 100% definitely isn’t, it deprives us even of the consolation that there’s some sort of future intangible “divine” justice beyond this scientific cosmos.
Have you missed the point or have I?
I’m not seeing your rational alternatives here – unless you mean wishing Dilan’s murder had never happened which, guess what, I agree on and also wish – just a deconstruction of my emotional argument.
Is it possible others see justice in a different way to me? Clearly. That’s up to them. If some people can forgive those who’ve committed crimes against them , well good on them – seriously I think that’s admirable although it isn’t how I or many, even most others react and feel.
Tl;dr : My thoughts on hearing about Dilan’s murder and her killers getting away was Fuck this sucks! If only there could be justice! Since the human courts don’t provide any suitable penalty for this sort of misogynist murder its enough to make me wish there could be some sort of supernatural justice but I know there isn’t and I personally find that regrettable and infuriating.
And that’s what I’m getting abused here for?
*eyeroll*
@383. Lofty : ”Stevor still wants pre-emptive justice over at Ed’s”
Incorrect. I want and was arguing there for “*post* emptive justice” (if there is such a term), well justice in general actually. I want justice applied to the murderer of Trayvon Martin rather than having him get away with his actions unpunished. Wouldn’t have thought that would be a contentious point here.
@16. Ogvorbis: Or am I? – 12 July 2013 at 10:54 am (UTC -5) : Those are clearly all false claims of “self-defence” rather than ones based in reality.
Just because someone falsely uses X for their own ends doesn’t mean that X does n’t legitimately happen in other cases. X in this instance being self-defence.
For example just because Turkey lied about the Armenians doesn’t mean that Israel is lying about coming under attack form Hamas or the West from Jihadist groups like Al Quaida.
@32. Amphiox :
I liked Card’s novels and have said so before here therefore I’m not sure “ironic” is the right word.
I strongly disagree with Orson Scott Card on some issues such as equal marriage for all regardless of sexual orientation and on Global Overheating and I’ve recently read some good essays on the novels which puts them in an unflattering light indeed but still. I don’t hate the bloke, in fact I feel some sympathy for him along with feeling anger at some of the things he’s said / written.
Plus, of course, I agree that real life isn’t like his novels –at least not yet and hope it will never become so! I agree too that the Ender’s game scenario is contrived and exceedingly improbable albeit there is a remote 0.00000 & pages more zeroes percent chance it or something like it could be real. Just as, with a slightly higher probability the SF scenario’s painted in The Killing Star or Baxter and Clarke’s Time Odyssey are most unlikely but yet worthy of reflecting upon.
See :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Star
But no genocide is NOT justified and no I don’t support or advocate for it.
Yes, okay, I’ve made a bad grim humour joke once about genocide which I have since repeatedly stated wasn’t what I actually think or want and admitted I was wrong to say. I don’t want Gaza to be hit with “daisy cutters” anymore than I think those who say “kill X with fire” or “Nuke it from orbit just to be sure” really want those things to happen.
What I do want from Gaza is for them to stop firing rockets indiscriminately at innocent civilians and for them to stop sending homicide –suicide bombers at others and to learn to live in peace with and accept their neighbours including the world’s one and only Jewish nation of Israel.
Plus see :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_Odyssey
@23. ChasCPeterson asked :
1) Is this somehow enjoyable to you?
No. Is being falsely accused of being someone you’re not and having your words twisted into an appalling offensive caricature of what you meant ever enjoyable for anybody? I doubt that very much.
2) Do you really think that by constantly asserting denials people will forget the impression you’ve made in the past?
I hope to correct the false impression that some people have of me based seemingly on their own lack of reading comprehension of my past comments which do NOT say what some here claim they do. People have got things wrong here so I guess you could call it a case of SIWOTI but kinda personal given the abuse I’ve had from some of the bullies here. (If you don’t think you’re bullies then think about how you’ve treated me and imagine how I feel. To me, some of you certainly *do* come across as bullies.) Which I guess is a yes although not asserting denials so much as pointing to the facts and correcting misunderstanding.
3) Do you think that reacting to every slight by once again turning the discussion toward youyouyou will ever get less annoying?
Its “annoying” to some that I defend myself against false accusations against me here? Well, excuse me for that! You’re doing the equivalent of putting me on trial for crimes i never committed then dismissing my evidence against the prosecutions case as “annoying” and telling me to shut up and cop the injustice and your sentencing.
How about those who’ve attacked me admitting they were wrong and went OTT and then we can all move on?
I’m not going to be bullied off a blog I mostly enjoy – the personal attacks from some commenters aside – just because a few here disagree with me about a few issues.
StevoR, you’ve claimed being an utilitarian when it comes to ethics, yet you yearn for lex talionis.
Since deontology is not congruent with utilitarianism, you are either bullshitting from ignorance or extremely confused.
(See how generous I am? I put the probability that you’re outright lying as quite low)
Well, “disagree with me about a few issues” leaves a slightly different impression than “disagree with me on whether thousands of people should be murdered”.
@ chigau
Seconded.
The whole Molly Award system seems to have fallen by the wayside. It was going to be awarded for awesome individual posts. Perhaps it’s time to start it again.
Tangent, but there’s actually a very interesting bit on that subject in Reasonable Doubts episode #115 (around 40 minutes in), where they talk about how people’s thinking overlap on those issues. While the concepts may be separate, it turns out that people are very prone to mixing them together when trying to reason morally.
We now return you to your previously scheduled programming.
Pretty sure PZ got rid of it on purpose a while ago.
Now, I have a question. Who the fuck is Tauriq Moosa? Have we met this one before somewhere?
rorschach, all I know is that he blogs here at The Indelible Stamp.
(There’s a bunch more stuff on the internet, of course)
StevoR.
You fucking liar. Those comments didn’t read as a joke, you were serious in that discussion with slc1.
The expressions that you cite are widely known for their joking meaning, but they would still be in bad taste were they said in reference to a place and people that are being under attack presently. Yours didn’t look like a joke, not in the context of the post you commented on and especially not in the context of all your other comments on the topic.
Jesus, you even suck as a liar. We can read your old comments, you know.
I think I need to consolidate my new position as a member of The Art Elite by sharing a link:
http://www.visualnews.com/2013/06/28/unnerving-and-beautiful-illustrations-by-eunjung-shin/
“Unnerving and beautiful” only starts to describe these… Downright creepy is more accurate.
Please note the bonus octopus!
Baby, do you understand me now
Sometimes I feel a little mad
But don’t you know that no one alive
Can always be an angel
When things go wrong I seem to be bad
But I’m just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Horde, please don’t let me be misunderstood
Baby, sometimes I’m so carefree
With a joy that’s hard to hide
And sometimes it seems that all I have do is worry
Then you’re bound to see my other side
But I’m just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Horde, please don’t let me be misunderstood
If I seem edgy I want you to know
That I never mean to take it out on you
Life has it’s problems and I get my share
And that’s one thing I never meant to do
Because I love you
Oh, Oh baby don’t you know I’m human
Have thoughts like any other one
Sometimes I find myself long regretting
Some foolish thing some little simple thing I’ve done
But I’m just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Horde, please don’t let me be misunderstood.
@ acolyte of Sagan
Do I need to imagine the Animals, or Nina Simone singing it?
@ 12. Dhorvath, OM :
I agree with all that actually and wish it too.
I wish we could change the culture that treats women like that and that’s one good reason why I think we should all keep criticising it and the theocractic Islamofascist ideology that runs the culture there.
If we could prevent Dilan’s murder from happening and put her in a culture which respects her choices, fuck yes that would be infinitely better than being left fuming for revenge – for justice (these are synonymous) – afterwards. But it isn’t the reality we have, sadly. So what’s left for us to do?
@15. David Marjanović :
Feelings mutual on my end.
I don’t think its “ridiculous” to want justice and in this case, justice seems to mean the old “do unto them as they did by Dilan.”
Which we won’t and can’t have which angers me.
I don’t want them to experience infinite suffering for eternity but what they did to Dilan makes me wish they could experience the same as they did to her. Karma not Christian-Muslim Hell sorta.
I’d wish that too. If it could realistically happen. I’d want them jailed as an example and deterrent and to make them pay for what they did to their daughter. That won’t happen either. So what’s left to do but rage and wish that somewhere, somehow, some sort of justice could be served?
Wouldn’t it just!? I disagree.
If Dilan’s family were punished for abusing and slaughtering her like that I think it *would* set an example. Would act as a deterrent. Would show that the culture is changing and treating women like that is unacceptable. YMMMV sure but that’s what I think here.
I’d like to see such killings treated far harsher than ordinary murders just to set that example and change that culture.
How do you educate the people in such a culture to change if you don’t show them consequences of not changing? If you let them off the example is you can murder your rebellious daughters with impunity and *that* becomes what they think is normal and acceptable and what they can expect. Act otherwise and set examples and show them that’s Not how it works any more like happened with the old practice of widow-burning – Suttee (spelling?) – in ’Around the World In Eighty days’ and that’s what helps in my view.
People knock the British empire but it helped end some of the most appalling practices like that Indian widow burning one and the slave trade and cannibalism and more as well as unifying and providing common language and parliamentary democracy and most of all bringing cricket to those in the British commonwealth.
(Joke for last one, kinda , but serious point, British Empire did a lot of good as well as yes, okay, much bad as well.)
Well I’m a utilitarian who also has strong emotions and relates to people’s suffering and wishes them avenged when I see them wronged as well. I’m not all logic or all emotion , I have and speak using both. I feel empathy for Dilan and rage at what happened to her. Which yes, makes me wish there could be some justice – some punishment – against those who killed her like that.
But it doesn’t necessarily mean that I *am* a monster either. Maybe we need to define what we think “monster” means?
***
@18. =8)-DX :
Race is rubbish and a false idea but is the basis for racism which is areal and very nasty phenomenon which we should all –and I do strongly oppose.
Just as God is a false idea without basis in reality but the belief that God exists leads to religions which are real and frequently toxic to many people poisoning everything.
I think we should fight racism by denying the reality of race. Just as we fight religion by denying the reality of god.
Yes racism and racists are real I’ve never and won’t dispute that and I argue against racism all the time.
Hang on I’ve never said anything too bad about the Japanese that I can recall! I think very highly of the Japanese culture and appreciate all they have achieved. Visited there myself and loved it.
Do you mean perhaps that criticising Islamic dictatorships and Salafist / Wahhabist ideologies and doctrines and thinking that we should fight Jihadist terrorists is against the Orient? If so I think you seem geographically confused. (I gather Noam Chomsky is geographically confused as well writing apparently a book on this maybe. I haven’t read it btw just heard of it.)
Okay, more to the point here I get angry about injustice wherever I see it and whether its committed by Westerners or non-Westerners. I’ve criticised creationists and “coathanger lobby” MRA Republicans and Climate change Deniers. I’ve also got stuck into Jihadists as well. I think all these harmful and horrible groups should be fought and be defeated ASAP. I don’t see any imbalance in how I respond to those who anger me or who I disagree with.
(Yeah, I know you’ll say well I wouldn’t would I? But I really don’t.)
Ashes update :
Australia 80 runs for three wickets chasing 583 for (highly improbable but y’never know*) victory.
Usman Khawaja -Australia’s first Muslim Test Cricketer btw – 32 not out and Captain Clarke on 19.
Logging off for tonight now. Will respond to others on this thread later, not ignoring anyone, just getting tired and drunk. Back maybe tomorrow or few days time.
** I refuse to believe its lost till the last wicket falls but, yikes, its bloody grim for us I’ll admit.
More specifically you complimented the Japanese by saying that they had achieved “Western” values and you didn’t consider them to be Asian at all because of how civilized and advanced their culture was. If you can’t figure out what about that statement was INCREDIBLY RACIST then you should just flat out stop posting.
StevoR
You are still an idiot.
StevoR
The British Empire helped end the slave trade?
“idiot” is not a strong enough word.
Pursuant to the Art conversation, I had the opportunity yesterday to visit the Museum of Modern Art (NYC). Wow.
I found some of it absolutely breathtaking, in a few cases literally. Some of it was pretty meh. Some was WTF? in a heuristic good way, some was WTF? in a not-so-good way, and I must admit that a fair amount of it was downright um…srsly??
My 17-yo daughter had the same suite of reactions, but not necessarily to the same pieces.
So there you go.
chigau,
US helped end slave trade too!
Eventually.
@ Chas
MOMA is just a short stroll (up 5th Avenue) from the Guggenheim. Certainly worth a visit. It will blow your clogs off.
(There is a Frank Lloyd Wright (the architect of the museum) expo soon. I’d stick around if I was you.)
@ annejones
I had to think of you when I saw this cartoon: Linkypooh.
I suspect StevoR is much better at lying to himself than to others.
I think we should fight racism by denying the reality of race. – StevoR
Yes, we’ve heard that piece of stupidity from you numerous times, and it’s been explained to you numerous times why it’s stupid. Hence, no-one believes you are sincere.
Why is StevoR the genocidal maniac bigot talking about race? Bigotry doesn’t require race, or the concept thereof, just difference in color, religion, accent, sexual orientation, haircut, etc which causes one to not see those people as fully human. Which if you want to kill them preemptively, is sufficient for being a bigot no matter what justification is attempted, as there is no justification. StevoR is a bigot. Race is a non-sequtur attempt to deflect attention from that fact.
StevoR: Just so you know, I no longer read anything that you write. My time is far too limited.
Oh, so now it is the pathetic “I was just joking” defence?
Show us an example of a “kill X with fire” or a “Nuke it from orbit” joke where “X” or “it” referred to a specific group of real world people, and the joke was NOT racist at its core.
That you thought it was appropriate to make such a joke was racist.
That you think that brushing it away as a joke somehow makes it any better, at all, in any way whatsoever, is STILL RACIST. MORE RACIST, in fact, than if you had been serious. At least, if you had been serious, you would have been regarding the mass murder of innocent people as a subject worthy of some gravitas. Instead, you admit to viewing the lives of all those people as something trivial enough to make a bad joke about.
YOU ARE STILL BEING RACIST, StevoR.
That you would use the word “a”, implying that you did something like this only once, is a lie.
That you imply that your admission of wrongness was sincere, in light of all the subsequent times you repeated the same “joke” but with just the use of different language, and vociferously DEFENDED your words, and are STILL DEFENDING your odious words, is another lie.
YOU ARE STILL BEING A LIAR, StevoR.
You are pitiful.
At this point, one has magical intentions at the bottom of a fairly deep hole. I am pretty sure one is aware of this, but when one continues to ask forgiveness without owning ones poor behavior, it merely reinforces ones perception of one as self-centered and immature.
—-
Chas
I second Theophontes Guggenheim/ FLW exhibit recommendation, and I am a wee bit jealous of your proximity to several awesome museums.
Do I need to title the next edition of [Thunderdome] to [The StevoR Show]? Because this is getting really old.
This is your digs, PZ. None of us would ever try to tell you how to run it.
By the way, can you move the navigation bars back to the right side?
How does one support deliberately inflicting pain and suffering on another human, while simultaneously claiming to be empathetic, sane, and desiring the best for the world?
Pain and suffering became part of whats “best” for the world…when, exactly?
*threadskip*
Hey there, Anne?
“Parents are biological.”
You’re incorrect and an asshole. You’re a bigot and a fool. People aren’t intolerant of you’re stupid-ass-fuck pontificating because they can’t handle opposing viewpoints. You aren’t fighting “the good fight”. You don’t have a valid point to make or facts to back up you annoying bigotry. You belong in the embarrassing parts of history books with the KKK. People like you have spread so much bullshit, hate and pain that you have ruined lives and cost lives. Don’t you pretend like anyone owes that “tolerance”.
http://www.policymic.com/mobile/articles/15340/drone-strikes-in-pakistan-kill-one-terrorist-for-every-50-deaths
Those who support drone strikes never mention figures like this.
1 terrorist per 49 citizens.
176 children dead.
2500+ people dead from ’04-’12.
I guess to some people, civilians in Pakistan are not innocents.
You’re fucking wrong.
My gay brother in law is the beloved son of loving parents, the beloved brother of my husband, the beloved uncle of my children and the beloved partner of his boyfriend. He’s a loving and beloved part of a family. Where he sticks his dick has nothing to do with it.
I’ll also make sure to pass your intimate knowledge on the experiences of LGBT people on to my lesbian friends who are raising their daughter together. I guess we need a new name for what they’re experienceing every day because somehow them changing poopy diapers and playing hide and seek and cooking spaghetti and comforting after nightmares isn’t parenting. It’s only parenting when heterosexual people do it.
And in case you think you’re talking for heterosexual people: You’re wrong. You’re not standing for me and my family
So, art working as it is supposed to, then.
StevoR:
Emphasis added.
Quick show of hands. Anyone here agree with StevoR on those issues?
Oh, Nina for the voice, The Animals for Alan Price’s piano.
I heard that musical parasite Michael Bolton sing it once.
I’m still juddering.
The Silent Majority™
The Lurkers Support Him in Email™
It is a common trope in literature. AKA the Knight Templar.
Most are evil.
Gobi:
Wow. Fabulous stuff. I love creepy surrealism. His ocean in a cube reminds me of Yerka’s A Private Wave.
Bingo, you asshole.
That is the point. You keep making the claim that Islam, or Iran, or some other bogeyman, is an existential threat to the United States, or to your vaunted idea of western civilization and, therefore, we should nuke them back to the stone age. And Iran is as much a threat to western civilization as Poland was to Germany in 1939. None. That was the point. Your scaremongering has as much reality in it as the Turks claims against Armenians. But you are too bigoted to see that your piddly fears do not define reality.
I’m sure that the Silent Majority agrees with StevoR and he can safely ignore the Nattering Nabobs of Negativity.
*Spiro T. Agnew, according to Wiki:
Dang didn’t preview
*Spiro T. Agnew, according to Wiki:
Yep, sounds as amoral, duplicitous, and ignorant as StevoR.
I spose so, for us and about a berzillion of our fellow art-lovers from all over the world.
You know, I forgot all about the Guggenheim. Thanks; definitely have to go. (But then, I haven’t even been to the Met yet, even once.)
(somehow when I’m in NYC I almost always seem to find myself on the 4th floor of the AMNH.)
stevor:
I agree with something written by you!
.
.
The rest of your rambling incoherent screed just illustrates the truism
Don’t post while tired and drunk!
I would like StevoR to disappear. I am tired of all of his long winded whines about how he is misunderstood and lied about. Even though the people that keep “lying” about StevoR keep using his own words to promote those “lies”.
Quick note to StevoR. Just because one has been silent about you does not mean you have their support.
I do not engage because I do not want to be the reason you go off on yet an other whine about what a flawed but great humanitarian you are.
You fucking make me sick.
Yes StevoR, can you find ANYONE who actually supports you? Anyone who agrees with you? Anyone who wants you around? Anyone who will speak up for you for anything? ANYONE AT ALL?
The closest I can recall is someone who came here to show those #ftbullies what for and even in that case StevoR was merely a prop used to bolster their assumptions that we were all mean nasty people. That person surely knew nothing about what StevoR the racist actually believed except everyone here was sick of their shit and made no bones about it.
StevoR I told you so long ago what you would have to do to stop getting the entirely deserved vitriol you get: Stop being racist and leave. We do not want your hateful racism and your murder fetishism here. We want you to fuck off.
Or at least stop being such a fucking handwringing denialist about it, actually own up to the things you have said, stop making asinine and inconsistent excuses, take responsibility, and promise to stop spewing violent fantasies and bigotry in the future. Right now, all you give us is occasional torrents of “NOPE NOPE NOPE LIES NOPE STOP BEING MEAN TO ME” in with occasional nuggets of new bigotry. One way or the other, you need to fucking stop. Whether that means finally changing your same old song and dance, or just leaving the party for good, something needs to happen.
StevoR, fuck off until you are ready to admit you are bigot and need to change. Which will be when it can reliably be determined txpiper’s imaginary hell has frozen over….
@Caine
Oh! Thank you for that link! I had to go and dig up my Jacek Yerka book…
‘Mind Fields – the art of Jacek Yerka, the fiction of Harlan Ellison’.
Haven’t looked at that in years.
Am I wrong, or was StevoR’s original contention about his remarks, once his gesturing nym tagline was added, that those remarks were done in an inebriated state and that they must be forgiven since they came of no real thread of the fabric of his being? And is he now saying that he made no such remarks for which he must be held accountable for? I’d be shocked if I were…
Work with me for a minute, because I have an idea. A spin-off thunderdome, just for StevoR. But it’s not quite going to be a show. I think I’ll let StevoR speak for himself, since this gave me the inspiration:
Do you epiphany what I epiphany? [Thunderdome] presents, The High Inquistors’ Council Trial of Mr. Stev O. R. The charges: bigotry, paranoia, genocidal tendencies, denial, rambling, defensiveness, excuse-making, lack of self-awareness, and the high crime of General Inanity. Pay-per-view event of the season!
Somebody would have to pay me to listen to the fuckwitted paranoid bigot. However, I am more than willing to burn a voodoo doll effigy in his honor….
I don’t even need to do that. Sprinkle it with grog soaked corn, and the Pullet Patrol™ will take care of the rest…
Menyambal,
“You believe it’s there, like most Christians choose to, but that doesn’t mean it’s there.You practically admit that, with Sheol and all…”
You seem to have lost sight of your contention that hell is not really in the book. It surely is. It is neither a place or a concept that Christians are forcing. As with paradise and heaven, hell (sheol or hades) is distinct from the lake of fire. The formerly is temporal and richly inhabited; the latter is permanent but currently has no occupants.
SHOW TRIAL!!!!!!
Speaking of art: I once visited an art museum in a country where I couldn’t speak or read the language. The cultural differences were interesting, and the lack of other communication made the pictures really stand out. (There was one very surreal painting that I understood, none of the people who spoke the language got it.)
StevoR, I’m not reading your comments anymore, or many of the comments back at you. Protip: If you are spending ALL your time talking about yourself, instead of whatever issue you supposedly care about, it’s time to go away.
Theophontes, thanks much.
txpiper:
Txpiper, you really cannot read for shit.
In vino veritas.
Ethanol isn’t some sort of magic elixir that transform someone into a completely different person. It removes inhibitions and unmasks what is suppressed but it never reveals anything that was not already present.
Since your book is of mythology/fiction, who the fuck care what you think it says. Might as well quote Harry Potter. Doing so would be more intelligent and factual in the long run…
Reminds me of Dragonheart, where the “hero” went around “saving” people from the dragon he sicced on them in the first place.
Hey Txpiper, until you can actually demonstrate your holy book is anything but a collection of folklore it doesn’t really matter worth a damn whether Hell is in it or not. It doesn’t really matter how sophisticated your theology of hell actually is if it has no bearing on the real world.
Txpiper cant/won’t provide conclusive physical evidence for his imaginary deity, and his babble has the same problem as his evidence against evolution…it doesn’t exist either….all he has, poor unintelligent creature, is just his faith, which is belief without evidence. Which is why his word is bullshit, no matter what the subject, as he doesn’t understand the concept of conclusive physical evidence…..
The drunkards defence: “Sorry I don’t remember doing that.”
Blecch, we can read it all, you know.
txpiper:
I’m staring at my King James Bible right now. What chapter/verse specifically mentions hell?
(Unlike some non-believers, I never read the bible growing up and my parents were only vaguely religious. I came to my non belief through logic. I bought a bible a few years ago to read this oh so inspirational book and to have a general knowledge of this particular god myth. But FFS this is alternately horrifying–the idea of willingly worshipping the deity in there is baffling–and excrutiatingly boring).
Also, how the heck would you know the occupancy level of your imaginary lake of fire?
@ Chas
The museum is a bit deceiving, in that it is larger than one gathers at first impression. I got so carried away with the main exhibits, that I nearly missed out on their Impressionists. Worse still, they had a whole display just on the Suprematists, featuring the works of Kazimir Malevich. We had not enough time left, so I ran around Squeeeee-ing like a kid in a candy shop..
(The museum was later extended from Llyod Wright’s original design, and there are plans to extend (the spirals, skyward!) yet again.)
Picture.
Lofty:
Anyone can get drunk and say something stupid, however, the problem with the house bigot is that he says the same vile shit whether he’s drunk, sober or somewhere in the middle, and says it repeatedly, and not just here at Pharyngula. Stevo doesn’t get to use the drunkard’s defense, not that it stops his incessant whining.
Dude. Trigger warnings for Show Trial references, please. I haven’t quite repressed all those memories yet.
@ Tony
Mark Twain:
.
The religious make their own narrative from the babble template, such that not a single one could ever tell the same story about their imaginary deity. They infer all this “knowledge” about their chthonic and empyreal figments as an author might flesh out the characters in a novel.
I have thought it a droll idea to take a novel such as Michener’s “The Covenant”, or Tolkien’s LOTR, and add to it the style of chapters and verses that one finds in the bible. Then pass it off as a real history and religion to all those daft enough to fall for my ruse.
Caine:
Why, sir, for my part I say the gentleman had drunk himself out of his five senses.
Perhaps he improves when he’s passed out.
So, where is all this described in the bible? Specific quotes, please.
I’ll agree that there are bits that, if interpreted, changed, added to and buried in peat for three months, can be taken to refer to these things, but I’m not aware of any clear, unambiguous references.
Instead of repeatedly saying that the verses exist, why not simply quote them? Presenting the evidence is much more convincing than claiming that it’s there, while refusing to show it.
@ LykeX
The one that was seared into my memory from sunday school:
Mathew 13: 41-42
To be honest, I much preferred Homer’s version of Hell. Far more detail and far more real. Check out The Odyssey:
Where Homer really steals the lead on Matthew (aside from living nearly a millennium prior) is that in Homer’s hell everyone gets to suffer the same fate. We all go to hell and bemoan our fates, longing for blood (how cool is that!?) and ruing the fact that we never made more of our lives on earth.
Link: The Odyssey
Thanks. I do note the absence of detail as well. Also, the passage as a whole (v 37-43) seems to indicate a kind of Manichean essential division into good vs. evil. It’s not clear to me whether this fits any particular notion of hell or if it was even intended to do so.
E.g. is he talking about a literal furnace or is that simply a metaphor for god destroying evil? Is the furnace of fire the same as the lake of fire? Are people predestined to go there or do they condemn themselves by their actions? Once you’re there, can you escape?
This seems to me to have more in common with the style of the old prophets, warning about impending doom. The idea isn’t to describe any particular point of metaphysics, but simply to say “Repent, for the end is nigh” and it uses whatever handy imagery will get that point across. But then, that’s also an interpretation.
My main problem with this whole line of thinking is that the bible is so annoyingly vague on just about every conceivable point of theology, which is exactly why there are so many Christian denominations in the first place; it’s just not clear what it’s saying. I feel like you have to read a lot into the text to make any sense of it.
I prefer Homer’s Hell.
@ John Morales
Sadly no youtube in this part of the world.
…
@ LykeX
Religions and their texts are extremely resilient. They can hook themselves into the minds of their hosts pretty damn well. It is not about how detailed the stories are (seduction is as much about withholding as giving), rather whether the stories find resonance with the inner workings of the host’s mind. The host must needs infer, or make up, knowledge about the religious entities. This is important. The same holds true whether the religious parasite-meme is a cloud-gatherer like Zeus or YHWH or just a little hokey ancestral diety.
Religions evolve over substantial time. They are honed to perfection for their task. Narratives like those of Homer, or the babble, were batted about for centuries as oral stories before being written down. Their traditions are very old, and they are good at what they do. They have evolved to hijack the host’s mind, and its inference systems, to its own ends.
With the story-telling apes we find that this particular faculty can quite easily become infected by an enticing religious narrative.
…
[art]
Tiago Hoisel has captured our Ebil Oberlawd ™ to a tee …. Linky.
Theophontes:
I note that passage does not mention ‘hell’.
In addition, ‘a furnace of fire’ could be reference to hell, or literally a furnace. Either way, no Hell in that verse.
..
I wonder if exposure to the concept of hell outside of biblical text might influence some believers to think the bible refers to hell when they come across passages like the above.
@theophontes
You may be on to something there. Deliberate points of vagueness allows for personal interpretations and lets the mythology appeal to a wider range of people than if everything was nailed down. You could compare that to a politician who speaks in cliches that appeal to many, rather than being specific and ending up pissing some constituents off.
Theophontes, awww.
(Relevant scene, from here)
Meh. Can’t take the Wholly Babble seriously today.
Quite so. When I finally got round to a systematic reading (KJV, still unfinished) what really surprised me was the poor literary quality. This is supposed to be one of the masterpieces of English literature. There’s the odd good bit, but by and large, pfft.
Tony, sheol is described here http://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2016:19-31&version=KJV
The hot side is still accumulating unregenerate souls who will reside there for over a thousand years until their trial, at which time they will be trying to defend themselves with whatever good deeds they can recall. Their sins, however, will not be mentioned. Ultimately, they will be sentenced to the second death, which is mentioned here http://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2020&version=KJV
I’m horrified to find that I must agree with txpiper about something. While the pitchforks and other details are certainly not in the Bible, and the popular picture of it derives mostly from Dante, there are quite a few places where Jesus is reported as saying things that strongly imply it. See Greta Christina’s list here. Certainly some Christians interpret these verses in such a way as to rule out the “eternal fire” notion, but I think the majority who do believe in the latter have a good case with regard to what the Bible says.
“it” = hell @486 of course.
@ LykeX
I was reading Kahnemeyer on the bus back to Hong Kong. He was discussing how people construct stories about business success (his example was Google, which have endless books that “explain” it all – after the fact):
Further: Most xtians don’t read the whole bible. They (like little chicks) have it regurgitated, semi-digested by others – in bite size chunks.
@ Tony
A Germanic rather than Semitic term. The basic concept is extremely old and widespread though.
There are not that many figments that can maintain the levels of salience to their hosts (subliminal, “intuitive”, “System 1”) minds. Such that allow the religious concepts not only to take hold, but remain salient over generations.
eg: A concept such as zombies will last well, because it combines humanlike agents (a ripe breeding ground for generating intuitions) and an aspect of the incredible (walking dead) that allows the concept to stand out and stimulate the hosts further consideration.
@ John Morales
I got to see the video. Thanks.
@ txpiper # 485
Do you really believe any of that crap?
hostshost’sYou know, it’s not so much that I disagree, (although it is that in part,) it’s that I can’t fathom how you misinterpret people so thoroughly. Claiming to hold a position which you contradict immediately thereafter makes me passing sure that you don’t actually understand. This has been why I engage, but as my time here is infrequent and others grow tired I will not continue to do so. Time away seems called for.
And then Ron Pearlman will will swoop in with the BPRD to close the dimension and keep the Nazis from breaching and coming forth onto earth and…
Oh shit you’re talking about a different comic book.
Sorry.
-a
@txpiper
On what do you base your assumption that Luke and Revelation are talking about the same concept of Hades?
This is another thing that annoys me; it’s not at all clear that the various parts of the bible are actually talking about the same things. For example, any non-harmonizing reading of the bible will reveal that god is viewed very differently in each text.
This, I think is another issue. I agree that there are various idea about the afterlife and a judgment floating around in the NT, but it’s not clear to me that these references represent a single, coherent myth or if they’re just using some of the same words and images.
Finally, there are things that are distinctly left out of most idea of hell; e.g.
This seems to describe the sea as a place distinct from hell. So, what’s that about?
@ LykeX
Sea —> Poseidon.
Earth (or rather the underworld, containing Hell/Tartarus) —-> Hades
My half-cocked guess, is that those that drown at sea, remain in the realm of Poseidon.
The realm of Hades is the same as the Jewish Sheol, and where most of us will end up.
The whole issue could perhaps be one of jurisdiction. There was no small amount of jealousy and sibling rivalry between the three brothers. I can’t imagine those that drowned at sea will be sent back to land if Poseidon took them in the first place.
Indeed, that’s a reasonable idea. It actually reminds me of the Norse myth where Freya gets a certain portion of the slain warriors.
However, my point was that this doesn’t seem to square with most Christian conceptions of the afterlife, implying that John (or whoever) did not share the modern Christian view of Hell. Just because he calls it “hell” doesn’t mean that he’s referring to our idea of “hell”.
There’s a hell mentioned in the bible, but I’m not sure you could justify saying that hell, as commonly viewed by Christians, is in the bible.
I’m going to say this really quietly.
The death toll in the FATA insurrection(s) is actually over 35,000.
90% of those killed were not killed by drone strikes, but by a varied selection of suicide bombs, car bombs, mortar attacks, snipers, police raids, and a whole load of God-knows-what-else.
—
You also need to read your sources more closely before saying things like ‘1 terrorist per 49 citizens’.
Let me be clear: I don’t support drone-based assassination. But then I don’t run the CIA or the US military; I’m not in a position to try and stop terrorism in the FATAs, and as a non-USanian, I don’t even get to vote on it. But there is shit going on and quoting misleading statistics isn’t going to help anyone’s political analysis. ~:-/
Well, I meant to sit on that for a bit, but hit ‘Submit’ instead of ‘Preview’. Oh well. I’ll own it.
”Most xtians don’t read the whole bible. They (like little chicks) have it regurgitated, semi-digested by others – in bite size chunks.”
Regrettably, this is the case. But there are still plenty who do.
”Do you really believe any of that crap?”
Of course, and for many reasons. Some of those are the things that you believe.
====
”On what do you base your assumption that Luke and Revelation are talking about the same concept of Hades?”
They aren’t the same concept. In the Luke passage, hell is the residence of everyone prior to the resurrection. This is where the Lord was for “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”. Hell, in either Hebrew or Greek, means ‘the grave’, the abode of the dead. In Revelation, hell, along with death, are consumed in the lake of fire.
”This seems to describe the sea as a place distinct from hell. So, what’s that about?”
I don’t have an answer, just an opinion. This might be referring to tartarus, making a distinction between fallen angels, and unregenerate humans. In Rev 13, the counterfeit trinity is revealed. The antichrist rises from the sea, as opposed to his prophet, who comes from the earth.
Citation needed fuckwit.
Then shut the fuck up, as your OPINION is worthless, due to previous lies and bullshit.
KahnemeyerKahneman…
@ txpiper
By delving into recent developments in psychology, I am getting to understand the reasons why people, like yourself, believe such crap.
I will happily confess that there are things that I take to be true that are not. I would go further, and note that humans have a general tendency to attribute the same value to false notions as to true ones. (At least those false notions that are not immediately rejected out of hand.) We also have a natural proclivity to reject truths that challenge basic assumptions or undermine a sense of self.
No amount of scientific fact is ever going to change that little parasitic YHWH-narrative that is hooked into your subconscious.
.
I would be most amused if you could point out some religious notions that I entertain, as you claim. Please elaborate.
.
I would like to quote another paragraph from Kahneman to you, txpiper. Although the quote is in the context of specialists making financial decisions, the same could apply -with knobs on- to a religious person like yourself:
He speaks of financial advisors, but the same could be said of the those claiming religious “knowledge”:
Yes, txpiper. Many people cling to false propositions. Not just religious people. We so desperately wish to seek causation, were we should be considering how to calculate the odds and learn to accept that Shit Happens ™ .
Coherency of any narrative (and particularly where naked apes are involved) should be a flashing red light, a warning that we are entering the bullshit zone.