"So, you are a formerly dead black model, who is now suddenly a living white hobo after spending a weekend on the Moon. Is that correct?"Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:BTW, thanks to whoever for the Iron Sky suggestion. Watched it 2 times already. I'll put it in my special folder alongside Idiocracy and The Gods Must Be Crazy.
Rom-coms?My other "special" folder I won't expand on...
Worse. Zom-rom-coms. (Or is that better? Wait ...)windy wrote:Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Rom-coms?My other "special" folder I won't expand on...
windy wrote:Rom-coms?Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:My other "special" folder I won't expand on...
I love rom-comswindy wrote:Rom-coms?My other "special" folder I won't expand on...
I still remember the disappointment of learning what frogmen actually are…LMU wrote:As a child I was very disappointed to learn that "People of Color" did not in fact refer to bright pink, red, blue, and purple people.Metalogic42 wrote:[spoiler][/spoiler]debaser71 wrote:Black people.decius wrote:Codelette, if I said that Blacks are by far more religious than other ethnic groups, I would merely be stating the truth without implying that every black person is a gullible christian belonging to an amorphous blob. If we start to take offence at nonsense like that, we'd become more like the Aplussers, not less so.
Persons of abundant pigmentation.
http://eq.jeuxonline.info/guides/races/images/FRG1s.jpgTedDahlberg wrote:I still remember the disappointment of learning what frogmen actually are…LMU wrote:As a child I was very disappointed to learn that "People of Color" did not in fact refer to bright pink, red, blue, and purple people.Metalogic42 wrote:[spoiler][/spoiler]debaser71 wrote:Black people.decius wrote:Codelette, if I said that Blacks are by far more religious than other ethnic groups, I would merely be stating the truth without implying that every black person is a gullible christian belonging to an amorphous blob. If we start to take offence at nonsense like that, we'd become more like the Aplussers, not less so.
Persons of abundant pigmentation.
Neither of those are particularly fair characterisations of the events.EdgePenguin wrote:Penn Jillette is not, to be fair, a great skeptic. One episode of "Bullshit!" was basically shilling for the tobacco lobby by claiming that passive smoking did not exist. Another went into full on climate change denial, and had a go at climate scientists based on some bad science reporting in Time magazine.AbsurdWalls wrote: Libertarians are usually very socially liberal, so I guess it's the narcissism of small differences?
Either that or because most SJWs are Marxist/Socialist?
I think it's mostly Penn Jillette's fault actually. He is everything they hate.
Good Morning SirTedDahlberg wrote:I still remember the disappointment of learning what frogmen actually are…LMU wrote:As a child I was very disappointed to learn that "People of Color" did not in fact refer to bright pink, red, blue, and purple people.Metalogic42 wrote:[spoiler][/spoiler]debaser71 wrote:Black people.decius wrote:Codelette, if I said that Blacks are by far more religious than other ethnic groups, I would merely be stating the truth without implying that every black person is a gullible christian belonging to an amorphous blob. If we start to take offence at nonsense like that, we'd become more like the Aplussers, not less so.
Persons of abundant pigmentation.
Could one humbly beg for directions as to where one might purchase such a wondrously shaped devise?BarnOwl wrote:I love my penguin-shaped Soda Stream! For me, the fizziness is the main attraction - most of the time I just drink carbonated tap water. Occasionally I'll add a bit of pomegranate or acai juice, or if I'm really feeling decadent, the Goya brand mango, passion fruit, or guava nectars.
I had a look for that and found this:Spence wrote:Neither of those are particularly fair characterisations of the events.EdgePenguin wrote:Penn Jillette is not, to be fair, a great skeptic. One episode of "Bullshit!" was basically shilling for the tobacco lobby by claiming that passive smoking did not exist. Another went into full on climate change denial, and had a go at climate scientists based on some bad science reporting in Time magazine.AbsurdWalls wrote: Libertarians are usually very socially liberal, so I guess it's the narcissism of small differences?
Either that or because most SJWs are Marxist/Socialist?
I think it's mostly Penn Jillette's fault actually. He is everything they hate.
On passive smoking, they stated at the time that there was insufficient evidence to support harm by passive smoking; when he was asked subsequently, Penn noted he had changed his mind as better evidence became available after the show was run.
On environmental issues, his main thrust was that (1) people tend to become more gullible when it comes to environmental issues (or less willing to be skeptical) - demonstrated with his dihydrogen monoxide gag - and (2) that the steps been taken to address global warming (such as carbon credit scams run by SUV driving "environmentalists" with no checks on what the carbon credits were actually spent on) would be a complete waste of time even if there was a problem.
This is underscored in the short vid shown above. The positions adopted by Penn are reasonable positions for a skeptic to take.
Generally: Penn is a minarchist libertarian - far more extreme than me (as a moderate, centre ground libertarian), but nowhere near as extreme as anarcho-capitalists. And yeah, the tea party (who are much further over on the "right wing" axis than they are on the "libertarian" axis of the political spectrum) have kind of screwed over the public perception of libertarianism.
Why, hello, good Sir. I would be most interested in perusing some of your literature and perhaps subscribe to your newsletter. And may I say you are looking quite batrachian this morning.Lsuoma wrote:Good Morning SirTedDahlberg wrote: I still remember the disappointment of learning what frogmen actually are…
I am from the Esoteric Order of Dagon and I would like to talk to you about our Lord and Saviour.
Not really. If he "feels" it's wrong but doesn't know and can't understand the research he should STFU about it, yet he's made how many Bullshit shows on the topic? He's not being a skeptic he's being an ideologue.AbsurdWalls wrote:That seems pretty reasonable.decius wrote:I can't find the second clarification where he stated his lack of expertise even more explicitly, but this will do.
[youtube]xE0UkL4tjpg[/youtube]
Then you should make a trip to Zimbabwe and tell these men that they beingTrophy wrote:Sure. We can disagree. I still maintain that on the grand scheme of things, it is a very small issue.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Did I misread you? Because my then 13 years old alter-ego wishes to differ.
and thendrugged or subdued at gun or knife-point
is a non-issue and totally meaningless in the grand scheme of things.given a sexual stimulant and forced to have sex continually, occasionally unprotected, before being dumped on the side of the road
In Pakistan, a 23 year-old Karachi waiter was lured into a vehicle, drugged then three women forced him to have sex for four days.
Please and go and fucking tell the CHILDREN mentioned here that what happened to them was a non-issue and a non-problemIn 2009, a young Russian woman was on trial in Australia for drugging ten men with clonidine then raping them
(...)
All ten victims ended up waking up in hospital with clonidine poisoning and penis trauma. When questioned by police, the victims could only remember that there was a friendly brunette who gave them drinks.
On October 30, 1991 the Hamilton Spectator reported that the Central Toronto Youth Services estimated that the number of abusive women in Canada is in the tens of thousands
Twenty year old Kevin (not his real name), spent most of his adolescent years in foster homes. His behaviors became too much for his mother and he was placed into the foster care system. On numerous occasions he was sexually abused by his mother's best friend
It's too fucking early in the morning to be reading this kind of crap.However, women are not receiving the equivalent sentencing in the court system compared to their male counterparts. A recent example is on October 29, 2008. Canwest News Services reported that a former Cornwall junior high school teacher who sexually assaulted one of her 13 year old male students was sentenced to six months in jail
Partly because there are a lot of Tea Party libertarians around who support pooling resources only as long as it delivers something they use. The old 'I got mine, fuck you'. There's an amusing fictional article floating around which follows a conservative around for a day listing all of the public services and benefits he blithely takes for granted while railing about socialist liberals. Some flavours of libertarian seem to think we all live in villages. Reason number 1 might be that Sam Harris is a libertarian of some stripe.Gefan wrote:It promotes personal responsibility. What did you expect?Metalogic42 wrote:
A few comments on that article take a jab at libertarianism (Setar even shows up!). I'm not much into politics; can anyone explain why SJWs have such a hate-on for libertarianism?
Lsuoma wrote: Good Morning Sir
I am from the Esoteric Order of Dagon and I would like to talk to you about our Lord and Saviour.
Two that I can find are related. One is limited to talking about recycling (and has some valid criticisms that have since been addressed), the other is about "environmental hysteria", which is supposedly where they demonstrate that people are less skeptical about environmental claims.katamari Damassi wrote:Not really. If he "feels" it's wrong but doesn't know and can't understand the research he should STFU about it, yet he's made how many Bullshit shows on the topic? He's not being a skeptic he's being an ideologue.AbsurdWalls wrote:That seems pretty reasonable.decius wrote:I can't find the second clarification where he stated his lack of expertise even more explicitly, but this will do.
[youtube]xE0UkL4tjpg[/youtube]
Why, one might even say he's rugose! Quite!TedDahlberg wrote:Why, hello, good Sir. I would be most interested in perusing some of your literature and perhaps subscribe to your newsletter. And may I say you are looking quite batrachian this morning.Lsuoma wrote:
*snip*
Good Morning Sir
I am from the Esoteric Order of Dagon and I would like to talk to you about our Lord and Saviour.
The CDC's NISVS study http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/p ... 2010-a.pdf shows the 12 month figures for rape at 1.1% and the twelve month figures for "forced to penetrate" (because that's not rape) at 1.1% (tables 2.1 and 2.2 respectively). Now, I wouldn't take this to mean it is definitely equal (this is only one study, though I don't know of many others that include men as a counter), and certainly not on a global scale, but it certainly is more than the very small issue you're making it out to be.Trophy wrote:Sure. We can disagree. I still maintain that on the grand scheme of things, it is a very small issue.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Did I misread you? Because my then 13 years old alter-ego wishes to differ.
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/im ... kTract.gifLsuoma wrote:
I am from the Esoteric Order of Dagon and I would like to talk to you about our Lord and Saviour.
Every time we pay for dinner and a movie, we are prioritising our own pleasure over the homeless and the poor. Unless you are the sort of person who never spends on unnecessary personal pleasures, you aren't exactly in a position to damn those who do. I'm sure as hell not, having just purchased a new iPhone and nice pair of Ugg boots for the wife.Pitchguest wrote:Notice this comment here I made at avicenna's latest about Nat Reed,
http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-35950
Not even an acknowledgement. But priorities are priorities.
Where's your head been all this time? Been said often enough that the place for damaged souls is on a mental health board run by responsible people who have the common sense and responsibility to reign in the pity party. Signing up to a political cesspit moderated by narcissists is buying yourself damage on a stick.surreptitious57 wrote:I am the only one of those who does not post and that is because I am a restricted user. I do regularly visit the site however. And to educate myself rather than gloat as that is not my style. I wonder if wind is ever going to reveal her source ? I am more with the others on that one. There has been a serious betrayal of trust and she is refusing to name the guilty party, just because she was not allowed into the inner sanctum now. What I find interesting is how the betrayer - whoever they are - was deemed to be someone that could be trusted now. I think that it will be a long time before full trust is ever restored again over there. And that is a shame, as it is supposed to be a safe place for these damaged soulsSkep tickle wrote:
Flewellyn has already said GOODNIGHT but has posted since then and is sitting in the thread with a bunch of other people, some of who are presumably eating popcorn and others who are popping antacids or sharpening their sword as the case may be : emptyell Flewellyn Navigator Onamission5 Setar surreptitious57 Sylvia Sybil and 5 guests
That, and the idea that competition is the natural desired state for a company is fucking stupid. Monopolies. If you are running a company and think that you can make more money in a competitive market over a monopoly, you're stupid. Setting aside AT&T, which was a government-sponsored monopoly, look at companies like IBM, Microsoft, et al. They make the most money when they don't have to deal with competition. Competition forces you to lower prices, spend more money on customer service, etc.AbsurdWalls wrote:I'm no Libertarian, but I know that a lot of people criticise Libertarian ideas by assuming that the "free market" capitalism we currently live under is what Libertarians are after. I am pretty sure that is not the case. I believe that Hayek is one of the economists favoured by Libertarians (I myself tend to prefer Keynes to Hayek), and he has quite sophisticated ideas about how attempting to control the marketplace stifles competition etc.Karmakin wrote:Well, speaking for myself, I distrust Libertarianism because it often comes across as an overly simplistic, dogmatic ideology. In a lot of ways it really does remind me of the type of Neofeminism that we talk about so often here in a lot of ways.
In this case, it's the strict ideology that private business is ALWAYS more efficient and makes better decisions than public government, and that for the things that public government does do, being at as a local government that you possibly can be is best. I disagree VERY strongly with both those ideological statements.
At least from what I've seen in my life, in order for private business to be more efficient, it requires a certain level of competition, which I don't think is always there. To give a good example, I don't think the American health care system works well at all. There simply can't be enough competition in that particular sector to result in the normal gains we see from a competitive marketplace. We can have a good discussion/debate on what the level of competition needed is, of course. But a strict ideological statement that private business is ALWAYS more efficient really doesn't help things.
Along the same lines, I'll be honest. I don't trust local politicians. At all. I do think it's a necessary evil in some cases, but again, IME, they tend to act in a corrupt fashion more frequently. And this is actually understandable...they know most/all of the people that their decisions affect, and that's going to influence the decisions that they make.
To actually implement Hayek's ideas though would require a revolutionary turn almost as large as going full communist. The only reason to make such a decision would be based on the belief that we simply cannot predict what the economy is going to do (and we would struggle to control it), so we ought to allow it to change without interfering and making matters worse.
Yeah, I caught that. Crommy not only misses the point, he goes on to extrapolate his misunderstanding by issuing a commentary on it. Not even worth replying to.Notung wrote:Al, I don't know if you've seen it, but Crommunist is talking about you:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/ ... -feminism/
You might have missed it as there's no link to your original post... :roll:
Please tell me my skin is squamous, too, you silver-tongued cavalier!SenorBeagle wrote:Why, one might even say he's rugose! Quite!TedDahlberg wrote:Why, hello, good Sir. I would be most interested in perusing some of your literature and perhaps subscribe to your newsletter. And may I say you are looking quite batrachian this morning.Lsuoma wrote:
*snip*
Good Morning Sir
I am from the Esoteric Order of Dagon and I would like to talk to you about our Lord and Saviour.
:popcorn:Sounds fair enough. It’s not a huge ask and it is a tool of the trade so to speak. You may be able to set an example to your readers and throw some coin in for the new laptop. You are probably in a better position to help out than most people at the moment.
I hope it all works out in the end.
Scoop.
Wind literally got a PM from a friend who is apparently in the "in" group to a thread that was about Wind. She clicked the link and found that she didn't have permissions to view it, though she could see the title, which was about her.Skep tickle wrote:http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/search.ph ... sf=msgonly - start at the bottom, which has a link to the page in case you want to go to the source (no ads so no revenue for A+ forum if you click). Otherwise, scanning the posts in that list that have to do with Atheism+/Flew/Setar/etc should fill you in.Gefan wrote:Could someone give me a quick summary of the saga that seems to revolve around someone by the screen name of "Wind"?surreptitious57 wrote:I am the only one of those who does not post and that is because I am a restricted user. I do regularly visit the site however. And to educate myself rather than gloat as that is not my style. I wonder if wind is ever going to reveal her source ? I am more with the others on that one. There has been a serious betrayal of trust and she is refusing to name the guilty party, just because she was not allowed into the inner sanctum now. What I find interesting is how the betrayer - whoever they are - was deemed to be someone that could be trusted now. I think that it will be a long time before full trust is ever restored again over there. And that is a shame, as it is supposed to be a safe place for these damaged soulsSkep tickle wrote:
Flewellyn has already said GOODNIGHT but has posted since then and is sitting in the thread with a bunch of other people, some of who are presumably eating popcorn and others who are popping antacids or sharpening their sword as the case may be : emptyell Flewellyn Navigator Onamission5 Setar surreptitious57 Sylvia Sybil and 5 guests
What is the alleged heresy? Who are the "dramatis baboonae"? What are the issues?
(Cliff Notes version: wind suspected, or was told, there was a secret forum to which she didn't have access. Flew & other mods dissembled then finally ended up admitting it. Shit flying; fee-fees hurt; swipes & sniping left & right; temp-bans about every page or 2.)
I don't think that's really the issue. For example, the fact you buy stuff that is not strictly necessary instead of donating that money isn't a problem, because you aren't setting yourself up on a moral high ground. You don't go preaching, (at least I haven't seen it) and condemning people for not following a set of civic standards that you not only don't meet yourself, but loudly justify why it's okay for you to be selfish, but no one else.d4m10n wrote:Every time we pay for dinner and a movie, we are prioritising our own pleasure over the homeless and the poor. Unless you are the sort of person who never spends on unnecessary personal pleasures, you aren't exactly in a position to damn those who do. I'm sure as hell not, having just purchased a new iPhone and nice pair of Ugg boots for the wife.Pitchguest wrote:Notice this comment here I made at avicenna's latest about Nat Reed,
http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-35950
Not even an acknowledgement. But priorities are priorities.
Looks as though the other FfTBers have seen how well Greta's scam went and are all going for a piece of that pie.UnbelieveSteve wrote:Greta took the time out to blog about a fellow FTBer's lack of cash for a replacement laptop.
"Help Replace Avicenna’s Laptop!"
http://www.freezepage.com/1359039008HQPHXMCVPD
Comment #2 seems pretty fair.:popcorn:Sounds fair enough. It’s not a huge ask and it is a tool of the trade so to speak. You may be able to set an example to your readers and throw some coin in for the new laptop. You are probably in a better position to help out than most people at the moment.
I hope it all works out in the end.
Scoop.
Al Stefanelli wrote:Yeah, I caught that. Crommy not only misses the point, he goes on to extrapolate his misunderstanding by issuing a commentary on it. Not even worth replying to.Notung wrote:Al, I don't know if you've seen it, but Crommunist is talking about you:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/ ... -feminism/
You might have missed it as there's no link to your original post... :roll:
Who are also hemorrhaging members and finances while fleecing the dwindling faithful for more and more vanity projects to delude the public and the decreasing membership that they are "winning".welch wrote: You forgot the Scientology stuff.
But you're not setting up a 'charity' fundraiser to go out for the evening or purchase those items. How you dispose of the money you earn is your affair.d4m10n wrote:Every time we pay for dinner and a movie, we are prioritising our own pleasure over the homeless and the poor. Unless you are the sort of person who never spends on unnecessary personal pleasures, you aren't exactly in a position to damn those who do. I'm sure as hell not, having just purchased a new iPhone and nice pair of Ugg boots for the wife.Pitchguest wrote:Notice this comment here I made at avicenna's latest about Nat Reed,
http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-35950
Not even an acknowledgement. But priorities are priorities.
Then learn to the read the context of the posts you are reply to. Because those examples don't prove that "women rape men with their vaginas nearly as often as men rape women with their penises." They are not even close.Altair wrote:It's too fucking early in the morning to be reading this kind of crap.
This. He also ways he wants to say its all bullshit, but the really smart people have compelling arguments.... but he doesn't accept them as correct, they just stop him from shouting bullshit...katamari Damassi wrote:Not really. If he "feels" it's wrong but doesn't know and can't understand the research he should STFU about it, yet he's made how many Bullshit shows on the topic? He's not being a skeptic he's being an ideologue.AbsurdWalls wrote:That seems pretty reasonable.decius wrote:I can't find the second clarification where he stated his lack of expertise even more explicitly, but this will do.
[youtube]xE0UkL4tjpg[/youtube]
Ok, two questions:Trophy wrote:Then learn to the read the context of the posts you are reply to. Because those examples don't prove that "women rape men with their vaginas nearly as often as men rape women with their penises." They are not even close.Altair wrote:It's too fucking early in the morning to be reading this kind of crap.
And, in grand scheme of things, it's pretty damn unlikely for a man to be raped by a woman (and male minors don't count as "men"). It's almost a non-issue.
Well, some of the money is going toward vanity projects. Actually, they are not quite vanity projects, they're more like hybrid cash cow /white elephants. They strong arm the local org donors for millions for a new building and keep moving the goalposts and adding requirements. Of course the local franchisees have to pay Scient International rent, or whatever they call it, while the buildings stand empty. There is somewhat of a discrepancy between money raised and costs, but they won't talk about that.Richard Dworkins wrote:Who are also hemorrhaging members and finances while fleecing the dwindling faithful for more and more vanity projects to delude the public and the decreasing membership that they are "winning".welch wrote: You forgot the Scientology stuff.
Good comparison.
As someone who was raped by a woman, go fuck yourself. Seriously, take a splintered broom handle and shove it up your ass. It is because of attitudes like yours that I was unable to procecute my abuser.Trophy wrote:Then learn to the read the context of the posts you are reply to. Because those examples don't prove that "women rape men with their vaginas nearly as often as men rape women with their penises." They are not even close.Altair wrote:It's too fucking early in the morning to be reading this kind of crap.
And, in grand scheme of things, it's pretty damn unlikely for a man to be raped by a woman (and male minors don't count as "men"). It's almost a non-issue.
As someone who was raped by a woman, go fuck yourself. Seriously, take a splintered broom handle and shove it up your ass. It is because of attitudes like yours that I was unable to procecute my abuser.Trophy wrote:Then learn to the read the context of the posts you are reply to. Because those examples don't prove that "women rape men with their vaginas nearly as often as men rape women with their penises." They are not even close.Altair wrote:It's too fucking early in the morning to be reading this kind of crap.
And, in grand scheme of things, it's pretty damn unlikely for a man to be raped by a woman (and male minors don't count as "men"). It's almost a non-issue.
+1 here too also, Please go and fornicate with a raw pineapple while being sodomised backwards by a porcupine you inconsiderate ignorant gimp.Mr Danksworth wrote:As someone who was raped by a woman, go fuck yourself. Seriously, take a splintered broom handle and shove it up your ass. It is because of attitudes like yours that I was unable to procecute my abuser.Trophy wrote:Then learn to the read the context of the posts you are reply to. Because those examples don't prove that "women rape men with their vaginas nearly as often as men rape women with their penises." They are not even close.Altair wrote:It's too fucking early in the morning to be reading this kind of crap.
And, in grand scheme of things, it's pretty damn unlikely for a man to be raped by a woman (and male minors don't count as "men"). It's almost a non-issue.
http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufa ... rable-men/Trophy wrote:Then learn to the read the context of the posts you are reply to. Because those examples don't prove that "women rape men with their vaginas nearly as often as men rape women with their penises." They are not even close.Altair wrote:It's too fucking early in the morning to be reading this kind of crap.
And, in grand scheme of things, it's pretty damn unlikely for a man to be raped by a woman (and male minors don't count as "men"). It's almost a non-issue.
Basically starts here on page 54 of the Capricious Mods thread and hasn't stopped since (17 pages). Worth reading the whole thing. Definitely kafkaesque.Gefan wrote:Could someone give me a quick summary of the saga that seems to revolve around someone by the screen name of "Wind"?
What is the alleged heresy? Who are the "dramatis baboonae"? What are the issues?
wind wrote:There really is something wrong with this place. Long time members here know what it is. The very thing that makes it feel like a safe space to people who joined in Aug and Sept makes it NOT a safe space for people who joined after.
I don't think you can really "grow" a movement like this. Imagine if Occupy had these secret layers? Would it have worked? Or is total transparency key?
I *believe in* transparency. Obviously "you guys" don't.
Live and let live, I guess.
I think I did the best I could with someone who was clearly trolling. Whats the point in asking "So whats my ideology" if you are in fact willing to say "I'm a feminist".AbsurdWalls wrote:That conversation didn't go anywhere did it? It was like watching two slugs trying to open a jam jar. Bravo Peter.EdgePenguin wrote:Is people asking deliberately dumb questions supposed to be some subtle debate technique or something?
The million gods person is a medical student, I assume that's the work he needs the laptop for. From the "lappy" post:Oneiros666 wrote:Fuck you, Greta. And fuck you "million gods" person. Get a goddamn job.
Ha, that would be awesome if it was sarcastic, but I suppose he's being sincere...And what makes me worry was the treatment Greta Christina got for using such charity on something as important as shoes and feel odd to ask for the same for something as silly as a laptop.
Exactly, FtB could take this opportunity to create a "social justice aware" business model that puts us all to shame, instead they have fundraisers for travel expenses and laptops and for people who have medical insurance, and annoying pop-up ads that don't bring in money.jimthepleb wrote: I think a setup like FtB could be leading by example by helping out a (former) colleague who is in imminent danger of homelessness or they could buy someone a mid-range laptop or they could do both. Their lack of extension of charity toward NR is notable if unsurprising.
I didn't realise that was your Twitter account, I thought your comment was referring to what Peter was saying (I hope you weren't trying to keep those two identities separate, by the way). Trying to use innuendo to make your point was stupid, it was equivalent to giving SGB a knife and asking him to stab himself with it. You should have just come out with what you wanted to say.EdgePenguin wrote:I think I did the best I could with someone who was clearly trolling. Whats the point in asking "So whats my ideology" if you are in fact willing to say "I'm a feminist".AbsurdWalls wrote:That conversation didn't go anywhere did it? It was like watching two slugs trying to open a jam jar. Bravo Peter.EdgePenguin wrote:Is people asking deliberately dumb questions supposed to be some subtle debate technique or something?
How was I using innuendo? I made an utterly clear statment to it and he went off on psuedo-intellectual word games. I tried to disengage, he carried on, so I blocked him. This is not unreasonable.AbsurdWalls wrote:I didn't realise that was your Twitter account, I thought your comment was referring to what Peter was saying (I hope you weren't trying to keep those two identities separate, by the way). Trying to use innuendo to make your point was stupid, it was equivalent to giving SGB a knife and asking him to stab himself with it. You should have just come out with what you wanted to say.EdgePenguin wrote:I think I did the best I could with someone who was clearly trolling. Whats the point in asking "So whats my ideology" if you are in fact willing to say "I'm a feminist".AbsurdWalls wrote:That conversation didn't go anywhere did it? It was like watching two slugs trying to open a jam jar. Bravo Peter.EdgePenguin wrote:Is people asking deliberately dumb questions supposed to be some subtle debate technique or something?
Flouncing and then blocking him at the end was particularly baffling.
Sorry, just calling it as I see it.
Why, sir, the non-Euclidean folds of your blasphemous countenance are looking particularly gibbous, today!Lsuoma wrote:Please tell me my skin is squamous, too, you silver-tongued cavalier!SenorBeagle wrote:Why, one might even say he's rugose! Quite!TedDahlberg wrote:Why, hello, good Sir. I would be most interested in perusing some of your literature and perhaps subscribe to your newsletter. And may I say you are looking quite batrachian this morning.Lsuoma wrote:
*snip*
Good Morning Sir
I am from the Esoteric Order of Dagon and I would like to talk to you about our Lord and Saviour.
I was not objecting to the original quote. You dropped the "nearly as often as..." and started talking about men being raped by women as being a non-issue. That's what I'm objecting to, I don't care how often it happens, or how many cases are there (there are cases, as the links show), anything that harms and hurts a human being is not a non-issue.Trophy wrote:Then learn to the read the context of the posts you are reply to. Because those examples don't prove that "women rape men with their vaginas nearly as often as men rape women with their penises." They are not even close.Altair wrote:It's too fucking early in the morning to be reading this kind of crap.
And, in grand scheme of things, it's pretty damn unlikely for a man to be raped by a woman (and male minors don't count as "men"). It's almost a non-issue.
How come Julian gets away with speaking to them all like that, but if a newer member dares, say, to post a Youtube video without also providing a complete transcription for they get shit thrown at them?Apples wrote: Basically starts here on page 54 of the Capricious Mods thread and hasn't stopped since (17 pages). Worth reading the whole thing. Definitely kafkaesque.
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... start=1325
Awww come on now. Greta was selflessly ridding herself of her 'employed' privilage.Oneiros666 wrote:Goddamnit. Have these people no fucking shame? They are begging for money, ffs. And no, Greta, "blogging" is not a job. It's a fucking hobby. If you were a professional writer who had your shit published and people actually were interested in buying your shitty writing; then yeah, congrats, you are a writer. But writing about bullshit on a personal online fucking diary (i.e. blog) is not a job. If people wish to throw money at you, much like you throw money at street musicians, fine. But don't call putting a jar with "donations plz" in front of your digital streetcorner a "job". And no matter what shit you say; it is fucking shameful to beg for money.Pitchguest wrote:Oh, and I noticed something interesting: Greta Christina is noticing a fellow blogger is in need of aid, but sadly ... not whom you'd expect.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/ ... as-laptop/
That avicenna must really need a new laptop!
You need a new laptop? Guess what, so do lots of people. But instead of whining about it online and begging for money; adults actually do something about it. Like getting a motherfucking job.
Fuck you, Greta. And fuck you "million gods" person. Get a goddamn job.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ir1965.jpgd4m10n wrote:
I've got to get back to painting little FtB logos on the side of my Corsair.
Here's a link to the full article at the Secular Census site http://www.secularcensus.us/analysis/2013-01-23, where we find another quote (the first percent is women, the second is men)Secular Census wrote:]
Regardless of gender, all respondents who are or have been involved in the secular movement are asked: Have you ever felt unwelcome, discriminated against, or harmed in the secular movement? Women outnumber men 62%/34% in responding “Yes.†It is worth noting that women do not outnumber men when asked the same question about religious organizations with which they’ve been associated. It appears they are less comfortable in secular groups than in the churches they left.
They are assuming that this means that women are being disproportionately harassed and abused by the secular community.Secular Census wrote: Regardless of gender, all uninvolved respondents are asked: What are your reasons for not being involved in the secular movement? Check as many as apply. Women outnumber men in these responses:
70%/30% - Bad experience with group, person, or event
100%/0% - Can't get over my conditioning that religion is good and secularism is bad
67%/33% - Health issues
65%/35% - Lack of childcare
Oh that! Well yes if that is your perspective then I can see why you would react like that. Certainly given the broad historical context, and even the fairly recent ones, not confined to Africa, but for example the Serbian gang rapes in Kosovo etc. etc.Trophy wrote: Let me highlight for you the fucking moronic part:
"Typhonblue has so thoroughly documented, not only can they do so, but they do so with near as much frequency as men do with their penises."
Right. Because there are armies of women running around in Africa raping shit of men and spreading HIV. Right. It is possible in the "night club" lifestyle women's rapes can be a noticable fraction of rapes committed by men but on a grand scale, men raped by women is a non-issue and a non-problem.
YMMVThe Real Ratio of Male to Female Rapists
If we look at the more reliable statistic, the risk of rape in the last twelve months, and we fix the NIPSVS’s mistake in classifying forced envelopment as “other sexual assault†and not rape, we find that 80% of men report a female rapist and 98% of women report a male rapist.
That works out to 40% of rapists being female and 60% being male. A far cry from 95+% of rapists being male.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ead_moduleA total of 88,139 women and girls were arrested for violence against the person last year - the equivalent of 241 arrests a day.
It was up from 87,140 in 2006/07 and more than doubled the 37,100 arrested in 1999/00.
It was also the second year that violence was the main reason for female arrests, higher than the 77,400 arrested for theft offences.
Almost one in four were aged between ten and 17 sparking fears of a new generation of young violent "ladettes".
The more interesting question to me is "why?". It's not like it's hard. Fuck, even a bad case of ReGreta allows for a paragraph or two asking folks to help out as they can. Yet...silence. Funny that. Makes you wonder why.jimthepleb wrote:But you're not setting up a 'charity' fundraiser to go out for the evening or purchase those items. How you dispose of the money you earn is your affair.d4m10n wrote:Every time we pay for dinner and a movie, we are prioritising our own pleasure over the homeless and the poor. Unless you are the sort of person who never spends on unnecessary personal pleasures, you aren't exactly in a position to damn those who do. I'm sure as hell not, having just purchased a new iPhone and nice pair of Ugg boots for the wife.Pitchguest wrote:Notice this comment here I made at avicenna's latest about Nat Reed,
http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... ment-35950
Not even an acknowledgement. But priorities are priorities.
I think a setup like FtB could be leading by example by helping out a (former) colleague who is in imminent danger of homelessness or they could buy someone a mid-range laptop or they could do both. Their lack of extension of charity toward NR is notable if unsurprising.
That's the part I don't like about that. He thinks it's all crap, that's clear, but there's too many scientists disagreeing with him to say that in an unequivocal fashion. He could say "Well, honestly, I'm not an expert. The overall scientific consensus on Climate Change is pretty clear though, and it is a complicated issue. So perhaps I'd be smarter to say that I think some of the ways people come up with to deal with Climate Change are bullshit, but not climate change itself."Remick wrote:This. He also ways he wants to say its all bullshit, but the really smart people have compelling arguments.... but he doesn't accept them as correct, they just stop him from shouting bullshit...katamari Damassi wrote:Not really. If he "feels" it's wrong but doesn't know and can't understand the research he should STFU about it, yet he's made how many Bullshit shows on the topic? He's not being a skeptic he's being an ideologue.AbsurdWalls wrote:That seems pretty reasonable.decius wrote:I can't find the second clarification where he stated his lack of expertise even more explicitly, but this will do.
[youtube]xE0UkL4tjpg[/youtube]
I agree that 2) is stupid, but, comparing raw numbers, rape by men is the vast majority. I don't think it's wrong to acknowledge that, and admit that this is why the assumption is made that rape is initiated by a man. It's like being on a horse ranch and analyzing foot prints. Sure, they could have been made by a cow and that might even be the case, but having the initial assumption they were made by a horse is not bad.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Ok, two questions:Trophy wrote:Then learn to the read the context of the posts you are reply to. Because those examples don't prove that "women rape men with their vaginas nearly as often as men rape women with their penises." They are not even close.Altair wrote:It's too fucking early in the morning to be reading this kind of crap.
And, in grand scheme of things, it's pretty damn unlikely for a man to be raped by a woman (and male minors don't count as "men"). It's almost a non-issue.
1)What is the "grand scheme of things"?
2) ["and male minors don't count as "men"] Are you on drugs right now?
