If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

Michael K Gray wrote:

Jack wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:

Jack wrote:The issue we have is the atheist movement is infected by people who have no interest in skepticism or critical thinking.

Objection, your honour!
"Infected" is a misleading and thoroughly poisonous term in this case.
I keep trying to impress on the learned counsel that a-theism has nothing necessarily to do with either skepticism or critical thinking!
It is simple the absence of a belief.
Whilst a-theism may be caused by skepticism, it is not in any way dependent upon it for the majority of atheists.
Any number of unskeptical, (or even anti-skeptical), and/or uncritical thinkers can and have embraced atheism with gusto, and will continue to do so.

Of course we have "people who have no interest in skepticism or critical thinking"! M'lud.
(I gave several examples in a prior submission to the court. Exhibit A-theism.)

I request that you advise Sir Jack to withdraw his unfounded and scurrilous remark, as it renders our well-water somewhat unpalatable, or I shall have a hissy-fit in the robing room, and go to the bar association afterward.
(Watson will be there as well, I am led to understand. Perhaps she has the legal term "Bar" confused with something else.)

You cut and paste that from FtB you lazy bugger.

Impossible! It contains criticism of Watson.
BTW, I am quite serious about the atheism/skepticism disconnect.
And the sunscreen.
If I have one bit of advice to the class of '95:- it is to "Wear Atheism".

Oh I agree. I suspect the vast majority of atheists did not get to their lack of belief through skeptisism. For some reason they think atheism has something to do with their other beliefs, it does not.

On A+ recently a mod said 'We are about Social Justice from and atheist perspective'. I can't parse that, it is a meaningless statement.

That also does not mean they can't hijack the word 'atheist' and use it for their own social or political beliefs. If they want to be activists in those areas they should join groups who support that or be happy to be PART of the overall atheist movement rather than all of it.

Because of it's dictionary definition the word atheism in activism has been accepted to mean secularism and anti-theism. Even that is arguable. In any event no one has the right to assume a philosophy on it, especially one so deeply flawed and not in general agreement.

Jack wrote:Because of it's dictionary definition the word atheism in activism has been accepted to mean secularism and anti-theism. Even that is arguable. In any event no one has the right to assume a philosophy on it, especially one so deeply flawed and not in general agreement.

I count myself as both an atheist, (in the trivial sense), and an anti-theist.
A rabid anti-theist.
But even theists can be anti-theist. Hindu versus Islam. Mormon versus Scientology, and cetera...
Many folk who identify as Christians are anti-main-stream-Christianity.
Too often folk conflate theism with Churches.
The Catholic Church is a money-making criminal organization which, like the Mafia, has no interest in theology save for a thin cover by which they excuse their extortion, robbery, rape & genocide.
They are a Church, but theism is incidental to the point of irrelevance.

Anti-theism is NOT a subset of Atheism.

Michael K Gray wrote:

Jack wrote:Because of it's dictionary definition the word atheism in activism has been accepted to mean secularism and anti-theism. Even that is arguable. In any event no one has the right to assume a philosophy on it, especially one so deeply flawed and not in general agreement.

I count myself as both an atheist, (in the trivial sense), and an anti-theist.
A rabid anti-theist.
But even theists can be anti-theist. Hindu versus Islam. Mormon versus Scientology, and cetera...
Many folk who identify as Christians are anti-main-stream-Christianity.
Too often folk conflate theism with Churches.
The Catholic Church is a money-making criminal organization which, like the Mafia, has no interest in theology save for a thin cover by which they excuse their extortion, robbery, rape & genocide.
They are a Church, but theism is incidental to the point of irrelevance.

Anti-theism is NOT a subset of Atheism.

I said atheist movements. Not atheism. Atheism informs us of nothing except the existence of an entity. Atheists movements, to have a purpose at all, have assumed other roles. Tough luck if you don't like it.

Michael K Gray wrote:That she has had altercations with the law makes me sway more toward her side.

Really?

MKG, I didn't have you down as an eighteen-year-old reactionary, who thought it cool to flip the finger at police officers and smoke weed behind the burnt out cinema.

What the holy hell makes you sway towards her side about the fact she has had altercations with the law? Why is this by definition good? Do you have a Che Guevara poster on your bedroom wall?

Not for the same reasons, but I agree with the notion that it's proper to cut EBW a bit of slack. As I always say, in the SJW movement there's predators and there's prey. It's clear at this junction that EBW was the latter, and as such I think that's the way it should be approached.

There's also the notion that there's no actual leaders (predators) in this movement, that everybody is acted upon and the machine works in an automatic fashion. Reminds me of an anime actually. If you've ever seen Ghost in the Shell, they made a (better than the movie actually) series out of it called Stand Alone Complex.

The SJW movement may be exactly what they're describing with that.

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:That she has had altercations with the law makes me sway more toward her side.

Really?

MKG, I didn't have you down as an eighteen-year-old reactionary, who thought it cool to flip the finger at police officers and smoke weed behind the burnt out cinema.

What the holy hell makes you sway towards her side about the fact she has had altercations with the law? Why is this by definition good? Do you have a Che Guevara poster on your bedroom wall?

I am more of a 13 year old reactionary.
Have yet to mature to the 18yr old version.
It is my PERSONAL OPINION that it is relatively "good" because it is more interesting that the usual bland SJW stance.
I thought that I outlined this position?

And no, I do not now, nor ever had a Che Guevara Poster on my wall, although I do currently have a MAD parody of said poster hanging in my dunny. "VIVA LA STUPIDITY" it reads.
And when on Earth did you, in particular, become a judge of social maturity??
Akin to being berated for a parking offence by the Godfather.

I dismiss your sudden concern for my internal thoughts as a silly thing.
I set fire to your straw-men in protest!

Jack wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:

Jack wrote:Because of it's dictionary definition the word atheism in activism has been accepted to mean secularism and anti-theism. Even that is arguable. In any event no one has the right to assume a philosophy on it, especially one so deeply flawed and not in general agreement.

I count myself as both an atheist, (in the trivial sense), and an anti-theist.
A rabid anti-theist.
But even theists can be anti-theist. Hindu versus Islam. Mormon versus Scientology, and cetera...
Many folk who identify as Christians are anti-main-stream-Christianity.
Too often folk conflate theism with Churches.
The Catholic Church is a money-making criminal organization which, like the Mafia, has no interest in theology save for a thin cover by which they excuse their extortion, robbery, rape & genocide.
They are a Church, but theism is incidental to the point of irrelevance.

Anti-theism is NOT a subset of Atheism.

I said atheist movements. Not atheism. Atheism informs us of nothing except the existence of an entity. Atheists movements, to have a purpose at all, have assumed other roles. Tough luck if you don't like it.

PZ's talk in Seattle a couple of days ago was titled "Moving Atheism Beyond Science"; I was one of about 200 attendees.

PZ claimed that people (perhaps especially atheists) think "Anti-theism + Science = Atheism" (he had that 'equation' on several slides), but "Atheism" (he claimed) has to move "beyond science" in order to make "Atheism" more meaningful and attractive to the growing number of non-theists, and more relevant to addressing the needs of the world.

And to do that, IMO he used sleight of hand: slipping "secular humanism" in and renaming it "Atheism". Ta da! Problem solved! Atheism saved!

He had a pithy one-liner lots of attendees liked: "Science is the floor, not the ceiling" (in considering matters of morality and human endeavors).

He imparted, in a very serious tone, the edict that we all have to accept, and I quote, "the personal testimony of women" when they say they are harassed or raped. (It sounded to me like he was equating harassment with rape, but perhaps I misunderstood his intent or his words in those 1-2 sentences.)

I was tempted to ask during Q&A whether he thought that we should also accept other "personal testimony", for example that of theists, but that seemed low priority in the scheme of things. (Besides, did you think he'd say, "Oh, right! Good point.")

To clarify, I'm happy to accept anyone's "personal testimony" - but only as their report about their personal experience, obviously not as a reliable way to make a factual determination, including regarding any other person's intent (which "harassment" pretty much implies).

Jack wrote:I said atheist movements. Not atheism.

Indeed you did.
That may be my mistake.
Would you care to precisely define what you meant by "atheist movements"?
At this stage, I'm afraid that I can only vaguely guess.

Do you include Pharyngula, for instance?
Do you include the Chinese or Albanian Governments?
Do you include Buddhism?
Do you include Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science & Reason?
Do you include Raelianism?
Do you include Calithumpianism?

If not, then why not?
If so, then why?

Precisely what distinguishes your ill-defined "Atheist Movements" from "Anti-Theists", or "Anti-Churches"?
(Or Social Justice Warriors, for that matter)

Michael K Gray wrote:

Garlic wrote:Is there any example of universal suffrage being durably repelled? Even fascist regimes upheld women's suffrage.

Saudi Arabia?

Also Iran(1) and I would not be surprised if Egypt(2) and Tunisia(3) followed suit, but not without some resistance. Certainly where the Salafis have influence you can count on whatever reforms were made favouring women will be rolled back and/or ignored.

Incidentally, the recent Saudi announcement(4) about women only work oriented cities (last I heard it was a total of three) should not be taken as a sign that they intend to loosen the reins any time soon. From what I see it does mean that the decision makers have been convinced it is a good idea to expand their work force to include a pool of currently unexploited and idle resources. They are in fact only doing this now because they chose a different development model(5) from other Muslim countries.

I say idle because the Saudis have a considerable number of imported domestic labour(6) to chauffeur their womenfolk hither and yon, and servants to cook, clean, wash and child care. So that probably represents a significant number of educated women freed from the burdens of child care and other domestic responsibilities, and consequently with enough time on their hands to get up to considerable mischief.

Those of us here who are of the male persuasion probably have a good idea what the word "mischief" implies, and why it is enough to cause one to break out in a cold sweat at the thought.

So they are probably killing two birds with one stone, so as to speak.

Finally, in the course of writing this, I was reminded of something I had bookmarked well over a year ago. But more about that later. I am heading off to bed now.

1). WOMEN IN ISLAMIC SOCIETIES: A SELECTED REVIEW OF SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/Wom ... ieties.pdf
P.5

Reforms of family law often have been limited by the state’s perceived need to appease
conservative social elements and, since the 1970s, growing Islamist movements. Islamist
movements, sometimes through outright state takeover, as in Iran, occasionally have
succeeded in rolling back “women-friendly” reforms previously achieved.

2). American Univrsity of Cairo : Egypt’s Revolution: Has it Left the Egyptian Women Behind?
http://www.aucegypt.edu/news/Pages/News ... px?rid=351

On women’s status in the constitution, El Bendary argued that many, including women, were frustrated with the formation of the Constitutional Committee that drafted the constitution, which did not live up to the ambitions of women. “Certain articles that stipulated positive discrimination, like the article specifying a quota for women, were removed from the current constitution and instead there was a focus on the traditional role of women.”

3). World Report 2012: Tunisia
http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/wo ... 12-tunisia

On August 16 the Council of Ministers adopted a draft decree to lift Tunisia’s reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. However, the government maintained “a general declaration” suggesting that it might not implement reforms that conflict with Islam.

4). Saudi Arabia plans new city for women workers only
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/au ... en-workers

The proposals follow government instructions to create more job openings for women to enable them to have a more important role in the country's development.

5). Domestic Workers Count: Global Data on an Often Invisible Sector
http://www.uni-kassel.de/upress/online/ ... t.frei.pdf

significant is the domestic work sector in the Gulf countries, with 1.2
to two million working in Saudi Arabia (Human Rights Watch 2007)

6) Refer to note 1). above for the title and document.
P.6

The levels of Muslim women’s participation in the paid labor force are best explained by
a particular economy’s development strategy and consequent need for female labor,
rather than by, for example, religious ideology or cultural beliefs in male
breadwinner/female-homemaker roles. In the oil-boom years prior to the mid-1980s, the
oil-centered economies of MENA did not require female labor in order to grow. Thus,
oil-rich nations such as Saudi Arabia had few women in the labor force. By contrast,
Muslim counties that sought to develop through labor-intensive industrial production,
such as Tunisia, Malaysia, or Indonesia, feature high female labor force participation.

AndrewV69 wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:

Garlic wrote:Is there any example of universal suffrage being durably repelled? Even fascist regimes upheld women's suffrage.

Saudi Arabia?

Also Iran(1) and I would not be surprised if Egypt(2) and Tunisia(3) followed suit, but not without some resistance. Certainly where the Salafis have influence you can count on whatever reforms were made favouring women will be rolled back and/or ignored.

I must admit that I assumed the adverb "durably" to mean "chronic", or extended over time, (vis: having been in place, and remained in force for a long time), rather than your indicated acute "roll-backs".
Again, I may have been over-literal.

But that is not my fault.
I am in Tears-of-Rage®⁸ now contemplating the misogynist intersectional garblefargle anti-woman threatening mansplainin' iniquity of it.
Did I say "misogynist"?

You, YES: YOU! Have abrogated my very being with your slight re-interpretation of the OP's words. Intent is NOT magic, you utterly feelingless cunt!
Conjuring is not magic!
The rope-tricks that I do at Christmas ARE magic.
And fun too.
Depending on where I tie them.
(And in which trunk I lock the 'victim'.)
__________________
⁸ Tears-of-Rage® Setar Elf'n'Safety Doll now available.
(Troll tears not include. Serving Suggestion Only)
By Matt-hell, a division of Atheist Experience Inc.
WARNING! WARRANTY VOID IF FED BULLSHIT AFTER MIDNIGHT.

Skep Tickle said:

I was tempted to ask during Q&A whether he thought that we should also accept other "personal testimony", for example that of theists, but that seemed low priority in the scheme of things.

Tempted.

You were tempted.

How nice for you.

Skep Tickle, I have a lot of respect for everything you have said here at the Pit, over time, but my unavoidable response to that statement is:

If you were tempted to ask such a question, of the Lord PeeZus of the Church of Deceit ... WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T YOU!!??!!

One of the biggest problems in regards to dealing with these fucking idiots is that nobody ever seems to stand up and point out the bullshit, especially during public yadda yas, with profound, meaningfull questions.

GRR.

Skep tickle wrote:
PZ's talk in Seattle a couple of days ago was titled "Moving Atheism Beyond Science"; I was one of about 200 attendees.

PZ claimed that people (perhaps especially atheists) think "Anti-theism + Science = Atheism" (he had that 'equation' on several slides), but "Atheism" (he claimed) has to move "beyond science" in order to make "Atheism" more meaningful and attractive to the growing number of non-theists, and more relevant to addressing the needs of the world.

And to do that, IMO he used sleight of hand: slipping "secular humanism" in and renaming it "Atheism". Ta da! Problem solved! Atheism saved!

He had a pithy one-liner lots of attendees liked: "Science is the floor, not the ceiling" (in considering matters of morality and human endeavors).

He imparted, in a very serious tone, the edict that we all have to accept, and I quote, "the personal testimony of women" when they say they are harassed or raped. (It sounded to me like he was equating harassment with rape, but perhaps I misunderstood his intent or his words in those 1-2 sentences.)

I was tempted to ask during Q&A whether he thought that we should also accept other "personal testimony", for example that of theists, but that seemed low priority in the scheme of things. (Besides, did you think he'd say, "Oh, right! Good point.")

To clarify, I'm happy to accept anyone's "personal testimony" - but only as their report about their personal experience, obviously not as a reliable way to make a factual determination, including regarding any other person's intent (which "harassment" pretty much implies).

Ophelia argues that she, as a professional blogger, has as her workplace the entire internetwebthing.
Therefore rules on harrassment that apply to workplace settings - for example, criticism from people working on the next desk in your office - should also apply to the internet.
How is that not a licence to avoid all criticism?
Does anyone think for a second that Ophelia thinks that she should, likewise, avoid criticising bloggers she disagrees with?

As for Peezus' move towards Shakesville territory, I wonder if he should follow the logic of his words and immediately suspend one of his fellow FTB bloggers, Jason Terrible.

Jason admits to being accused of rape.
Yet, surely by Peezus rules Jason should never use the term "false".
He should "accept the personal testimony" of the woman that accused him.
Any other response is simply promoting rape culture.
http://i.imgur.com/0KcgVVM.png

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Skep tickle wrote:As for Peezus' move towards Shakesville territory, I wonder if he should follow the logic of his words and immediately suspend one of his fellow FTB bloggers, Jason Terrible.
Jason admits to being accused of rape.
Yet, surely by Peezus rules Jason should never use the term "false".
He should "accept the personal testimony" of the woman that accused him.
Any other response is simply promoting rape culture.
http://i.imgur.com/0KcgVVM.png

HYPOCRISY, Thy name is FTB

Maximus wrote:(Woohoo it worked! Thanks for the tutorials Scented, and thanks Mr Preview button)

You're welcome. :)

Coming soon, a tutorial on using the hidden edit button. Oops, was I supposed to mention that?

Jason Thibeault, aka, LousyCanuck, is (aside from Laden), the most toxic, vapid, and morally / ethically bankrupt piece of pseudomorphic, animatronic garbage that you can find on the 'net.

He is a totally, completely, inarguabley worthless piece of recycled dog's vomit.

Seriously he is, ugh, just, well, uhgh ... / puke / vomit / projectile shit-spew ....

....

I think the most, erm, resonant thing to say about that piece of leftover garbage that the garbge people left behind on the curb, is that he really and truly wants to be Greg Laden. Ya. I think that says it all. I mean, fuck me, he is even moving down there to be with his sociopathic buddies, Laden, Zvan, Myers, etc.

Ugh.

Michael K Gray wrote:

sacha wrote:

ERV wrote:What? I was 'friends' with PZ for ages, and he had no problem throwing me under the bus when I mildly chastised Watson (why? have to ask his psychiatrist). They dont have friends. They have tools. You throw away a tool when it 'breaks'. EBW 'broke' so she got tossed, like everyone else who confused our relationship as their 'friends'.

exactly. There is no loyalty. It is the popular girl's clique in high school. Assimilate or be shunned. Heathers.

and yes, I think it is funny as fuck when one of the "popular chicks" makes one wrong move, and finds themselves eating their lunch at a big table, all alone with the others pointing and whispering.

The universe is indifferent, so I find pleasure in the rare times someone gets exactly what they deserve.

What does Scented Nectar say to distil this approach?
"Scrutiny is Mutiny"!

That should be the official logo for A+, FfTB, and the Skepchickies. Questioning feminist dogma is a high crime, one of the worst of the thought crimes, even worse than objectification and sexualizing. The crime is also called "being hyper-skeptical", newspeak which I think was coined by Steffy, IIRC. If Orwell were alive today, he'd be writing novels based on it.

Jan Steen wrote:http://i.imgur.com/qUwlUZ9.jpg

This was almost responsible for a full rectal prolapse.

My GF, after enduring nearly five minutes of my cackling, called me a "dickhead" before flouncing off to buy coffee in our local Starbucks. I've got no idea why but this cartoon really hit my funny-button.

You've got to do more of these!

I think Myers is about to lose a Facebook friend or two:

http://atheiststoday.com/images/pzreddit.png

http://i.imgur.com/uWCdKFx.png

um...what?

codelette wrote:http://i.imgur.com/uWCdKFx.png

um...what?

Fucking imgur...
The delicious dumbfuck comment below:

Naw.

I'm not interested in this video in the least because of the visual content, and I'm glad that you tagged it.

Do you perhaps think you can find a different source of libertarian thought on the war on drugs that doesn't include snuff and violence?

and if you can't find one, can you do me a favor and let me know that you can't find one?

pz is timely and accurate as always

http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/s ... rict_sr=on

meme is basically already dead (like pz) mostly repetitive (ahem) and more than half of it was mocking the meme or mocking users wanting to see boobs (not sure i want to make another analogy)

Skep tickle wrote: He imparted, in a very serious tone, the edict that we all have to accept, and I quote, "the personal testimony of women" when they say they are harassed or raped. (It sounded to me like he was equating harassment with rape, but perhaps I misunderstood his intent or his words in those 1-2 sentences.)

I was tempted to ask during Q&A whether he thought that we should also accept other "personal testimony", for example that of theists, but that seemed low priority in the scheme of things. (Besides, did you think he'd say, "Oh, right! Good point.")

To clarify, I'm happy to accept anyone's "personal testimony" - but only as their report about their personal experience, obviously not as a reliable way to make a factual determination, including regarding any other person's intent (which "harassment" pretty much implies).

My take on this is that anyone has the right to establish their own policy regarding personal testimony. If PZ wants to assert that he will believe all reports of rape and harassment then he has the right to do so. It's analogous to my own policy regarding panhandling. I will always give money if I have it on me, even if it happens that the person will go buy booze or drugs. I've decided that it's not in my purview for that to stop me from giving. But this is my own personal guideline.

The only thing that actually matters though is whether law enforcement take rape and harassment threats seriously and respond in an appropriate fashion.

What PZ, et al. actually want is (surprise) more power than that. They want his type of policy to spill over into influencing actual criminal investigation and prosecution. They dearly want a default assumption of guilt until proven innocent. This is why the whole Steubenville media firestorm and lynch mob mentality spun into existence by Anonymous was such an orgasmic wet-dream for these guys. And no, I'm not saying I think the Steubenville boys were innocent. People (like me) who get concerned about trends like this hypothesize about what might happen IF the Steubenville boys <i>were</i> innocent and had to deal with a process like that.

Wow. Generalizing reddit is like being nationalist to a small country. Or racist to a demographic of people. So many different, totally innocent of thisandthat people use the thing. Shame on PZ Myers. Grabbing the first photo he can and saying its widespread on Reddit.

apparently the pic source. not sure if anyone can translate the title text

http://ru-auto.livejournal.com/24147917.html

look at all the people enjoying the outdoors, and the freedom to do as they like and dress as they like among a host of others, of all generations!

but so much misogyny, cuz boobs!

Hunt, I have to disagree with you there. People have been driven to suicide even when law enforcement did not just lock them away because someone accused them of rape, first of all. So no, I don't think it is right to presume people guilty of rape because someone said so. As for PZ, his personal policy would probably skip Jason Thibeault as an exception. As for me, a nice policy would be being polite when people claim it and keeping your skeptical to yourself in the event that its true. I would write something like, "yeah, in situations when" so I don't have to write as if I assume the person is telling the truth.

Guest wrote:apparently the pic source. not sure if anyone can translate the title text

http://ru-auto.livejournal.com/24147917.html

look at all the people enjoying the outdoors, and the freedom to do as they like and dress as they like among a host of others, of all generations!

but so much misogyny, cuz boobs!

I do declare. Get me to my couch. I'll be fine in a mome...

SurpriseGuest wrote:Wow. Generalizing reddit is like being nationalist to a small country. Or racist to a demographic of people. So many different, totally innocent of thisandthat people use the thing. Shame on PZ Myers. Grabbing the first photo he can and saying its widespread on Reddit.

No doubt all in support of Watson's latest attempt to get her name up in lights by accusing Reddit of "sexism". She must be spitting chips that everyone else is getting more attention than her at the minute. Cue Watson's lap dog to provide "evidence".

Hunt wrote:

Skep tickle wrote: People (like me) who get concerned about trends like this hypothesize about what might happen IF the Steubenville boys <i>were</i> innocent and had to deal with a process like that.

There's no real need to hypothesize, weren't the Duke "rapists" exactly in this situation, of being convicted in the court of public opinion before their case ever went to trial?

http://i.imgur.com/yidFeDh.jpg
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/26 ... ent-209365

SurpriseGuest wrote:Hunt, I have to disagree with you there. People have been driven to suicide even when law enforcement did not just lock them away because someone accused them of rape, first of all. So no, I don't think it is right to presume people guilty of rape because someone said so. As for PZ, his personal policy would probably skip Jason Thibeault as an exception. As for me, a nice policy would be being polite when people claim it and keeping your skeptical to yourself in the event that its true. I would write something like, "yeah, in situations when" so I don't have to write as if I assume the person is telling the truth.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your response, but what I meant was that it's PZ's right to set his own policy, while law enforcement must always presume innocence. However, thinking about it again, I think I'm being too nice to PZ's position. Let's say we had a town filled with people who presumes John Doe raped someone just on the testimony of his accuser, while the police maintain total neutrality pending investigation. That could still cause extraordinary stress on John Doe even though he is still officially presumed innocent. It's possible that this situation could cause John Doe to commit suicide, which I think is your point. So PZ's position appears to be morally problematic.

Where there's an absence of any suspect, though, I don't see any reason not to accept a rape or harassment victim's testimony, though this does create the odd contingency where if a suspect suddenly appears, we would need to presume his innocence, which entails suspending our belief in the victim's testimony.

Haha. My way is less problematic. Cant go wrong with mine.

Fidalgo has a post up about the ephemerality of blogposts and how sad it is there's no way to separate the wheat from the chaff:

Paul Fidalgo wrote:I think about this a lot: How even the best pieces of prose, just because they happen to be placed in a format called “blog,” lose so much of their perceived value mere hours after they’re posted. We need more ways of sifting the evergreen, quality material from the cloud of fleeting stuff.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/nearearthob ... ty-or-not/

Well, there's this thing called Reddit ...... never mind.

Apples wrote:http://i.imgur.com/yidFeDh.jpg
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/26 ... ent-209365

Oh well....something to read when I wake up Monday morning.

Bhurzum wrote:

Jan Steen wrote:http://i.imgur.com/qUwlUZ9.jpg

This was almost responsible for a full rectal prolapse.

My GF, after enduring nearly five minutes of my cackling, called me a "dickhead" before flouncing off to buy coffee in our local Starbucks. I've got no idea why but this cartoon really hit my funny-button.

You've got to do more of these!

Keep watching this space. But I would hate to be the cause of deep rifts between you and you GF.

As usual, I will be mirroring my posts on the Baboonapalooza thread, starting here: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10&start=225#p80245

JAB wrote:I hope all the mods at Atheism plus have their knives sharpened... Carrier's talk might send some fresh meat for them to slay. I think the new folks might be in for a surprise if they believed the talk.

Good point. Setar has already Tweeted that he's uncomfortable with Carrier's talking about this, since he's not an active participant in A+ at all. The only reason there has been relatively little batshit insanity at that place lately is that the flow of newbies has slowed to a trickle and so much is presumably happening behind closed doors in the secret forums. If Carrier's advertising produces a new wave of members, you can bet the Asshole Mods thread will get busy in a hurry.

There is no good for the legal system to deal with rape cases, but there are lots of bad ones. One of the worst would be to reverse the assumption of innocence. Combine that with an ever expanding definition of what constitutes "rape" and you have the potential for all kinds of Stalinist-like "purges". Like those kids in "The Killing Fields", you just have to denounce an annoying adult, and they get taken away and never annoy you again. In the beginning at least, the Commissars never think that they will be the subject of the purge and, in any case, they are afraid to oppose it in case they are thought to be supporting the crime-of-the-day. And the presumption of guilt won't stop with sexual assault cases. If rape is bad, terrorism must be worse, yes? - or are you supporting terrorism? Now the State can put you away and you have to prove you're innocent to get out, and good luck with that.

For those trying to deal with the practical realities of sexual assualt cases, it is never easy, or as simple as the SJWs make out. Unless, of course, the SJWs don't bother to try and just demand the equivalent of the blue plastic bag over the accused's head and a bullet in the neck if you're lucky, no arguments. In the real world outside the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone Safe Place, setting any policy that is too rigid will result in injustices, on top of those that occur by accident, bad luck, poor decisions, and so on. There is simply no way to eliminate injustice in the system, you can only hope to minimise it. With rape, wherever you set the criterion for assuming guilt or otherwise, there will always be good old Type I and Type II errors and, given the hidden nature of most actual rapes, we don't know the distribution of the types of cases and so can't really tell how changing a criterion will affect the numbers of people affected differently i.e. if it has reduced the overall level of injustice. All we can do is muddle through case by case, hope that the officials are competent and honest, and that juries can tell who's telling the truth.

To that end, keeping cases out of the media when they are before the Courts is a good idea (though not popular in the US, I gather). Even if the Court resists the temptation to judge based on media outrage, if they decide the "wrong" way, it just brings the Courts into disrepute in that same media and hence the public.

Apples wrote:

JAB wrote:I hope all the mods at Atheism plus have their knives sharpened... Carrier's talk might send some fresh meat for them to slay. I think the new folks might be in for a surprise if they believed the talk.

Good point. Setar has already Tweeted that he's uncomfortable with Carrier's talking about this, since he's not an active participant in A+ at all. The only reason there has been relatively little batshit insanity at that place lately is that the flow of newbies has slowed to a trickle and so much is presumably happening behind closed doors in the secret forums. If Carrier's advertising produces a new wave of members, you can bet the Asshole Mods thread will get busy in a hurry.

Indeed :popcorn:

Hunt wrote: Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your response, but what I meant was that it's PZ's right to set his own policy, while law enforcement must always presume innocence. However, thinking about it again, I think I'm being too nice to PZ's position. Let's say we had a town filled with people who presumes John Doe raped someone just on the testimony of his accuser, while the police maintain total neutrality pending investigation. That could still cause extraordinary stress on John Doe even though he is still officially presumed innocent. It's possible that this situation could cause John Doe to commit suicide, which I think is your point. So PZ's position appears to be morally problematic.

Where there's an absence of any suspect, though, I don't see any reason not to accept a rape or harassment victim's testimony, though this does create the odd contingency where if a suspect suddenly appears, we would need to presume his innocence, which entails suspending our belief in the victim's testimony.

My problem with his Peezusness' accepting of women's personal testimony is that it is preferred (privileged) over the personal testimony of men. Logically if we accept the position that a person's personal testimony must be accepted at face value, then the testimony by a man that the sex was consensual must also be accepted at face value. (It's about equality, right?) Tell Jason Thibault that the testimony of the woman who falsely accused him must be accepted as truth.

This is why we don't accept personal testimony of the experience of God by the theists. That's why the police investigate and seek evidence. Personal testimony is a form of evidence in court, but it is generally less compelling than physical evidence. Indeed, in the case of he said/she said, how is truth determined?

His high holiness Peezus would have the presumption of whatever the woman says is true and can only be negated by a positive defense (presumed guilty until proven innocent).

I had a false DV claim against me, so it's not too much of a stretch to believe false rape accusations occur as well.

My false DV vid in case you haven't heard the tale:


[youtube]fAalF_nweDc[/youtube]

John Greg wrote:Jason Thibeault, aka, LousyCanuck, is (aside from Laden), the most toxic, vapid, and morally / ethically bankrupt piece of pseudomorphic, animatronic garbage that you can find on the 'net.

He is a totally, completely, inarguabley worthless piece of recycled dog's vomit.

Seriously he is, ugh, just, well, uhgh ... / puke / vomit / projectile shit-spew ....

....

I think the most, erm, resonant thing to say about that piece of leftover garbage that the garbge people left behind on the curb, is that he really and truly wants to be Greg Laden. Ya. I think that says it all. I mean, fuck me, he is even moving down there to be with his sociopathic buddies, Laden, Zvan, Myers, etc.

Ugh.

second that

Hey PZ Myers you fucking inept dick, what about when this happens?
http://www.ksbw.com/news/central-califo ... index.html

Just glad she didn't try to pin it on anyone. It's bad enough the irresponsibility and disrespect she has already displayed.

Guest wrote:apparently the pic source. not sure if anyone can translate the title text

http://ru-auto.livejournal.com/24147917.html

look at all the people enjoying the outdoors, and the freedom to do as they like and dress as they like among a host of others, of all generations!

but so much misogyny, cuz boobs!

What a pleasant collection of tittie pics.

Amen, Submariner. But what I thought you were going to say was that PZ wouldnt accept the testimony of men who claimed abuse. I think this is also pretty accurate... Its only about women over there. Surely, he doesnt care about men claiming abuse. An interesting scenario would be if a woman claims rape and the man does too.

DV cases can be pretty bad. Someone I know of was severely abused by his ex wife and treated like shit by the system. Somehow HE got in trouble twice and he hardly fought back.

Reap wrote:Hey PZ Myers you fucking inept dick, what about when this happens?
http://www.ksbw.com/news/central-califo ... index.html

Just glad she didn't try to pin it on anyone. It's bad enough the irresponsibility and disrespect she has already displayed.

Not helping. We know that false positives exist and that any system will be abused. However, there is a large number of unreported cases than the other way around.

Remick wrote:Great video response to Anita's terrible damsels in distress video.

Here.

[youtube]HJihi5rB_Ek[/youtube]

The point of Anita's video game series is to simply beat up on men by taking something identified with men and trashing it. There isn't going to be any integrity out of her series. it's just going to be a bitchfest.

Nerd of Redhead’s monotonous drivel even starts to irritate his fellow zealots:

Beatrice (looking for a happy thought)
26 March 2013 at 1:29 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Confession:
Nerd’s “who cares about your OPINION” “that is just your opinion *floosh*” and all the varieties are kinda annoying.
Sorry, Nerd of Redhead!
(I’m skimming the Ars Techinca thread, and I noticed I’ve started skipping Nerd’s comments since they are same old same old anyway. Sorry, Nerd!)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-589257

Since this is a regular, Nerd can’t very well respond by *flooshing* this OPINION down the sewer. So he writes as follows:

Beatrice, The guy was a serial poster essentially not reading or comprehending the arguments against him. He thought by being extra slippery and extra stubborn he would win the argument. So, I just made sure anybody reading the thread would understand he wasn’t saying anything backed up by facts, just throwing out shit and arguments at random to keep talking, hoping something would stick. The fact that I kept dismissing what he said was a big insult. His poor ego deflates when he isn’t taken seriously.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-589361

Not a convincing defence, as the Nerd always treats both serial and non-serial posters in his inimitable stereotypical fashion (He is anything but inimitable, in fact. If he wanted to take a break, any number of people could replace him and nobody would be able to tell the difference).

Another critic:

Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :)
29 March 2013 at 9:43 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

Thoughtcrime, I see what you’re saying. Please understand that people here have dealt with a LOT of the “no true _”/”it’s not ALL bad” stuff, and also a lot of the “I’m not a _ but…” stuff. Also, Nerd, despite other good traits, has this weird fetish for selectively and summarily dismissing certain statements as “OPINION” and therefore worthless because…well, just because. I guess it’s his opinion. Don’t read too much into it.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-593039

Apart from one commenter weakly defending NoR by pointing out that his adversary was being repetitive too, nobody rushes in to offer safe hugs to the Nerd for being so painfully stabbed in the back. Nobody likes the guy, but he is part of the furniture. He's like a hideous, cracked leather sofa that is too big to be easily disposed of.

This concludes my fieldwork in Pharyngula territory for today. It always feels like visiting a parallel universe, but to me that is part of the fascination of it. Apart from the lulz, of course.

What are Nerd Of Redheads "other good traits"?

Reddit posted a pic of a topless girl and now i'm mad about it.

PZ's idea of always accepting the testimony of women makes me think of George Nouri, who stated that since he's heard so many things from people during his radio show that he was going to believe everything they tell him unless it is proven false. They share the same lack of skepticism.

It's weird that the legal system doesn't work the complete opposite way round in this one specific type of case, whats more, it's evidence of the patriarchy.

It's weird that the legal system doesn't work the complete opposite way round in this one specific type of case, whats more, it's evidence of the patriarchy.

*farts*

cunt wrote:What are Nerd Of Redheads "other good traits"?

Maybe his unquestionable and unquestioning loyalty to PZ Myers. No dog has ever been more loyal to its master. At one point, when PeeZus messed up on something or other (I think it was in the gravity light thread, but I can't be bothered to look it up now), the Nerd suggested that his idol sometimes makes 'mistakes' deliberately, in order to stimulate discussions. In the eyes of Nerd of Redhead, PZ can do nothing wrong.

I suppose some would consider that a good trait.

Nerd: PeeZus loves you. Everybody else thinks you're a cunt.

comslave wrote:

Remick wrote:Great video response to Anita's terrible damsels in distress video.

Here.

[youtube]HJihi5rB_Ek[/youtube]

The point of Anita's video game series is to simply beat up on men by taking something identified with men and trashing it. There isn't going to be any integrity out of her series. it's just going to be a bitchfest.

Masculinity is hegemonic and toxic. Also men, deep down inside, want to wear tutus, sing, dance, sew, and talk about their feelings.

Yeah, I was surprised too.

And like I don't prance around my house singing like a goofball...(if you have kids, this will make sense)

Lsuoma wrote:Nerd: PeeZus loves you. Everybody else thinks you're a cunt.

He loves PeeZus alright. Whether it's reciprocal only PeeZus knows.

Ya know, I love my running club and there's no way I would run 10Ks and train for half-marathons without their support, but I really could do without the bible quotes in the newsletters.

They're really kind and inspiring people on the whole, they have lots of great training and race advice, and running is the only thing that has reliably moved excess weight off my middle-aged body, so I think I'm just going to have to suck it up with regards to the bible quotes.

UGH, though.

Jan Steen wrote:Nerd of Redhead’s monotonous drivel even starts to irritate his fellow zealots: [...] This concludes my fieldwork in Pharyngula territory for today. It always feels like visiting a parallel universe, but to me that is part of the fascination of it. Apart from the lulz, of course.

Oh noes! First Joe, now Nerd? Is this is turning into another Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones)?
http://i.imgur.com/hyOZARA.jpg
It really is a strange parallel universe.

Jan Steen wrote:http://i.imgur.com/84r635k.jpg

:lol:

I'm glad I'd swallowed my sip of espresso when I saw that.

Punch and Judy kind of creep me out, though - like clowns.

BarnOwl wrote:
Punch and Judy kind of creep me out, though - like clowns.

I detest clowns. In the museum of modern art in Amsterdam (the Stedelijk Museum) there used to be a video installation called 'Clown Torture'. That had my full approval.

What is creepier than an ordinary clown? A picture of serial killer John Wayne Gacy dressed up as a clown.