Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

[Jan Steen]

Here we a blatant example of cultural appropriation: Frenchman Maurice Ravel using a Chinese style of music. No doubt the Social Justice Warriors are on the case as we speak. Listen to it before it is taken down.

[youtube]rbka7NSApws[/youtube]

Also my final contribution to International Women's Day.

[Guestus Aurelius]

I get the impression that Strunk and White is great if you're a non-writer and especially great if you're a college student trying to learn how to express your ideas and if you are a writer, well, you should know this stuff anyway, so what's your problem?

In a world of texting and grocer's apostrophes, I'm pretty happy with Strunk and White's 100 pages compared to Pullam's 1,860 pages.

Yeah, but I don't think anyone's saying that we must choose either Strunk/White or Pullum/Huddleston, especially since the former is a brief style guide and the latter is a comprehensive grammar of the English language by descriptivist linguists.

Again, there's plenty of good general advice in Strunk/White, but the same is true of other usage and style guides that don't perpetuate falsehoods. And modern ones have the advantage of incorporating usage evidence from various databases.

Garner all the way! :D Though I'm sure Pullum would prefer Peters or the Merriam-Webster's guide.

[Sunder]

Why do I need a book to learn how to write more gooder?

[Pitchguest]

http://i.imgur.com/vcQugLP.jpg

No no, he *totally* wants to kill you, Zvan. No joke. Flaying your skin and wearing it Men in Black style. Would work as a killer face lift as well. Killer! Get it? Likewise that bloke who said he was gonna blow the airport he was in sky high? Totally legit. Absolutely nothing facetious about any of it. How could you even think that? Outrageous.

[LandSnark]

Apple
IBM
HP
Multiple Linux distros
Various *BSD distros
Android
Chrome
QNX

All your examples are flavours of BSD or Linux (a total of two kernels). All that have no patents!!

Minor issue there: QNX is not a flavour of either BSD or Linux. Parts of QNX are also patented.

yeh and the MacOS has its own slightly BSD flavoured kernel but still open source and patent free.

QNX is an embedded OS and I don't think you are replacing windows/Linux/OSX with it in a hurry.

[free thoughtpolice]

[youtube]mNLSV3ErDRE[/youtube]

[LandSnark]

Can you explain your position a bit more? It isn't clear to me precisely what you are saying when you state that the law "should be rolled back to 5 to 20 years." You seem to be suggesting that patents and IP rights are a bad thing and ought to be done away with, but then rolling back the law by 20 years wouldn't do that, so what is your stance? And why?

Yes a conversation about copyright did drag patents into it as well.

Copyright can be extended to 70 years is nuts. I think it should be shorter.

Patents are complicated load of WTF and I just ended up demonstrating how software patents have had a chilling effect on the industry. I have no suggestion on how to fix them and I suspect the issue will never be addressed.

[halophilic]

I made the mistake of engaging my Facebook "friends" on the insulting and useless notion of "Don't teach women how not to get raped, teach men not to rape."

Apparently not unquestioningly believing feminist studies is itself dogma and apparently not being willing to paint all men as obtuse brutes who couldn't help but rape is itself generalization. I don't know what in the fuck I was thinking.

[free thoughtpolice]

Sara Mayhew and Steph Svan are having a dispute as a flurry of comments resumes on a blog post from November, comments 83 onward.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-774660
Sara Mayhew writes:

March 8, 2014 at 10:33 am (UTC -6)

You do not have permission from me, the artist, to download and repost my art. This is a commercial website and your use of the artwork in its entirety for non-educational purposes does not meet standards of fair use. Your reproduction has the potential to impair the market for this work, by hosting it on your server and therefore discouraging traffic to the original work.

Please delete the image from your server.

[Skep tickle]

[youtube]mNLSV3ErDRE[/youtube]

Sorry to have to tell you this, but that's not oral sex. ;)

This is oral sex (or at least closer):
[youtube]czKGCP8a-os[/youtube]

[CommanderTuvok]

The above dogs obviously knew they were getting some pussy, but not quite in way they expected.

[DownThunder]

I made the mistake of engaging my Facebook "friends" on the insulting and useless notion of "Don't teach women how not to get raped, teach men not to rape."

Apparently not unquestioningly believing feminist studies is itself dogma and apparently not being willing to paint all men as obtuse brutes who couldn't help but rape is itself generalization. I don't know what in the fuck I was thinking.

I find facebook to be an exercise in human herd-mindedness. I have had one friend go sj cuckoo and isolate herself. I have another friend who regularly posts sj stuff (that belly dancing thing being one of them). She is pretty easy to get along with in person, though she seems to being walking a tight rope of allegiances when I disagree on her posts and her other friends bark at me. She has expressed an unease that she may have offended me when in reality I wasn't.

I think she has good intentions much of the time, but going against the herd comes with costs. I also get the impression she hasn't critically analysed much of her beliefs.

[Lsuoma]

Why do I need a book to learn how to write more gooder?

I'm sure I'm already ninja'd, but:

[youtube]KzyCi1BFATA[/youtube]

[dog puke]

[youtube]mNLSV3ErDRE[/youtube]

Sorry to have to tell you this, but that's not oral sex. ;)

This is oral sex (or at least closer):
[youtube]czKGCP8a-os[/youtube]

Oral sex or not, the important thing is that the cats are subservient to their canine masters.

[Gumby]

[
Oral sex or not, the important thing is that the cats are subservient to their canine masters.

NEVER!

[LandSnark]

60% of WHAT market? Desktops? Overall? they sure as shit don't have 60% of mobile. See, that's the great thing about using contextless stats. They sound impressive until someone who knows more about the overall market points out that you said, literally, 60% of <undefined>.

Still was talking x86. You keep dragging other architectures in and until the mobile explosion they were an edge market and I wasn't referring to them. x86 for a long time was the dominating architecture and still likely is for a little while longer.

As well, you ignore how outfits like IBM do in fact implement X86 instruction sets in other hardware architectures. So again, it's still not just two manufacturers. Oops.

You'll have to cite that as far as I am aware IBM always bought their x86 CPU's from Intel since day 1.

And your entire implication is that Intel got their marketshare SOLELY via suing people and patents.

Nope never said that. Everything you say after that is a non-sequitur. Lets put it this way, say you want in on the x86 market and you had all the investment, marketing, capex and design for the hardware: what would be your biggest hurdle?

Oh, and in any case, you're wrong about how many X86 manufacturers there are even in terms of actual chips. There's three.

Yes VIA. Not seen one in a while.

According to the pit of lies:

"On the basis of the IDT Centaur acquisition,[10] VIA appears to have come into possession of at least three patents, which cover key aspects of processor technology used by Intel. On the basis of the negotiating leverage these patents offered, in 2003 VIA arrived at an agreement with Intel that allowed for a ten year patent cross license, enabling VIA to continue to design and manufacture x86 compatible CPUs. VIA was also granted a three year grace period in which it could continue to use Intel socket infrastructure."

Well I guess that makes patents a good thing...ignoring the fact that was pretty much an act of blackmail.

Your ignorance is astounding.

Yawn.

No, all of IBM's operating systems are not flavors of BSD. Their mainframe and mini OSen are not even close to that.

Quick I'll go install that right now! oh wait!

Aww, someone doesn't know what they're talking about. QNX is POSIX compatible

Since QNX is not a Microsoft competitor I ignored it. You brought it up but it doesn't apply.

From their website:

"QNX® products are designed for embedded systems running on various platforms, including ARM and x86, and a host of boards implemented in virtually every type of embedded environment. "

MS killed WinCE a while ago and have shown they no longer give two fucks about embedded systems since they had no previously installed base they were pretty powerless in this market. Hence why I didn't bring it up.

Oh, I left off AIX. Not a Linux/BSD flavor.

AIX was pretty much dropped by IBM for Linux. I'm sure they do some stuff with it but the AIX writing on the wall was seen years ago.

The IBM mainframes, now zSeries actually supports multiple operating systems, but the main one is z/OS, whose lineage predates, well, all of them. Including Linux and BSD.

Still was only talking about x86. :roll: Mainframes different market..somewhat smaller than the x86 market.

Oh, then there's OS 9, another embedded OS. not Unix.

Yes embedded, so was the amigaOS..lets see is it considered embedded because its used in embedded systems or because it was used on a CPU before the invention of virtual mode and the programmable memory controller?

Please I would just love to know which embedded systems are using OS9 in 2014. I would actually find that interesting.

Your lack of knowledge however, amuses the fuck out of me.

More yawn. Do you just yell until people go away so you can say you won? Or are you a Scientologist? Will you be asking my what my crimes are next?

It really helps when your points line up better with reality. Care to tell me again how all operating systems are windows/linux/bsd? Oh wait, is proving your point to be actually incorrect with real examples an ad hominem now?

My points still stand. Your edge cases still don't stack up to the mountain of the x86/Microsoft marketshare and I was referring to the x86 market in points about patents. The fact you keep bringing up ARM shows YOU may not have the depth of past knowledge you keep accusing me of not having.

[Clarence]

[youtube]mNLSV3ErDRE[/youtube]

Sorry to have to tell you this, but that's not oral sex. ;)

This is oral sex (or at least closer):
[youtube]czKGCP8a-os[/youtube]

Oral sex or not, the important thing is that the cats are subservient to their canine masters.

As a servant of Dog, I bow wow-wow to this evidence of Dog's Awesome Power.

I have hope that our Robotic Kitty friend will repent her heretic ways.

[Gumby]

I have hope that our Robotic Kitty friend will repent her heretic ways.

Eh, Robokitty is an awesome poster here, but s/h/it is not an actual deity, despite xir claims. Turns out s/h/i/t's a mere mortal like the rest of us:

http://i.imgur.com/eWZ15gy.png

Scientific experimentation FTW!

[LandSnark]

God, but I love it when Welch pulls out his I-know-computers card and hands it to a commenter who laughs, snaps it in half, and buries the pieces 3 feet into Welch's colon.

you're in for a real disappointment then.

:twisted:

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/7/71/I ... gument.jpg

[Skep tickle]

[.youtube]mNLSV3ErDRE[/youtube]

Sorry to have to tell you this, but that's not oral sex. ;)

This is oral sex (or at least closer):
[.youtube]czKGCP8a-os[/youtube]

Oral sex or not, the important thing is that the cats are subservient to their canine masters.

You sure 'bout that? Those cats looked in charge of the situation, to me.

[Clarence]

I have hope that our Robotic Kitty friend will repent her heretic ways.

Eh, Robokitty is an awesome poster here, but s/h/it is not an actual deity, despite xir claims. Turns out s/h/i/t's a mere mortal like the rest of us:

http://i.imgur.com/eWZ15gy.png

Scientific experimentation FTW!

Er, looking at that - don't you mean Robotic Kitty WAS an awesome poster here? :o :( :violin:

[Gumby]

Er, looking at that - don't you mean Robotic Kitty WAS an awesome poster here? :o :( :violin:

She'll just claim her divine powers allowed her to resurrect.

A thought just occurred to me - if I had done that shop with a pineapple instead, Ophelia Benson would have called it a death threat.

[Clarence]

Agreed. She's an incredibly cute real woman. I think some of us are going a little Studman69 on her.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... E!_gif.gif

LEAVE JENNEKE ALONE.

De-Lurch, you big meanie.

Actually, I'll second this.
Certainly better to waste this meme on someone who seems to be a nice person.
Until she actually misbehaves, that is ;)

[Clarence]

Er, looking at that - don't you mean Robotic Kitty WAS an awesome poster here? :o :( :violin:

She'll just claim her divine powers allowed her to resurrect.

A thought just occurred to me - if I had done that shop with a pineapple instead, Ophelia Benson would have called it a death threat.

You are correct about Ophelia Bitchson.

But I did enjoy the photoshop, Gumby :)

[LandSnark]

Good point on ARM, I'd forgotten that. Samsung, Apple, et al make the actual hardware. Once you get out of desktops and small servers, the CPU hardware and architecture is nicely diverse.

Yes..I agree. Never said it wasn't.

What mr. "IT'S ALL LINUX/BSD/WINDOWS" is also not getting is that one of the reasons for the consolidation that happened wasn't patents and copyrights. It was that normal non-technical people didn't want to have to dick with trying to figure out which computer would work with which program. I do remember the pre-windows days, and while it could be fun, it was a fucking nightmare when it came to buying software.

Yes...before the Microsoft monopoly. Wasn't disputing that. Wasn't disputing how it all came about either. Windows version 1 was about 1985 or so (DOS obviously earlier), Linux came about 1991. The market changed a lot in that time but who was MS primary competitor? I guess you think only MS could come up with something as awesome as Windows.

At one point Windows NT ran on what, 7 separate CPU architectures? 8 if you count the unreleased Intergraph port. MS didn't kill that because of some lawsuit or pressure. They killed it because a) no one was buying that shit, and b) it was a complete pain in the ass to support.

Still was only talking about x86.

It may be nice (but I don't understand why) to blame the "lack of innovation" on patents and copyrights, but first you have to show that there's a lack of innovation. You can't even paint Intel as the boogeyman anymore, because they're getting their asses handed to them in the fastest growing computing market. They're almost nonexistent in phones and tablet, the ARM set rules that roost.

Sure now it looks that way although amusingly enough its still windows, Linux and MAC as your choice of OS leaving you with 2 patent free kernels in mobile market. And yes I know there are other fucking mobile OS's but they are edge cases. The fact these edge cases have tiny market share and are likely patented should make you think about patents in general.

One patented OS to rule them all, the only way to compete is to not to!

[Skep tickle]

Trigger warning: misogyny

What is the deal with women and thermostats? If they are chilly, they turn it up to 90. Then, when they get too hot, they turn it down to 50. We need more women in STEM, so that more of them understand control systems.

Fuck. My wife and kids are the same way. I think that, through repeated discussions on the topic, they now know how the god damned thermostat works. It was just really hard for them to understand that the rate in heat increase is fixed by the design of the furnace. The house will not heat faster if you turn the thermostat up further! Come on ladies..... get with the program,

Not to pile on here, but my wife is the same way. We have gas heat down stairs, but electric in the bedrooms upstairs. We keep the heaters off upstairs expect when we are up getting ready for bed (why heat rooms you aren't using right?). Anyway, I found that she was turning the thermostat as high as it would go thinking that it would heat the room faster. I explained that the thermostat only controlled when the heater turned on and off, not how much heat it produced. She looked at me like I had three eyes. She also insisted that "hotter" air would come out of the vents downstairs if only we would turn it up to 90 F. She seemed to think that that value was the temperature of the air coming out of the furnace and not ambient temp at which the thermostat would tell the heater to turn off.

Some of the confusion, it turns out, came about as the result of a small portable heater we used to own that had high/low settings as well as a thermostat. You could run it at 900W or 1500W, but the thermostat only worked when on the 1500W setting (turning the heater on to 1500W until set temp reached and then off). It still doesn't fully explain the misunderstanding, but it helped a little.

My mom did this when I was growing up. I figured out pretty early on (by watching her do this) that setting the thermostat at the temperature you wanted to achieve was the better approach - one reason being that if you set it too high or too low (or, too high THEN too low) you end up having to fiddle with the thermostat repeatedly and pointlessly.

For the past 20 years, I've lived in a house with radiant heat from water in pipes in the floor; it takes forever to change the temperature, there's no sense setting it higher or lower than you actually want it.

I can't speak to a gender connection, but have noticed that dad only ever turns the thermostat down, my husband and son never touch the thermostat, and the dog goes outdoors to lie down for a while if it's too hot for him - even in winter, in snow.

Apologies to any feminists this might totally piss off, but the following factors might contribute to women tending to assume that setting the thermostat higher will achieve faster heating:
(1) women may be less likely to learn about control systems, and
(2) women may have familiarity with, and assume analogy with, situations in which turning the heat up does results in achieving a heat-related goal more quickly, e.g. cooking (even just boiling water), drying clothes in dryer, that kind of thing. ("More of a woman thing" activities - at least in widespread stereotype.)

Setting the clothes dryer on a higher setting results in the clothes drying more quickly. Turning the burner to high results in food cooking or water reaching boiling more quickly than having the burner on a low setting. Etc. So why shouldn't turning the thermostat higher result in the room warming more quickly? (they think)

Just a guess.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Skep tickle, you're a fucking moron with precious sensibilities.

[LandSnark]

So some people (pretty much just me) are saying copyright is a fine idea, but extremely flawed in execution and here's why.

And the rest of you are saying copyright may be extremely flawed in execution, but it's a fine idea and here's why.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing so much as talking past one another.

Ah yup.

I stepped in a welch and now I have to try and scrape it off. :doh:

[Skep tickle]

Skep tickle, you're a fucking moron with precious sensibilities.

:D

[Mykeru]

My mom did this when I was growing up. I figured out pretty early on (by watching her do this) that setting the thermostat at the temperature you wanted to achieve was the better approach - one reason being that if you set it too high or too low (or, too high THEN too low) you end up having to fiddle with the thermostat repeatedly and pointlessly.

I was raised to put a sweater on. Which doesn't bother me, as any thermostat set above 68 degree I consider too damn hot.

[Mykeru]

(1) women may be less likely to learn about control systems, and

Yeah, that's what you want us to think.

[Liesmith]

Skep tickle, you're a fucking moron with precious sensibilities.

Don't do that, you had me convinced I was caught in an episode of Looper, just like Bill Murray. Oh boy.

[another lurker]

Moar kitties and doggies, only, rated G:

http://www.quickmeme.com/p/3vtfvl

[Skep tickle]

(1) women may be less likely to learn about control systems, and

Yeah, that's what you want us to think.

LOL, okay how about this: women tend to learn less than men about mechanical and electronic control systems, but more about social control "systems".

[LandSnark]

(1) women may be less likely to learn about control systems, and

Yeah, that's what you want us to think.

LOL, okay how about this: women tend to learn less than men about mechanical and electronic control systems, but more about social control "systems".

That sounds like a social construct! But wait what if women constructed that social construct? Then crazies blamed it on men?

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/glee/ ... _Blown.jpg

[Mykeru]

(1) women may be less likely to learn about control systems, and

Yeah, that's what you want us to think.

LOL, okay how about this: women tend to learn less than men about mechanical and electronic control systems, but more about social control "systems".

Better.

Also, they can't drive.

[free thoughtpolice]

[youtube]mNLSV3ErDRE[/youtube]

Sorry to have to tell you this, but that's not oral sex. ;)

This is oral sex (or at least closer):
[youtube]czKGCP8a-os[/youtube]

If you look at it from the Hornbeckian perspective, the sexual boundaries between species are a social construct, therefore imaginary, and these videos are proof positive. :ugeek:

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Google tells me this is not true any more. Strawkins?

http://i.imgur.com/oWabL9S.png

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-761004

[Skep tickle]

[.youtube]mNLSV3ErDRE[/youtube]

Sorry to have to tell you this, but that's not oral sex. ;)

This is oral sex (or at least closer):
[.youtube]czKGCP8a-os[/youtube]

If you look at it from the Hornbeckian perspective, the sexual boundaries between species are a social construct, therefore imaginary, and these videos are proof positive. :ugeek:

All cells* in an organism are genetically identical, therefore any difference you think exists between body parts is purely a social construct, therefore oral sex is exactly the same as a handshake.
[/biology the hjhornbeck way]

[extra-hornbeckian clarification] *all nucleated somatic cells, that is [/extra-hornbeckian clarification]

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Google tells me this is not true any more. Strawkins?

http://i.imgur.com/oWabL9S.png

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-761004

http://i.imgur.com/oZb9vKl.png

Bizarre: this comment sounds just like ones made by people who view mentally/physically disabilities as rendering people less-than-human. "Needing much care" seems to make this child - and, by my extension, a disabled person - count for less than the rest of us.

[Sunder]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-761004

PZ is such a dingus these days.

Speaking as an ardent pro-choice proponent there is absolutely a secular case to be leveled against abortion (Sagan and Druyan touched on it in an essay that PZ has probably never read). Actually most pro-choice advocates aren't pro-abortion, they simply feel having safe legal access does more good than harm. They certainly don't appreciate nitwits like Nerd who repeat the "fetus as parasite" meme that makes them look like heartless shitheels.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-761004

PZ is such a dingus these days.

Speaking as an ardent pro-choice proponent there is absolutely a secular case to be leveled against abortion (Sagan and Druyan touched on it in an essay that PZ has probably never read). Actually most pro-choice advocates aren't pro-abortion, they simply feel having safe legal access does more good than harm. They certainly don't appreciate nitwits like Nerd who repeat the "fetus as parasite" meme that makes them look like heartless shitheels.

Yes, I think that Nerd could be the unwitting (and unwitted) standard by which Meyers's fans are judged. Despite trying many times to tame the herd of wild stallions which are Nerd's typing fingers, Meyers still has this complete, and absolute, fucking idiot as his most hardline mouthpiece (now that Caine has flounced *ahem* ;) :lol: :lol: ). With such a low number of core commenters now that he has banned anyone showing less than 100% obedience to Himself, someone like Nerd has center stage. And it's fucking embarrassing. Genuinely, squirmingly, almost-too-painful-to-readingly, embarrssing. Which is great from my point of view.

[another lurker]

Penis theft > abortion:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... -in-africa

A penis-theft episode typically involves four stages. First the “victim” has an odd encounter, such as a stranger unexpectedly shaking his hand. Next is the sensation of an electric shock or chill traveling to his genitals. Third, he checks his crotch and becomes convinced his penis, testicles, or both have been stolen or shrunken. The final step is crying “Thief!” and enlisting others to confront the suspect, sometimes with the “victim” stripping on the spot to prove his genitals are gone. When an epidemic swept Nigeria in 1990, men walked around grasping their penises to prevent theft.

Guard your :cdc:

[Skep tickle]

http://i.imgur.com/oZb9vKl.png

Bizarre: this comment sounds just like ones made by people who view mentally/physically disabilities as rendering people less-than-human. "Needing much care" seems to make this child - and, by my extension, a disabled person - count for less than the rest of us.

Just like the views they argue vehemently against, you mean?

Interesting indeed. Perhaps one of the A+ commenter-mods will decide she/he/xe is disabled in just the right way to be qualified to speak for premature infants (inherently "disabled") who just happen not to have yet be born.

Or do magical woman-powers make the uterus an acceptably unsafe space for the powerless to reside?

(I'm prochoice but agree, there are secular arguments against abortion, esp late-term)

[Southern]

http://i.imgur.com/vcQugLP.jpg

No no, he *totally* wants to kill you, Zvan. No joke. Flaying your skin and wearing it Men in Black style. Would work as a killer face lift as well. Killer! Get it? Likewise that bloke who said he was gonna blow the airport he was in sky high? Totally legit. Absolutely nothing facetious about any of it. How could you even think that? Outrageous.

Shakespeare was a harasser. I knew it; he was a man, after all.

[James Caruthers]

Zvan probably tells David Fincher to stop threatening to her kill every time she watches Se7en.

[Dick Strawkins]

Google tells me this is not true any more. Strawkins?

http://i.imgur.com/oWabL9S.png

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-761004

There seems to be a difference between the online versions and print versions of 'Free Inquiry'
Myers hasn't been featured in the online version since May 2012 but he's had at least one article (a pro atheim plus type piece in Sept 20) in the print version since then. He may have had others in the print version since then - perhaps someone here who subscribes to that magazine can answer that?

[Dick Strawkins]

Google tells me this is not true any more. Strawkins?

http://i.imgur.com/oWabL9S.png

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-761004

There seems to be a difference between the online versions and print versions of 'Free Inquiry'
Myers hasn't been featured in the online version since May 2012 but he's had at least one article (a pro atheim plus type piece in Sept 20) in the print version since then. He may have had others in the print version since then - perhaps someone here who subscribes to that magazine can answer that?

Oops, misread the question. The point about the print version being different, or at least containing more articles, than the online version should, however, still be valid.

[ROBOKiTTY]

I woke up from my catnap feeling a piercing headache. This calls for a longer catnip. Wake me up if the forces of ORGOPuppy are spotted.

[Skep tickle]

Back to your catnap, Oh Meowful One. Hopefully that pain will heal up, I mean clear up, in no time.

_____

Not to be obsessing about hjhornbeck :D but he DID say he was going to put up post after post after post to get us haters to make more mistakes so I've been wondering where those are.

He's posted in FTB here in the thread at Lousy Canuck's entry about his talk. He has a couple of comments in a row; the last 2 are new. Looks like Matt dismissing his background & sources, & my commenting that he was using Wikipedia a fair amount (thus I figured he would accept it as a source if I did) must have rankled. In the comment linked, he says (in part) about his paper related to his script for his FTBCon talk:

... There are 78 URLs in the full script. That’s only a subset of the citations, as many of the papers I reference are hidden behind pay-walls and therefore could not be linked to. A half-decent count of MLA-style citations that excludes URLs adds 31 more. There’s also six non-MLA citations that I could eyeball. That makes for 115 citations, give or take a few (as I’m not sure I properly counted double-citations).

I only linked to 17 Wikipedia pages, of which I only relied on one for my argument (and even then only because it was a minor, uncontroversial point), and slipped in two to shore up a post-talk YouTube comment (see comment 2 above). The remainder were intended as an overview of a subject for those reading the script.

That leaves 98 non-Wikipedia citations. ...

Ooh, someone's a little sensitive.

He also is weighing in at Skepchick in the "Is there a secular argument against abortion" thread; his first comment is 2 above this one at Skepchick, here and is replied to by "H P", then HJ replies to H P in the comment I linked and finally makes a quick correction post just afterwards.

Just a quick note that 3/4 of HJ's 4 links in his 3 posts there are to Wikipedia. Not that I'm saying that's inappropriate or anything. Just sayin'. :)

He has also posted in the "Secular Argument for Underwear" thread at Pharyngula at FTB here, saying:

As for my thoughts, I defer to my comment made over at SkepChick. As they don’t allow linking to specific comments, I’ll serve some copy-pasta: <copy-pastes his first-of-three posts from the Skepchick Secular Argument thread above>

No-one has replied to him yet; I'm wondering if they'll object, since he's already been told not to bring stuff from other places into the Lounge, at least. But there are enough people weighing in with opinions not identical to PZ's that attention will probably go to the most egregiously non-PC points of view (as is happening for "Stephen Minhinnick", who says "think of all the people who want to adopt and can't!").

Also, I ran across these posts (non-FTB link) written by Hornbeck in 2012 after an abortion rights debate. From my POV his posts there are basically philosophical, something I never studied but from a non-expert's standpoint, I think he does a good job in his arguments there.

I'd asked him (at Ally's, I think) to define or describe "human" and/or "life" so as to encompass all examples that are generally felt to fit and none that aren't; he didn't do so, but it turns out he pretty much addresses these in some of the several posts on the page from 2012, essentially recognizing these as "informal definitions" (basically, in my words, a working definition that doesn't fit precisely to all situations at the edges).

The reason I'd asked was to give him the opportunity to decide that human/non-human was just a social construct, along with life/non-life. He didn't fall for it. :D

So, anyway. Still waiting for the first of those post after post after post he promised, that he promised would show us as the hate group that we, or at least the vocal biologydenial-deniers among us, are.

[Apples]

http://i.imgur.com/oZb9vKl.png

Bizarre: this comment sounds just like ones made by people who view mentally/physically disabilities as rendering people less-than-human. "Needing much care" seems to make this child - and, by my extension, a disabled person - count for less than the rest of us.

If logic were horses, SJWs would not ride.

[Satan]

SJW uses slurs against Dawkins, gets dogpiled by his followers:

[paddybrown]

I made the mistake of engaging my Facebook "friends" on the insulting and useless notion of "Don't teach women how not to get raped, teach men not to rape."

Apparently not unquestioningly believing feminist studies is itself dogma and apparently not being willing to paint all men as obtuse brutes who couldn't help but rape is itself generalization. I don't know what in the fuck I was thinking.

I find facebook to be an exercise in human herd-mindedness. I have had one friend go sj cuckoo and isolate herself. I have another friend who regularly posts sj stuff (that belly dancing thing being one of them). She is pretty easy to get along with in person, though she seems to being walking a tight rope of allegiances when I disagree on her posts and her other friends bark at me. She has expressed an unease that she may have offended me when in reality I wasn't.

I think she has good intentions much of the time, but going against the herd comes with costs. I also get the impression she hasn't critically analysed much of her beliefs.

This blog post by a mate of mine (who is simultaneously the most miserable and the funniest guy I know) pretty much sums up talking politics on social media..

[didymos]

Ashlea looks pretty fucking white to me. And at least comfortably middle-class. Why is she speaking for PoC?

[didymos]

Also, lol. Talk about white girl:

[Dick Strawkins]

Regarding the 'secular arguments against abortion' question, I think it is important to point out that the whole debate, in secular circles, seems to be fraught with differences in how we treat value of life questions and there is a distinct reluctance to recognize these nuances when addressing the topic.
For example many prominent atheists (for example Dawkins) seem to hold with the views of Peter Singer - who doesn't even see birth itself as a valid cut-off point for when terminations should be made illegal. In other words he doesn't see a valid reason why we should see a difference between young newly born babies and those still in the womb (and therefore, technically, we should be allowed to terminate the life of both.)
Singer's views may seem extreme to many, but they are really just the logical extention of the idea that an embryo/fetus is only a potential human being rather than a fully developed human being.
If you are prepared to say that the fetus has not developed enough at 9 months in order to treat it as a human being, then how can you say that 9 months and one day (for example, the day it is born) suddenly makes all the difference? Particularly when parturition schedules vary so much - some women give birth at eight and a half months and some women at nine and a half.

I guess the consensus in society is that there isn't really such a strong cut-off point. The feeling, reflected in laws in many societies, is that termination in early pregnancy - within the first few months, is acceptable - the embryo/fetus at this stage is not regarded the same as a baby/child.
Late term abortions, on the other hand, pose a moral quandry that doesn't have a simple solution.
I don't think that even the most 'progressive' (meaning in this case, leftist) pro-choice standpoint has a clear answer when faced with specific questions about late term abortions. For example, take the case of a woman who wants to have a male child. She doesn't know the sex of the fetus until very late in the pregnancy. If she finds out it is female is it OK to abort the fetus at that stage?
But at what point does it change from being OK for her to terminate to not being OK?
Is it the birth itself?

These types of questions do seem like worst case scenarios, and that's because they are - the vast majority of abortions take place in the first few months. Very late term abortions are exceedingly rare (Skep Tickle probably knows more about the figures but from wikipedia, the figures make it a rather tiny percentage of totals)

Here's a histogram of the US situation in 2004:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... am.svg.png

But, despite their rarity, these cases can perhaps help us resolve moral questions and draw legal lines in the sand.

The progressive view that a woman should be able to choose to terminate whenever she likes during the pregnancy and for whatever reason (including gender of child, disability, predicted sexuality - for example hypothetically, if it's a female fetus and the mother has being producing high levels of testosterone there may be an increased chance that the child will grow up as a lesbian.)
The standard progressive view is that this right to terminate the pregnancy occurs right up to the moment of birth - after which killing the baby is regarded as murder/fillicide.

In the example I've suggested there is no direct danger to the health or life of the woman. It is purely a question of preferences of the kind of child she is carrying (she wants a male child, not a female child.)

To take things a little further, imagine that the woman decides for a home birth, and has in her possession a sharpened knitting needle.
For some reason she has only recently found out (late ultrasound, blood test of some sort, etc) that the fetus is female. She cannot do anything about this directly (the medical profession will not help her for fear of litigation of some sort) so she comes up with a scheme to self terminate the pregnancy. She waits until the birth is about to begin - at which point the fetus' head begins to be exposed - whereupon she 'terminates' the life of the fetus with the knitting needle.
Of course this is an unlikely and extreme case, but what is not uncommon is the situation whereby a mother waits a few more minutes, gives birth and then kills the baby.
Those few moments between unborn and born, fetus and baby, are all important here.
I find it hard to see them as some kind of magic line in the sand.

The whole thing is a difficult moral question. I think the consensus of both secularists and most moderate religious people in the west is fairly similar - abortion in early stages of pregnancy is OK. Abortion in late term is OK for medical reasons in order to protect the mother, who must be given precedence over the fetus.
Abortion in very late term for non-health reasons is not accepted by the religious and there is a mix of views about it amongst the non religious for the reasons I've given above - mainly because there are some secularists that hold with Singers views, and there are others who don't (they, tend to see a late term fetus -seven to nine months old- being a viable human being rather than a potential human being.)

As a personal aside, I used to work in a cytogenetics clinic dealing with amniocentesis tests for women suspected of being at risk of carrying a fetus with downs syndrome. If we spotted a trisomy 21 case in our analyses we would report it and leave it up to the women to make their decision as to how to proceed. All these cases would have been relatively late in terms of standard abortion times - amniocentesis (at least at that point 1989/1990) would have been occurring close to week 20 and then there was another week for the cytogenetic analysis to occur (we always did it in a rush but it still took a while for the cultures to grow and the analysis to be done and rechecked, and from my own memory, it was rare that a trisomy 21 was found - most tests indicated that the fetus was not trisomy 21.)

[paddybrown]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-761004

PZ is such a dingus these days.

Speaking as an ardent pro-choice proponent there is absolutely a secular case to be leveled against abortion (Sagan and Druyan touched on it in an essay that PZ has probably never read). Actually most pro-choice advocates aren't pro-abortion, they simply feel having safe legal access does more good than harm. They certainly don't appreciate nitwits like Nerd who repeat the "fetus as parasite" meme that makes them look like heartless shitheels.

I don't know about secular, but there's certainly an atheist argument against abortion, which is that we only get one life and it's wrong to deliberately remove someone's life unless absolutely necessary. A foetus is a human being at an early stage of development, and while it doesn't have all the faculties of an adult human being, it will develop them in due course. I wouldn't argue for an absolute ban on abortion (and banning things rarely works anyway), but I can't call myself "pro-choice" because I think it's at best a necessity, and a necessary evil, not a neutral choice between options. Even the necessity argument is weak because reliable contraception is so easily available.

The argument for abortion on demand is essentially "women must have the right to absolute freedom of action without consequence". I can't think of any other group of people who have that right or any other circumstance where that right applies, so it's not an equality argument at all. I could see an equality argument if men could knock women up and abandon them without consequence, but we can't anymore, if we ever could. It's just an "anything a woman wants is a priori right" argument.

Abortion must be subject to ethical considerations. Unfortunately the well is so thoroughly poisoned by propaganda based on stereotypes about what sort of person is against abortion that it's socially unacceptable outside religious circles to discuss them.

[paddybrown]

My mom did this when I was growing up. I figured out pretty early on (by watching her do this) that setting the thermostat at the temperature you wanted to achieve was the better approach - one reason being that if you set it too high or too low (or, too high THEN too low) you end up having to fiddle with the thermostat repeatedly and pointlessly.

I was raised to put a sweater on. Which doesn't bother me, as any thermostat set above 68 degree I consider too damn hot.

I've come up with a theory: women are storage heaters. Bear with me. Just about Every woman I know is always complaining about being cold at home and in work. The women in the office I work in demand the heating so high I have to use a fan at my desk in mid-winter in Northern Ireland for Christ's sake. Yet outside every nightclub every Saturday night in mid-winter in Northern Ireland for Christ's sake, is a queue of women wearing short skirts and strappy tops. The conclusion I come to is, they're storing up the heat at home and in the office, and releasing it later when they're queuing up outside nightclubs. It's the only thing that makes sense.

[piginthecity]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-761004

PZ is such a dingus these days.

I thought 'dingus' meant something desirable, like a 'McGuffin'. What PZ is is a 'doofus'.

[paddybrown]

My mom did this when I was growing up. I figured out pretty early on (by watching her do this) that setting the thermostat at the temperature you wanted to achieve was the better approach - one reason being that if you set it too high or too low (or, too high THEN too low) you end up having to fiddle with the thermostat repeatedly and pointlessly.

I was raised to put a sweater on. Which doesn't bother me, as any thermostat set above 68 degree I consider too damn hot.

I've come up with a theory: women are storage heaters. Bear with me. Just about Every woman I know is always complaining about being cold at home and in work. The women in the office I work in demand the heating so high I have to use a fan at my desk in mid-winter in Northern Ireland for Christ's sake. Yet outside every nightclub every Saturday night in mid-winter in Northern Ireland for Christ's sake, is a queue of women wearing short skirts and strappy tops. The conclusion I come to is, they're storing up the heat at home and in the office, and releasing it later when they're queuing up outside nightclubs. It's the only thing that makes sense.

I suppose I should have worded that "it all makes sense if you think of women as storage heaters".