Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[bovarchist]

Something tells me that someone has never fired a gun in a combat situation.

Combat?!? An eigtheen-year-old versus a trained police officer is now combat? The heavens forbid that your army should ever have to go to war.

I can't accept the unspoken premise that training and a uniform somehow makes one less than fully human. Uniform and training aside, I'm sure that Officer Wilson felt exactly the same way about being beaten about the head by a huge guy, wrestling for control of his weapon, and finally charging towards him head down that you, or I, or anyone, would feel. And yes, what I just described is fucking combat, without a doubt.

[bovarchist]

Aw fuck. This is going to be the Zimmerman debate all over again.

It shouldn't be. Martin was a guy walking home from the store when confronted by some dude with a Dirty Harry complex. The DA bungled that case because it let public pressure make it over reach with a murder 2 charge when it could've gotten a manslaughter conviction.

Brown was a violent thief who fought with an officer of the law. The only thing these cases share is the race factor.

Well, not really...it's hard to make a case that Zimmerman murdered Martin when Martin stalked Zimmerman and pounded on him for over a minute before Zimmerman even attempted to draw his gun. Do me a favor, and look at your watch for a full minute. A long time to be pounded on.

That entire altercation took place for one single reason: because Martin wanted it to. If he was afraid of Zimmerman, all he had to do was go home. It was only 200 yards away, after all.

[deLurch]

PZ Myers and his ilk never trust the authorities as a policy. They don't report allegations of rape, they don't trust the justice system, they don't trust the ideas of "innocent until proven guilty" or of "freedom of speech".

Police are also the same bastards that would apprehend him if he felt like shanking a few Christians.

[comhcinc]

So does anyone want to see my penis?

[bovarchist]

Inbetween them, AndrewV69, John D and Bovarchist argue that the police can neither manage to stay in possession of their firearms, nor reliably use them if they do, without killing their opponent.

Which seems a good argument why police should not be equipped with firearms.

I actually argued the opposite, that Officer Wilson did some tight shooting.

[comhcinc]

I may take everyone's silents as a yes.

[Southern]

Anyway, this would all have been less tragical if nobody had died. Perhaps the police should work on their non-lethal defence skills a bit more.

And on their aim. Wilson fired six shots? What the hell was he aiming for if the first five weren't enough to stop Brown?

I think standard training for police is that once the decision to use lethal force has been made, they should fire until their clip is empty or the attacker is completely prone. It would be nice if there were non-lethal methods that were as effective as bullets in stopping an enraged, possibly drugged, attacker. But there aren't, and the priority is given to protecting police in this situation.

Don't make the same mistake Bernie Blue did:

[youtube]vN1qpVheIDs[/youtube]

[feathers]

Inbetween them, AndrewV69, John D and Bovarchist argue that the police can neither manage to stay in possession of their firearms, nor reliably use them if they do, without killing their opponent.

Which seems a good argument why police should not be equipped with firearms.

I actually argued the opposite, that Officer Wilson did some tight shooting.

That implies he meant to kill, rather than maim by shooting in the arm or leg. Ok.

[deLurch]

Scientists at a gender equity in science conference (staying at the same Canberra hotel as Rebecca Watson) discover that divas make it difficult for room service.

At the risk of doxing myself…

Watson is in Canberra? That's where I live. I had no idea there were any vaguely atheist / sceptic events on this week though, and I usually try to keep abreast of stuff happening here.

It's oddly quaint seeing Watson bag Canberra, like she's discovered some new truth.

:mrgreen:

Watson's here. Shut down the bar early. We don't want a repeat.

[Southern]

Aw fuck. This is going to be the Zimmerman debate all over again.

That should be telling of American society, don't you think?

[comhcinc]

[youtube]4Wb2nZR6qbE[/youtube]

[Southern]

Something tells me that someone has never fired a gun in a combat situation.

Combat?!? An eigtheen-year-old versus a trained police officer is now combat? The heavens forbid that your army should ever have to go to war.

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and ...

[Lsuoma]

Darren Wilson not being charged with anything for killing Michael Brown.

I'm curious, did you listen to the live-stream press conference where the DA went over the whole case? (This is not an indictment or assumption of any position you may or may not have.)

The problem with 'poor Dan Brown' we're going to be getting over the next few days (riots, lootings, etc.) is that the evidence showed Wilson's story to be correct and that the 'TV witnesses' were problematic. Some of them never saw what happened and just repeated rumors. Many of them changed their stories multiple times. Some just made shit up. Only a few witnesses had consistent stories that were corroborated by the physical evidence at the scene. And they weren't the 'TV witnesses.'

Add in the usual provocateurs that exploit stuff like this. And the shit-stains that use events like this to misbehave... Well, St. Louis is going to be having troubles the next few days.

As for the verdict, the DA has released all the evidence. For those Sherlocks who think they're smarter than the 12 jurors who took in hundreds of hours of testimony and saw all the evidence, have at it.

Or, we can just read what PZ Myers has to say about it and preach the gospel of 'Poor Dan Brown -- Gunned Down by the Evil White Patriarchy." I'm sure a scientist of his enormous cross-field capabilities can tell us everything we need to know.

Yes, I did listen to it all. I wasn't trying to provide a summary of the statement made by the DA, however, just a bare statement that there would be no indictment.

[deLurch]

All the reports about the incident that I heard seem to suggest there the police may have acted in a way that was illegal. There has been a lot of racial tension in the area. A Grand Jury info is kept secret until after the fact.

Taking all that into account if I would have been on that grand jury I was have voted to take the case to trial no matter what the evidence showed. Let the facts be put out there for everyone to see and hopefully that would reveal some of the tension.

But does the police officer deserve that? If the evidence doesn't support misconduct, he should not be put through the tortures of a trial. That would be unjust.

And now all of the information can be released to the public.

[Lsuoma]

I predicted that there would be some damage in Furgeson last night, but it was even worse than I thought it would be. My future son-in-law (who is black) thought that there would only be peaceful protests since so much time had passed since the incident. We were both distressed by how crazy it got.

Two Points:

1) I think that there is a need for a "conversation" on blacks and policing. But... the conversation has to be framed as this: What actions must we take to provide blacks the opportunity to embrace the idea that they need to be policed. American black culture is rooted in the idea that blacks do not need to be policed... and that all the problems blacks face are caused by non-blacks.

2) When the cop cars started burning my future-son-in-law says "Hey... you can't show up for a protest with lighter fluid and not use it!" Haha... tragic and funny at the same time.

What to do now... I have no idea.

The people were probably pissed that the DA wasn't dressed properly when he made his statement.

[katamari Damassi]

Well, not really...it's hard to make a case that Zimmerman murdered Martin when Martin stalked Zimmerman and pounded on him for over a minute before Zimmerman even attempted to draw his gun. Do me a favor, and look at your watch for a full minute. A long time to be pounded on.

That entire altercation took place for one single reason: because Martin wanted it to. If he was afraid of Zimmerman, all he had to do was go home. It was only 200 yards away, after all.

Are you sure you got the stalking order right? Zimmerman trailed in his car, a guy walking by himself at night. He provoked an altercation. IIRC there were jurors who said they would've convicted on a lesser count if given the option.

[comhcinc]

All the reports about the incident that I heard seem to suggest there the police may have acted in a way that was illegal. There has been a lot of racial tension in the area. A Grand Jury info is kept secret until after the fact.

Taking all that into account if I would have been on that grand jury I was have voted to take the case to trial no matter what the evidence showed. Let the facts be put out there for everyone to see and hopefully that would reveal some of the tension.

But does the police officer deserve that? If the evidence doesn't support misconduct, he should not be put through the tortures of a trial. That would be unjust.

And now all of the information can be released to the public.

it would be incredibly unfair to him. I agree with that. Life can't always be fair and in this case knowing everything we know I think it would have been best for the community. I don't think it would have stopped all the violence, but I think it would have stopped a good amount of it.

Now back to my penis.........

[deLurch]

Is there anyone here who can unpack this comment by Brony and tell me just what his point is?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... nt-1465968

Because for the life of me, I can't figure it out.

Snapshot:
https://archive.today/jfkkE

[BlueShiftRhino]

The ability of some folks to take the claims of one side of a dispute as The Truth while ignoring that others have made conflicting claims is almost FtBian. I think I'll take a break.

[Lsuoma]

Aw fuck. This is going to be the Zimmerman debate all over again.

For heaven's sake, there's nothing wrong with electric guitar, can't people just let it go?

No, he means that USA is going to war again with the Krauts.

[John D]

Inbetween them, AndrewV69, John D and Bovarchist argue that the police can neither manage to stay in possession of their firearms, nor reliably use them if they do, without killing their opponent.

Which seems a good argument why police should not be equipped with firearms.

I agree... one argument for cops not having guns is that they can be used against them. Of course, there are some valid reasons why cops should have guns. I suspect they are better off with them than not... but that is a typical response from a Merican.

[John D]

Michael Brown used physical force to steal from a store, walked down the middle of the street, disobeyed a legal order from a cop, assaulted a cop, and got killed as a result of his actions. But... I refuse to call him a thug because that would be racist.

[didymos]

Lol. Over on Pizzle's Ferguson thread, jamesrussellthe3rd actually suckered in the geniuses over there with the Navy SEAL copypasta. He also offered to fight them because he's a 5th Dan in Tae Bo, and not a one of those brilliant souls picked up on that either. Of course, he got banned, so the original comments are gone, but the responses are still there.

[Tony Parsehole]

Lol. Over on Pizzle's Ferguson thread, jamesrussellthe3rd actually suckered in the geniuses over there with the Navy SEAL copypasta. He also offered to fight them because he's a 5th Dan in Tae Bo, and not a one of those brilliant souls picked up on that either. Of course, he got banned, so the original comments are gone, but the responses are still there.

"James Russell". HAHAHAHAHA!

[AndrewV69]

Inbetween them, AndrewV69, John D and Bovarchist argue that the police can neither manage to stay in possession of their firearms, nor reliably use them if they do, without killing their opponent.

Which seems a good argument why police should not be equipped with firearms.

The number of times I have seen the Range Officer tear a strip off of someone who quite often turns out to be a Police Officer for careless handling of his firearm has to be seen to be believed.

So you might have a point there.

(Only thing is I have never seen any stats on the subject ... just my experience which may or may not be indicative of the whole.)

[comhcinc]

http://i.imgur.com/j8gHTt3.jpg

[Lsuoma]

Lol. Over on Pizzle's Ferguson thread, jamesrussellthe3rd actually suckered in the geniuses over there with the Navy SEAL copypasta. He also offered to fight them because he's a 5th Dan in Tae Bo, and not a one of those brilliant souls picked up on that either. Of course, he got banned, so the original comments are gone, but the responses are still there.

"James Russell". HAHAHAHAHA!

Well spotted. Missed that one, mesel'...

[bovarchist]

Inbetween them, AndrewV69, John D and Bovarchist argue that the police can neither manage to stay in possession of their firearms, nor reliably use them if they do, without killing their opponent.

Which seems a good argument why police should not be equipped with firearms.

I actually argued the opposite, that Officer Wilson did some tight shooting.

That implies he meant to kill, rather than maim by shooting in the arm or leg. Ok.

Son, if you don't mean to kill, a gun is the wrong weapon to use.

[bovarchist]

It's oddly quaint seeing Watson bag Canberra, like she's discovered some new truth.

:mrgreen:

Watson's here. Shut down the bar early. We don't want a repeat.

And to top it off, the elevator was out of order.

[Tony Parsehole]

[AndrewV69]

Something tells me that someone has never fired a gun in a combat situation.

Combat?!? An eigtheen-year-old versus a trained police officer is now combat? The heavens forbid that your army should ever have to go to war.

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and ...

a3166124692c1a3951c87a0b69f610deb49daa19e0e1e501b8e8064fbd56d38d.jpg

(166.61 KiB) Downloaded 345 times

[bovarchist]

Well, not really...it's hard to make a case that Zimmerman murdered Martin when Martin stalked Zimmerman and pounded on him for over a minute before Zimmerman even attempted to draw his gun. Do me a favor, and look at your watch for a full minute. A long time to be pounded on.

That entire altercation took place for one single reason: because Martin wanted it to. If he was afraid of Zimmerman, all he had to do was go home. It was only 200 yards away, after all.

Are you sure you got the stalking order right? Zimmerman trailed in his car, a guy walking by himself at night. He provoked an altercation. IIRC there were jurors who said they would've convicted on a lesser count if given the option.

According to the 911 tape, Martin took off running when he saw Zimmerman watching from his car. As I said, he lived only two hundred yards away. Please explain the ensuing events if it were Zimmerman doing the stalking. I assume you're not suggesting that a doughy guy in his 30s ran down a black teenager with a head start...

[Kirbmarc]

The best way to explain it is via video games. You like playing as a medieval knight but I am sure you would be lot less enthralled by being gutted by a sword.

Did PZ just prove Anita Sarkeesian wrong in one simple move?

[Kirbmarc]

Does this mean that other people are free to mug him, too? Should he travel downtown and freely offer himself to muggers?

Is he victim-blaming himself? Is such a thing even possible?

[jugheadnaut]

Aw fuck. This is going to be the Zimmerman debate all over again.

It shouldn't be. Martin was a guy walking home from the store when confronted by some dude with a Dirty Harry complex. The DA bungled that case because it let public pressure make it over reach with a murder 2 charge when it could've gotten a manslaughter conviction.

Brown was a violent thief who fought with an officer of the law. The only thing these cases share is the race factor.

From a legal perspective, in terms of right of self-defense, there's little qualitative difference between an officer of the law and an ordinary citizen. However, An officer is generally given a lower threshold of determining what is a threat to life or severe bodily injury. Zimmerman was claiming self-defense, and the evidence was all but conclusive that he was receiving a beating at the time that could reasonably be interpreted as a threat to life and limb. So the cases have a lot of similarity.

I don't think there's much demand for a rehashing of the Zimmerman case, but I'll state that there's no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin. He was following, and while we will never know exactly what happened, it appears likely that Martin did the confronting and started the fight. Even if you don't believe this was the likely course of events, it easily falls under reasonable doubt. And while a manslaughter conviction would have been more plausible than murder 2, it was far from a given. If jurors believed that self-defense was a reasonable doubt, as they had to to find him not guilty of murder, the only additional possibility for conviction under manslaughter is that he started the fight which he knew or should have known would entail the significant possibility of death or severe bodily injury to himself which may necessitate the use of deadly force. That's a tough sell.

[Pitchguest]

The best way to explain it is via video games. You like playing as a medieval knight but I am sure you would be lot less enthralled by being gutted by a sword.

Did PZ just prove Anita Sarkeesian wrong in one simple move?

I think you'll find that quote is by that other idiot savant: Avi "I have a day job, except not really because I work for free" Cenna.

[Tony Parsehole]

Aw fuck. This is going to be the Zimmerman debate all over again.

It shouldn't be. Martin was a guy walking home from the store when confronted by some dude with a Dirty Harry complex. The DA bungled that case because it let public pressure make it over reach with a murder 2 charge when it could've gotten a manslaughter conviction.

Brown was a violent thief who fought with an officer of the law. The only thing these cases share is the race factor.

From a legal perspective, in terms of right of self-defense, there's little qualitative difference between an officer of the law and an ordinary citizen. However, An officer is generally given a lower threshold of determining what is a threat to life or severe bodily injury. Zimmerman was claiming self-defense, and the evidence was all but conclusive that he was receiving a beating at the time that could reasonably be interpreted as a threat to life and limb. So the cases have a lot of similarity.

I don't think there's much demand for a rehashing of the Zimmerman case, but I'll state that there's no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin. He was following, and while we will never know exactly what happened, it appears likely that Martin did the confronting and started the fight. Even if you don't believe this was the likely course of events, it easily falls under reasonable doubt. And while a manslaughter conviction would have been more plausible than murder 2, it was far from a given. If jurors believed that self-defense was a reasonable doubt, as they had to to find him not guilty of murder, the only additional possibility for conviction under manslaughter is that he started the fight which he knew or should have known would entail the significant possibility of death or severe bodily injury to himself which may necessitate the use of deadly force. That's a tough sell.

[youtube]Y3-aAx4SOn0[/youtube]

[comhcinc]

From a legal perspective, in terms of right of self-defense, there's little qualitative difference between an officer of the law and an ordinary citizen. However, An officer is generally given a lower threshold of determining what is a threat to life or severe bodily injury. Zimmerman was claiming self-defense, and the evidence was all but conclusive that he was receiving a beating at the time that could reasonably be interpreted as a threat to life and limb. So the cases have a lot of similarity.

I don't think there's much demand for a rehashing of the Zimmerman case, but I'll state that there's no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin. He was following, and while we will never know exactly what happened, it appears likely that Martin did the confronting and started the fight. Even if you don't believe this was the likely course of events, it easily falls under reasonable doubt. And while a manslaughter conviction would have been more plausible than murder 2, it was far from a given. If jurors believed that self-defense was a reasonable doubt, as they had to to find him not guilty of murder, the only additional possibility for conviction under manslaughter is that he started the fight which he knew or should have known would entail the significant possibility of death or severe bodily injury to himself which may necessitate the use of deadly force. That's a tough sell.

My take has always been that Zimmerman was legally in the right but morally wrong. He shouldn't have been stalking that kid but once Martin attacked him, he had the right to defend himself. I didn't like the outcome of the case but I understand why it had to be that way and would have voted the same way. I would say that Zimmerman has to live with what he did but from what I have seen he is just pleased as punch with himself.

Once again life shows how unfair it is.

[Tony Parsehole]

What sort of fucking idiot closes his hotel bar when Rebecca Watson is staying? Is he allergic to money?

[Tony Parsehole]

I'd have asked for he credit card and hooked her up to a drip full of vodka. To start with.

[Tony Parsehole]

The best way to explain it is via video games. You like playing as a medieval knight but I am sure you would be lot less enthralled by being gutted by a sword.

Did PZ just prove Anita Sarkeesian wrong in one simple move?

I think you'll find that quote is by that other idiot savant: Avi "I have a day job, except not really because I work for free" Cenna.

never forget:
http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/publi ... ce926.html
Bhoytony's finest moment.

[feathers]

What sort of fucking idiot closes his hotel bar when Rebecca Watson is staying? Is he allergic to money?

Nah, next thing you're on FfTB with a rape-enabler moniker on your hotel chain.

[Tony Parsehole]

Lol. Over on Pizzle's Ferguson thread, jamesrussellthe3rd actually suckered in the geniuses over there with the Navy SEAL copypasta. He also offered to fight them because he's a 5th Dan in Tae Bo, and not a one of those brilliant souls picked up on that either. Of course, he got banned, so the original comments are gone, but the responses are still there.

"James Russell". HAHAHAHAHA!

Well spotted. Missed that one, mesel'...

I'm nicking that one.

[bovarchist]

For the last hour or so I've had the strangest feeling that something wasn't right. Then it hit me: I've been defending Wilson and Zimmerman on the Internet and nobody has been calling me names or yelling at me. Just want to say thanks to the Pit for proving that it's still possible to have polite arguments.

Think I'm done for a while though.

[Kirbmarc]

The best way to explain it is via video games. You like playing as a medieval knight but I am sure you would be lot less enthralled by being gutted by a sword.

Did PZ just prove Anita Sarkeesian wrong in one simple move?

I think you'll find that quote is by that other idiot savant: Avi "I have a day job, except not really because I work for free" Cenna.

I didn't read the title of the blog, just "Pharyngula". My bad.

The point still stands, though. If Avi is right, and video games violent fantasies are harmless, what's the point in Anita's rants in "Tropes Vs. Women"?

[dogen]

"James Russell". HAHAHAHAHA!

Well spotted. Missed that one, mesel'...

I'm nicking that one.

Pardon my slowness, but "James Russell" -> "Jimmy Russell", right?

[Kirbmarc]

From the comments of "I was mugged, and I understand why" article:

When given the choice, people desperate for resources, or those who might have been socialized at a young age (maybe by being victims of crime themselves) to see stealing as a fact of life, choose to steal from those they are more confident will have money, nicer phones, and will be able to replace them more easily. While this makes more “economic sense” as you point out, it also points out how the “us” and “them” creates and is furthered by these acts and our responses to them.

Maybe seeing this “exchange of phone” as an economic event and not a human one is the problem, maybe seeing it as an event with people on either end of it with humanity that’s value extends beyond their participation in the economy, you can begin to solve issues, not throw away people and their worth as a person for one act (or multiple) acts they commit

Mugging apology!

[Tony Parsehole]

Pardon my slowness, but "James Russell" -> "Jimmy Russell", right?

Yes. Did not knowing rustle your jimmies, my child?
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/ ... 4xgsy8.png

[deLurch]

So just about any black person can walk up to that guy and say 'Give me all of your money and your cellphone,' and he will think that it is OK.

At a certain point, it kind of ceases to be a crime to take money from him as he has already publicly given them permission. I am OK with this for him.

[Cunning Punt]

So does anyone want to see my penis?

Sure, we could do with a laugh about now.

[jugheadnaut]

I actually argued the opposite, that Officer Wilson did some tight shooting.

That implies he meant to kill, rather than maim by shooting in the arm or leg. Ok.

Son, if you don't mean to kill, a gun is the wrong weapon to use.

Yes, arguing that the officer was somehow incompetent because the use of his gun resulted in death rather than incapacitation is absurd. The reason why police are given guns is to have a method of lethal force, period. Of course, one can legitimately argue against the policy of police being equipped with weapons of lethal force. But if an officer is equipped with a gun and justifiably uses it in self defense, it's not his fault that death is the outcome.

[bovarchist]

Spoke too soon. Getting into it with Dana Gould, one of the original Simpsons writers.

[Shatterface as Guest]

So just about any black person can walk up to that guy and say 'Give me all of your money and your cellphone,' and he will think that it is OK.

At a certain point, it kind of ceases to be a crime to take money from him as he has already publicly given them permission. I am OK with this for him.

Masochism runs deep.

Robert Fisk on why Robert Fisk deserved a good kicking:

They started by shaking hands. We said “Salaam aleikum” — peace be upon you — then the first pebbles flew past my face. A small boy tried to grab my bag. Then another. Then someone punched me in the back. Then young men broke my glasses, began smashing stones into my face and head. I couldn’t see for the blood pouring down my forehead and swamping my eyes. And even then, I understood. I couldn’t blame them for what they were doing. In fact, if I were the Afghan refugees of Kila Abdullah, close to the Afghan-Pakistan border, I would have done just the same to Robert Fisk. Or any other Westerner I could find.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2001/12/10/ ... ilthy-war/

That's Robert Fisk, a twat so twattish they named Fisking after the point by point refutation of everything he writes.

[Seymour]

So unless someone here owns or knows someone who owns Happy Trumpets by Pedro Gonzales and his Mexican Brass, it looks like I'm going to have to think of another present for my sister.

It isn't available on amazon.com but is available from amazon.co.uk

[Kirbmarc]

Yes, arguing that the officer was somehow incompetent because the use of his gun resulted in death rather than incapacitation is absurd. The reason why police are given guns is to have a method of lethal force, period. Of course, one can legitimately argue against the policy of police being equipped with weapons of lethal force. But if an officer is equipped with a gun and justifiably uses it in self defense, it's not his fault that death is the outcome.

It's pretty much impossible to merely "maim" someone with a gun by choice. No matter what the movies or TV told us, there's no such thing as "only a flesh wound". Plenty of people die because they've been shot in the arm or leg.

On the other hand it's almost pretty much impossible to incapacitate a threat someone with a single shot. People have lived and acted for minutes after being shot multiple times. When someone charges at you with an intent to kill you if you want to protect yourselves from death or bodily harm and you have a gun you have to shoot the person who is attacking you quickly and with as much bullets as you can.

From the evidence at our disposal it's easy to see that officer Darren Wilson had every reason to believe that Michael Brown was a danger for his life, and he acted in a perfectly lawful way.

You can question whether it is legitimate to give guns to the police, as jugheadnaut said, or you can question whether the police's account of the incident is accurate, although given the amount of evidence that corroborate their story this strays into the conspiracy theory territory.

But if it's legitimate for police officers to use guns in self-defense and if Darren Wilson told the truth it's very, very hard to argue that Michael Brown was killed for any reason other than his own choices.

[John Greg]

Kirbmarc said:

The point still stands, though. If Avi is right, and video games violent fantasies are harmless, what's the point in Anita's rants in "Tropes Vs. Women"?

Yes, well, young Kirbmarcer, you're a wee bit behind the times. I posted this about that ... um, it's comment, here at the Pit, # 63950, but because of the general weirdness of the coding here, I cannot link to it (it skips to the next page).

But anyway, I rewrote Avi's post to highlight its reverse-parallels with Sarkeesian's bullshit, but they were having none of it: http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... nt-1457918

[jugheadnaut]

There's an old saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. But the closed-minded tenaciousness of SJW's grants them some self-preservation: an SJW who has been mugged is still an SJW.

[bovarchist]

So unless someone here owns or knows someone who owns Happy Trumpets by Pedro Gonzales and his Mexican Brass, it looks like I'm going to have to think of another present for my sister.

It isn't available on amazon.com but is available from amazon.co.uk

Found, ordered, and I love you. :hankey:

[Southern]

What sort of fucking idiot closes his hotel bar when Rebecca Watson is staying? Is he allergic to money?

What if she drinks her usual quota and then says to the bartender, "You cannot charge me, I'm Rebecca Watson, opressed and harassed individual, Elevatorgate, Richard Dawkins was mean to me, blah blah I'll totally tweet about you fucking face and say you groped me in an elevator you virgin neckbearded fuck blah blah blah"?

[jugheadnaut]

Spoke too soon. Getting into it with Dana Gould, one of the original Simpsons writers.

Looks like he deleted the tweet, which was something along the lines of "you can't say Michael Brown was attacking because of the presumption of innocence, which Brown deserves as much as Bill Cosby". I'm guessing he deleted it because it could be read as a defense of Bill Cosby, rather than because it betrays an ignorant misunderstanding of the presumption of innocence.