The Periodic Table's Younger, Sexier, Sibling Thread...

[Michael K Gray]

Are you willing to post a recent photo of yourself, as well as your physical age?

Well, okay.... This is me, but you're going to have to guess my age....

I judge (not guess) that you are a mental 14 yr old, by your juvenile ragging of another for attributes beyond their control, such as the appearance that results from the genes that their parents provided.
I also judge that you are a dreary coward by posting a stock-photo and claiming it to be yourself, in the service of what you see as "humour".
If you had an ounce of integrity, you'd 'fess-up that your post was very juvenile, and in the same category as those appearing in Pharyngula, and beneath the established Slymepit ethos of "fair play in criticism".
Involuntarily acquired characteristics, good or bad, are 'out of bounds' as far as ragging goes.

I am also confident that you have the intellectual wherewithal to admit fault, and move on.

[Lurkion]

I think this is a central question that someone on that side of the fence should be asking. Why does rape destroy some people's lives and for others it's a slightly icky experience and they brush off and move on? Why do some people become "a victim of rape" once they're raped and others are "someone who was once a victim of a rape"?

I'd really like to know what can be done to support the first category of people because it can't be fun to have your life defined by this shit.

I'm going to say something really un-PC as a point for discussion, here.

But could it be that (some or a lot of) these people are taking rape as much worse than others because they either subscribe to more traditional ideas of sex (think conservative Christian) or in any event see sex as a disgusting act.

Whereas those who might be more relaxed about sex see rape as the serious crime that it is but treat it more like a serious assault (and hence it can be moved on from rather than something to define their life by).

I am not sure if this could be an accurate reason behind it, but I think that objectively people wouldn't think of rape as serious as it we think of it if we didn't think of sex as seriously as we do.

I would be interested to hear other hypotheses on why these people do become so obsessed with the issue.

[sacha]

That's a right cunt's move from Pitchguest. A fucking despicable thing to say, and makes me suspect you're a 23-year old who got a bit vexed about something and posted without thinking. But that sounds like I'm trying to make an excuse for your words, and that ain't so.

Stefunny is "moaning" about being sexually assaulted? And you think she needs to stop doing that? On her own fucking blog?

"Moaning"? What a cunt's choice of words. Like she'd been short-changed at a supermarket one time.

Plus: "every chance she gets"? It's her fucking blog, she has infinite chances to refer to the assault. I don't remember the last time she did so. Yeah, there's a bunch of people trying to co-opt atheism's established structure and increasing public appeal in order to Trojan Horse the fringes of radical feminism into the mainstream. And they need resisting. Strongly.

But this was a new fucking low, in my opinion.

Assume sarcasm here, Eucli. You are not good at detecting sarcasm, so before you respond, either wait and see how others respond, or ask someone. It will save you the effort, and no one will mock you.

So, you're seriously from Freethought Blogs? Anyway, "moaning" clearly wasn't meant in the connotation of "complaining about something light" and you know it, so stop over demonizing people. I'm so tired of FtBers doing this - yes, someone can be a victim of sexual assault, all your post was was a bunch of "there is no level at which you can tell someone not to post about their assault so much that I wont criticize you for." Yes, there is a such thing as using your assault experience excessively. All you did was go "but its sexual assault! anyone that suggests that someone can use this too damn much is a monster!" and it's a very easy card to use. Big whoop.

I've been sexually assaulted multiple times, and I do not use these experiences... especially not as some sort of shield or level up. I really want to know the nature of Zvan's assault to see if it's even an assault like any of mine - what does she mean? It could be an ass slap for all I know. I do not trust her.

[Michael K Gray]

But could it be that (some or a lot of) these people are taking rape as much worse than others because they either subscribe to more traditional ideas of sex (think conservative Christian) or in any event see sex as a disgusting act.

There is a distinction to be made here.
They SAY that rape is worse than say homicide, but do they really believe that, or are they only saying that for some sort of political advantage?
(The A-pussers come to mind as a bunch of manipulating con-artists who might pull this cunning stunt)

[sacha]

.
I don't have any room to indicate the source in the sig, or I would have. That one anteater guy said it.

That one anteater guy. That ONE ANTEATER GUY????

I am not an anteater guy. Get ready for an almighty flounce.

hahahahaaaaaa!

[masakari2012]

Michael K Gray, I've always joked in this fashion, and so have many others. Looks like you haven't been paying attention to comments here. I never said that I don't make juvenile jokes. I make all sorts of jokes. But if I were to argue with the person directly, I would refrain from it, for the sake of civil disagreement. I will also continue to make these type of jokes.

[Mykeru]

I think this is a central question that someone on that side of the fence should be asking. Why does rape destroy some people's lives and for others it's a slightly icky experience and they brush off and move on? Why do some people become "a victim of rape" once they're raped and others are "someone who was once a victim of a rape"?

I don't see the line of demarcation between those who find it a horrible life-altering experience and those who find it mildly icky. It's entirely possible that it's just as horrible for either person. The difference isn't in the act itself but in the transcending of it.

If you characterize it that way then the obsessive victims can just dismiss those who did manage to transcend the experience because, of course, that rape was just "mildly icky".

The term "rape" itself refers to such a wide gamut of experiences, levels of violence and coercion, situations that unless you discuss the particulars, you really can't begin to try (and probably fail) to understand what the experience was.

[Dick Strawkins]

The talk about Svan and her worry of rape connected with alcohol brought to mind an old post of Ladens that heavily featured Svan in the comments.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/ ... -too-sexy/

It’s the one where Laden, in full fratboy mode, extols the virtues of drunken partying with the Skepchicks:

“I, for one, thank the Skepchicks for every cleavage-delivered shot they’ve given out, every hangover suffered, every snappily answered-to remark borne and converted into a teachable moment. It is difficult, dirty, under appreciated work, and someone has to do it. And next July, when they are doing it, I’ll be there watching.”

You will be shocked (SHOCKED!) to discover that Svan doesn’t think to warn Greg about the dangers of alcohol impaired partying – in particular the risk of becoming the victim of sexual assault or rape.

That particular post is the source of the notorious sexist “get off the rag and kiss my ass” line from Laden to commenter ‘Becca’.
What I didn’t notice at the time was a further comment from Laden about Becca.
In response to commenter Katherine who complained about the “get off the rag” line:

“Greg Laden
January 23, 2010
Katherine, no, I do not expect anything like that to help anyone in any way in particular. That was not even nearly my intent.
Despite the fact that Becca’s latest post appears to be separating criticism from humor, the fact is that she does not understand boundaries and it is inappropriate for her to use the Skepchicks (by making accusations that are really very serious with actual legal implications and underlying meaning in terms of ethics) to make me mad.
If you are interested in noticing things, why didn’t you notice that?
The most she’ll get from that sort of utterly inappropriate behavior is to become regularly moderated until I see fit to let her comment freely on my blog, and to get slapped upside the head vigorously and in a very noticeable way. I’m not even remotely interested in discussing this further, so if you must do so, do go get a blog and complain there from a distance.

Becca will get “slapped upside the head vigorously and in a very noticeable way”?
Now you could say that this is metaphorical speech, but is it any more metaphorical than Frank’s “If I were a woman I would kick her in the cunt”?!
(Incidentally, I’ve never supported the CK line either.)

So Becca annoys Laden with stuff she about the Skepchicks and gets threatened with a punch in the face? (Not an unreasonable interpretation if you want to treat the CK line as a genuine threat of violence)

Presumably Svan will step in here.

Indeed she does…

…to defend Greg

“In other words, you’ll miss that the entire point of that comment was that if she really wants all respect tossed out the window, there will be consequences she doesn’t like. That comment was specifically chosen to be one she’ll take seriously as a problem (and probably as being one that meets that criteria but is unlikely to apply to her personally, as a fairly new mother). It isn’t pretty, but the inappropriateness is the point.”

In other words, cross us and all rules of normal human decency are off the table.
Sexist insults and threats of violence are fine.
She deserved it.

What lovely people. :shock:

[Michael K Gray]

Michael K Gray, I've always joked in this fashion, and so have many others. Looks like you haven't been paying attention to comments here. I never said that I don't make juvenile jokes. I make all sorts of jokes. But if I were to argue with the person directly, I would refrain from it, for the sake of civil disagreement. I will also continue to make these type of jokes.

Fine.
My judgment was accurate:
Anonymous Internet Balls that have only just dropped.

You do Abbie a dis-service by indulging in such base jibes.

[franc]

I'd really like to know what can be done to support the first category of people because it can't be fun to have your life defined by this shit.

I'm going to say something really un-PC as a point for discussion, here.

But could it be that (some or a lot of) these people are taking rape as much worse than others because they either subscribe to more traditional ideas of sex (think conservative Christian) or in any event see sex as a disgusting act.
[...]
I would be interested to hear other hypotheses on why these people do become so obsessed with the issue.

Puritanism/sex fear doesn't help, but for fuck's sake, these people are all emotional/psychological/social cripples to begin with. Look at today's poll -

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... oll#p62669

Leading the vote is I have been discriminated for " social awkwardness"

They're just broken units before they even step out the door. A state of trauma is the normal state - they don't know any other way to be. Perpetual trauma is what defines their lives.

[AnonymousCowherd]

.
I don't have any room to indicate the source in the sig, or I would have. That one anteater guy said it.

That one anteater guy. That ONE ANTEATER GUY????

I am not an anteater guy. Get ready for an almighty flounce.

hahahahaaaaaa!

Almost enough for a golden flounce:
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/imag ... g3oaHC6I4A

[Gumby]

Thanks much. I think I'll avoid using the Adobe products due to the licensing issues, and look at some of the free options you listed. Appreciated.

Sure thing. Try to check them out in the order I listed. I haven't used paint.NET, but it was an immediate hit when first released. It's users luuurve that program, which means there are more tutorials and communities available than for the others. However, it's at a bit of a crossroads at the moment, with the original developer having departed and development slowing a bit under the new guy. Still, it supposed to be good stuff and probably the one you should go with.

Pinta is newer and created explicitly to be a FOSS paint.NET clone. Development is moving at a nice clip. If you choose Pinta, I'm able to install it on my Linux system for reference if you want help.

Don't think twice about asking for help.

All right I'll check out paint.NET first. Thanks again.

[masakari2012]

Michael K Gray, so I guess a pic of a dog fucking a cow to describe Laden and Zvan is okay. The Greg Laden memes were okay. Someone else's paragraph about Jen being a horse is okay. All of the other pics making fun of the FTB bloggers are okay. Making fun of all of their appearances have so far been okay. But me making fun of Jen McWrong for looking like a horse is not okay. Or is it not okay because it's coming from me, yet if it comes from someone else, then it's okay?

[Michael K Gray]

Leading the vote is I have been discriminated for " social awkwardness"
They're just broken units before they even step out the door. A state of trauma is the normal state - they don't know any other way to be. Perpetual trauma is what defines their lives.

Quite.
Compare and contrast:
1) Slymepite (Fizzo O'Pro spelling)
and
2) A✠Theism

1: Donating heaps'o'$ to help to surgically cure congenital neural-tube defects, such as cleft-palate, etc.
(Real-world actual problems)
vs:
2: Fannying about in a right 2'n'8 about voluntarily choosing to be a totally tedious twat, and expecting to be delivered with 70° proof ambrosia on a golden platter held by vestal virgins, (sans HIV and fish), who will ebulliently congratulate you on your victim-hood bingo-fuckin-card completion.
(Unreal ego-problems)

[AnonymousCowherd]

The talk about Svan and her worry of rape connected with alcohol brought to mind an old post of Ladens that heavily featured Svan in the comments.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/ ... -too-sexy/

It’s the one where Laden, in full fratboy mode, extols the virtues of drunken partying with the Skepchicks:

“I, for one, thank the Skepchicks for every cleavage-delivered shot they’ve given out, every hangover suffered, every snappily answered-to remark borne and converted into a teachable moment. It is difficult, dirty, under appreciated work, and someone has to do it. And next July, when they are doing it, I’ll be there watching.”

So no more "cleavage delivered shots" for that unctuous toad Laden to "watch" then. All that "flirty fishing" and the gals only caught a couple of dirty old men. No wonder the toyshop is closed these days.

[Michael K Gray]

Michael K Gray, so I guess a pic of a dog fucking a cow to describe Laden and Zvan is okay. The Greg Laden memes were okay. Someone else's paragraph about Jen being a horse is okay. All of the other pics making fun of the FTB bloggers are okay. Making fun of all of their appearances have so far been okay. But me making fun of Jen McWrong for looking like a horse is not okay. Or is it not okay because it's coming from me, yet if it comes from someone else, then it's okay?

Look, you make a good point, and one to which I should have alluded.
Yes, you are cogent with your appeal to popularity.
Your post was simply "the last straw" in my tolerance level, and triggered an outburst to cease and desist, as such is harming Abbie by giving the opposition valid & primed ammunition.
You just got the raw deal in my lottery.
It could have been one of you juvenile fuckers.

I have been internally equally scathing of these other juvenile attacks.
The other attacks are NOT OK.

I guess that someone had to "break the horse's back", as it were.

I wish that these unnecessary attacks on involuntarily acquired personal characteristics would stop now.
These FfTBoggers exhibit far worse behaviours of their own accord for us to be wasting time jibing at them for irrelevant attributes, and providing them with incendiary ammunition.

I judge you be more than intelligent enough to grasp this dichotomy.
I trust that I shall not be disappointed.

[sacha]

I know.. I'll always have a greater number of posts/time than other people, unless I post way less than needed just to impress or suck up to franc. I try hard - I refresh sometimes, I reply to multiple posts in one post, and I refrain from replyng to plenty of things - and he gives me no credit. ….let me rephrase - he still bitches about me, as if I am doing the opposite of trying with my posting. That's very annoying. ….

Eucli, I hope you are reading this. Numerous people complimented you on a post from yesterday. Stick with proving yourself, and don't let the criticism get to you, and if it does, don't admit it by responding to it.

You are not going to win over franc. Let it go.

The best you can hope for is that you continue to prove yourself without whinging on about what others say, and no one will have a reason to wind you up. It is going to take a while to prove yourself, you are not making it any easier by whining about being a victim.

Focus on posting more comments like the one you were complemented on, and if you don't think what you are about to post is something you will be complemented on, don't post it.

Once you have more respect here, you will be able to post a variety of ways without someone mocking you. You need to earn that respect. You first have to show everyone that you are more than just a self-absorbed teenager.
It is the price one has to pay when they are young and want to be accepted into a group of adults. We have all been there. You are no different. The faster you learn this, the easier your life will be.

Try to consider the adult response to things, even if your first instinct is the teenage response. You are on an adult thread. You are by far the youngest. None of us want to be on a thread for teenagers. If you want to be accepted here, you will have to behave like an adult. That means pausing before posting. re-reading and thinking about what your post will say about you. If it does not seem like something that will help prove yourself, delete it before you submit it. It is about quality, not quantity.

You have no idea how unusual it is for me to take the time to be kind and helpful to someone having a difficult time on the thread. Take advantage of it, before it's gone. I'm not one of the nicer people here. Consider yourself privileged.

[AnonymousCowherd]

I see we have a new highest number online - 134.

Now, if we can just push the mysogyny and rape threats (or PZ's blood pressure) to eleven, I'm sure we can beat A+'s 136. After all, it was so long ago.

[Michael K Gray]

I know.. I'll always have a greater number of posts/time than other people, unless I post way less than needed just to impress or suck up to franc. I try hard - I refresh sometimes, I reply to multiple posts in one post, and I refrain from replyng to plenty of things - and he gives me no credit. ….let me rephrase - he still bitches about me, as if I am doing the opposite of trying with my posting. That's very annoying. ….

Eucli, I hope you are reading this. Numerous people complimented you on a post from yesterday. Stick with proving yourself, and don't let the criticism get to you, and if it does, don't admit it by responding to it.

You are not going to win over franc. Let it go.

The best you can hope for is that you continue to prove yourself without whinging on about what others say, and no one will have a reason to wind you up. It is going to take a while to prove yourself, you are not making it any easier by whining about being a victim.

Focus on posting more comments like the one you were complemented on, and if you don't think what you are about to post is something you will be complemented on, don't post it.

Once you have more respect here, you will be able to post a variety of ways without someone mocking you. You need to earn that respect. You first have to show everyone that you are more than just a self-absorbed teenager.
It is the price one has to pay when they are young and want to be accepted into a group of adults. We have all been there. You are no different. The faster you learn this, the easier your life will be.

Try to consider the adult response to things, even if your first instinct is the teenage response. You are on an adult thread. You are by far the youngest. None of us want to be on a thread for teenagers. If you want to be accepted here, you will have to behave like an adult. That means pausing before posting. re-reading and thinking about what your post will say about you. If it does not seem like something that will help prove yourself, delete it before you submit it. It is about quality, not quantity.

You have no idea how unusual it is for me to take the time to be kind and helpful to someone having a difficult time on the thread. Take advantage of it, before it's gone. I'm not one of the nicer people here. Consider yourself privileged.

Good advice.
If I may attempt to distil it to its essence:
Eucliwood: Stay Cool/Aloof.

[masakari2012]

I hear ya, Michael. I've seen some posts which I personally didn't like, either. But everyone else was having fun, and I'm not the type to try and spoil it. I personally don't like toilet humor, but a lot of people do.

And it wasn't Abbie who said it, if I'm the one that said it. Of course, I understand that FTB/Skepchick won't see it that way.

I don't share your views on what is okay and what is not okay to joke about, but I will try to hold back some of my jokes in the future on people's appearances, if it will help. Of course, I can't promise. Some jokes are just too tempting to not make.

[Dick Strawkins]

I see we have a new highest number online - 134.

Now, if we can just push the mysogyny and rape threats (or PZ's blood pressure) to eleven, I'm sure we can beat A+'s 136. After all, it was so long ago.

It's Jen McCreight, emerging from the Portlandia bookstore, who caused the spike.

Jennifer McCreight ‏@jennifurret

Abbie Smith of ERV has reached a new low by suggesting Greta Christina lied about having cancer for money

She links to a slymepit post from Abbie with the following line:

Greta 'The Grifter' Christina taking money from people for her 'cancer' and then spending it on exorbitantly priced shoes

I didn't read Abbie's statement to mean that Greta lied about having cancer.
I took it to mean that Greta took the money people donated for the treatment of her cancer but used it for something different.
It is somewhat ambiguous but it is still an extreme stretch to make the claim that Blaghag does - and to make such an accusation should require better evidence than Abbies post.

[AnonymousCowherd]

[spoiler]

I know.. I'll always have a greater number of posts/time than other people, unless I post way less than needed just to impress or suck up to franc. I try hard - I refresh sometimes, I reply to multiple posts in one post, and I refrain from replyng to plenty of things - and he gives me no credit. ….let me rephrase - he still bitches about me, as if I am doing the opposite of trying with my posting. That's very annoying. ….

Eucli, I hope you are reading this. Numerous people complimented you on a post from yesterday. Stick with proving yourself, and don't let the criticism get to you, and if it does, don't admit it by responding to it.

You are not going to win over franc. Let it go.

The best you can hope for is that you continue to prove yourself without whinging on about what others say, and no one will have a reason to wind you up. It is going to take a while to prove yourself, you are not making it any easier by whining about being a victim.

Focus on posting more comments like the one you were complemented on, and if you don't think what you are about to post is something you will be complemented on, don't post it.

Once you have more respect here, you will be able to post a variety of ways without someone mocking you. You need to earn that respect. You first have to show everyone that you are more than just a self-absorbed teenager.
It is the price one has to pay when they are young and want to be accepted into a group of adults. We have all been there. You are no different. The faster you learn this, the easier your life will be.

Try to consider the adult response to things, even if your first instinct is the teenage response. You are on an adult thread. You are by far the youngest. None of us want to be on a thread for teenagers. If you want to be accepted here, you will have to behave like an adult. That means pausing before posting. re-reading and thinking about what your post will say about you. If it does not seem like something that will help prove yourself, delete it before you submit it. It is about quality, not quantity.

You have no idea how unusual it is for me to take the time to be kind and helpful to someone having a difficult time on the thread. Take advantage of it, before it's gone. I'm not one of the nicer people here. Consider yourself privileged.[/spoiler]

Listen to sacha, eucli. This is how her and franc normally deal with innocent woodland creatures:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZT01xeO3Ex4/T ... atasha.jpg

[Michael K Gray]

I hear ya, Michael. I've seen some posts which I personally didn't like, either. But everyone else was having fun, and I'm not the type to try and spoil it. I personally don't like toilet humor, but a lot of people do.

And it wasn't Abbie who said it, if I'm the one that said it. Of course, I understand that FTB/Skepchick won't see it that way.

I don't share your views on what is okay and what is not okay to joke about, but I will try to hold back some of my jokes in the future on people's appearances, if it will help. Of course, I can't promise. Some jokes are just too tempting to not make.

An excellent response!
I knew that my trust in your integrity was not misplaced.
And I further apologise for dumping accumulated frustration on your sole shoulders.

As I suggested, there is plenty of voluntary poor behaviour by the troupe to poke fun at, without resorting to tropes.

It would make me very happy to see a marked reduction in the latter, and an increase in the former.

[sacha]

And of course, women put make-up on for themselves, and for other women.

Nevertheless, women are oppressed by men, most of whom are completely confused as to why women wear makeup.

precisely

[franc]

I hear ya, Michael. I've seen some posts which I personally didn't like, either. But everyone else was having fun, and I'm not the type to try and spoil it. I personally don't like toilet humor, but a lot of people do.

And it wasn't Abbie who said it, if I'm the one that said it. Of course, I understand that FTB/Skepchick won't see it that way.

I don't share your views on what is okay and what is not okay to joke about, but I will try to hold back some of my jokes in the future on people's appearances, if it will help. Of course, I can't promise. Some jokes are just too tempting to not make.

There comes a point when any entitlement to be shielded from coarser grained humour and contempt are forfeited. This is not easy to do, it takes a lot of hard work, diligent dingbattery and attention to detail, as horseface has displayed by mining quotes from the closed thread that are a week old. Not many people make the grade. Laden has always been there. Cobweb cunt was going to get there or die trying. But I think Jen has finally made the cut now too, even if it took a nudge along from daddy. For that, she should be rewarded.

[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/blx3T.jpg[/spoiler]

On an unrelated note, whilst rummaging in an old hard drive, an image that brought a warm smile to my face some years ago and renewed my faith that not all is lost in this world -

[spoiler]http://i.imgur.com/SbbfS.jpg[/spoiler]

[Michael K Gray]

There comes a point when any entitlement to be shielded from coarser grained humour and contempt are forfeited

For once franc, I do not agree.
Such base humour, in my opinion, is not warranted whilst there remain far more hilarious behavioural attributes about which to laugh.
"Joking" about horse-faces, whilst ignoring abortions littering the slaughterhouse is a waste of comedy gold.

[franc]

There comes a point when any entitlement to be shielded from coarser grained humour and contempt are forfeited

For once franc, I do not agree.

Some bloke called=http://www.goodreads. ... gainst Tom.

[Michael K Gray]

There comes a point when any entitlement to be shielded from coarser grained humour and contempt are forfeited

For once franc, I do not agree.

Some bloke called=http://www.goodreads. ... gainst Tom.

Adult "Ridicule" (of ideas) is nowhere near the same as infantile playground taunts about one's body-shape.

Not even in the same universe.

[AnonymousCowherd]

It's Jen McCreight, emerging from the Portlandia bookstore, who caused the spike.

Jennifer McCreight ‏@jennifurret

Abbie Smith of ERV has reached a new low by suggesting Greta Christina lied about having cancer for money

She links to a slymepit post from Abbie with the following line:

Greta 'The Grifter' Christina taking money from people for her 'cancer' and then spending it on exorbitantly priced shoes

I didn't read Abbie's statement to mean that Greta lied about having cancer.
I took it to mean that Greta took the money people donated for the treatment of her cancer but used it for something different.
It is somewhat ambiguous but it is still an extreme stretch to make the claim that Blaghag does - and to make such an accusation should require better evidence than Abbies post.

Twitter related? If so, I'll be the last to know - I tweet not, neither do I spin.

I can see both readings of Abbie's post, so I guess what you choose will be down to how you feel about Abbie and Greta. If the second quotes are taken to be a reference to how Greta used the term, then I think it's fair to read some skepticism about Greta's claims into Abbie's remark, but it needn't amount to a full denial of the "cancer" claim.

I defer to you on the subject of cancer, but I'm sure there is a huge range of conditions that fall under that broad heading and many of them will be far less serious than others. But if you go out and yell "I've got cancer, HELP!" most folks will leap to the one conclusion - Cancer! The Big C. With no answer! Greta appears to have milked that intial statement for all it is worth, and only afterwards softened the claim about how serious it was. Given that, I think Abbie's calling her on the use of the term is fair enough.

Was Greta lying about having cancer? We don't know, but maybe not - technically. But then, technically, Abbie didn't accuse her of that and, technically, Blaghag didn't accuse Abbie of anything more than "suggesting" Greta lied. Frankly, given all this babble, I can see why Abbie would prefer to cut to the chase.

FWIW I saw two claims from Greta - I'm seriously unwell and as a result I will suffer financial hardship. Even if the illness was some for of cancer, I think that both claims (suggestions?) have been shown to be false, and Shoegate is just one piece of evidence for that.

[cunt]

So, anybody in the UK been watching Stargazing Live?

What do you all think? Fans or not of Brian Cox?

Only seen the first episode so far. I thought he was pretty good on it, knows his stuff, he's very enthusiastic about the subject and has a knack for putting across concepts in a way that children can understand. You can't really ask for much more from a popular science presenter on at prime-time.

Also there seems to be a bit less of this in stargazing live.

[youtube]tDkVS-AN4NU[/youtube]

[BarnOwl]

Twitter related? If so, I'll be the last to know - I tweet not, neither do I spin.

I can see both readings of Abbie's post, so I guess what you choose will be down to how you feel about Abbie and Greta. If the second quotes are taken to be a reference to how Greta used the term, then I think it's fair to read some skepticism about Greta's claims into Abbie's remark, but it needn't amount to a full denial of the "cancer" claim.

I defer to you on the subject of cancer, but I'm sure there is a huge range of conditions that fall under that broad heading and many of them will be far less serious than others. But if you go out and yell "I've got cancer, HELP!" most folks will leap to the one conclusion - Cancer! The Big C. With no answer! Greta appears to have milked that intial statement for all it is worth, and only afterwards softened the claim about how serious it was. Given that, I think Abbie's calling her on the use of the term is fair enough.

Was Greta lying about having cancer? We don't know, but maybe not - technically. But then, technically, Abbie didn't accuse her of that and, technically, Blaghag didn't accuse Abbie of anything more than "suggesting" Greta lied. Frankly, given all this babble, I can see why Abbie would prefer to cut to the chase.

FWIW I saw two claims from Greta - I'm seriously unwell and as a result I will suffer financial hardship. Even if the illness was some for of cancer, I think that both claims (suggestions?) have been shown to be false, and Shoegate is just one piece of evidence for that.

I also tweet not, but I do spin (fibers, not lies).

Jen, however, appears to spin dishonesty.

Jennifer McCreight ‏@jennifurret
@linuxfiend people explicitly told her to buy fun nonessential things, plus her regular income resumed. Non-issue

No, Jen (because obviously you have time to read the Slymepit) - Greta's request for donations preceded her surgery, and she stated that she wanted to cover her mortgage and living expenses for several months in advance. Not fun nonessential things. She cited loss of income while she was recovering, and not wanting to dip into her savings, as justifications for the e-begging. Buying "fun nonessential things" was not mentioned at the time - that came up later, after she boasted at length about the Fluevog purchase, and some of her terminally stupid followers decided to donate even more money to her. So she can buy more Fluevogs, or whatever.

I hope you're more honest and thorough in your research endeavors, should you ever decide to actually pursue that component of a PhD program.

[Dick Strawkins]

It's Jen McCreight, emerging from the Portlandia bookstore, who caused the spike.

Jennifer McCreight ‏@jennifurret

Abbie Smith of ERV has reached a new low by suggesting Greta Christina lied about having cancer for money

She links to a slymepit post from Abbie with the following line:

Greta 'The Grifter' Christina taking money from people for her 'cancer' and then spending it on exorbitantly priced shoes

I didn't read Abbie's statement to mean that Greta lied about having cancer.
I took it to mean that Greta took the money people donated for the treatment of her cancer but used it for something different.
It is somewhat ambiguous but it is still an extreme stretch to make the claim that Blaghag does - and to make such an accusation should require better evidence than Abbies post.

Twitter related? If so, I'll be the last to know - I tweet not, neither do I spin.

I can see both readings of Abbie's post, so I guess what you choose will be down to how you feel about Abbie and Greta. If the second quotes are taken to be a reference to how Greta used the term, then I think it's fair to read some skepticism about Greta's claims into Abbie's remark, but it needn't amount to a full denial of the "cancer" claim.

I defer to you on the subject of cancer, but I'm sure there is a huge range of conditions that fall under that broad heading and many of them will be far less serious than others. But if you go out and yell "I've got cancer, HELP!" most folks will leap to the one conclusion - Cancer! The Big C. With no answer! Greta appears to have milked that intial statement for all it is worth, and only afterwards softened the claim about how serious it was. Given that, I think Abbie's calling her on the use of the term is fair enough.

Was Greta lying about having cancer? We don't know, but maybe not - technically. But then, technically, Abbie didn't accuse her of that and, technically, Blaghag didn't accuse Abbie of anything more than "suggesting" Greta lied. Frankly, given all this babble, I can see why Abbie would prefer to cut to the chase.

FWIW I saw two claims from Greta - I'm seriously unwell and as a result I will suffer financial hardship. Even if the illness was some for of cancer, I think that both claims (suggestions?) have been shown to be false, and Shoegate is just one piece of evidence for that.

It is completely wrong to say Greta didn't have cancer - or that it was pretend (or "magic") cancer.
As far as I can tell, medically she did exactly the correct thing.
Endometrial cancer can be fatal, but if caught at an early stage is very treatable by surgery.
This seems to have been the case with Greta.

The questionable part of her actions seems to have been to request money when it was not clear which stage cancer she had.
If it is confirmed as stage 1 then the medical treatment (and associated costs) will be a lot less severe.
Asking for donations before she knew this gives the impression that she was choosing a point where she would get the most sympathy - people are much more likely to donate if they think the illness is life threatening rather than, as it turned out, almost a routine procedure that just kept her out of work for a few weeks.

It is also problematic that she didn't see the problem with getting a lot of donations and not realizing that she might have some kind of moral responsibility in regards how she uses that money. Yes, technically she asked for money for living expenses - which could include clothing, if you pushed it. But I suspect at least some people were giving money with the intention of helping her get the best treatment for her cancer and not to update her wardrobe. This sort of thoughtlessness squanders the goodwill of readers who may become reluctant to donate the next time someone becomes ill - and perhaps that someone might really need the money just to stay alive.

[Cunning Punt]

Are you willing to post a recent photo of yourself, as well as your physical age?

Well, okay.... This is me, but you're going to have to guess my age....

I judge (not guess) that you are a mental 14 yr old, by your juvenile ragging of another for attributes beyond their control, such as the appearance that results from the genes that their parents provided.
I also judge that you are a dreary coward by posting a stock-photo and claiming it to be yourself, in the service of what you see as "humour".
If you had an ounce of integrity, you'd 'fess-up that your post was very juvenile, and in the same category as those appearing in Pharyngula, and beneath the established Slymepit ethos of "fair play in criticism".
Involuntarily acquired characteristics, good or bad, are 'out of bounds' as far as ragging goes.

I am also confident that you have the intellectual wherewithal to admit fault, and move on.

I agree with this, and besides, the baboons provide more than enough material to work with just based on the words they say. (Although I must admit I cracked up about the sugar cube remark.)

[TheMan]

[spoiler]

So, anybody in the UK been watching Stargazing Live?

What do you all think? Fans or not of Brian Cox?

[/spoiler]


Only seen the first episode so far. I thought he was pretty good on it, knows his stuff, he's very enthusiastic about the subject and has a knack for putting across concepts in a way that children can understand. You can't really ask for much more from a popular science presenter on at prime-time.

Also there seems to be a bit less of this in stargazing live.

[spoiler][youtube]tDkVS-AN4NU[/youtube][/spoiler]

:lol: Don't you just love a bit of spoof?

[SPACKlick]

I think this is a central question that someone on that side of the fence should be asking. Why does rape destroy some people's lives and for others it's a slightly icky experience and they brush off and move on? Why do some people become "a victim of rape" once they're raped and others are "someone who was once a victim of a rape"?
[spoiler]

I don't see the line of demarcation between those who find it a horrible life-altering experience and those who find it mildly icky. It's entirely possible that it's just as horrible for either person. The difference isn't in the act itself but in the transcending of it.

If you characterize it that way then the obsessive victims can just dismiss those who did manage to transcend the experience because, of course, that rape was just "mildly icky".

The term "rape" itself refers to such a wide gamut of experiences, levels of violence and coercion, situations that unless you discuss the particulars, you really can't begin to try (and probably fail) to understand what the experience was.

Well, then let's talk specifics, find a man who was tied to the bed by a female partner while half asleep and fucked with a strap on
while objecting until the bed broke who's been fucked over by the whole mess. There are plenty of them out there. MY response "Wow, you're a heinous bitch, get the fuck outta my life" and move on.

And I mean move on to the point where it's a joke among my friends that it happened, same way it'#s a joke that I got hospitalised by a guy who weighed 7 stone and sucker punched me. It was a bad thing, it happened, I'll try and prevent it in the future but fuck it, it's over. Next please?

[SPACKlick]

[spoiler]

Glitched.jpg

(117.11 KiB) Downloaded 202 times

[/spoiler]
what the blistering Glitchfuck?

[AnonymousCowherd]

FWIW I saw two claims from Greta - I'm seriously unwell and as a result I will suffer financial hardship. Even if the illness was some for of cancer, I think that both claims (suggestions?) have been shown to be false, and Shoegate is just one piece of evidence for that.

It is completely wrong to say Greta didn't have cancer - or that it was pretend (or "magic") cancer.
As far as I can tell, medically she did exactly the correct thing.
Endometrial cancer can be fatal, but if caught at an early stage is very treatable by surgery.
This seems to have been the case with Greta.

The questionable part of her actions seems to have been to request money when it was not clear which stage cancer she had.
If it is confirmed as stage 1 then the medical treatment (and associated costs) will be a lot less severe.
Asking for donations before she knew this gives the impression that she was choosing a point where she would get the most sympathy - people are much more likely to donate if they think the illness is life threatening rather than, as it turned out, almost a routine procedure that just kept her out of work for a few weeks.

It is also problematic that she didn't see the problem with getting a lot of donations and not realizing that she might have some kind of moral responsibility in regards how she uses that money. Yes, technically she asked for money for living expenses - which could include clothing, if you pushed it. But I suspect at least some people were giving money with the intention of helping her get the best treatment for her cancer and not to update her wardrobe. This sort of thoughtlessness squanders the goodwill of readers who may become reluctant to donate the next time someone becomes ill - and perhaps that someone might really need the money just to stay alive.

I don't know if I gave you to believe that I was denying Greta's cancer with the underlined bit above, but I wasn't at all. I was emphasising Greta's "suggestion" of how serious the illness was, and that seriousness has been shown to be false. Hence, I agree with the rest of your post.

Of course, speaking of magic, we could just ask Abbie her intent.

[AnonymousCowherd]

[spoiler]

Glitched.jpg

[/spoiler]
what the blistering Glitchfuck?

You crossed the streams, man.

[Dick Strawkins]

I don't know if I gave you to believe that I was denying Greta's cancer with the underlined bit above, but I wasn't at all. I was emphasising Greta's "suggestion" of how serious the illness was, and that seriousness has been shown to be false. Hence, I agree with the rest of your post.

Of course, speaking of magic, we could just ask Abbie her intent.

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you as being the one who said she probably didn't have cancer. I've seen a couple of remarks to that effect (that they didn't believe she had cancer, or that she had "magic cancer") on the thread (I forget who made them) and those were the ones I meant.

[acathode]

But could it be that (some or a lot of) these people are taking rape as much worse than others because they either subscribe to more traditional ideas of sex (think conservative Christian) or in any event see sex as a disgusting act.

There is a distinction to be made here.
They SAY that rape is worse than say homicide, but do they really believe that, or are they only saying that for some sort of political advantage?
(The A-pussers come to mind as a bunch of manipulating con-artists who might pull this cunning stunt)

I most definitely think that most of the people do actually believe it when they treat and talk about rape as on par with or worse than homicide. Rape is one of the cornerstones in modern feminism, extremely important to very much of the ideology. It's more or less symbolic to the whole ideology, and they've put a great deal of emphasis on rape for 40 or so years now.

I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't genuinely think rape was just as a serious crime as their talk, acts and behavior indicate they think it is. Then again, I don't really think that most of the A+ers or FTBers are con-artists either, I think most of them truly believe what they say. IMO, there's one clear con-artist among the sheep, and that's Watson.

[acathode]

Fuck, that (my last post) was some truly horrible English, almost as bad as the writings of the Half Fish. That's what I get for trying to cut away half of my post and then not previewing the remains properly. What I tried to say:

Rape is seriously, really bad according to feminism, because not only of violence and forced sex, but because of patriarchy and men oppressing women and all that. It's like, super important to the ideology.
+
The baboons aren't con artists*, they do believe in feminism, for reals.
=
The baboons are sincere.

*Except Watson, she's a true con artist.

[windy]

I wish that these unnecessary attacks on involuntarily acquired personal characteristics would stop now.
These FfTBoggers exhibit far worse behaviours of their own accord for us to be wasting time jibing at them for irrelevant attributes, and providing them with incendiary ammunition.

Thanks MKG, agreed.

No, Jen (because obviously you have time to read the Slymepit) - Greta's request for donations preceded her surgery, and she stated that she wanted to cover her mortgage and living expenses for several months in advance. Not fun nonessential things. She cited loss of income while she was recovering, and not wanting to dip into her savings, as justifications for the e-begging.

Was just going to mention that. In the original request thread we see "a broke graduate student with a pile of school loans and little money to spare" and a few other similarly broke people scraping together a few dollars to send to Greta in her time of need. And now it has morphed into "buy some fun non-essential things"? Strange, that another poor grad student would not see this as even a little bit problematic (and no, the offer to return the money doesn't clear that all up, after any questioners have been browbeaten as misogynists)

[Casual Nemesis]

.
I don't have any room to indicate the source in the sig, or I would have. That one anteater guy said it.

That one anteater guy. That ONE ANTEATER GUY????

I am not an anteater guy. Get ready for an almighty flounce.

Of course not. You're kind of a rat with a big milky-white loogie booger hanging from your nose.

I just spit coffee down the front of my shirt. MMYYKKEERRUUUU!!!

[EdgePenguin]

So, anybody in the UK been watching Stargazing Live?

What do you all think? Fans or not of Brian Cox?

Only seen the first episode so far. I thought he was pretty good on it, knows his stuff, he's very enthusiastic about the subject and has a knack for putting across concepts in a way that children can understand. You can't really ask for much more from a popular science presenter on at prime-time.

Also there seems to be a bit less of this in stargazing live.

[youtube]tDkVS-AN4NU[/youtube]

Yeah, I prefer Brian Cox just sitting the fuck down and explaining things, instead of jetting around the world to point at the sky.

I've got a thread going on dark matter here by the way, if anybody wants a break from the Great Schism and such: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=228

[franc]

Security, or rather insecurity, has been a lot on my mind the last several months and I briefly touched on the subject with Robert Darby on Dumbed Down Atheist the other day.

Most folks have heard the much overused Benjamin Franklin quote "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither". Those that repeat it the most understand it the least. I am far more in favour of Bruce Schneier's concept of trust versus security, which is less black and white, and how they have an inverse relationship, i.e. security is only necessary when trust is low, and vice versa, in trusted relationships, security has low priority.

How does this relate to baboons? Well, whether consciously or not, they have succeeded in obliterating trust in the community. The result has been new demands for security - be it "harassment policy" imposition at conferences or the policing of language and behaviour.

If you're feeling highbrow, this is a rather good essay -

http://jacobinmag.com/2012/12/yours-mine-but-not-ours/

"What do these three implications -- states have a great deal of freedom to determine what threatens a people and how to respond to those threats, and in making those determinations, they are influenced by the interests and ideologies of their primary constituencies; states have strong incentives and have been given strong justifications for exaggerating threats; and while states aspire, rhetorically, to a unity of will and judgment, they seldom achieve it in practice -- tell us about the relationship between security and freedom? What light do they shed on the question of why security is such a potent argument for the suppression of rights and liberties?

"Security is an ideal language for suppressing rights because it combines a universality and neutrality in rhetoric with a particularity and partiality in practice. Security is a good that everyone needs, and, we assume, that everyone needs in the same way and to the same degree. It is "the most vital of all interests," John Stuart Mill wrote, which no one can "possibly do without." Though Mill was referring here to the security of persons rather than of nations or states, his argument about personal security is often extended to nations and states, which are conceived to be persons writ large."

[Oneiros666]

Jeezus H Kristu, so Pizzy Myers has come out swining yet again. This time his target is Sam Harris:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -eastwood/

So, he's tried to discredit Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and now Sam Harris. When will he go after Daniel Dennet, I wonder? What boggles my mind is how Pizzy McShitfarts Myers seems to think he is on the same level as these giants. And how about some fucking gratitude? Without these gentlemen, there would be no new rise of atheism in the US.

So again, fuck you, PZ; go stick a pineapple up your ass.

[SPACKlick]

[spoiler]

It's Jen McCreight, emerging from the Portlandia bookstore, who caused the spike.

Jennifer McCreight ‏@jennifurret

Abbie Smith of ERV has reached a new low by suggesting Greta Christina lied about having cancer for money

She links to a slymepit post from Abbie with the following line:

Greta 'The Grifter' Christina taking money from people for her 'cancer' and then spending it on exorbitantly priced shoes

I didn't read Abbie's statement to mean that Greta lied about having cancer.
I took it to mean that Greta took the money people donated for the treatment of her cancer but used it for something different.
It is somewhat ambiguous but it is still an extreme stretch to make the claim that Blaghag does - and to make such an accusation should require better evidence than Abbies post.

Twitter related? If so, I'll be the last to know - I tweet not, neither do I spin.

I can see both readings of Abbie's post, so I guess what you choose will be down to how you feel about Abbie and Greta. If the second quotes are taken to be a reference to how Greta used the term, then I think it's fair to read some skepticism about Greta's claims into Abbie's remark, but it needn't amount to a full denial of the "cancer" claim.

I defer to you on the subject of cancer, but I'm sure there is a huge range of conditions that fall under that broad heading and many of them will be far less serious than others. But if you go out and yell "I've got cancer, HELP!" most folks will leap to the one conclusion - Cancer! The Big C. With no answer! Greta appears to have milked that intial statement for all it is worth, and only afterwards softened the claim about how serious it was. Given that, I think Abbie's calling her on the use of the term is fair enough.

Was Greta lying about having cancer? We don't know, but maybe not - technically. But then, technically, Abbie didn't accuse her of that and, technically, Blaghag didn't accuse Abbie of anything more than "suggesting" Greta lied. Frankly, given all this babble, I can see why Abbie would prefer to cut to the chase.

FWIW I saw two claims from Greta - I'm seriously unwell and as a result I will suffer financial hardship. Even if the illness was some for of cancer, I think that both claims (suggestions?) have been shown to be false, and Shoegate is just one piece of evidence for that.

It is completely wrong to say Greta didn't have cancer - or that it was pretend (or "magic") cancer.
As far as I can tell, medically she did exactly the correct thing.
Endometrial cancer can be fatal, but if caught at an early stage is very treatable by surgery.
This seems to have been the case with Greta.

The questionable part of her actions seems to have been to request money when it was not clear which stage cancer she had.
If it is confirmed as stage 1 then the medical treatment (and associated costs) will be a lot less severe.
Asking for donations before she knew this gives the impression that she was choosing a point where she would get the most sympathy - people are much more likely to donate if they think the illness is life threatening rather than, as it turned out, almost a routine procedure that just kept her out of work for a few weeks.[/spoiler]

It is also problematic that she didn't see the problem with getting a lot of donations and not realizing that she might have some kind of moral responsibility in regards how she uses that money. Yes, technically she asked for money for living expenses - which could include clothing, if you pushed it. But I suspect at least some people were giving money with the intention of helping her get the best treatment for her cancer and not to update her wardrobe. This sort of thoughtlessness squanders the goodwill of readers who may become reluctant to donate the next time someone becomes ill - and perhaps that someone might really need the money just to stay alive.

Ok, I'm sick of this. Greta asked for money because she was worried about the expense of a potentially serious illness and loss of income. The money was donated. Greta got more than she expected and CLOSED donations. Greta got on with her life. When there were objections to her buying shoes she offered the money BACK. She’s not on morally shaky ground, she’s done things right. It’s crass, it’s a bit tasteless but it doesn’t seem to me to be this giant controversy we’re making it out to be.

[Eucliwood]

This quote, "He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither." has always annoyed me. It is so dumb in usage... as if "freedom" is more important than security, no matter what. It only gets by due to the hyped-up attitude it carries. It can be used for all sorts of situations - heard it too many times in gun debate. It can be used when it comes to the entire jail system. "He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither." That's plenty of freedom we throw out, and we even pay tax on it. I have never heard that quote being used in a wise way. Only when security definitely deserves consideration over freedom. Frustrating.

[welch]

I tell you, I'm feelin' the loooove.

Should we wait here while they fellate each other?

Since they won't get a room, I'm thinking we'll have no choice.

HATE SEX TIME

[ReneeHendricks]

I think this is a central question that someone on that side of the fence should be asking. Why does rape destroy some people's lives and for others it's a slightly icky experience and they brush off and move on? Why do some people become "a victim of rape" once they're raped and others are "someone who was once a victim of a rape"?

I don't see the line of demarcation between those who find it a horrible life-altering experience and those who find it mildly icky. It's entirely possible that it's just as horrible for either person. The difference isn't in the act itself but in the transcending of it.

If you characterize it that way then the obsessive victims can just dismiss those who did manage to transcend the experience because, of course, that rape was just "mildly icky".

The term "rape" itself refers to such a wide gamut of experiences, levels of violence and coercion, situations that unless you discuss the particulars, you really can't begin to try (and probably fail) to understand what the experience was.

For me, it has always been "whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger". As a person who grew up with physical violence, survived rape at a young age and have had a bunch of other really shitty things happen to me, this life philosophy is what keeps me from having those things define me as a person. They don't. They happened in the past. I'm certain really shitty things are going to happen to me in the future. It's the way life works. You pick yourself up, dust the shit off of you, and you go.the.fuck.on.

[Philip of Tealand]

I tell you, I'm feelin' the loooove.

Should we wait here while they fellate each other?

Since they won't get a room, I'm thinking we'll have no choice.

HATE SEX TIME

Welch, for goodness sake, there are probably Baboons reading this - Jenny McWrong could completely misquote you if you are not more careful with your language!

[Eucliwood]

Oh my god, I am so tired of FtB-believers speaking for OTHER PEOPLE when the other person hasn't even said anything, like they're all connected by some sort of telepathic string and what they say for someone else is as good as the person saying it and I should just fucking obey them. Especially when they themselves (talking about the A+ forum) are the ones who spew things out like, "Consult the group you're talking about for their sensitivities, your privileged opinion doesn't matter." It's like, HELLO. you just spent 50 posts bitching at someone in defense of someone else you have only assumed thinks like you. Fuck off. Haven't you ever considered it can be irritating and bothersome to have people lecture or scold others on your behalf when you haven't even voiced that that is your opinion?

Someone did that to me on Lousy Canuck's blog, (Xanthe), for Jason. Something about personal boundaries, and yada yada. I don't know what the hell she could be referring to that's a violation of personal boundaries, except criticising him - which is not a violation. He criticizes others, (he handled me very roughly back there, too) and he gets criticized too. He'd be ahypocrite to be all "omgyoudont KNOW me you cant judge me, personal boundaries bitchezzz" Nope, I don't know YOU, but I sure as hell can judge things you do or say, just like you do to others. Told that Xanthe woman off.

[John Brown]

Jeezus H Kristu, so Pizzy Myers has come out swining yet again. This time his target is Sam Harris:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -eastwood/

So, he's tried to discredit Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and now Sam Harris. When will he go after Daniel Dennet, I wonder? What boggles my mind is how Pizzy McShitfarts Myers seems to think he is on the same level as these giants. And how about some fucking gratitude? Without these gentlemen, there would be no new rise of atheism in the US.

So again, fuck you, PZ; go stick a pineapple up your ass.

I'm not going to open up the whole gun debate again, so I'll just address these points:

What I see over and over again in Harris and rabid defenders of gun ownership is something other than just merely seeing guns as a tool: it’s the cult of the rugged individual, the lone cowboy on his own in hostile territory, where the only recourse is to be quick on the draw. What’s the answer to any trouble? Why, you take care of it yourself, usually by killing the troublemaker. It’s a simple, quick solution that doesn’t require any thinking at all.

Anyone who has bothered to study the corpus of Mr. Harris's work can not come away with the conclusion that he subscribes to the "cult of the rugged individual." He has some libertarian leanings, but he's much more in line with John Dewey style liberalism.

I know already what response that will get: that it’s a starry-eyed optimistic dream. But what they won’t care about is that Harris’s dream of battling an evil-doer to the death with his well-practiced expertise in firing a gun is just as pie-in-the-sky, and that even in its most benign outcome, is still a horror and a nightmare.

It's as if he thinks Sam Harris stands in front of his mirror reciting monologues from the movie Taxi Driver.

This is why Welch's responses to me yesterday touched a nerve. Guessing at someone's motives when those motives aren't stated is dishonest. I had some problems with Sam Harris's article, but I would never assume to know his motivations as justification for those disagreements. Maybe Sam Harris really does dream of battling an evil-doer to the death. And? The argument either stands on its merits or it doesn't.

I like Sam Harris, except when I don't. When I don't, I try to think through *why* I don't rather than just react emotionally to it.

Why is everything so damn personal to P.Z.?

[franc]

Ok, I'm sick of this. Greta asked for money because she was worried about the expense of a potentially serious illness and loss of income. The money was donated. Greta got more than she expected and CLOSED donations. Greta got on with her life. When there were objections to her buying shoes she offered the money BACK. She’s not on morally shaky ground, she’s done things right. It’s crass, it’s a bit tasteless but it doesn’t seem to me to be this giant controversy we’re making it out to be.

Now repeat the same to yourself and imagine if a stunt like this was pulled by a blonde cheerleader that attends an all singing, all dancing pentacostal revival group? Now imagine PZ finding out about it.

Get real. Everyone deals with cancer, either personally or with a loved one. How many do you know that rattle beggars cups as a first resort, before even a full diagnosis and prognosis?

[Eucliwood]

I think this is a central question that someone on that side of the fence should be asking. Why does rape destroy some people's lives and for others it's a slightly icky experience and they brush off and move on? Why do some people become "a victim of rape" once they're raped and others are "someone who was once a victim of a rape"?

I don't see the line of demarcation between those who find it a horrible life-altering experience and those who find it mildly icky. It's entirely possible that it's just as horrible for either person. The difference isn't in the act itself but in the transcending of it.

If you characterize it that way then the obsessive victims can just dismiss those who did manage to transcend the experience because, of course, that rape was just "mildly icky".

The term "rape" itself refers to such a wide gamut of experiences, levels of violence and coercion, situations that unless you discuss the particulars, you really can't begin to try (and probably fail) to understand what the experience was.

For me, it has always been "whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger". As a person who grew up with physical violence, survived rape at a young age and have had a bunch of other really shitty things happen to me, this life philosophy is what keeps me from having those things define me as a person. They don't. They happened in the past. I'm certain really shitty things are going to happen to me in the future. It's the way life works. You pick yourself up, dust the shit off of you, and you go.the.fuck.on.

YESSS. ++++. Love this post. This is only slightly related, but I really hate when people try to infect rape victims with their "yeah, omg, worse thing ever, worse than murder even, I wouldnt blame you if you suicided!" attitude. They're already trying to pick themselves up, and while they may not think like that personally, it can be really harmful to hear that shit. They won't be able to help feeling more depressed. I hate that. Harm in disguise of "helping" a rape victim. They should get an automatic restraining order for doing that to them. Psychological abuse. Did anyone do that to you, Renee?

[welch]

Michael K Gray, so I guess a pic of a dog fucking a cow to describe Laden and Zvan is okay. The Greg Laden memes were okay. Someone else's paragraph about Jen being a horse is okay. All of the other pics making fun of the FTB bloggers are okay. Making fun of all of their appearances have so far been okay. But me making fun of Jen McWrong for looking like a horse is not okay. Or is it not okay because it's coming from me, yet if it comes from someone else, then it's okay?

Look, you make a good point, and one to which I should have alluded.
Yes, you are cogent with your appeal to popularity.
Your post was simply "the last straw" in my tolerance level, and triggered an outburst to cease and desist, as such is harming Abbie by giving the opposition valid & primed ammunition.
You just got the raw deal in my lottery.
It could have been one of you juvenile fuckers.

I have been internally equally scathing of these other juvenile attacks.
The other attacks are NOT OK.

I guess that someone had to "break the horse's back", as it were.

I wish that these unnecessary attacks on involuntarily acquired personal characteristics would stop now.
These FfTBoggers exhibit far worse behaviours of their own accord for us to be wasting time jibing at them for irrelevant attributes, and providing them with incendiary ammunition.

I judge you be more than intelligent enough to grasp this dichotomy.
I trust that I shall not be disappointed.

You said "dickotomy", heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh

[ReneeHendricks]

Jeezus H Kristu, so Pizzy Myers has come out swining yet again. This time his target is Sam Harris:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -eastwood/

So, he's tried to discredit Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and now Sam Harris. When will he go after Daniel Dennet, I wonder? What boggles my mind is how Pizzy McShitfarts Myers seems to think he is on the same level as these giants. And how about some fucking gratitude? Without these gentlemen, there would be no new rise of atheism in the US.

So again, fuck you, PZ; go stick a pineapple up your ass.

I read that article by Harris. I'm almost afraid to go read with the Almighty Head of Asses has to say.

[franc]

This is why Welch's responses to me yesterday touched a nerve. Guessing at someone's motives when those motives aren't stated is dishonest... Why is everything so damn personal to P.Z.?

Because he's a wedge politician. Everything is binary, black and white, us and them. Without division and conflict, he is a hollow man with nothing to say. Assigning motives are a necessary step in either demonisation or hagiography, depending on which side of the wedge you want to put the person concerned.

[windy]

So, he's tried to discredit Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and now Sam Harris. When will he go after Daniel Dennet, I wonder? What boggles my mind is how Pizzy McShitfarts Myers seems to think he is on the same level as these giants.

Harris is another embarrassment to the movement with his New Age dingbattery and this ridiculously Americentric gun-and-country shit- maybe in this case Myers has picked an opponent on an appropriate level.

[Eucliwood]

Harris is another embarrassment to the movement with his New Age dingbattery and this ridiculously Americentric gun-and-country shit- maybe in this case Myers has picked an opponent on an appropriate level.

Ewww, gun-and-country shit. Although I will judge his New Age dingbattery for myself. I happen to be an old age dingbat. (I reject the usage of the term "New Age" for any dingbattery that is not actually NEW or modern. New meaning, it didn't just arrive when the term New Age arrived.)