Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

[rayshul]

Not to be a bitch but can we take this discussion about the validity of shops to a side thread? I think it's preeeetty much worn it's shit out.

[AndrewV69]

Jesus fuck, relax and put away your anal swords of righteous indignation. It's just an assemblage of pixels. Nothing gonna hurt.

Sissies.

You are not facing righteous indignation (so far). Instead you were given a guideline for your future efforts.

Not witty enough.
Not interesting enough.
Not topical enough.
Not funny enough.
Not satirical enough.

Your image fit none of the above.

[BarnOwl]

Finally caught up reading the 'Pit AND watched Mykeru's video, which is brilliant. Would have appreciated a trigger warning for the clowns, though. Yikes.

Loved the dog stories and photos. What are people thinking when they dump dogs and cats on the side of a highway? At least some of them seem to believe that "farmers and ranchers will take them in." My grandparents in rural Colorado often did exactly that, and always had at least half a dozen dogs and cats on their farm. Then the pet abandoners return to the 'burbs or the 'hood and proceed to sneer at ignorant rural people who keep lots of dogs and cats. Classism, bigotry, and cruel fuckwittery on display. Ain't Merka great?

Gross anatomy students are instructed not to leave their bone boxes or skulls at home if they have a dog(s). Bones are bones are bones to a dog, and they'll happily chew on human bones. And whoever started marketing discarded parts from the meatpacking industry as dog treats is a genius: pig ears, lamb feet, cow noses and tracheas, etc. I once picked up something labelled as a "moo tube" at a pet store, and said "Hey, this is a cow trachea!" The store manager was not pleased with me.

[TheMan]

Aussie goof hour begins shortly....

before that....

Mykeru... really enjoyed the video. I might have to watch it again as it was a stop start viewing while dealing with work stuff. The power of video is that you can brings lost of disjointed instances together and crystalise it in a relative short period of time to make the picture clearer.

I see the Pit as slowly being into this monster, like what al-queda (if it actually exists) was to the War on Terror, by the FTB crew. They have to keep hammering that narrative ...it's a well practice tactic. and like in Iraq there are no weapons of mass destruction here.

I said I have to watch it again only because on first run there was a point in the video where you show a Street View picture of a block of units. It''s not clear if that was a pic you lifted off Google Maps or what it seemed to me something they sent as a gotcha.

Love the doggy stories... I washed my doggies last weekend for the first time in a year...my younger one was smelling so rank juicy the other dogs at the doggy park try to hump him all the time. I had to wash him because the partner was complaining about the smell. No point washing them I reckon...it only took a few minutes before they found the remnants of a dead rat in the back yard to roll around in.

Thanks for the video...maybe the pit really does need a "read this first" thread for the noobs. This video would be a must see....and yeah...they will responde to that but I sensed a hint of being prepared for that

[sKepptiksowat]

Jesus fuck, relax and put away your anal swords of righteous indignation. It's just an assemblage of pixels. Nothing gonna hurt.

Sissies.

You are not facing righteous indignation (so far).

There's a possibility with you? Fuck off you anal twat.

Instead you were given a guideline for your future efforts.

Holy fuck, are you from A+?

Give me a break. Goodnite.

I can't wait to see what the morning brings. :dance:

[KiwiInOz]

Finally caught up reading the 'Pit AND watched Mykeru's video, which is brilliant. Would have appreciated a trigger warning for the clowns, though. Yikes.

Loved the dog stories and photos. What are people thinking when they dump dogs and cats on the side of a highway? At least some of them seem to believe that "farmers and ranchers will take them in." My grandparents in rural Colorado often did exactly that, and always had at least half a dozen dogs and cats on their farm. Then the pet abandoners return to the 'burbs or the 'hood and proceed to sneer at ignorant rural people who keep lots of dogs and cats. Classism, bigotry, and cruel fuckwittery on display. Ain't Merka great?

Gross anatomy students are instructed not to leave their bone boxes or skulls at home if they have a dog(s). Bones are bones are bones to a dog, and they'll happily chew on human bones. And whoever started marketing discarded parts from the meatpacking industry as dog treats is a genius: pig ears, lamb feet, cow noses and tracheas, etc. I once picked up something labelled as a "moo tube" at a pet store, and said "Hey, this is a cow trachea!" The store manager was not pleased with me.

We used to try and blow up the sheep lungs in High School biology through the trachea. And stick pieces of dissected rat in various pencil cases.

But I digress. The vid by Mykeru was excellent, and I quite happily wore my Mykeru t-shirt back to the office from the gym at lunchtime today.

[AndrewV69]

Jesus fuck, relax and put away your anal swords of righteous indignation. It's just an assemblage of pixels. Nothing gonna hurt.

Sissies.

You are not facing righteous indignation (so far).

There's a possibility with you? Fuck off you anal twat.

Instead you were given a guideline for your future efforts.

Holy fuck, are you from A+?

Give me a break. Goodnite.

I can't wait to see what the morning brings. :dance:

:popcorn:

[finkfree]

In addition to the seriouspit linked above, there is also a new crassless thread started by Submariner here: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=255 The urge to post a fart joke is almost overpowering. I wonder if the seriouspit is serious enough and if we'll need other flavors of 'pit. Maybe a somberpit for sad occasions, and a soberpit for when the candy vodka drinkers get out of hand, etc.

Hey, I resemble that remark (where's my fuckin' candy cane vodka?)!

Seriously though, screw this "seriouspit" bullshit. Redundancy for the sake of being "polite". Not my bag.

All this argueing about tone and creating a 'less rude' place? Do people here not see the parallels with FTB starting A+? Seriously, I am shocked that you appear to be falling into the same trap. Look, who is going to decide what is permissable?
The strength of this place is its openness, its allowing of all views / approaches. It's not for everbody, but thats fine, there are other places for them. This place is vital, it performs its task, it has its place. Please don't change it

[KiwiInOz]

In addition to the seriouspit linked above, there is also a new crassless thread started by Submariner here: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=255 The urge to post a fart joke is almost overpowering. I wonder if the seriouspit is serious enough and if we'll need other flavors of 'pit. Maybe a somberpit for sad occasions, and a soberpit for when the candy vodka drinkers get out of hand, etc.

Hey, I resemble that remark (where's my fuckin' candy cane vodka?)!

Seriously though, screw this "seriouspit" bullshit. Redundancy for the sake of being "polite". Not my bag.

All this argueing about tone and creating a 'less rude' place? Do people here not see the parallels with FTB starting A+? Seriously, I am shocked that you appear to be falling into the same trap. Look, who is going to decide what is permissable?
The strength of this place is its openness, its allowing of all views / approaches. It's not for everbody, but thats fine, there are other places for them. This place is vital, it performs its task, it has its place. Please don't change it

I wouldn't worry about it changing too much. The dialogue is the equivalent of an awesome burp or juicy fart after a good meal.

[TheMan]

Hey MKG.... what's holding you in Adelaide? come on over to the Sydney Pit.....leave the City of Churches behind and step it up a pace to the City of Money Laundering & bitumen

[rayshul]

Whoever bet finkfree would come here... I believe you have won.

I also agree with fink. To the point where I wish people would stfu about it. As sacha said - this argument has been made for keeping things "nice" and it has been lost, again and again, because there is a) recognition that "nice" is a subjective term, especially between cultures, and is prone to slippery-sloping and b) here, we represent no one but ourselves.

[nippletwister]

But I’m also reminded of someone’s aphorism to the effect that valuing plumbing or philosophy over the other is equally problematic as the consequence will be that neither one’s plumbing nor one’s values will hold much water ….

I am curious to know exactly which "values" are informed solely by philosophy? Values that a plumber could not possibly have discovered without it, as you appear to think.
Give concrete examples, please.

Tap, tap tap...

As an ex-meat cutter who has flirted with vegetarianism, I look forward to any replies....

[KiwiInOz]

Whoever bet finkfree would come here... I believe you have won.

I also agree with fink. To the point where I wish people would stfu about it. As sacha said - this argument has been made for keeping things "nice" and it has been lost, again and again, because there is a) recognition that "nice" is a subjective term, especially between cultures, and is prone to slippery-sloping and b) here, we represent no one but ourselves.

Nice. From Online Etymology Dictionary

nice (adj.)
late 13c., "foolish, stupid, senseless," from Old French nice (12c.) "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish," from Latin nescius "ignorant, unaware," literally "not-knowing," from ne- "not" (see un-) + stem of scire "to know" (see science). "The sense development has been extraordinary, even for an adj." [Weekley] -- from "timid" (pre-1300); to "fussy, fastidious" (late 14c.); to "dainty, delicate" (c.1400); to "precise, careful" (1500s, preserved in such terms as a nice distinction and nice and early); to "agreeable, delightful" (1769); to "kind, thoughtful" (1830).
"In many examples from the 16th and 17th centuries it is difficult to say in what particular sense the writer intended it to be taken." [OED]
By 1926, it was pronounced "too great a favorite with the ladies, who have charmed out of it all its individuality and converted it into a mere diffuser of vague and mild agreeableness." [Fowler]

A+ is nice.

We are not.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I have to admit I squirmed a little whent he picture of PZ in a nappy was put up.

Dude, look at your avatar...

[Michael K Gray]

Hey MKG.... what's holding you in Adelaide? come on over to the Sydney Pit.....leave the City of Churches behind and step it up a pace to the City of Money Laundering & bitumen

You just answered your own question!
A note to tourists:
Stay away from South Australia.
It is a truly shit place to visit.
I wonder if that will keep the sticky-beaks away from my dolphin paradise?

PZ said that he adores SA. There. That should keep the cunts away!

[KiwiInOz]

I have to admit I squirmed a little whent he picture of PZ in a nappy was put up.

Dude, look at your avatar...

Keep up Phil.

[clownshoe]

Too much?

Not enough.

Not witty enough.
Not interesting enough.
Not topical enough.
Not funny enough.
Not satirical enough.

Exactly.

Mykeru's video on the other hand, is a work of art.

[TheMan]

I have to admit I squirmed a little whent he picture of PZ in a nappy was put up.

Dude, look at your avatar...

Keep up Phil.

I was pretty sure I said more than that one line......

Keep up Phil! :)

Us Aussies have a tendancy to self deprecate... makes us bullet proof apparently...

[Michael K Gray]

Keep up Phil.

That's a bit gay, isn't it?

[KiwiInOz]

Keep up Phil.

That's a bit gay, isn't it?

Oo er, Mister McCracken.

[KiwiInOz]

Us Aussies have a tendancy to self deprecate... .

You Aussies wouldn't know self deprecation if it bit you on the arse. We Kiwis, on the other hand, are not so bad at it.

[TheMan]

Hey MKG.... what's holding you in Adelaide? come on over to the Sydney Pit.....leave the City of Churches behind and step it up a pace to the City of Money Laundering & bitumen

You just answered your own question!
A note to tourists:
Stay away from South Australia.
It is a truly shit place to visit.
I wonder if that will keep the sticky-beaks away from my dolphin paradise?

PZ said that he adores SA. There. That should keep the cunts away!

I like Adelaide...I have experiences of Adelaide going back to 1975 when I was part of a theatre group invited to perform at the Adelaide Festival. I was billeted to a family that lived in Hazelwood Park... my first experinces of Middle Classdom. I think it may have been the first time a wog stayed at their house. So they assumed I would like to eat Pasta every night.... and Cheese Pasta at that. They tried at least... I remember crying on the train as it rolled over the hills of Elizabeth on the way back to Sydney...the twighlight ligths of Adelaide twinkling away in the distance.

my partner has been making noises about moving there... I reminded her it was too far away to travel everyday to work... hehe

[rayshul]

In other news I am watching what I thought would be a skeptic show - "Fact or Faked Paranormal Shit" or something like that. I've just watched a video with a fucking SPIDER on a WEB clearly on the fucking video - you can see the fucking spider's legs - and they're like oooHHhhHhhHHhh we don't know what that could possibly be.

Also they say shit like, "OH I HEARD THAT'S A HOTBED OF ACTIVITY."

[TheMan]

Us Aussies have a tendancy to self deprecate... .

You Aussies wouldn't know self deprecation if it bit you on the arse. We Kiwis, on the other hand, are not so bad at it.

Bullshite! in Northland at least I had to admit kiwi pwnage when it comes to Rugby Union and fresh sea food...and I'm taking fresh as in... here's a plastic bag and a knife. Pick your own oysters from the rocks on the sea line...just roll your pants up and they won't get wet.

[UnbelieveSteve]

Ooooooh now it suddenly all makes sense... excuse my idiocy chaps. I forget they are here to troll us with a false morality...i'm a dumb cunt at the best of times. I'll go back to milking cows.

Well, we all know 'pitters are inveterate tit-grabbers.

That is so udderly bad ....

Do you ALWAYS have to milk things?

That last comment was the cream on top.

[TheMan]

yay... I can go home now. Made an American client happy with some footage I found of Steve Foley (Aust Athletic Diver) from the 80's when he sported a rather large fluffy moustache. The client wanted to highlight how rediculous he looked at that time and poke fun at him.... Steve must be a guest of this American TV production company....

The irony of personal attacks seems to be the theme of the day.....

[Steersman]

But I’m also reminded of someone’s aphorism to the effect that valuing plumbing or philosophy over the other is equally problematic as the consequence will be that neither one’s plumbing nor one’s values will hold much water ….

I am curious to know exactly which "values" are informed solely by philosophy? Values that a plumber could not possibly have discovered without it, as you appear to think.
Give concrete examples, please.

Tap, tap tap...

“One fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise men can answer” – Confucius [?] Not that you are the former and I’m one of the latter, but it does illustrate the problem and suggests that your apparent impatience does you no credit.

However, apart from the fact that that looks like moving the goal posts as I certainly didn’t imply much less say “informed solely by philosophy”, I suppose a reasonable starting point is, since you emphasized the term, to question precisely what is meant by “values”. And since it seems to cover a lot of ground, this would appear to be a reasonable second step and point of reference:

Value theory encompasses a range of approaches to understanding how, why and to what degree people value things; whether the thing is a person, idea, object, or anything else. …. Today much of value theory is scientifically empirical, recording what people do value and attempting to understand why they value it in the context of psychology, sociology, and economics.

And since the evolution of those sciences – not to mention the philosophy of empiricism itself which is largely the basis for the modern scientific method – was and is heavily dependent on philosophy, it seems rather much of a stretch to argue that the values we hold, and variations thereof, are not due to, or have not been heavily influenced by the evolution of philosophy itself. For instance, one might wonder where the atomic theory of matter would be if the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus and his confreres hadn’t started the ball rolling with their analysis of that concept and related ones.

However, that is, I suppose and as suggested, somewhat related to the question of “why people value ... persons, ideas or objects”. And although knowing the “why” might reasonably be construed as “informing our values”, the answer to the question “what should our values be” would seem to “inform our values” even more than the answer to the “why” question. And in which regard, I would say that the mathematical theory of games – evolving out of both philosophy and mathematics which is itself heavily dependent on philosophy – would seem to provide some answers to that “what”question. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it:

However, since at least the late 1970s it has been possible to say with confidence that game theory is the most important and useful tool in the analyst's kit whenever she confronts situations in which what counts as one agent's best action (for her) depends on expectations about what one or more other agents will do, and what counts as their best actions (for them) similarly depend on expectations about her.
….
Philosophers share with economists a professional interest in the conditions and techniques for the maximization of human welfare. In addition, philosophers have a special concern with the logical justification of actions, and often actions must be justified by reference to their expected outcomes. (One tradition in philosophy, utilitarianism, is based on the idea that all justifiable actions must be justified in this way.) Without game theory, both of these problems resist analysis wherever non-parametric aspects are relevant.

So it would seem that philosophy – on one front or another – has something to say and to contribute to “the maximization of human welfare”, that it is capable of “informing” our choices. Or maybe you don’t think that that goal is an important value and objective that we should promote?

[Skep tickle]

Barbara Drescher has an interesting new post: On Skepticism: Its Definitions and Scope

As usual, she is well spoken, erudite, and presents a lof of linkage and backup.

Link: http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/2013/02/ ... and-scope/

This is great. Shermer, then Novella, then Hall, now Drescher, speaking out against the antics of PZ & his tribe.

Drescher's article opens referring to PZ but she moves quickly on, as she describes here, then after a number of bullet points ends with tons of links at the end. From near the beginning of her article:

...the truth is that responding to [PZ] is a bit like debating a creationist. Sometimes one should, but this is not one of those times. In this case, PZ has so grossly misrepresented my writings and statements that it is very clear that no productive discussion can occur with him on the matter. This is not the first time he has done so and not the first time that I have essentially ignored it. The post is almost entirely built on mischaracterizations, straw men, and falsehoods. If anyone else wants to discuss it, I will be happy to do so after you have read what I actually wrote, context and all.

Instead, I think that this is a good time to gather some of the more recent materials on the matter in one place because I strongly believe that most of the discussion in the general community over these issues involve new members trying to get a handle on what we’re all about. So, I will summarize my views on the matter in a few bullet points and provide a list of links to posts, publications, and videos what are free to all.

I will not be discussing tone and approach, but some of the materials do touch on this issue. I disagree with Novella and a few others on that question and it is always a discussion worth having, but separately.

There's one small part of her article that I have a bit of a beef with; it's the part I've italicized here, in the 3rd from last of her bulleted points:

Objectivity is a central feature of scientific thinking and, therefore, of scientific skepticism. Although no human being is purely objective (arguable, but I think most of us agree), one of the main purposes of the scientific method is to remove subjectivity from the inquiry process. In practice, it’s imperfect, but if we throw our hands up on this issue because scientists are not unbiased, we must reject science altogether. It’s that central.

No human being is purely objective; I'm not clear on why would anyone say that's "arguable" at all. (I think it was Andrew who has had a couple of post here a while back - maybe a month ago? about humans as animals who may like to think we've 'risen above that' but really we haven't; one was about the history our Y chromosomal heritage tells in terms of mating behaviors not all that long ago and another, as I recall, was about how messy human minds are. Forgive me, Andrew, if I'm misremembering, but I did really enjoy those posts.)

Anyway, a crucial aspect of skeptical inquiry is being aware of, or trying to being aware of, cognitive biases and values (our own & those of others involved in the discussion), and at least acknowledging them, whether or not we decide to try to put them aside. (I think there can be value to having Deanna Troi as well as Data present in a discussion, so to speak, as long as you're clear on their different strengths & biases, and consider their contributions in that light.)

I'm not sure why Drescher doesn't specifically address examining our own biases & values, particularly since in the next bullet point she goes on to mention skepticism & (examination of) social issues:

Because objectivity is central to skepticism and values such as political ideologies should not drive the practice of skepticism or science, but should be informed by the findings of science and skeptical inquiry (e.g, science cannot tell us if gun control is good, but it can tell us if a specific regulation is likely to reduce the number of deaths by gun). In other words, economy, religion, and feminism are not “off-limits”. They should be and are subjected to the same treatment that all other topics are subjected to. They appear to receive different treatment merely because the claims made in these areas tend to be more complex and more difficult to test (if they are testable at all). Furthermore, these topics tend to be attached to strongly-held values and, because human beings are notoriously tenacious in their beliefs, more controversial.

Also, being able to admit (to yourself and to others) when you're wrong is also key (and has seemed to be lacking among some who call themselves skeptics); at least 2 people raised that in this thread in the past 1-2 days. I like "BICBW" but it doesn't seem to be frequently used.

(Caveat that maybe Drescher addresses these in one or more of the many links she provided to other articles. But, waaaaa, I think they're so important that I want her to have listed them among her bullet points!! ;) )

Finally, I liked this comment from the first post after her article:

It seems to me that the “Social Justice” folks in the Skepticism “movement” (or the Skepticism circle of enthusiasts, if that’s a loaded word) are prone to begin with an answer, and then look for evidence to support their position, when it comes to the SJ issues they want Skepticism to wade into. But, because so many SJ issues require value judgments, what they’re demanding of Skepticism is the very antithesis of Scientific Skepticism.

This is exactly why I think Jamy Ian Swiss “you’re welcome to come into the tent, but don’t come in, and then announce you’re moving it” rang so strongly with me. Some appear to be interested in demanding movement towards whatever agenda they happen to support.

Now on to watch Mykeru's latest video masterpiece...

[TheMan]

And thereth ends Aussie happy hour of mirth

[decius]

JIM, your account is sending out phishing DMs on Twitter.

[rayshul]

I wonder how the rejection of PZ - and the characterisation of him as an ideologue or creationist-like thinker - will affect his standing in the community and the conference circuit. I'm fascinated.

[Michael K Gray]

But I’m also reminded of someone’s aphorism to the effect that valuing plumbing or philosophy over the other is equally problematic as the consequence will be that neither one’s plumbing nor one’s values will hold much water ….

I am curious to know exactly which "values" are informed solely by philosophy? Values that a plumber could not possibly have discovered without it, as you appear to think.
Give concrete examples, please.

Tap, tap tap...

“One fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise men can answer” – Confucius [?] Not that you are the former and I’m one of the latter, but it does illustrate the problem and suggests that your apparent impatience does you no credit.

My impatience???
WTF?
I stated clearly that there has not been one concrete example given over the last 2,500 years!!
What is your definition of patience!
Bloody philosophiles are proven to be full of it again.

So it would seem that philosophy – on one front or another – has something to say and to contribute to “the maximization of human welfare”, that it is capable of “informing” our choices.

Not a single concrete example. Instead a load of wafflegab about "it would seem that", followed some "had something to say about".
THIS is why philosphiles get up my nose.

Or maybe you don’t think that that goal is an important value and objective that we should promote?

You often accuse others of straw-manning.
You just did it in big lumps right there...
Plus begging the question, assuming the antecedent, and another handful of fallacies.

If you cannot give me a clear concrete answer to my very clear question, then I might respect you if you just said so, rather than resorting to FTB sophistic bullshitting to avoid saying so.

[Steersman]

But I’m also reminded of someone’s aphorism to the effect that valuing plumbing or philosophy over the other is equally problematic as the consequence will be that neither one’s plumbing nor one’s values will hold much water ….

I am curious to know exactly which "values" are informed solely by philosophy? Values that a plumber could not possibly have discovered without it, as you appear to think.
Give concrete examples, please.

Tap, tap tap...

“One fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise men can answer” – Confucius [?] Not that you are the former and I’m one of the latter, but it does illustrate the problem and suggests that your apparent impatience does you no credit.

My impatience??? WTF?

I think “Tap, tap tap...” qualifies as that.

Not a single concrete example. Instead a load of wafflegab about "it would seem that", followed some "had something to say about".

I gave you a link to the topic of philosophy. Those who have some degree of intellectual honesty are likely to find more than enough there in the way of concrete examples of how philosophy has informed our values. In addition, I would say that the example of game theory is sufficiently concrete to satisfy most – at least those without overly thick skulls. Did you even read the first paragraph in the link? I very much doubt it.

You often accuse others of straw-manning.
You just did it in big lumps right there...
Plus begging the question, assuming the antecedent, and another handful of fallacies.

Apart from the fact that “straw-manning”, “begging the question”, and “affirming the antecedent” are all the results of philosophical analysis and might thereby reasonably be construed as constituting proof of “philosophy informing our values”, I have to say that you seem to have a rather odd definition of that latter term.

It almost seems that you expect science and philosophy – they being largely joined at the hip, if not one and the same – to act as some Oracle at Delphi and deliver some prophecy as to the values most beloved by the Gods. Seems to me that some values – like “maximizing human welfare” – are more or less a gestalt, an intuitive leap, that we all share to a greater or lesser extent. As mentioned and described in some detail, sciences such as neurology, biology, psychology, sociology, physics, and economics – all informed by vast amounts of philosophy – can say something about why we make those leaps. But, in many cases at least, the precise reasons are going to be obscure at best. In which case the questions then become “what are the consequences of certain choices” – on which game theory and philosophy has some thing to say to inform us – and, “how do we reach those goals” – again on which, philosophy, notably those underlying democracy, also has something to say. At least to those willing to listen ….

[Skep tickle]

Just ran across this pretty serious claim* in the comments at Ophelia's post on "What they don't get" (re claim of pornographic MS Paint drawings), didn't see prior mention of this here (BICBW):

http://i.imgur.com/itA3xSM.png

*As in, libelous if untrue; against someone unnamed who has published in Skeptic Magazine (not necessarily Shermer, he's named but apparently as the editor)

Link to the comment in situ at FtB: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-455544

This rings a vague bell of someone claiming something once about Shermer plagiarizing, but nothing turned up in the first page of results of a couple quick searches just now so maybe I'm hallucinating that.

Anyone know what this is about, & is it shit-rolling or might there be something to it?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I have to admit I squirmed a little whent he picture of PZ in a nappy was put up.

Dude, look at your avatar...

Keep up Phil.

Yeah, I was a bit behind. It's all to do with that pesky "sleep" business and all. My bad. Won't do it again. Would a tasteless shop redeem my crimes? No? Didn't think so.

[decius]

Steersman, I had the unpleasant experience to debate the topic of "what has philosophy done for us" with MKG.
He will behave like creationists requesting "the single incontrovertible proof for evolution".
Of course, there is no such thing that can be expressed in a "few clear words" in either discussion and whatever you bring to the table will be met by personal incredulity and hand-waving.

He will then proceed to insult you when cornered by reasoned argument and to declare victory by chest-thumping.
I later found instances of him engaging in this egregious behaviour in many other forums, so it's a lost cause.

[Michael K Gray]

I think “Tap, tap tap...” qualifies as that.

The tap comment was a pun in regard to plumbers, not filosfers!

I had taken off "ignore" as you seemed to have less wind in your bilious contrarian sails, and gained a rudimentary sense of humour, but appear to have made a gross mistake.

Back into the feckin' sack with you.

[decius]

LOL.

Like I said.

[Steersman]

Steersman, I had the unpleasant experience to debate the topic of "what has philosophy done for us" with MKG.
He will behave like creationists requesting "the single incontrovertible proof for evolution".
Of course, there is no such thing that can be expressed in a "few clear words" in either discussion and whatever you bring to the table will be met by personal incredulity and hand-waving.

He will then proceed to insult you when cornered by reasoned argument and to declare victory by chest-thumping.
I later found instances of him engaging in this egregious behaviour in many other forums, so it's a lost cause.

Thanks for the heads-up; seems to be a reasonable conclusion. Somewhat amusing that Barbara Drescher says pretty much the same thing about PZ:

Several people have asked me if I plan to respond to PZ Myers, considering the “beating” he gave me and others in a post last week.

No, I don’t. I may if I see a good reason, but the truth is that responding to him is a bit like debating a creationist.

Interesting question, I think, as to why that might be though. Equally apropos is this bit from Michael Shermer’s The Believing Brain (highly recommended):

As we saw in the previous chapter, politics is filled with self-justifying rationalizations. Democrats see the world through liberal-tinted glasses, while Republicans filter it through conservative shaded glasses. When you listen to both “conservative talk radio” and “progressive talk radio” you will hear current events interpreted in ways that are 180 degrees out of phase. So incongruent are the interpretations of even the simplest goings-on in the daily news that you wonder if they can possibly be talking about the same event. [pg 263]

And that “incongruent” suggests a bunch of dots through which one party draws a “right” triangle while other party sees that one as acutely obtuse – so to speak. And vice versa. Reminds me to some extent of Damion’s recent comment on Ceasefire Terms and Stephanie Zvan’s subsequent response. While I think Damion’s description of the Abbie Smith/Greg Laden kerfuffle is the more credible one, Zvan’s response likewise suggests an interpretation “180 degrees out of phase” – or completely different events in parallel universes.

Rather problematic that we – generally speaking – are unable to recognize that type of situation – which seems to apply to MKG’s perspective on philosophy – and find ways to resolve them.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

MKG is sometimes wrong (not on the philosophy stuff, IMO. I kinda share his views, but don't feel like talking about it. Too philosophical for me).

Difference between MKG and Myers: when Michael is wrong, he admits it and corrects his mistake. Haven't seen it happen with Myers yet.

[rayshul]

I can find nothing, Skep Tickle, and my bing-fu is usually good. It may have been a private correspondence.

[Steersman]

I think “Tap, tap tap...” qualifies as that.

The tap comment was a pun in regard to plumbers, not filosfers!

I had taken off "ignore" as you seemed to have less wind in your bilious contrarian sails, and gained a rudimentary sense of humour, but appear to have made a gross mistake.

Back into the feckin' sack with you.

So how in the fuck am I supposed to have known that? Just because franc has anathematized smilies is no good reason – at least that I can see, but then again I have an aversion to Kool-Aid which you seem not to share – for you to genuflect in that direction.

Unless you like to intentionally derail conversations before they’re out of the round-house. ;-) :-) Know what I mean? know what I mean? derail – roundhouse; say no more, say no more ….

Sheesh ….

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I can find nothing, Skep Tickle, and my bing-fu is usually good. It may have been a private correspondence.

I found that one comment here about Plait and Shermer re plagiarism:

http://static.stumbleupon.com/url/homep ... hoax2.html

Don't think it will help much, though...

[decius]

MKG is sometimes wrong (not on the philosophy stuff, IMO. I kinda share his views, but don't feel like talking about it. Too philosophical for me).

Difference between MKG and Myers: when Michael is wrong, he admits it and corrects his mistake. Haven't seen it happen with Myers yet.

I agree, Phil. He is normally reasonable and pleasant enough. That topic alone acts a pair of leaden blinders on him, for some reason. I should have made that clear earlier.

[Lurkion]

In other news, it seems the Australian government is adopting a Skepchick view on harassment policies!

So the government is proposing a law about Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination, which includes a provision that "unwanted sexual advances" in public places are illegal if a reasonable person having regard to all the circumstances would have anticipated the possibility that the person would be offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the first person's conduct.

Seriously, that's in any public place including ones that charge entry (i.e. including pubs and nightclubs).

Get your clubbing in while you can, kids. The dickheads are in government.

The legislation is here: http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Docu ... aft%20.pdf

And in answer to your inevitable question, I don't know what the fuck.

[Lurkion]

(btw, it's s.49 and p.62 of the document - I don't know which page of the pdf)

[Steersman]

MKG is sometimes wrong (not on the philosophy stuff, IMO. I kinda share his views, but don't feel like talking about it. Too philosophical for me).

Difference between MKG and Myers: when Michael is wrong, he admits it and corrects his mistake. Haven't seen it happen with Myers yet.

Yes, I'll agree there. As I mentioned earlier: "when pigs fly" is equivalent to [=>] "when a Free-from-thought blogger concedes a point or admits they were wrong". Although I would be happy if they even had the guts to actually address the question - and allow an open debate on it.

[decius]

Mykeru, you're a fucking genius. Truly excellent video, sir.

[Jan Steen]

http://i.imgur.com/wNNHOT9.jpg

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

Jan, I think I've never expressed my admiration for your work.

Consider it expressed now.

[rayshul]

So the government is proposing a law about Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination, which includes a provision that "unwanted sexual advances" in public places are illegal if a reasonable person having regard to all the circumstances would have anticipated the possibility that the person would be offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the first person's conduct.

Seriously, that's in any public place including ones that charge entry (i.e. including pubs and nightclubs).

Well I see a lot of grey areas there that are going to keep lawyers in a business for a while. So... I guess you'll be buying the next round then, Rocko?

[Philip of Tealand]

Going to have to echo everyone else Mykeru -fucking brilliant video

Wrote about it on my blog - this is the best way to handle the Baboons - not only challenge the bullshit but invite them to make your day by making even more crapulent fools of themselves - something those paper-thin skinned lunatics cannot cope with.

There you have the likes of Surly Amy or McCWRONG!! Boasting about how they are there to kick arse like the mighty crusaders that they are- before pegging it in a stream of tears and how dare yous

I respect the way you are quite willing and perfectly capable of dealing with this - you set down the challenge and I'm sure you can deal with the consequences

I raise my Tea in your direction sir!

[Michael K Gray]

Argument for edit button?

What do you think of Palestinian falafel? Baked by left-handed lesbian negresses with surgically repaired cleft-palates, who are on their day off from tearing down anti-rape posters with Stanley-knives that were used to circumcise sperm whales?

[Jan Steen]

Jan, I think I've never expressed my admiration for your work.

Consider it expressed now.

Thanks, Phil.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

All my thoughts to Patrick Rondat.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

That last post of mine may have been a bit cryptic, but I just learned that Patrick, a friend of mine, lost his wife last night to cancer. I have to get drunk!

[AnonymousCowherd]

Benson just linked right to us on her blog. Main page and everything. Prepare for influx.

O Noes, David Gorski doesn't like us.

I suppose next he's going to go all Orac on us.

I doubt Benson is quite so quick to post the rest of her interaction with Gorski, since he "goes all Orac" on her.

[Philip of Tealand]

That last post of mine may have been a bit cryptic, but I just learned that Patrick, a friend of mine, lost his wife last night to cancer. I have to get drunk!

My sympathies sir, cancer has killed too many I've known and loved and I'm really sorry to hear this.

[AnonymousCowherd]

To anyone who found their way here from Ophelia Benson's blog:

Ophelia lies about us. Don't take my word for it, read as much as you can here and see for yourself.

To anyone who came here via David Gorski's (aka Orac) link, and can't find the misogyny - it's because David Gorski is pretty dumb.

I don't think Gorski is dumb, and his takedowns of anti-vaxers are very good, if sometimes tediously longwinded. At least they are thorough. But that is more than I can say for his apparent knowlege of the issues here, or of the 'pit. At the very least he has a broad definition of misogyny (and that's being kind). I get the sense that if he enagaged the RadFems about the definition, he'd take a different view, though even then it may be different from the 'pits' .

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]