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

lexie
15 February 2013 at 7:25 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Sounds like fun PZ. Hopefully some of the talks might be filmed so those of us who can’t go can also hear them. I really hope Rebecca has a great time in Ireland this time.

Steersman wrote:

BarnOwl wrote:Re: the Carnival Triumph (aka The Good Ship Lollipoop) - I'd forgotten about David Foster Wallace's essay "Shipping Out" (or A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again), about his experiences on a seven-day luxury cruise. Definitely worth downloading from Harper's and reading in its entirety, if you enjoy DFW's brand of wry humor and intelligent observation.

There's something about a mass-market Luxury Cruise that's unbearably sad. Like most unbearably sad things, it seems incredibly elusive and complex in its causes yet simple in its effect: on board the Nadir (especially at night, when all the ship's structured fun and reassurances and gaiety ceased) I felt despair. The word "despair" is overused and banalized now, but it's a serious word, and I'm using it seriously. It's close to what people call dread or angst, but it's not these things, quite. It's more like wanting to die in order to escape the unbearable sadness of knowing I'm small and weak and selfish and going, without doubt, to die. It's wanting to jump overboard.

The Nadir is DFW's name for the cruise ship Zenith.

I'll have to look for the article which sounds ... interesting. That type of "Ship of Fools" forced jollity has always seemed to me to have an uncomfortable edge to it ...

decius wrote:Novella has replied.

# Steven Novellaon 16 Feb 2013 at 6:50 am
decius – I disagree with your summary of the situation. I am not giving Rebecca any kind of special pass. I and the SGU have also not taken on any other individual, and we have tried not to get dragged into personal, ideological, or political fights.
On the SGU Rebecca is a skeptic, she does a great job, and she stays within the confines that I have defined for the show. I give everyone a little personal wiggle room for flavor, but not much.
Rebecca is also a feminist activist – separate from the SGU which she started prior to joining the SGU. In that she has her own ideological and political approach. This is identical to the fact that PZ also promotes his own ideology an politics on his blog, and has his own tone, and you will notice that I specifically did not criticize any of these aspects of PZs blog and specifically mentioned that I respect his freedom to do whatever he wants. This is no different than Rebecca, or from the libertarians in the movement.
The points I am making here are:
- As a movement we should pay attention to issues of sexism and racism, for moral and pragmatic reasons.
- As with any other issues, empirical claims relating to these topics are fair game and good targets
- Outright misogyny is poisoning our community, radicalizing all sides, and should not be tolerated.
- I am not going to get down into the weeds on what I consider personal, ideological, or political aspects of this conflict – except perhaps to call for a more constructive conversation.
I have been involved only to the extent that I have been witness to some of the harassment and abuse that Rebecca receives, and I have verified this. In terms of feedback to the SGU to which I am privy, she is singled out unfairly, treated horribly by some people, and outright harassed in a blatantly sexist manner. (She also gets a lot of support, to be sure.) She has put up with this for years, even before Elevatorgate. I do think this warrants giving her a bit of understanding, even if you disagree with some of her tactics.

BarnOwl wrote:

Steersman wrote:

BarnOwl wrote:Re: the Carnival Triumph (aka The Good Ship Lollipoop) - I'd forgotten about David Foster Wallace's essay "Shipping Out" (or A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again), about his experiences on a seven-day luxury cruise. Definitely worth downloading from Harper's and reading in its entirety, if you enjoy DFW's brand of wry humor and intelligent observation.

<snip>
The Nadir is DFW's name for the cruise ship Zenith.

I'll have to look for the article which sounds ... interesting. That type of "Ship of Fools" forced jollity has always seemed to me to have an uncomfortable edge to it ...

There's a link to the (longish) pdf at the bottom of the Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Supposed ... r_Do_Again

Steersman wrote:

decius wrote:Novella has replied.

# Steven Novellaon 16 Feb 2013 at 6:50 am
decius – I disagree with your summary of the situation. I am not giving Rebecca any kind of special pass. I and the SGU have also not taken on any other individual, and we have tried not to get dragged into personal, ideological, or political fights.
On the SGU Rebecca is a skeptic, she does a great job, and she stays within the confines that I have defined for the show. I give everyone a little personal wiggle room for flavor, but not much.
Rebecca is also a feminist activist – separate from the SGU which she started prior to joining the SGU. In that she has her own ideological and political approach. This is identical to the fact that PZ also promotes his own ideology an politics on his blog, and has his own tone, and you will notice that I specifically did not criticize any of these aspects of PZs blog and specifically mentioned that I respect his freedom to do whatever he wants. This is no different than Rebecca, or from the libertarians in the movement.
The points I am making here are:
- As a movement we should pay attention to issues of sexism and racism, for moral and pragmatic reasons.
- As with any other issues, empirical claims relating to these topics are fair game and good targets
- Outright misogyny is poisoning our community, radicalizing all sides, and should not be tolerated.
- I am not going to get down into the weeds on what I consider personal, ideological, or political aspects of this conflict – except perhaps to call for a more constructive conversation.
I have been involved only to the extent that I have been witness to some of the harassment and abuse that Rebecca receives, and I have verified this. In terms of feedback to the SGU to which I am privy, she is singled out unfairly, treated horribly by some people, and outright harassed in a blatantly sexist manner. (She also gets a lot of support, to be sure.) She has put up with this for years, even before Elevatorgate. I do think this warrants giving her a bit of understanding, even if you disagree with some of her tactics.

Have to say that I largely agree with Novella on the harassment that Watson seems to have received - and there seems to be very good evidence that it is more than just a figment of her imagination, and it doesn't redound much to people's credit to dispute that. Whatever justification there may be for criticism of her tactics, I don't think it extends to the various ad hominems and to the physical and sexual harassment she has apparently received.

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Steersman wrote:

decius wrote:Novella has replied.

# Steven Novellaon 16 Feb 2013 at 6:50 am
decius – I disagree with your summary of the situation. I am not giving Rebecca any kind of special pass. I and the SGU have also not taken on any other individual, and we have tried not to get dragged into personal, ideological, or political fights.
On the SGU Rebecca is a skeptic, she does a great job, and she stays within the confines that I have defined for the show. I give everyone a little personal wiggle room for flavor, but not much.
Rebecca is also a feminist activist – separate from the SGU which she started prior to joining the SGU. In that she has her own ideological and political approach. This is identical to the fact that PZ also promotes his own ideology an politics on his blog, and has his own tone, and you will notice that I specifically did not criticize any of these aspects of PZs blog and specifically mentioned that I respect his freedom to do whatever he wants. This is no different than Rebecca, or from the libertarians in the movement.
The points I am making here are:
- As a movement we should pay attention to issues of sexism and racism, for moral and pragmatic reasons.
- As with any other issues, empirical claims relating to these topics are fair game and good targets
- Outright misogyny is poisoning our community, radicalizing all sides, and should not be tolerated.
- I am not going to get down into the weeds on what I consider personal, ideological, or political aspects of this conflict – except perhaps to call for a more constructive conversation.
I have been involved only to the extent that I have been witness to some of the harassment and abuse that Rebecca receives, and I have verified this. In terms of feedback to the SGU to which I am privy, she is singled out unfairly, treated horribly by some people, and outright harassed in a blatantly sexist manner. (She also gets a lot of support, to be sure.) She has put up with this for years, even before Elevatorgate. I do think this warrants giving her a bit of understanding, even if you disagree with some of her tactics.

Have to say that I largely agree with Novella on the harassment that Watson seems to have received - and there seems to be very good evidence that it is more than just a figment of her imagination, and it doesn't redound much to people's credit to dispute that. Whatever justification there may be for criticism of her tactics, I don't think it extends to the various ad hominems and to the physical and sexual harassment she has apparently received.

She is constantly feeding trolls.
She knows what she is doing. How difficult is it to do something like turn off the comments on your youtube channel (Like PZ does) or to never allow trolling comments on your blog by premoderating comments from commenters you don't know.
Instead she allows trolling comments on her youtube - and even makes videos highlighting these trolling comments (the trolls ideal scenario!) Furthermore she disallows polite disagreements on Skepchick comments but allows nasty troll posts to appear.
It's all a fishing expedition with fresh troll being dish of the day.
And what's more, she has turned it into a career path!

As for Novella's claim:
"Outright misogyny is poisoning our community, radicalizing all sides, and should not be tolerated."
Outright misogyny?
Hatred of women?
Where exactly is that in our community?
'Fear' of misogyny, accusations of misogyny, claims of misogyny, yes, that is poisoning the community.
Novella is the one person that is 'safe' from Watson. She is not going to accuse him of misogyny, she needs her SGU gig.
She did, however, accuse his brother of being a twat!

# deciuson 16 Feb 2013 at 7:46 am

Thanks for your reply, Steven.
I agree with most of your analysis and appreciate your gentlemanly handling of the schism. I also grant you that you did a great job at keeping the SGU drama-free and away from political minefields.

However, you’ve been blatantly ignoring the fact that a member of your panel is engaging in science denialism at skeptic conferences.
The denialism of modern evolutionary psychology is on epistemic par with the psychiatry denialism you’ve just condemned a few comments back, and should be covered under “empirical claims relating to feminism and related topics”.
Seeing your legendary vigilance for the integrity of scientific discourse going out of the window the moment Rebecca is involved is as puzzling to me as if you had just appointed Cannotsay as co-blogger.

I also completely disagree with the notion that if someone is harassed and abused on internet, it is therefore a problem of the skeptical community. Case in point (one of dozens I’ve looked into) – the obscene drawing Rebecca has recently received, had been published long ago on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Let them – a bunch of professional trolls, not skeptics – bear the responsibility.
Likewise, misogynistic comments left anonymously on blogs and on Youtube, cannot be automatically laid at the doorstep of atheists and skeptics.

BarnOwl wrote:

lexie
15 February 2013 at 7:25 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Sounds like fun PZ. Hopefully some of the talks might be filmed so those of us who can’t go can also hear them. I really hope Rebecca has a great time in Ireland this time.

Poor thing. Her life is so difficult, and her last all-expenses-paid trip to Ireland was such an absolute nightmare. I do hope she has a wonderful time, ever so much ... all sparkly baby sloths and rainbow kittens.

Following our successful sell-out World Atheist Convention in the same venue in June 2011, you can register now for Atheist Ireland’s international Conference on Empowering Women Through Secularism, in the O’Callaghan Alexander Hotel in Dublin, Ireland, on the weekend of 29-30 June 2013.

decius wrote:Novella has replied.

# Steven Novellaon 16 Feb 2013 at 6:50 am
decius – I disagree with your summary of the situation. I am not giving Rebecca any kind of special pass. I and the SGU have also not taken on any other individual, and we have tried not to get dragged into personal, ideological, or political fights. She has put up with this for years, even before Elevatorgate. I do think this warrants giving her a bit of understanding, even if you disagree with some of her tactics.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:What fucking harassment?!?

I will be here all day if needed!

Dick Strawkins wrote:Apparently it is being held in the same hotel as the famous elevatorgate incident!

Following our successful sell-out World Atheist Convention in the same venue in June 2011, you can register now for Atheist Ireland’s international Conference on Empowering Women Through Secularism, in the O’Callaghan Alexander Hotel in Dublin, Ireland, on the weekend of 29-30 June 2013.

They have a set of pictures of the invited speakers.

Wait a second...
Second row, on the left....

Tigzy wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:Apparently it is being held in the same hotel as the famous elevatorgate incident!

Following our successful sell-out World Atheist Convention in the same venue in June 2011, you can register now for Atheist Ireland’s international Conference on Empowering Women Through Secularism, in the O’Callaghan Alexander Hotel in Dublin, Ireland, on the weekend of 29-30 June 2013.

They have a set of pictures of the invited speakers.

Wait a second...
Second row, on the left....

Whoever he is, he's one smug looking little git. That's the expression of a man so pleased that he's not only just shagged your girlfriend but also blocked up your toilet with a post-coital shit, that he's actually going to go over to Vistaprint to get a little card made up saying how much he enjoyed shagging your girlfriend and backing-up your bog. Which he'll then mail to you. Without a postage stamp.

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Tigzy wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:Apparently it is being held in the same hotel as the famous elevatorgate incident!

Following our successful sell-out World Atheist Convention in the same venue in June 2011, you can register now for Atheist Ireland’s international Conference on Empowering Women Through Secularism, in the O’Callaghan Alexander Hotel in Dublin, Ireland, on the weekend of 29-30 June 2013.

They have a set of pictures of the invited speakers.

Wait a second...
Second row, on the left....

Whoever he is, he's one smug looking little git. That's the expression of a man so pleased that he's not only just shagged your girlfriend but also blocked up your toilet with a post-coital shit, that he's actually going to go over to Vistaprint to get a little card made up saying how much he enjoyed shagging your girlfriend and backing-up your bog. Which he'll then mail to you. Without a postage stamp.

I'm finally beginning to see why Surly Amy hates him.

I wonder how difficult it was to convince Watson to return to that hotel.
I imagine when they asked her it was almost exactly like the scene in Aliens Ripley was asked to go back to the Alien planet.

Rebecca: Just tell me one thing, Nugent. We're going back there to destroy them, right? Not to study. Not to bring back. But to wipe them out.
Nugent: That's the plan. You have my word on it.
Rebecca: All right, I'm in.

Ben Radford wrote:The correct statistic is not that one billion women will be raped in her lifetime (as Ensler said in an interview on Democracy Now!), nor that one in three women “will be raped or beaten” in her lifetime (as Ensler states on the One Billion Rising web site), but instead that one-third of women “has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused” in her lifetime (as referenced in the study linked to on the web site). “Otherwise abused” includes “homicide, intimate partner abuse, psychological abuse, dating violence, same-sex violence, elder abuse, sexual assault, date rape, acquaintance rape, marital rape, stranger rape and economic abuse.” All these are serious, legitimate problems, but not all of them are physical beatings or rape (nor even involve men). This is important because mischaracterizing the statistic as reflecting women either being “raped or beaten” harms victimized women instead of empowering them by not reflecting the true diversity of forms of abuse.

Peezus wrote:You know, when someone tells me that statistics are being distorted for a cause, I imagine someone misrepresenting the data with exaggeration or understatement to bias it in a prejudicial direction. I don’t consider simplifying for a public interview while keeping the core numbers accurate to be using “misleading statistics to support their social agendas.”

One billion women have been victims of “homicide, intimate partner abuse, psychological abuse, dating violence, same-sex violence, elder abuse, sexual assault, date rape, acquaintance rape, marital rape, stranger rape and economic abuse,” confirmed by statistics that Radford cites. One billion women. Radford’s hyperskepticism is so fierce that he objects to Ensler using 3 general words — raped, beaten, violated — instead of 26 more specific words, but is willing to overlook the horrific truth that she is correct and one billion women will suffer for their sex in their lifetime.

windy wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:What fucking harassment?!?

I will be here all day if needed!

Questioning the existence of harassment is in itself harassment, so by your harassment of Rebecca, you have proved that harassment exists. QED.

CommanderTuvok wrote:That set of pictures looks overwhelmingly white and middle class. Not one black representative in there.

RACISTS!!!

Jack wrote:

CommanderTuvok wrote:That set of pictures looks overwhelmingly white and middle class. Not one black representative in there.

RACISTS!!!

78% women as well. Don't they believe in equality? Or do they only believe in it when it suits them?

You know, when someone tells me that statistics are being distorted for a cause, I imagine someone misrepresenting the data with exaggeration or understatement to bias it in a prejudicial direction. I don’t consider simplifying for a public interview while keeping the core numbers accurate to be using “misleading statistics to support their social agendas.”

Gumby wrote:

Jack wrote:

CommanderTuvok wrote:That set of pictures looks overwhelmingly white and middle class. Not one black representative in there.

RACISTS!!!

78% women as well. Don't they believe in equality? Or do they only believe in it when it suits them?

Let's put that to the test by organizing a conference titled "Empowering Men Through Secularism".

Steersman wrote:Ophelia Benson with her knickers in a twist – again, still – this time over Ben Radford saying “bad werdz” about feminism. Interesting that she continues to peddle this highly questionable argument:

Notice that calling a claim or a remark “sexist” is not the same thing as calling the person who makes the remark a sexist.

Maybe I’m being obtuse, but it seems analogous to arguing that saying someone has committed murder is not saying that they are a murderer. But maybe she is using a different style of “logic”.

But an interesting statement from Radford:

I am over the wanton slinging of labels like "misogynist" and "sexist" and "sister hater" and "gender traitor" and "rape apologist" to people who dare criticize feminists. Plenty of feminists disagree with each other.

Which may have been a proximate cause for this snarky comment:

EllenBeth Wachs (Guest) on Friday February 15, 2013 at 1:51pm

You know what I am over? You.

Guess she might have taken some umbrage at those “who dare criticize feminists”.

Dick Strawkins wrote:Apparently it is being held in the same hotel as the famous elevatorgate incident!

Following our successful sell-out World Atheist Convention in the same venue in June 2011, you can register now for Atheist Ireland’s international Conference on Empowering Women Through Secularism, in the O’Callaghan Alexander Hotel in Dublin, Ireland, on the weekend of 29-30 June 2013.

They have a set of pictures of the invited speakers.

Wait a second...
Second row, on the left....

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

It's Justin Vacula! :shock:

incognito wrote:Although, I'm not 100% confidant that hyperdeath has read my PMs. If he has, yes, it would all make sense. But it's not necessary, and I have no reason to believe he's sleezy like that. My gut feeling about hyperdeath is that he would NOT read PMs. Granted, this is just gut intuition.

Steersman wrote:Ophelia Benson with her knickers in a twist – again, still – this time over Ben Radford saying “bad werdz” about feminism. Interesting that she continues to peddle this highly questionable argument:

Notice that calling a claim or a remark “sexist” is not the same thing as calling the person who makes the remark a sexist.

Maybe I’m being obtuse, but it seems analogous to arguing that saying someone has committed murder is not saying that they are a murderer. But maybe she is using a different style of “logic”.

But an interesting statement from Radford:

I am over the wanton slinging of labels like "misogynist" and "sexist" and "sister hater" and "gender traitor" and "rape apologist" to people who dare criticize feminists. Plenty of feminists disagree with each other.

Which may have been a proximate cause for this snarky comment:

EllenBeth Wachs (Guest) on Friday February 15, 2013 at 1:51pm

You know what I am over? You.

Guess she might have taken some umbrage at those “who dare criticize feminists”.

"I’m guessing you’ve never been raped yourself. Nor raised to believe that if you walk down a dark alley you deserve to be raped. I’m also guessing you have never had to choose between having your rapists child or having an abortion. Nor have you ever been told that if you’d just screamed louder or not been so drunk that your rape would be a legitimate rape."

This would almost be funny if it didn't dismiss the reality that men do get raped, and while the reported numbers are in fact inch lower than the numbers of women getting raped, the under reporting is, from what I have read, worse.

"Why didn't you kick their ass?"
"A real man wouldn't have let that happen"
"There's no way you can force something up there. You must have wanted it."

Up until 2012, as far as the FBI was concerned, and therefore, most other law enforcement groups in the US, male rape didn't exist. It was just "sexual assault". Men have a very hard time being taken seriously as the victim of such a crime due to real, intense socital pressures and attitudes, but to then behold what happened to you wasn't even rape, but just sexual assault?

When this happens to women, we are, correctly, outraged. But when the FBI tells you you weren't raped, because they don't count male rape victims as rape victims, when feminists, who one would think would be a welcoming supportive group for rape victims *regardless* of gender say thing like "it's only rape when the victims a woman", well you learn really quick what you, as a male rape victims expected to do:

STFU already, we have REAL problems to deal with, you wuss.

The ONLY aspect of rape me don't have to deal with is pregnancy. Other than that, rape is an equal-opportunity horrorshow.

Zenspace wrote: That would be a really, really, interesting social experiment, wouldn't it! You know the result would probably be absolutely and sadly predictable.

Some years ago, locally there was a big feminist push to have woman given access to all the old male-only clubs in NY. Most of these were private and were able to resist for some time. Most, if not all, finally caved to the pressure due to the incessant bad press associated with their resistance. Shortly after one of the big name clubs gave up the fight, a big marathon was scheduled for - wait for it - women only. Not a peep in the press. Not a voice raised in protest from the men. Everything proceeded quietly without fuss. I remember stopping and staring at one of the omnipresent posters advertising the women only marathon and I just could not help thinking 'what would the reaction be if the same type of event was held for men only?' Without question, it would have been an instant war zone.

One of the reasons I've never been entirely comfortable with 'feminism' as it is usually enacted is this very obvious, and yet unspoken, dicotomy. It ends up not being about equality, which I wholly support, but about superiority.

Metalogic42 wrote:

incognito wrote:Although, I'm not 100% confidant that hyperdeath has read my PMs. If he has, yes, it would all make sense. But it's not necessary, and I have no reason to believe he's sleezy like that. My gut feeling about hyperdeath is that he would NOT read PMs. Granted, this is just gut intuition.

Weeeeeeeeell...there is a way to test whether hyperdeath is reading your PMs. If he is, though, you'll be instantly banned. Just send a PM to yourself calling all the big names on A+ stupid cunts.

Lsuoma wrote: Just so people know, there is no facility in phpBB by which mods or admins can read PMs. One would have to go to the MySQL backend to do that.

welch wrote:I have no doubt that Watson, like every other Internet-famous person, gets a shitload of harassment.

I just don't see how this makes her special

welch wrote:I have no doubt that Watson, like every other Internet-famous person, gets a shitload of harassment.

I just don't see how this makes her special

Metalogic42 wrote:

welch wrote:I have no doubt that Watson, like every other Internet-famous person, gets a shitload of harassment.

I just don't see how this makes her special

It's like stuff on the ground that gets stepped on by people walking around. Those other internet-famous people are rocks, so being stepped on doesn't hurt them. Watson is a tiny little flower (or at least, she pretends to be).

Lsuoma wrote:

Metalogic42 wrote:

welch wrote:I have no doubt that Watson, like every other Internet-famous person, gets a shitload of harassment.

I just don't see how this makes her special

It's like stuff on the ground that gets stepped on by people walking around. Those other internet-famous people are rocks, so being stepped on doesn't hurt them. Watson is a tiny little flower (or at least, she pretends to be).

Maybe someone should chop her head off and stick it in a jar to stop it being stepped on? (Decapitation threat hysteria in 3...2...1...)
:popcorn:

Steersman wrote:

BarnOwl wrote:Re: the Carnival Triumph (aka The Good Ship Lollipoop) - I'd forgotten about David Foster Wallace's essay "Shipping Out" (or A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again), about his experiences on a seven-day luxury cruise. Definitely worth downloading from Harper's and reading in its entirety, if you enjoy DFW's brand of wry humor and intelligent observation.

There's something about a mass-market Luxury Cruise that's unbearably sad. Like most unbearably sad things, it seems incredibly elusive and complex in its causes yet simple in its effect: on board the Nadir (especially at night, when all the ship's structured fun and reassurances and gaiety ceased) I felt despair. The word "despair" is overused and banalized now, but it's a serious word, and I'm using it seriously. It's close to what people call dread or angst, but it's not these things, quite. It's more like wanting to die in order to escape the unbearable sadness of knowing I'm small and weak and selfish and going, without doubt, to die. It's wanting to jump overboard.

The Nadir is DFW's name for the cruise ship Zenith.

I'll have to look for the article which sounds ... interesting. That type of "Ship of Fools" forced jollity has always seemed to me to have an uncomfortable edge to it ...

ReneeHendricks wrote:Ugh. Has anyone read the latest bullshit from Ophie and Peezus? The best bit is where Peezus says:

You know, when someone tells me that statistics are being distorted for a cause, I imagine someone misrepresenting the data with exaggeration or understatement to bias it in a prejudicial direction. I don’t consider simplifying for a public interview while keeping the core numbers accurate to be using “misleading statistics to support their social agendas.”

This is regarding the statistic Eve Ensler of One Billion Rising puts out there that is deliberately misleading (Ensler states one billion women will be raped in her lifetime and that one in three women "will be raped or beaten" in her lifetime).

And Peezus says this is just simplifying for the public. Please.

Pitchguest wrote:Well, here's something you don't see every day:

The Amazing Atheist on CNN debating atheism ... with William Lane fucking Craig.

:confusion-confused:

Gumby wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:Well, here's something you don't see every day:

The Amazing Atheist on CNN debating atheism ... with William Lane fucking Craig.

:confusion-confused:

Ah, the hated Amazing Atheist, despised and scorned by PZ and his cult followers, is on a national news show... while PZ whines about jack shit on his blog. Hahahaha.

The CNN segment was pretty useless though. Not only was WLC as dishonest as usual (like PZ, he doesn't mind misrepresenting statistics to arrive at the conclusion he wants his followers to hear) but no one was given any real time to debate. A question was asked (why is atheism on the rise in America), but nowhere near enough time was allowed to actually debate an answer.

Pitchguest wrote:Well, here's something you don't see every day:

The Amazing Atheist on CNN debating atheism ... with William Lane fucking Craig.

:confusion-confused:

Submariner wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:Well, here's something you don't see every day:

The Amazing Atheist on CNN debating atheism ... with William Lane fucking Craig.

:confusion-confused:

I thought TJ did fairly well. He wasn't as polished as WLC, but then again, TJ hasn't used as much snake oil.

Gumby wrote:
Nope, it's never about equality.

Before I became aware of this virulent feminism, I always thought of this dichotomy in terms is race. For example, if white people were to look at the BET cable channel ("Black Entertainment Television") and say "Hey, that's a good idea... let's start a WET cable channel!" Nope, no hysterical protests there. Jesse Jackson would just stay at home and be quiet, right? Right?

Gumby wrote:
Nope, it's never about equality.

Before I became aware of this virulent feminism, I always thought of this dichotomy in terms is race. For example, if white people were to look at the BET cable channel ("Black Entertainment Television") and say "Hey, that's a good idea... let's start a WET cable channel!" Nope, no hysterical protests there. Jesse Jackson would just stay at home and be quiet, right? Right?

Gumby wrote:
Nope, it's never about equality.

Before I became aware of this virulent feminism, I always thought of this dichotomy in terms is race. For example, if white people were to look at the BET cable channel ("Black Entertainment Television") and say "Hey, that's a good idea... let's start a WET cable channel!" Nope, no hysterical protests there. Jesse Jackson would just stay at home and be quiet, right? Right?

Submariner wrote:4. Males are more likely to be victims of violence than females

6a00d83534ac5b69e201156f478bea970c.jpg

http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everyday ... ictim.html

Gumby wrote:

Submariner wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:Well, here's something you don't see every day:

The Amazing Atheist on CNN debating atheism ... with William Lane fucking Craig.

:confusion-confused:

I thought TJ did fairly well. He wasn't as polished as WLC, but then again, TJ hasn't used as much snake oil.

Here's my problem with TJ. At first he (correctly) says that just because someone does not identify with any religion, that doesn't mean they are necessarily atheists. Then a couple minutes later he goes back and seemingly argues the exact opposite. It was a WTF moment for me.