Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[aweraw]

I mean to say... I am now far from said debauched nook

[aweraw]

Oh, this is going to be good....
https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se ... ou_Say.gif

That gif made me imagine what it would be like to eat a gravy pop. Which would be an ice treat made of gravy.

[KiwiInOz]

I mean to say... I am now far from said debauched nook

Heading off myself now.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

@Elevatorgate pointed to a defection from the Skepchick network:

Katie on "Leaving the Skepchick Network", posted w/in past day: http://canadianatheist.com/2013/06/20/l ... k-network/

Most of her post:

1. Rebecca Watson (and a lot of her following, really) is a cyber bully. Plain and simple. For a (semi) recent example, see this. Sara pointed out a very legitimate point but instead of discussing that point in a logical and interesting manner Rebecca just attacks her. I have seen this happen a number of times with Rebecca and other people on the skepchick network. When people point out a legit problem they attack instead of thoughtfully engage.

2. I am a feminist, and I don’t agree with Rebecca et al. as I find them pedantic. In the link in the above point Rebecca picks on the term “ragging”. This sort of stuff is a waste of time, IMO. I just disagree with the level of severity that she takes on things, ie.

3. Go try and disagree with Rebecca or someone on that site (or off the site) and see how fast the skepchick network minions jump on you and eat you alive. Even writing this post my fiance said to me “you’re marking yourself as an enemy” because speaking out against the skepchick network puts a mark on you; it shouldn’t be that way. The skepchicks call for apologies from people all the time but I think they should apologize for being pretty nasty/silly to people (especially in comments; which… I don’t have the time or energy to sort through right now).

4. As an academic I value freedom of speech, good & rich discussions and logical conclusions; this is rarely found on the skepchick network. I don’t value hypocritical crap. They do realize that with the whole Ron Lindsay kurfuffle they are proving the exact point that Lindsay was trying to make, right?

5. I don’t want to be associated with these attitudes and approaches to real life problems. I would rather be associated with thoughtful and clam reactions to what people say. I’ve been known to flip my lid now and then but Rebecca et al seem to do it a lot… and they do it to unexpecting people who do not warrant the wrath of online anger. Her approaches to issues are not academic or logical (like the talk on evolution I linked to above).

6. I’m not a teen so I feel a bit funny writing for teen skepchick…

I just wrote a post defending CFI and I don’t think many people have read it… however when I wrote a post blasting CFI about a year ago they were more than willing to make it front page news. Skepchick runs on drama and I’m getting too tired for that and I no longer want to be associated with such irrational and strong reactions to legitimate concerns and questions arising in the skeptics community.

Katie's "defense of CFI" at Teen Skepchick, posted w/in past day: http://teenskepchick.org/2013/06/20/in-defense-of-cfi/

Katie's page/links at Teen Skepchick, looks like good stuff: http://teenskepchick.org/author/katie/

Oh, this is going to be good....
https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se ... ou_Say.gif

Oh yeah it is ... a perfectly worded and very thoughtful explanation of her reasons for disagreement, with clear and well explained examples... what's the chances that it will be met with reasoned debate and response and a good luck farewell with good wishes?

Zero to none is my guess ...

Wait for the flamethrowers and Molotov cocktails!

[Steersman]

<snip>Well – welchy – you didn’t really address the question of PZ’s “slut” joke of several years ago. Nor the somewhat analogous question of fining people for “illegally” parking in an area yesterday even though the law making it illegal wasn’t passed until today. Both of which were or are the starting point for this particular issue. And of more than passing relevance to wider issues.

Steersman, you appear to be using the same argument that the Catholic hierarchy used regarding historical child abuse allegations - namely that nobody realized this action was wrong in the past and it's only recently that society as a whole has come to the conclusion that you should never do this - therefore any example that occured in the past can be excused.
The Catholic church tried this with the child abuse allegations.
I have no doubt that apologists for PZ Myers will use the same argument to excuse his actions.

Not a bad analogy.

Although one might argue that the two crimes are quite a bit more than just differences in degree, and qualify as serious differences in kind. And while the awareness of the problem of child sexual abuse is relatively recent – this source indicates that “the first published work dedicated specifically to child sexual abuse appeared in France in 1857” – that difference in kind is manifested in the severity of the penalties for the sexual abuse. So it seems at least likely that community standards have existed for a lot longer that anathematized that abuse while seeing gendered insults as deserving no more than a slap on the wrist – at worst.

In which case the Catholic Church seems to have much less of a leg to stand on than does PZ, particularly with regard to the latter’s “slut” joke. Particularly since the “standard” covering such insults are a relatively new occurrence in comparison with those on child sex abuse – 2005 or thereabouts for the former, and the 1970s for the latter. Not to mention the fact that that “standard” for insults looks decidedly flaky to me, and designed more to promote a highly questionable philosophical and political agenda.

But regardless of those aspects, it still doesn’t seem quite like cricket to insist that laws and standards should be applied retroactively, particularly where the community values on which they’re based are largely subjective, deficient in supporting evidence, or in the process of evolving.

[Steersman]

<snip>
Oh yeah it is ... a perfectly worded and very thoughtful explanation of her reasons for disagreement, with clear and well explained examples... what's the chances that it will be met with reasoned debate and response and a good luck farewell with good wishes?

Zero to none is my guess ...

Wait for the flamethrowers and Molotov cocktails!

Indeed; should be interesting at least. Time to lay in a supply of :popcorn:

[Dick Strawkins]

I've finally listened to Silverman versus Vacula. Very poor performance from both of them.

I wonder, however if Silverman will come to regret using the following analogy:

"When someone tells us something from a different point of view, and it's prevalent, we have to take it seriously. If a black person comes to me and says "I see racism in this community, and if I get that from two, three four black people at the same time, guess what, I'm not in a position to say "naah, that doesn't exist". Because that's crap. I'm not in that position to see it."

[KiwiInOz]

Indeed I am. Are you not far from said place of iniquity?

Well, I'm not anymore (home now), but yeah - I work near the show grounds.

Dox me via PM if you feel so inclined.

[AndrewV69]

Hopefully my foot's not as deep in my mouth in implying "she" is the one who bears "the responsibility".

I for one did not take it the "wrong" way.

(plus you have a good rep with me so I am more inclined than not to view your statements with a lot more charity than I would others)

[Pitchguest]

I've finally listened to Silverman versus Vacula. Very poor performance from both of them.

I wonder, however if Silverman will come to regret using the following analogy:

"When someone tells us something from a different point of view, and it's prevalent, we have to take it seriously. If a black person comes to me and says "I see racism in this community, and if I get that from two, three four black people at the same time, guess what, I'm not in a position to say "naah, that doesn't exist". Because that's crap. I'm not in that position to see it."

Haha. Oh, Silverman, you maroon. :lol:

[Dick Strawkins]

<snip>Well – welchy – you didn’t really address the question of PZ’s “slut” joke of several years ago. Nor the somewhat analogous question of fining people for “illegally” parking in an area yesterday even though the law making it illegal wasn’t passed until today. Both of which were or are the starting point for this particular issue. And of more than passing relevance to wider issues.

Steersman, you appear to be using the same argument that the Catholic hierarchy used regarding historical child abuse allegations - namely that nobody realized this action was wrong in the past and it's only recently that society as a whole has come to the conclusion that you should never do this - therefore any example that occured in the past can be excused.
The Catholic church tried this with the child abuse allegations.
I have no doubt that apologists for PZ Myers will use the same argument to excuse his actions.

Not a bad analogy.

Although one might argue that the two crimes are quite a bit more than just differences in degree, and qualify as serious differences in kind. And while the awareness of the problem of child sexual abuse is relatively recent – this source indicates that “the first published work dedicated specifically to child sexual abuse appeared in France in 1857” – that difference in kind is manifested in the severity of the penalties for the sexual abuse. So it seems at least likely that community standards have existed for a lot longer that anathematized that abuse while seeing gendered insults as deserving no more than a slap on the wrist – at worst.

In which case the Catholic Church seems to have much less of a leg to stand on than does PZ, particularly with regard to the latter’s “slut” joke. Particularly since the “standard” covering such insults are a relatively new occurrence in comparison with those on child sex abuse – 2005 or thereabouts for the former, and the 1970s for the latter. Not to mention the fact that that “standard” for insults looks decidedly flaky to me, and designed more to promote a highly questionable philosophical and political agenda.

But regardless of those aspects, it still doesn’t seem quite like cricket to insist that laws and standards should be applied retroactively, particularly where the community values on which they’re based are largely subjective, deficient in supporting evidence, or in the process of evolving.

Steersman, if you are going to keep insisting that we are talking about a case of applying new laws retrospectively, you're going to have to SHOW us where we can find these new laws.

[JackSkeptic]

It goes without saying that this is disgusting. What is interesting about it, how they report about it.

You might not have heard about the security guard that groped a journalist at this year's E3. Or the writer who gave a PR woman his business card by slipping it in her dress. Or the women presumed to be booth babes simply because of the way they looked.

E3 is the busiest time to be working in the games industry or as a reporter covering the scene. It's the biggest, most important event of the year. But with roughly 50,000 attendees, it's also sometimes the creepiest. Continue...The Creepy Side of E3

Again, the idea that anyone needs evidence for "being against" something is misguided, e.g. you don't need to have slavery to be against it, or fascistic regimes etc. However, its very good that they come forward and speak up about it. I find notable here how the whole instrumentalisation as we know it from drama bloggers is absent.

A well written piece that deals with the issues without all the histrionics. SJW's would be completely incapable of writing a similar piece without spewing hate and vitriol at innocent targets.

[Gefan]

@Elevatorgate pointed to a defection from the Skepchick network:

Katie on "Leaving the Skepchick Network", posted w/in past day: http://canadianatheist.com/2013/06/20/l ... k-network/

Most of her post:

1. Rebecca Watson (and a lot of her following, really) is a cyber bully. Plain and simple. For a (semi) recent example, see this. Sara pointed out a very legitimate point but instead of discussing that point in a logical and interesting manner Rebecca just attacks her. I have seen this happen a number of times with Rebecca and other people on the skepchick network. When people point out a legit problem they attack instead of thoughtfully engage.

2. I am a feminist, and I don’t agree with Rebecca et al. as I find them pedantic. In the link in the above point Rebecca picks on the term “ragging”. This sort of stuff is a waste of time, IMO. I just disagree with the level of severity that she takes on things, ie.

3. Go try and disagree with Rebecca or someone on that site (or off the site) and see how fast the skepchick network minions jump on you and eat you alive. Even writing this post my fiance said to me “you’re marking yourself as an enemy” because speaking out against the skepchick network puts a mark on you; it shouldn’t be that way. The skepchicks call for apologies from people all the time but I think they should apologize for being pretty nasty/silly to people (especially in comments; which… I don’t have the time or energy to sort through right now).

4. As an academic I value freedom of speech, good & rich discussions and logical conclusions; this is rarely found on the skepchick network. I don’t value hypocritical crap. They do realize that with the whole Ron Lindsay kurfuffle they are proving the exact point that Lindsay was trying to make, right?

5. I don’t want to be associated with these attitudes and approaches to real life problems. I would rather be associated with thoughtful and clam reactions to what people say. I’ve been known to flip my lid now and then but Rebecca et al seem to do it a lot… and they do it to unexpecting people who do not warrant the wrath of online anger. Her approaches to issues are not academic or logical (like the talk on evolution I linked to above).

6. I’m not a teen so I feel a bit funny writing for teen skepchick…

I just wrote a post defending CFI and I don’t think many people have read it… however when I wrote a post blasting CFI about a year ago they were more than willing to make it front page news. Skepchick runs on drama and I’m getting too tired for that and I no longer want to be associated with such irrational and strong reactions to legitimate concerns and questions arising in the skeptics community.

Katie's "defense of CFI" at Teen Skepchick, posted w/in past day: http://teenskepchick.org/2013/06/20/in-defense-of-cfi/

Katie's page/links at Teen Skepchick, looks like good stuff: http://teenskepchick.org/author/katie/

In response to the "In Defense of CFI" piece, a certain Greg Laden, makes an appearance in the comments.

http://teenskepchick.org/2013/06/20/cfi ... mment-2821

Personal favorite quotes:

"You know that thing that people say, that if you act like a feminist the feminists will sleep with you? Its a joke. It does not really happen"

For some reason I hear that being said in a rather sad, dejected, possibly bitter tone.

and

"The price of feminism is eternal vigilance"

Because it's inherently hilarious.

[JackSkeptic]

Laden says:

'......ranging from the outrageous sliymepitters who are easily identified, at least, as date-rape apologists, and a few others.'

What a load of complete bilge. How can he possibly say that and expect to be taken seriously? Oh and JT's motive in being a feminist is to get laid, or something. When are these people going to grow up?

[Walter Ego]

Shout out to Justin:

I don’t have the time right now to catch up on all the drama swirling around you. (I did listen to part of your show with Silverman and it was painful.) I don’t know all the details of your current situation but can I offer the following advice for what it’s worth?

Cut back on your internet activity (including fundraising to attend conferences) and concentrate on local activism in your real life community.

Reducing your online profile will allow the storm clouds to pass over and your detractors (including some pitters I note) will move on to other targets.

I realize you have online commitments. Honor them but don’t take on any new ones. Don’t make defending yourself a full time job.

I realize this sounds like I’m advocating retreat but I’m not. Think of it more as retrenchment.

Hang in there, fella. You’re one of the good guys!

[Tony Parsehole]

Laden says:

'......ranging from the outrageous sliymepitters who are easily identified, at least, as date-rape apologists, and a few others.'

What a load of complete bilge. How can he possibly say that and expect to be taken seriously? Oh and JT's motive in being a feminist is to get laid, or something. When are these people going to grow up?

That's rich coming from Greg laden, a man who was convicted of having sex with a goat in 1996*.

*Two can play at that game Greg you moronic fuck.

[bovarchist]

I never thought I would say this: ElevatorGate just broke a huge story!

See his twitter

The story ElevatorGate links to is here:

Leaving The Skepchick Network - by Katie
http://canadianatheist.com/2013/06/20/l ... k-network/

I would rather be associated with thoughtful and clam reactions to what people say.

Yes, I'm immature, but that made me giggle madly. Most unintentionally ironic typo ever.

[JackSkeptic]

Meanwhile people like Laden are totally ignoring the 165 signatures here http://www.skepticwomen.com/welcome-statement

How does he explain those? Oh, he doesn't. Strange that. When will we see him provide support to EBW who, after all, is female who was clearly bullied?

These people are intellectually dishonest as well as lazy and deluded. How they could ever self describe as rationalists is beyond me and they are no measure of humanist. I would never describe them as 'decent people' no matter how much they pretend they are.

[Scented Nectar]

So, if you have a big dick, women will worship you? Hardly feminist now is it?

Paging Scented Nectar:

Big dick (or is it a chode?) in slymepit undead thread. Verification please.

I don't know what a chode is, but I do have a thing for sizable penises. Not that smaller ones aren't fun too sometimes, it's just that the large ones are a nice treat. And if Phil is telling the truth, the large ones are also a Nice treat!!! :D

As for being feminist, well if the feminists don't like the bigger ones, that leaves more for me.

[jjbinx007]

That's rich coming from Greg laden, a man who was convicted of having sex with a goat in 1996*.

*Two can play at that game Greg you moronic fuck.

Well I notice he's never denied having sex with a goat in 1996.

[windy]

Laden says:

'......ranging from the outrageous sliymepitters who are easily identified, at least, as date-rape apologists, and a few others.'

What a load of complete bilge. How can he possibly say that and expect to be taken seriously?

Don't forget who Greg hangs out with. They've taken a lot weirder things seriously.

and 'ranging from the outrageous slymepitters ... and a few others'? That's some range, Ol' Greg.

[Dick Strawkins]

Laden says:

'......ranging from the outrageous sliymepitters who are easily identified, at least, as date-rape apologists, and a few others.'

What a load of complete bilge. How can he possibly say that and expect to be taken seriously? Oh and JT's motive in being a feminist is to get laid, or something. When are these people going to grow up?

That's rich coming from Greg laden, a man who was convicted of having sex with a goat in 1996*.

*Two can play at that game Greg you moronic fuck.

Is that the same Greg Laden that wrote:

But what I’m asking, you jew-boy nigger fag-head hysterical bitch, is this: are just any consequences OK? All consequences? And if you give me the wrong answer I will blow your head off. And kill your grand children.

[bovarchist]

That's rich coming from Greg laden, a man who was convicted of having sex with a goat in 1996*.

*Two can play at that game Greg you moronic fuck.

Well I notice he's never denied having sex with a goat in 1996.

And the fact that the goat has refused to give a statement on the matter speaks volumes.

[Dick Strawkins]

That's rich coming from Greg laden, a man who was convicted of having sex with a goat in 1996*.

*Two can play at that game Greg you moronic fuck.

Well I notice he's never denied having sex with a goat in 1996.

And the fact that the goat has refused to give a statement on the matter speaks volumes.

Won't someone think of the kids!

[bovarchist]

While we're on the subject of PZ's hypocrisy, here's two recent posts:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... t-in-rape/
in which PZ is appalled that anybody would write a book giving step-by-step instructions on how to seduce women. Don't they know that women are individuals, not computer programs? How dare he!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... lement-it/
...which makes the second story so funny, because apparently there's a step-by-step formula for turning fundamentalists into atheists. And wouldn't you know, it involves getting them drunk and hitting on them!

[BarnOwl]

You might not have heard about the security guard that groped a journalist at this year's E3. Or the writer who gave a PR woman his business card by slipping it in her dress. Or the women presumed to be booth babes simply because of the way they looked.

Ridiculous. No feminist or SJW would ever make assumptions about a woman based on her appear ... ::cough::JamieKiIstein::cough::

[Mykeru]

Benzos isn't even close to an answer.

I agree and don't agree at the same time. I don't think there's any question that there are a lot of people who have been totally fucked up by benzos, on the other hand, as a class of drugs, they've gotten a very bad rap based on that segment of people who have either deliberately or accidentally abused them.

Not at all saying people don't abuse these drugs, accidentally or intentionally, but here's something I've noticed about how this plays out.

People tend to be introduced to benzos, particularly the very short-acting Xanax, when they initially start having general anxiety and Panic Attacks. At that stage the incidents tend to be very, very intense and inexplicable. People don't know what is happening and why.

Here, let me skip a bit. I finally got to the stage where I recognized a panic attack for what it was: A triggering, without cause, of the fight or flight mechanism, flip of a switch in the Amygdala, part of the hard-wired response to dangers that humans, for the most part, no longer face in day-to-day existence. Once I started thinking of it in those terms, and recognizing there really was no "trigger" except one that could be classically conditioned as associated with a panic attack that was perhaps going to happen anyway, I got paradoxically bored with the whole thing.

But that was only after I took what was supposedly a "maintenance" dose of benzos like a good little patient, stopped taking them and went into full benzo withdrawal. I had no idea what was happening to me, I mean, it wasn't like I was walking around in happy land feeling like I was on something while taking the benzos anyway, and a later therapist told me with the amount I was given it would have taken me 4-6 weeks to ween myself off of it. As it was, I had to be prescribed Librium, the earliest synthesized long-acting form of benzo, and taper off that.

Talk about iatrogenic.

However, initially people who start having bone-fide panic attacks with all the symptoms of racing heart, feeling of suffocation, fear of loss of control and acting out, sweating, dissociation a sense of imminent doom and death and the like treat it as a life-threatening event, because that's exactly what it feels like. There's a tendency to become obsessed with what externally is causing it so as to avoid that situation. What happens is as you avoid one, it happens anyway, and so you avoid that, and so on until, unchecked, one can become a full-blown agoraphobic. Another thing I find people obsessing with is learning how to stop it once it starts, which tends to make it worse, the mental equivalent of "tensing up" and is the reason I tell people the only way out of a panic attack is out the other side.

And it's exactly at this point that powerful drugs are introduced to the person desperate to have some sense of control over it. People start taking it anticipatory and, even worse, benzos have a rebound effect, where they actually make the condition worse. That's especially the case with strong-short acting Xanax. Basically, you can take an average person who doesn't have any anxiety or panic attacks, give them Xanax for a while and actually induce the condition.

Supposedly, the benzos are a stop-gap measure, but I tend to think of them as a "get out of my office" measure, a quick and dirty solution for physicians that does nothing to really help the person.

So I would tend to talk more in terms of inadvertent dependency than abuse, and that's because the way people are given benzos, as THE solution with no better alternative, let alone knowledge that the benzos can be far worse than the condition they are supposed to treat, is a recipe for dependency. Most of the time the person prescribed benzos isn't referred to Cognitive and Behavioral Therapy, and isn't fully briefed on the pitfalls of the drugs because very often the physician prescribing doesn't have a clue themselves.

[Mykeru]

1. I find the idea that men get someone pregnant in this "my body, my choice" age, handing men all the responsibility and none of the power, to be a vast gender-sociological dick move.

What the hell does this even mean?

Feels weird to point this out, and I expect you already know, but he's relating it to the abortion argument. Women having full control over the life of the feotus, even though they did not create it on their own; then if the feotus is not terminated, saddling the father with financial responsibility.

I see what he's saying, there's a definite imbalance of power in that specific situation. I just have no idea how you'd approach that problem without impinging on the womans bodily autonomy.

Well that's because you can't. At least not as long as we are stuck with this biology. And as codelette wrote, if you don't want to risk having to take the responsibility of raising a child, close down the pipes. Problem solved.

Seriously, this is not too difficult to understand:
1) Women have autonomy of their bodies -> they get to choose to terminate a pregnancy or to carry it to the term.
2) Once the baby is delivered, custody and the child support is no longer a gendered issue. It's the kid's fucking right!

So yeah, it sucks to be a guy who didn't want any kids but his partner/fuck buddy decided to keep the baby. Yeah it sucks. But it would suck more for the kid if it grows up with no financial support. So, as a guy, you should suck up and pay up.

Or if you don't want to have babies close down the pipes. Seriously.

Having sex is not just fun. It can have serious consequences. And that's one reason AVfM articles can piss me off. These privileged assholes think it's their fucking right to get laid and have tons of sex, most preferably with hot chicks and they do not consider the fact that even well within the 20th century, having sex was a very serious business with very serious consequences. Sex could kill you through jealousy, archaic laws and morality, fight over mates, and sexually transmitted diseases. Nowadays, we are free from many of the consequences of having sex and this apparently has spoiled many people and turned them into pathetic whiners.

So, let's say I make an agreement with my significant other not to reproduce right now, for whatever reason, a decision that was arrived at mutually, and somewhere in the process one of the minds not mine gets changed and, without telling me decides to "forget" the birth control because I will just love having a child after I no longer have a say in it.

I guess it's my own fault for not, say, wearing a condom anyway despite assurances because there's nothing hotter than an overt display of distrust in the sack.

However, your solution to the problem of, at best, having the illusion of reproductive control and, at worst, being deceived is to throw a monkey-wrench into my junk, making sure I never have any say in whether I reproduce or not, either way.

Now, I'm being deliberately provocative here, but it strikes me as like telling a woman the solution to potentially being raped is to have her vagina sew shut.

[codelette]

Apparently it's "my body my choice" only when you have already mistakenly got pregnant, it's "his cock his fault" before that. Because obviously women have no control whatsoever over their own bodies during sex, being entirely at the mercy of men. Imagine if I were to tell women "hey, don't wanna get pregnant? Get a histerectomy you whiny cunts. Get fixed. Stop whining about "deadbeat dads" who didn't even want to be fathers in the first place but got trapped either deliberately or because of your completely irresponsible behaviour. What, you can't even handle your own bodily functions? What are you a child?"

As I said before, the act of impregnation is s 50-50 deal. So if the woman got pregnant: newsflash, it is 50 your fault, cunt.
So, if a motherfucker placed all his trust on the other partner's method; then it is also their bad if the method fails. Because, being responsible for yourself is making sure that you have your own method of contraception.

Your comment about "get a hysterectomy" as advice for contraception is not analogous to a man getting fixed. Permanent contraception for women is performed by tying/cutting the Fallopian tubes. Ironically, this method is mostly available to women only after they have several children. Most childless by choice women are denied the procedure.

[Apples]

I've finally listened to Silverman versus Vacula. Very poor performance from both of them.

I wonder, however if Silverman will come to regret using the following analogy:

"When someone tells us something from a different point of view, and it's prevalent, we have to take it seriously. If a black person comes to me and says "I see racism in this community, and if I get that from two, three four black people at the same time, guess what, I'm not in a position to say "naah, that doesn't exist". Because that's crap. I'm not in that position to see it."

Timing is everything! :lol: Oddly enough, he is apparently indeed in a position where he is inclined to say, "naah, that doesn't exist," after all. This is the kind of oolon that is really hard to get off your shoe.

[codelette]

PS. Wanted to share this link about women talking about the difficulty of getting tubal ligation procedures http://www.mommyish.com/2011/10/06/momm ... -kids-586/

[Apples]

Now THIS is how you uninstall motherfucking sofware:

[youtube]bKgf5PaBzyg[/youtube]

"It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute to do my taxes while I fucked my accountant. It was terrible!"

Pure genius. He is a surprisingly good actor.

[Guest]

Apparently it's "my body my choice" only when you have already mistakenly got pregnant, it's "his cock his fault" before that. Because obviously women have no control whatsoever over their own bodies during sex, being entirely at the mercy of men. Imagine if I were to tell women "hey, don't wanna get pregnant? Get a histerectomy you whiny cunts. Get fixed. Stop whining about "deadbeat dads" who didn't even want to be fathers in the first place but got trapped either deliberately or because of your completely irresponsible behaviour. What, you can't even handle your own bodily functions? What are you a child?"

As I said before, the act of impregnation is s 50-50 deal. So if the woman got pregnant: newsflash, it is 50 your fault, cunt.
So, if a motherfucker placed all his trust on the other partner's method; then it is also their bad if the method fails. Because, being responsible for yourself is making sure that you have your own method of contraception.

Your comment about "get a hysterectomy" as advice for contraception is not analogous to a man getting fixed. Permanent contraception for women is performed by tying/cutting the Fallopian tubes. Ironically, this method is mostly available to women only after they have several children. Most childless by choice women are denied the procedure.

Thanks, at least you can admit it's a 50-50 deal, and not just a matter of irresponsible hormonal males. It's a matter of irresponsible hormonal humans. All of my arguements, you may have noticed, were deliberately provocative and insulting, even sexist. How did I manage that? Well I just took the exact same arguements presented and flipped the genders around. MAGIC.

[LurkerPerson]

That was LurkerPerson btw.

[Hunt]

Not at all saying people don't abuse these drugs, accidentally or intentionally, but here's something I've noticed about how this plays out.

Yeah, I don't think benzos should be used in that way, and I don't doubt that that's often how it can go. As you might have guessed, I too have survived panic attacks, and there's no doubt in my mind that I would have started sucking benzos the moment it began, had a doctor given them to me. As it was, frightened and confused (as you describe), I was too terrified to even consult a doctor. This was when I was a student, and it actually house-bound me for half a year. Even though I had no financial obligations, I kind of knew this wasn't going to work as a long-term life strategy. Strangely enough, as I recall, my resolution was much like yours, a cognitive trick, I imagined that panic attacks were just a way to purge excess mental energy (and I may have been close to the truth). Pretty much the same as your getting bored with them.

But...getting back to the topic. I still think benzos can play a part in long-term therapy, so long as they are monitored in a responsible patient/doctor relationship that is also cognizant of other approaches, cognitive behavioral, group therapy (of limited use, IMO), whatever. The fact remains that people have been on these drugs for decades without frying their brains. If they aren't being used abusively, aren't escalating dose, and making a person feel and function better, why not?

[Mykeru]

Not at all saying people don't abuse these drugs, accidentally or intentionally, but here's something I've noticed about how this plays out.

Yeah, I don't think benzos should be used in that way, and I don't doubt that that's often how it can go. As you might have guessed, I too have survived panic attacks, and there's no doubt in my mind that I would have started sucking benzos the moment it began, had a doctor given them to me. As it was, frightened and confused (as you describe), I was too terrified to even consult a doctor. This was when I was a student, and it actually house-bound me for half a year. Even though I had no financial obligations, I kind of knew this wasn't going to work as a long-term life strategy. Strangely enough, as I recall, my resolution was much like yours, a cognitive trick, I imagined that panic attacks were just a way to purge excess mental energy (and I may have been close to the truth). Pretty much the same as your getting bored with them.

But...getting back to the topic. I still think benzos can play a part in long-term therapy, so long as they are monitored in a responsible patient/doctor relationship that is also cognizant of other approaches, cognitive behavioral, group therapy (of limited use, IMO), whatever. The fact remains that people have been on these drugs for decades without frying their brains. If they aren't being used abusively, aren't escalating dose, and making a person feel and function better, why not?

Not doubt they can be effective. I just want more full disclosure when people are prescribed them.

One of the best ways I found to deal when I was having them, was to do something. Anything, go for a walk, do something physical. The woman I was talking about who started having them and would do the newb "freeze up" approach, I suggested to her that since it was a fight of flight reaction, why flee when there was her boyfriend to beat the crap out of.

Does that make me a bad person? I hope so.

[windy]

Feels weird to point this out, and I expect you already know, but he's relating it to the abortion argument. Women having full control over the life of the feotus, even though they did not create it on their own; then if the feotus is not terminated, saddling the father with financial responsibility.

I see what he's saying, there's a definite imbalance of power in that specific situation. I just have no idea how you'd approach that problem without impinging on the womans bodily autonomy.

Well that's because you can't. At least not as long as we are stuck with this biology. And as codelette wrote, if you don't want to risk having to take the responsibility of raising a child, close down the pipes. Problem solved.

Still sounds too much like the "if you didn't want the responsibility, you should have kept your legs crossed" argument against abortion, IMO. And while child support has been a societal necessity (as codelette pointed out), it's not a fact of biology.

Seriously, this is not too difficult to understand:
1) Women have autonomy of their bodies -> they get to choose to terminate a pregnancy or to carry it to the term.
2) Once the baby is delivered, custody and the child support is no longer a gendered issue. It's the kid's fucking right!

So yeah, it sucks to be a guy who didn't want any kids but his partner/fuck buddy decided to keep the baby. Yeah it sucks. But it would suck more for the kid if it grows up with no financial support. So, as a guy, you should suck up and pay up.

If the alternative is no support, definitely. But where possible I would rather see society support single mothers equally and not make the support dependent on a genetic lottery.

[Mykeru]

Feels weird to point this out, and I expect you already know, but he's relating it to the abortion argument. Women having full control over the life of the feotus, even though they did not create it on their own; then if the feotus is not terminated, saddling the father with financial responsibility.

I see what he's saying, there's a definite imbalance of power in that specific situation. I just have no idea how you'd approach that problem without impinging on the womans bodily autonomy.

Well that's because you can't. At least not as long as we are stuck with this biology. And as codelette wrote, if you don't want to risk having to take the responsibility of raising a child, close down the pipes. Problem solved.

Still sounds too much like the "if you didn't want the responsibility, you should have kept your legs crossed" argument against abortion, IMO. And while child support has been a societal necessity (as codelette pointed out), it's not a fact of biology.

Seriously, this is not too difficult to understand:
1) Women have autonomy of their bodies -> they get to choose to terminate a pregnancy or to carry it to the term.
2) Once the baby is delivered, custody and the child support is no longer a gendered issue. It's the kid's fucking right!

So yeah, it sucks to be a guy who didn't want any kids but his partner/fuck buddy decided to keep the baby. Yeah it sucks. But it would suck more for the kid if it grows up with no financial support. So, as a guy, you should suck up and pay up.

If the alternative is no support, definitely. But where possible I would rather see society support single mothers equally and not make the support dependent on a genetic lottery.

My interpretation of the "What about the children that you didn't want to have but I made the decision for you to have them?" argument:

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images ... is-dog.jpg

[Hunt]

Does that make me a bad person? I hope so.

I guess I could have tried attacking my cat. He would have appreciated that.

[Walter Ego]

As the resident faggot, this hetrosexual stuff being posted is starting to bore me. Can we change the topic to something more gay?

[welch]

<snip>
And, pray tell, where is he actually not living “up to the standards they wish to impose on everyone but them”? Even assuming, for the sake of argument, a position that I don’t at all accept – that that joke was sexist and caused grievous amounts of “splash damage”, if not onerous amounts of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth – how is it that a past “transgression” against today’s “law” that wasn’t “on the books” at that time constitutes that not living “up to the standards they wish to impose on everyone but them”? You think that people shouldn’t be allowed to change their minds, to maybe come up with “better” standards of behaviour than the ones they held in the past? You think that a new law against parking in certain areas should justify going back and fining those who were parked “illegally” in the past? ....

No steerzo, I'm not, nor have I ever claimed to be perfect. …. It's not about perfection, it's about at least fucking trying, and the FTB/Skepchicks lot don't even fucking TRY to abide by the same standards they demand of everyone else. "CUNT IS ALWAYS BAD...unless we say it, then it's *ironic*". Fuck that shit.

Well – welchy – you didn’t really address the question of PZ’s “slut” joke of several years ago. Nor the somewhat analogous question of fining people for “illegally” parking in an area yesterday even though the law making it illegal wasn’t passed until today. Both of which were or are the starting point for this particular issue. And of more than passing relevance to wider issues.

That is because unlike you, I don't get a boner from an infinite AME of point-counter point that drills down until you're arguing the proper camber of the curve for the comma. I'm sorry, the fourth comma, which as we all know was demonstrated by pinkerbalaaaaaaa....OH SHIT, I FELL INTO A STEERSCOMA! WHAT FUCKING DAY...WAIT, WHAT YEAR IS IT?

[welch]

Ok, ok, I guess a whole bunch of people around here have forgotten about the causes behind the strict child support laws. Once upon a time, deadbeat motherfuckers decided that abandoning their wives with a couple children behind to get some fresh pussy had no consequences. That shit created a whole bunch of social problems and the situation was overcorrected by passing some tough ass laws.
Bottom line: you don't want to pay child support? Don't get anybody pregnant. You don't get anyone pregnant by cutting those tubes inside your balls. So, grow a pair. Get fixed. Stop complaining about mandates from the court to support the children that are 50% yours.

the end.


PS. Feminists pissed the fuck out of me, but MRAs seem to have more sand on their vaginas.

I endorse this message.

And regarding "psycho women", don't trust your male buddies who are going through a divorce to be rational and unbiased and to give you an objective assessment of the mental status of their partners. In fact, don't trust anyone who's going through a divorce about the other person, *unless* you have seen the fucking evidence yourself.

I would hazard a guess that there are a fuck ton of men exactly like this in pretty much any MRA forum online. Some of them are seriously pissed and unlikely to be very "rational and/or unbiased".

*shrug*

Some laddie who has had his vagina sanded sans lubricant and who is now soaking in a tub of salt water (which is not exactly soothing to sensitive and abraded private parts) just may not be amenable to polite discourse for the nonce.

YMMV

Yes, yes, but they never get over it. The just re-open the wound and re-salt the tub, and the crying never ends.

[welch]

Apparently it's "my body my choice" only when you have already mistakenly got pregnant, it's "his cock his fault" before that. Because obviously women have no control whatsoever over their own bodies during sex, being entirely at the mercy of men. Imagine if I were to tell women "hey, don't wanna get pregnant? Get a histerectomy you whiny cunts. Get fixed. Stop whining about "deadbeat dads" who didn't even want to be fathers in the first place but got trapped either deliberately or because of your completely irresponsible behaviour. What, you can't even handle your own bodily functions? What are you a child?"

http://www.nastyhobbit.org/data/media/1 ... trolls.jpg

[Mykeru]

Apparently it's "my body my choice" only when you have already mistakenly got pregnant, it's "his cock his fault" before that. Because obviously women have no control whatsoever over their own bodies during sex, being entirely at the mercy of men. Imagine if I were to tell women "hey, don't wanna get pregnant? Get a histerectomy you whiny cunts. Get fixed. Stop whining about "deadbeat dads" who didn't even want to be fathers in the first place but got trapped either deliberately or because of your completely irresponsible behaviour. What, you can't even handle your own bodily functions? What are you a child?"

http://www.nastyhobbit.org/data/media/1 ... trolls.jpg

I always wondered about that scene from Star Wars. Does that mean C3PO or R2D2 just dropped random parts that they apparently didn't need, sort of like Andrew's nutsack?

[welch]

Apparently it's "my body my choice" only when you have already mistakenly got pregnant, it's "his cock his fault" before that. Because obviously women have no control whatsoever over their own bodies during sex, being entirely at the mercy of men. Imagine if I were to tell women "hey, don't wanna get pregnant? Get a histerectomy you whiny cunts. Get fixed. Stop whining about "deadbeat dads" who didn't even want to be fathers in the first place but got trapped either deliberately or because of your completely irresponsible behaviour. What, you can't even handle your own bodily functions? What are you a child?"

http://www.nastyhobbit.org/data/media/1 ... trolls.jpg

I always wondered about that scene from Star Wars. Does that mean C3PO or R2D2 just dropped random parts that they apparently didn't need, sort of like Andrew's nutsack?

It was the puddle of oil threepo left on the seat. He was quite frightened.

[Percentage]

It's not her only claim to fame. That would be The Skeptics Guide To The Universe. Also, it's bullshit to imply that only people who have serious academic credentials should be respected. What really matters is whether or not somebody is right.

About academic credentials, that's not what I was saying- but PZ's training <em>does</em> give him the ability to construct those sophisticated posts on biology, which are very well-done. It's also given him the expertise required to debate the more advanced sort of creationist... and he's well known for that too. It's not his PhD that means much in and of itself, it's how he's applied it.

Yes, Watson did Skeptics Guide, great for her, but I would characterize her role as basically Novella's sidekick. Elevatorgate made her the notable that she is now.

[jjbinx007]

Over at AtheismPlus (remember that?) they're debating whether or not to drop the whole Flying Spaghetti Monster thing:

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4935

Nice quote from Setar:

...aaaand my internal dictionary is now in the process of striking out "oh, FSM" and replacing it with "oh, cock".

[Percentage]

That's not the claim. The claim is that Rebecca Watson is only (and I use this word strictly in the relative sense) famous for her feminist activism. That's obviously not true, as she's on one of the most popular skepticism podcasts out there. If PZ Myers had a breakdown and became a MGTOW tomorrow, she'd be fine.

Well first, like I said there's a perception that Watson is sort of one-note- I didn't say it's actually true. Though I'd argue that her feminist activism has put her on the map as an individual name; before that, she was just one of the lesser members of a popular ensemble. That's a big difference.

Also, obviously Watson personally would be able to continue her career without PZ, but I don't think she wouldn't have the clout to keep Atheism+ in the spotlight, the way Myers does. If I had to guess, without Myers I think she'd mostly drop it.

[ianfc]

FtB are having their very own online conference in July. Guess a meatspace one is not very far off.
http://www.freezepage.com/1371818566XIBLMZGOOV

[Kareem]

@Elevatorgate pointed to a defection from the Skepchick network:

Katie on "Leaving the Skepchick Network", posted w/in past day: http://canadianatheist.com/2013/06/20/l ... k-network/

Most of her post:

1. Rebecca Watson (and a lot of her following, really) is a cyber bully. Plain and simple. For a (semi) recent example, see this. Sara pointed out a very legitimate point but instead of discussing that point in a logical and interesting manner Rebecca just attacks her. I have seen this happen a number of times with Rebecca and other people on the skepchick network. When people point out a legit problem they attack instead of thoughtfully engage.

2. I am a feminist, and I don’t agree with Rebecca et al. as I find them pedantic. In the link in the above point Rebecca picks on the term “ragging”. This sort of stuff is a waste of time, IMO. I just disagree with the level of severity that she takes on things, ie.

3. Go try and disagree with Rebecca or someone on that site (or off the site) and see how fast the skepchick network minions jump on you and eat you alive. Even writing this post my fiance said to me “you’re marking yourself as an enemy” because speaking out against the skepchick network puts a mark on you; it shouldn’t be that way. The skepchicks call for apologies from people all the time but I think they should apologize for being pretty nasty/silly to people (especially in comments; which… I don’t have the time or energy to sort through right now).

4. As an academic I value freedom of speech, good & rich discussions and logical conclusions; this is rarely found on the skepchick network. I don’t value hypocritical crap. They do realize that with the whole Ron Lindsay kurfuffle they are proving the exact point that Lindsay was trying to make, right?

5. I don’t want to be associated with these attitudes and approaches to real life problems. I would rather be associated with thoughtful and clam reactions to what people say. I’ve been known to flip my lid now and then but Rebecca et al seem to do it a lot… and they do it to unexpecting people who do not warrant the wrath of online anger. Her approaches to issues are not academic or logical (like the talk on evolution I linked to above).

6. I’m not a teen so I feel a bit funny writing for teen skepchick…

I just wrote a post defending CFI and I don’t think many people have read it… however when I wrote a post blasting CFI about a year ago they were more than willing to make it front page news. Skepchick runs on drama and I’m getting too tired for that and I no longer want to be associated with such irrational and strong reactions to legitimate concerns and questions arising in the skeptics community.

Katie's "defense of CFI" at Teen Skepchick, posted w/in past day: http://teenskepchick.org/2013/06/20/in-defense-of-cfi/

Katie's page/links at Teen Skepchick, looks like good stuff: http://teenskepchick.org/author/katie/

#4 seems so obvious to me. In fact, if they didn't manufacture this controversy over it then they could use the event as a counterpoint to our criticism.
I can't stand people more concerned about appearing right than actually being right.

[ianfc]

The FtB Con would be perfect for JV, it's free.

[jjbinx007]

FtB are having their very own online conference in July. Guess a meatspace one is not very far off.
http://www.freezepage.com/1371818566XIBLMZGOOV

I'm happy to donate money to cover Justin's online costs of logging in and being immediately booted out.

[Lsuoma]

@Elevatorgate pointed to a defection from the Skepchick network:

Katie on "Leaving the Skepchick Network", posted w/in past day: http://canadianatheist.com/2013/06/20/l ... k-network/

And colon, the terminal arse licker, pops up. Looks like Twatson is his current infatuee.

[AnonymousCowherd]

The FtB Con would be perfect for JV, it's free.

Nah, it only for atheists with a conscience. Unlike we, apparently.

Or maybe our "organization" could put up a proposal for a session to PZ? After all, it's open to "free thinkers around the world"! I wonder if they could fit us in their "grid"?

[Aneris]

Added list to CP's quote

More Myth-Making By Rebecca Watson (freezepaged)
<snit>

Your comment above was a bit of a stretch. This was the only bit of bullshit I read was

the male supremacists who harass me every day

• "misrepresentation was the reason that nobody likes her" Where does she say that?
• "courts for affection"? How can you tell that from a blog?
• "Gives the "What's not to like" impression" What?
• "She begins the piece with ..." Agree with this.

She's clearly saying that she admits to mistakes and that's a good thing. It is, and she should do it more often, as we all should. But in this instance she was right about her main point , which is that she was bagged for a mistake that she made and had already corrected, so she was hardly myth making. Franc was talking about it like she hadn't corrected it.

It's good that you critisite it! I wouldn't like when people just accept everyone's crap wholesale.

Here we are, 1.75 years later, and this is still one of the best points against me that they’ve got. Look how gleeful they are in the comments on the video, slapping their hands together and chuckling over how stupid I am

She literally says that the let's call it "10minute mistake" is "one of the best points" for being against her (Point 3). Which is utter nonsense. People are against her for a multitude of plausible reasons. Her general demeanor of douchiness not included. Frankly, I haven't heard of the Galileo-Non-Issue but know about the other things.

Point 2 could be lost in translation. What I meant there is that she makes the article about mistakes and about correcting mistakes. I agree with you, it's a good thing to admit to mistakes. Practically everyone likes this. Thus, she wants to win sympathy points (Point 2), since she admits to the mistake she made. However, as she herself notes the mistake was swiftly corrected and barely an issue. She didn't exactly pull a Gottlob Frege there.

Even though it looks like it was about mistakes, it is merely the narrative from which she launches viscious attacks, by claiming that her oppoonents have no reason to be against her (Point 3). The last Point 4, together with the quote of "Male Supremacist", the linking to various flame-baited critics then reveal what this is really about, i.e. her opponents have no reasons to be against her (Point 1), thus invent reasons "one of the best they've got", thus the real reason why nobody likes her must be misogyny, where "male supremacists who harass me every day" seals the deal.

Not?

[Southern]

I still come across people who get prescribed that stuff like candy. One was a 25 year old fitness instructor at the gym I go to. She started having panic attacks and I explained to her that if there was ever anyone who died from a panic attack, it wasn't a 25 year-old fitness instructor. Yet her doctor, who probably got a days training in addiction, prescribed both Klonopin and Xanax for her. I talked her through things to do because, like a newb, she didn't realize the only way out from a panic attack is through the other side. I basically shared all my experience and it did help her. She started telling me every time she had one and we'd basically debrief.

The best news was she hasn't taken any of that stuff for weeks, although she was doing a Xanax a day, and then taking it anticipatory, which is the road to hell. She was also starting to avoid situations where she might have one, which just makes it free-float and more situations get added to the list of things that "cause" a panic attack. They don't as a panic attack is just a triggering of the flight or fight response, and associating it with any situation is usually conditioned and often ad hoc.

I have to check to see if she followed up with cognitive and behavior therapy. That's the real answer, or at least the answer that lets everyone find their own answer, as it's different for each person.

Benzos isn't even close to an answer.

CBT works for a lot of shit. Im sure I mentioned here that Xanax did somewhere between 'jack' and 'shit' for me (well, they did help if I took them with 1/2 bottle of wine, but Im pretty sure that was the wine 'helping').

If your friend wants a chick to talk with whos been through that crap, pass along my email.

(btw, another reason I dislike JT is for his talks pushing drugs for mental disorders. the drugs are of questionable efficacy, CBT works.)

I searched CBT on Google to see what were you talking about.

[youtube]GwQW3KW3DCc[/youtube]

[Lsuoma]

So, if you have a big dick, women will worship you? Hardly feminist now is it?

Paging Scented Nectar:

Big dick (or is it a chode?) in slymepit undead thread. Verification please.

I don't know what a chode is, but I do have a thing for sizable penises. Not that smaller ones aren't fun too sometimes, it's just that the large ones are a nice treat. And if Phil is telling the truth, the large ones are also a Nice treat!!! :D

A choad is a dick wider than it is long. Like a tuna ca, rather than a coke can.

[deLurch]

It's good that you critisite it! I wouldn't like when people just accept everyone's crap wholesale.

It isn't as easy as you think.
http://www.daddypetes.com/howtobuy/

[AnonymousCowherd]

FtB are having their very own online conference in July. Guess a meatspace one is not very far off.
http://www.freezepage.com/1371818566XIBLMZGOOV

After the A+ loons lamented the crap moniker but failed to come up with a replacement, maybe this "A+Deux - This time we're serious".

FtB - committed to con science since 2013!

[justinvacula]

There has been discussion from people suggesting I apologize to Surly Amy because I posted her address on the Slymepit. To clarify, I posted her *PUBLIC BUSINESS* ADDRESS in response to a conspiracy alleging that I filed a counter-DMCA against her [following her DMCAing me without first contacting me or suggesting I better attribute an image] to obtain her personal information. Shortly after I posted the address, Surly Amy -- later saying she was afraid for her safety -- tweeted an unedited version of my post. Following this, I received a great deal of backlash, personal attacks, and a narrative was formed about me being a dangerous "anti-woman" harasser who can't be trusted around women. Following the address/DMCA kerfuffle, Amy and company contributed to a campaign to get me fired from a volunteer position with the Secular Coalition for America and I had later resigned to end the attacks on the SCA following my appointment.

I am considering apologizing to Amy although I think that she was (and is) incredibly dishonest due to much of the information I had mentioned above. Most prominently, I find her "concerns about her safety" dishonest because she tweeted her own address following my posting of it, her address is publicly listed as a business address, and she and her friends -- at the time (and following) -- kept talking about the fact that her address is public.

I will apologize to Amy if she

A) Apologizes for DMCAing me and/or admits it was not a proper course of actions to address/resolve a conflict.

B) Admits that I am not a dangerous individual and disavows the "anti-woman, misogynist, harasser" narrative which she and her friends have contributed to.

I will also be willing to apologize on other terms, but this will *not* be a unilateral apology.

Thank you.

For more info, see

http://www.justinvacula.com/2012/08/a-c ... y-amy.html

http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -timeline/