Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[Southern]

300 women and JV. Just 300 going to WiS, though? That seems silly-small.

That's not silly. THAT..IS..SPARTA!!!

Photoshop-people, what's taking you so long? :whistle:

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/uploads/ ... 00x397.jpg

Have you seen Xerxes these days?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0763928/?ref_=tt_cl_t10

Only a shadow of what he used to be. Also, looks like a nice guy.

After his hijinks with the Spartans, Xerxes got married and lived happily ever after:

MV5BMTc1MTk0ODgxOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNzU2ODg2._V1._SX485_SY363_.jpg

(39.94 KiB) Downloaded 278 times

[zenbabe]

I say Vacula gets on an elevator with Watson, Svan, Hensley and Benson, the latter of whom panics and hits the emergency button, stopping the elevator between floors and necessitating the occupants to climb out through the roof hatch. Ophelia panics again at the thought of Vacula taking upskirt pics and accuses Justin of "stochastic terrorism". It being Washington, this accusation is picked up by the CIA and Vacula is hauled away to Guantanamo bay for extensive waterboarding.

Vacula gets on an elevator with Watson, Greta, and Benson. The door closes on ominous quiet.

Vacula watches the lights, his hand reaches up and strokes his 'stache.

Rebecca: I am uncomfortable
Greta: I am uncomfortable
Ophelia: I am uncomfortable

Vacula smirks slightly and continues the self-soothing stroking of that INSANE growth of hair.

Rebecca: Guys shouldn't do that!
Ophelia: He just called me a cunt with that gesture!
Greta: Is that a unicorn horn in his pocket?!

DING! Doors open and the ladies strut right the hell out, one fantasizing about writing lurid words over his mustache, one thinking "cuntcuntcuntcuntcuntcunt", and another scribbling notes for a new story of elevator rape; poor Vacula is reported for mysogynexual harassment and summarily kicked from the convention.

JV! Just shave that damn thing!

[justinvacula]

New post from PZ still not getting it:

The scarlet crayon of atheism

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... f-atheism/

Can he really be this dense? I suppose 'of course' is the answer at this point.

"I’ve been trying to understand how people — not just people, but self-declared “leaders of the atheist movement” — can claim that atheism is only the lack of belief in any gods, and further, that absence of god-belief entails no other significant consequences."

[Dick Strawkins]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... f-atheism/

Peezus, having got bored quote-mining Vacula, has a new post up called the scarlet crayon of atheism.
This is not, as one might expect however, about the sole writing impliment Nerd of Redhead is allowed to use.
It is an attempt by Peezus to explain his anti-dictionary-atheist philosophy.

And it fails miserably.

Read it yourself to notice the flaws.
From my point of view I fail to recognize the religion or society he uses as the justification for his stance.
'Religion' and 'society' as he seems to describe are very parochial affairs - it is a purely Christian and American matter to him.
The fact that many of us live in non-American secular democracies where religion has very limited influence doesn't seem to be on the horizon for him.
Indeed most of the worlds population lives in societies where monotheism of any form is not the controlling factor, even if religion does have an influence.

[AbsurdWalls]

Being an atheist means you can no longer learn your moral code by rote and tradition and obedience to authority*, but have to rely on reason and empathy and greater human goals, and you don’t get to justify actions simply because they “feel” right or good — you have to support them with evidence or recognition that they directly serve a secular purpose.

Wat? :think:

[justinvacula]

Never forget:

http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... geting-me/

http://i.imgur.com/a9kKYeW.jpg

[AbsurdWalls]

I guess PZ swallowed the whole Sam Harris brand Objective Morality thing?

[Jonathan]

Being an atheist means you can no longer learn your moral code by rote and tradition and obedience to authority*, but have to rely on reason and empathy and greater human goals, and you don’t get to justify actions simply because they “feel” right or good — you have to support them with evidence or recognition that they directly serve a secular purpose.

Wat? :think:

I've been trying to roll this around in my head and it doesn't make sense. So if, say, I gave some money to a homeless guy, it would not be enough to say that it felt right, but that it would have to be for a secular purpose? What secular purpose?! How would you get evidence to show that handing this random guy a few quid is right?

[AbsurdWalls]

Being an atheist means you can no longer learn your moral code by rote and tradition and obedience to authority*, but have to rely on reason and empathy and greater human goals, and you don’t get to justify actions simply because they “feel” right or good — you have to support them with evidence or recognition that they directly serve a secular purpose.

Wat? :think:

I've been trying to roll this around in my head and it doesn't make sense. So if, say, I gave some money to a homeless guy, it would not be enough to say that it felt right, but that it would have to be for a secular purpose? What secular purpose?! How would you get evidence to show that handing this random guy a few quid is right?

It's alright, I will award you my recognition that giving money to a homeless guy serves a secular purpose so long as you whisper "God is a lie..." when you do so.

He might just mean that "Doing it for God!" is not a reason available to atheists, but in that case I am curious as to how my actions making me feel good does not in itself serve a "secular purpose".

[Jonathan]

Being an atheist means you can no longer learn your moral code by rote and tradition and obedience to authority*, but have to rely on reason and empathy and greater human goals, and you don’t get to justify actions simply because they “feel” right or good — you have to support them with evidence or recognition that they directly serve a secular purpose.

Wat? :think:

I've been trying to roll this around in my head and it doesn't make sense. So if, say, I gave some money to a homeless guy, it would not be enough to say that it felt right, but that it would have to be for a secular purpose? What secular purpose?! How would you get evidence to show that handing this random guy a few quid is right?

It's alright, I will award you my recognition that giving money to a homeless guy serves a secular purpose so long as you whisper "God is a lie..." when you do so.

He might just mean that "Doing it for God!" is not a reason available to atheists, but in that case I am curious as to how my actions making me feel good does not in itself serve a "secular purpose".

Got it. Next time I will be sure to whisper:

"Keep god out of politics"
"No to religious hegemony"
"Buddha was clinically obese"

I feel better.

[katamari Damassi]

Hey, for those interested, my guy finished up his radiation a little over a week ago. In total, he lost over 50 pounds. He didn't start feeling like shit until after the therapy completed. He's battling major exhaustion and depression at this point.

But! The hardest part is done. Nothin' but recovery time now. Oh, and that man is still working. Apparently 99% of their patients stop working for at least a month (according to his doctor and all the nurses and nutritionists at the cancer clinic). He has said he's ready to punch people in the face if he hears how brave he is one more time. That's a good indication to me that he's starting to get back to his oil' self :)

Great to hear that Renee!

He is truly a brave hero. (ducks)

[Gefan]

I like the "bothersome bird-woman" haiku.

I think I had had a few shots when writing that one. Go figure. My "poetry" gets better when I'm snockered :D

My pool gets better when I've had a few. Never tried that while writing though. Maybe I should :think:

Reader, I married him. Was only me and him and, the priest obviously and, and, this other bloke, clerky type person. We were well starved when we got back from the church so I went into the kitchen and Mary was there cooking dinner… oh, I could have killed a kebab... And John was there playing with knives or something, I don't remember. And I said -

"Mary, I bloody love you, you're the best housekeeper EVAR! Guess what. Go on, guess. You can never guess what I just did. Guess. Hah, you'll never get it! I married Mr. Rochester this morning."

In my head that sounds like a monologue from an Alan Bennet play.

[Zenspace]

Being an atheist means you can no longer learn your moral code by rote and tradition and obedience to authority*, but have to rely on reason and empathy and greater human goals, and you don’t get to justify actions simply because they “feel” right or good — you have to support them with evidence or recognition that they directly serve a secular purpose.

Wat? :think:

Peezus hasn't spent much time outside of his box, has he?

Really, with a few notable exceptions, most of our morality and general behavioral patterns is a direct hand-me-down from our parents, not religion. Removing the religious aspect from most societies has little to no impact on general behavior within most populations. As JV was trying to say, removing A does not necessarily lead to B.

PZ might want to reconsider that whole divorce from scepticism thing.

[Gefan]

Being an atheist means you can no longer learn your moral code by rote and tradition and obedience to authority*, but have to rely on reason and empathy and greater human goals, and you don’t get to justify actions simply because they “feel” right or good — you have to support them with evidence or recognition that they directly serve a secular purpose.

Wat? :think:

I hope someone didn't just question feelings as the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.
That might not go down well with some people.

[acathode]

According to an article I just read, American Apparel's website has been reported for sexism to the Swedish advertising ombudsman. It won't go anywhere because it's an American website and not aimed at Swedish consumers (which should have been obvious to whoever reported it). But anyway, regardless of legal matters and whether or not such things should be regulated by the state; this does seem sexist to me:

http://www.dn.se/Images/2013/05/15/amer ... 282%29.jpg

Both pictures advertise the same shirt. I personally couldn't possibly work up any sort of outrage over it, but I'd definitely say it's bad form. They could at least have gotten a sexier man for the picture.

Apparently (sorry non-Swedish readers), the sexism is deliberate, and it's there for the single purpose to exploit our lazy media into giving them free attention and airtime, which equal sales.

Ryan Holiday is the Director of Marketing for American Apparel, and has also written the book Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator. He's put a excerpt from his book online, where he described the sort of tactic he used to create national controversy and attention to the movie "I hope they serve beer in hell". Judging by the tactic he used there, it wouldn't be the least surprising if turned out that both the report of sexism and the tip to our national media came from AA or Ryan himself (under fake names).

[bovarchist]

Wait a minnit...PZ's little homily isn't even consistent from one phrase to the next. You can't base morality on "obedience to authority" but rather, on empathy. Isn't empathy a feeling? Yes...the judges rule that empathy is indeed a feeling. So why does he immediately say that you "don't get to justify actions simply because they "feel" right"? Rather, your morality has to "serve a secular purpose". But isn't serving a secular purpose mean you're basing your morality on obedience to some kind of an authority? IT MAKES NO SENSE MY BRAIN IS MELTINGGGGGGGG.

[Skep tickle]

Fair amount of pushback against PZ's stance in the comments to "scarlet crayon".

It’s A-theism, not Athe-ism. (A-bluecrayonism?) the most militant of us recognize this.

I don’t know that, because many of us arrived at atheism through skeptical/naturalistic methods, that it should be presumed that atheism should imply those things. It’s more likely the other way around, really. In any case, there are plenty of folks who are really atheists that believe in the supernatural and are even religious, and I don’t think we should deny their identities or suggest that they are “bad atheists” because they don’t subscribe to the things we do in addition to atheism.

I would dearly love you to have this conversation with Matt Dillahunty and the other co-hosts of The Atheist Experience, because you seem to be at odds with their definitions of atheism.

They define theism as a belief in a god or gods and a-theism as a lack of belief. A person may lack a belief for many reasons but it’s usually down to a rejection of the claim that a God exists. You can be an atheist asshole or a morally good person who also happens not to believe in a God. Either way you’re still an atheist. It tells you nothing of what else they positively do believe. The term atheism only deals with the notion of whether or not a God or Gods exist(s). If I’ve mis-represented the AXP stance on this issue, please correct me.

What are people who don’t believe in gods, but also happen to be sexist or racist? I would argue that they are assholes, but they are still atheists. I happen to be atheist AND I consider myself a feminist. However, it’s confusing to label them both under the atheism banner as you will unfortunately continue to get sexist atheists. Atheism+ on the other hand, that differentiates a movement and grouping of like-minded individuals from the general notion of atheism, so this seems clearer.

I think PZ is a nice thinker, though I don’t know him well enough to tell the difference between “great” and “very good”. But it’s leaping over that barrier to his own understanding, landing in a foreign field of thought, taking in the important landmarks, *and then coming back to give the rest of us a map to the place* that I really appreciate.

Red Crayon Brigade may very well become as useful a concept as Atheism+.

"Off to the 'pit with the lot of you, except Crip Dyke, you can stay and lick my boots" (I'm imagining PZ saying, but he probably won't)

S'pose Matt Dillahunty will come weigh in, in the comments? :lol:

[bovarchist]

:violin: Hmmm. Just noticed that Lousy Canuck refers to me as "spamming the FTBullies hashtag with hate". He's got the strangest notion of both 'spamming' and 'hate' but I guess that's not news. Honestly, if even a tiny fry like me can upset them with my once-or-twice-a-week tweets, how pathetic does that make them?

[justinvacula]

Amanda Marcotte authors hit piece about me distorting my views and branding me a misogynist? Think she will defend her views at Women in Secularism 2?

Here's what I ACTUALLY said, in context
http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... positions/

Her piece:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/16/f ... chronicle/

[d4m10n]

:violin: Hmmm. Just noticed that Lousy Canuck refers to me as "spamming the FTBullies hashtag with hate". He's got the strangest notion of both 'spamming' and 'hate' but I guess that's not news. Honestly, if even a tiny fry like me can upset them with my once-or-twice-a-week tweets, how pathetic does that make them?

Oh yeah, spamming other people's hashtags is a terrible thing to behold: http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... gs-go-bad/

:mrgreen:

[bovarchist]

Amanda Marcotte authors hit piece about me distorting my views and branding me a misogynist? Think she will defend her views at Women in Secularism 2?

Here's what I ACTUALLY said, in context
http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... positions/

Her piece:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/16/f ... chronicle/

I promised I'd read until I came across something stupid. It took less than three lines. Apparently, we sexists' main point is that "sexual harassment is a holy right and conferences shouldn’t have policies banning it."

Actually, speaking for myself, I'd say the main point is that free speech is a right, and calling speech you don't like 'harassment' doesn't make it so. Dunno why that's so hard to understand, but I certainly wouldn't respect the opinions of someone who couldn't grasp it.

[TedDahlberg]

According to an article I just read, American Apparel's website has been reported for sexism to the Swedish advertising ombudsman. It won't go anywhere because it's an American website and not aimed at Swedish consumers (which should have been obvious to whoever reported it). But anyway, regardless of legal matters and whether or not such things should be regulated by the state; this does seem sexist to me:

http://www.dn.se/Images/2013/05/15/amer ... 282%29.jpg

Both pictures advertise the same shirt. I personally couldn't possibly work up any sort of outrage over it, but I'd definitely say it's bad form. They could at least have gotten a sexier man for the picture.

Apparently (sorry non-Swedish readers), the sexism is deliberate, and it's there for the single purpose to exploit our lazy media into giving them free attention and airtime, which equal sales.

Ryan Holiday is the Director of Marketing for American Apparel, and has also written the book Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator. He's put a excerpt from his book online, where he described the sort of tactic he used to create national controversy and attention to the movie "I hope they serve beer in hell". Judging by the tactic he used there, it wouldn't be the least surprising if turned out that both the report of sexism and the tip to our national media came from AA or Ryan himself (under fake names).

I read that a little earlier. I certainly fell for it. That'll teach me to speak when I don't know the full story…

[JackSkeptic]

Renée, great news. Hopefully he is pleased he stuck it out, it must have been intolerable a lot of the time.

[JackSkeptic]

Lsuoma are we going to get 'pit blogs? :D I am totally up for that shit.

Yeah, bring it on. One must acknowledge, for a mere forum that basically has only one thread, we're holding up quite well in terms of internet fame (or notoriety).

I'd be up for that. People can read my blog entry when they get insomnia.

[Cunning Punt]

it would not be entirely inaccurate to describe me as Amazonish.

Covered in vegetation and home to countless species unknown to science?

But slowly and painfully being given a complete Brazilian.

[TedDahlberg]

Being an atheist means you can no longer learn your moral code by rote and tradition and obedience to authority*, but have to rely on reason and empathy and greater human goals, and you don’t get to justify actions simply because they “feel” right or good — you have to support them with evidence or recognition that they directly serve a secular purpose.

Wat? :think:

Hmm, let's try rephrasing that paragraph in a way that makes it closer to, er, reality:

Being an atheist means you can no longer will still learn your moral code by rote and tradition and obedience to authority*, but have to can rely on reason and empathy and greater human goals if you choose to, and you don’t get to justify actions simply because they “feel” right or good — you have to support them with evidence or recognition that they directly serve a secular purpose by saying "god commands it".

[TedDahlberg]

"This is WIS2!"
[img]*disturbing%20picture*[/img]

[img]*slightly%20less%20disturbing%20picture*[/img]

*sniff* I knew I could count on you.

[JackSkeptic]

Wait a minnit...PZ's little homily isn't even consistent from one phrase to the next. You can't base morality on "obedience to authority" but rather, on empathy. Isn't empathy a feeling? Yes...the judges rule that empathy is indeed a feeling. So why does he immediately say that you "don't get to justify actions simply because they "feel" right"? Rather, your morality has to "serve a secular purpose". But isn't serving a secular purpose mean you're basing your morality on obedience to some kind of an authority? IT MAKES NO SENSE MY BRAIN IS MELTINGGGGGGGG.

Do I get a prize? Yesterday I made a post here accusing PMZ of doing exactly what he did in his blog.

[Zenspace]

Turns out that odd balloon posted a couple of days ago is not only real - the Skywhale!, but is the cause of some hysterical controversy:

http://junkee.com/the-ten-most-wonderfu ... whale/8902

:lol:

[Southern]

Wait a minnit...PZ's little homily isn't even consistent from one phrase to the next. You can't base morality on "obedience to authority" but rather, on empathy. Isn't empathy a feeling? Yes...the judges rule that empathy is indeed a feeling. So why does he immediately say that you "don't get to justify actions simply because they "feel" right"? Rather, your morality has to "serve a secular purpose". But isn't serving a secular purpose mean you're basing your morality on obedience to some kind of an authority? IT MAKES NO SENSE MY BRAIN IS MELTINGGGGGGGG.

Do I get a prize? Yesterday I made a post here accusing PMZ of doing exactly what he did in his blog.

Hi, I'm a representative from the JREF, and I hereby give you...

[youtube]l91ISfcuzDw[/youtube]

[Lsuoma]

Wait a minnit...PZ's little homily isn't even consistent from one phrase to the next. You can't base morality on "obedience to authority" but rather, on empathy. Isn't empathy a feeling? Yes...the judges rule that empathy is indeed a feeling. So why does he immediately say that you "don't get to justify actions simply because they "feel" right"? Rather, your morality has to "serve a secular purpose". But isn't serving a secular purpose mean you're basing your morality on obedience to some kind of an authority? IT MAKES NO SENSE MY BRAIN IS MELTINGGGGGGGG.

Do I get a prize? Yesterday I made a post here accusing PMZ of doing exactly what he did in his blog.

A date with Opehelia...

[Bhurzum]

Wait a minnit...PZ's little homily isn't even consistent from one phrase to the next. You can't base morality on "obedience to authority" but rather, on empathy. Isn't empathy a feeling? Yes...the judges rule that empathy is indeed a feeling. So why does he immediately say that you "don't get to justify actions simply because they "feel" right"? Rather, your morality has to "serve a secular purpose". But isn't serving a secular purpose mean you're basing your morality on obedience to some kind of an authority? IT MAKES NO SENSE MY BRAIN IS MELTINGGGGGGGG.

Do I get a prize? Yesterday I made a post here accusing PMZ of doing exactly what he did in his blog.

A date with Opehelia...

Two little kids = play date
Two blokes = man date
Ophelia and Jack = ???

[welch]

Being an atheist means you can no longer learn your moral code by rote and tradition and obedience to authority*, but have to rely on reason and empathy and greater human goals, and you don’t get to justify actions simply because they “feel” right or good — you have to support them with evidence or recognition that they directly serve a secular purpose.

Wat? :think:

he's attempting to become a major leader with this. It's not supposed to make sense, it's an emotional call to arms. The last paragraph or two make this clear. This is the start of an attempt to become a Dawkins-level name.

[welch]

:violin: Hmmm. Just noticed that Lousy Canuck refers to me as "spamming the FTBullies hashtag with hate". He's got the strangest notion of both 'spamming' and 'hate' but I guess that's not news. Honestly, if even a tiny fry like me can upset them with my once-or-twice-a-week tweets, how pathetic does that make them?

Very

[Zenspace]

Wait a minnit...PZ's little homily isn't even consistent from one phrase to the next. You can't base morality on "obedience to authority" but rather, on empathy. Isn't empathy a feeling? Yes...the judges rule that empathy is indeed a feeling. So why does he immediately say that you "don't get to justify actions simply because they "feel" right"? Rather, your morality has to "serve a secular purpose". But isn't serving a secular purpose mean you're basing your morality on obedience to some kind of an authority? IT MAKES NO SENSE MY BRAIN IS MELTINGGGGGGGG.

Do I get a prize? Yesterday I made a post here accusing PMZ of doing exactly what he did in his blog.

A date with Opehelia...

Two little kids = play date
Two blokes = man date
Ophelia and Jack = ???

A date with DESTINY!!!!!!

:dance: :dance: :dance:

[Zenspace]

Being an atheist means you can no longer learn your moral code by rote and tradition and obedience to authority*, but have to rely on reason and empathy and greater human goals, and you don’t get to justify actions simply because they “feel” right or good — you have to support them with evidence or recognition that they directly serve a secular purpose.

Wat? :think:

he's attempting to become a major leader with this. It's not supposed to make sense, it's an emotional call to arms. The last paragraph or two make this clear. This is the start of an attempt to become a Dawkins-level name.

I'm hardly an expert in that sort of thing (I usually head in the other direction), but it seems to me he's fucked that goal well and good already. The only leadership position Peezus is headed for is the lunatic fringe of the sjw's.

[Dave]

Being an atheist means you can no longer learn your moral code by rote and tradition and obedience to authority*, but have to rely on reason and empathy and greater human goals, and you don’t get to justify actions simply because they “feel” right or good — you have to support them with evidence or recognition that they directly serve a secular purpose.

Wat? :think:

he's attempting to become a major leader with this. It's not supposed to make sense, it's an emotional call to arms. The last paragraph or two make this clear. This is the start of an attempt to become a Dawkins-level name.

I'm hardly an expert in that sort of thing (I usually head in the other direction), but it seems to me he's fucked that goal well and good already. The only leadership position Peezus is headed for is the lunatic fringe of the sjw's.

True, but hes not smart enough to realize it.

[Jonathan]

Being an atheist means you can no longer learn your moral code by rote and tradition and obedience to authority*, but have to rely on reason and empathy and greater human goals, and you don’t get to justify actions simply because they “feel” right or good — you have to support them with evidence or recognition that they directly serve a secular purpose.

Wat? :think:

he's attempting to become a major leader with this. It's not supposed to make sense, it's an emotional call to arms. The last paragraph or two make this clear. This is the start of an attempt to become a Dawkins-level name.

Coupled with the release of his new book; itself a masterpiece of reason and stirring rhetoric, we may very well be witnessing the start of a new Golden Age of atheism. All other blogging networks will be swept aside or assimilated into the ever-growing leviathan of FreeThoughtBlogs. In the real world believers will be de-converted by the million, and marching under the banner of Social Justice For All* a new world order will be forged, bringing peace and prosperity in its wake. Woe unto those that call themselves sceptics, for PZ Myers acknowledgeth you not, and you shall be cast from the light into shadow to wail and gnash your teeth with AVFM contributors, Justin Vacula, and that monopod guy who probably is a pervert really, let's face it.

Hail, PZ MYERS! Lead us into the FUTURE!







*Except libertarians and that bigot Dawkins.

[Mark Thomas]

Amanda Marcotte authors hit piece about me distorting my views and branding me a misogynist? Think she will defend her views at Women in Secularism 2?

Here's what I ACTUALLY said, in context
http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... positions/

Her piece:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/16/f ... chronicle/

Justin - I understand the points you make in your piece - and you make a very effective argument - but you did leave the door wide open for her criticism with this sentence: "I fail to see how refusing to believe in God leads to ‘the logical conclusion’ of abandoning the belief that women exist to serve men."

Read from a radical feminist point of view - and they are not prone to giving their critics the benefit of the doubt - it can appear that you are saying YOU HOLD the belief that women exist to serve men, and her arguments are not enough to sway you from that view.

Had you written this sentence - I fail to see how refusing to believe in God leads to ‘the logical conclusion’ of abandoning the belief (one which I do not share) that women exist to serve men - her ability to write that piece is limited. Of course, she's going to distort your views - this is a political argument and opposing sides always paint themselves in the best possible light and their opponents in the worst. But in my opinion you handed her a hanging slider out over the heart of the plate on this one.

[Aneris]

I remember a documentary on Keas that was hilarious. The camera team wanted to film them and came with a camper van. Once they set everything up, the Keas where all over the place and started to pick their equipment apart in the usual playful and curious manner. Eventually, the team gave up and the resulting documentary became a hilarious story about how the Kea thwarted the attempt of filming them in their natural environment. They documented them, after all, but different than they thought.

This might be the one you mean:

[youtube]e755ETUaD6Y[./youtube]


[youtube]v38PHtG9D7E[./youtube]


[youtube]VGyJiRoFoZE[,/youtube]

That's the one! Haven't seen this for ages. Thank you so much for finding it. :)

[JackSkeptic]

Wait a minnit...PZ's little homily isn't even consistent from one phrase to the next. You can't base morality on "obedience to authority" but rather, on empathy. Isn't empathy a feeling? Yes...the judges rule that empathy is indeed a feeling. So why does he immediately say that you "don't get to justify actions simply because they "feel" right"? Rather, your morality has to "serve a secular purpose". But isn't serving a secular purpose mean you're basing your morality on obedience to some kind of an authority? IT MAKES NO SENSE MY BRAIN IS MELTINGGGGGGGG.

Do I get a prize? Yesterday I made a post here accusing PMZ of doing exactly what he did in his blog.

A date with Opehelia...

Two little kids = play date
Two blokes = man date
Ophelia and Jack = ???

A date with DESTINY!!!!!!

:dance: :dance: :dance:

A date with disaster.

[Tigzy]

Thank you to those who are willing to stand up for atheism simply as a matter of choice and principle, but you should know and be warned that we intend to change the world. We are more dangerous than you can even imagine. And apparently, more dangerous than even some atheists can imagine.

Strange, cos not so long ago, the very idea that the Phelps Comedy Troupe might show up at WiS seemed to right scare the shit out of Peezee's 'dangerous' atheists.

[TedDahlberg]

Do I get a prize? Yesterday I made a post here accusing PMZ of doing exactly what he did in his blog.

A date with Opehelia...

Two little kids = play date
Two blokes = man date
Ophelia and Jack = ???

A date with DESTINY!!!!!!

:dance: :dance: :dance:

A date with disaster.

A date that will live in infamy.

[Zenspace]

Amanda Marcotte authors hit piece about me distorting my views and branding me a misogynist? Think she will defend her views at Women in Secularism 2?

Here's what I ACTUALLY said, in context
http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... positions/

Her piece:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/16/f ... chronicle/

Justin - I understand the points you make in your piece - and you make a very effective argument - but you did leave the door wide open for her criticism with this sentence: "I fail to see how refusing to believe in God leads to ‘the logical conclusion’ of abandoning the belief that women exist to serve men."

Read from a radical feminist point of view - and they are not prone to giving their critics the benefit of the doubt - it can appear that you are saying YOU HOLD the belief that women exist to serve men, and her arguments are not enough to sway you from that view.

Had you written this sentence - I fail to see how refusing to believe in God leads to ‘the logical conclusion’ of abandoning the belief (one which I do not share) that women exist to serve men - her ability to write that piece is limited. Of course, she's going to distort your views - this is a political argument and opposing sides always paint themselves in the best possible light and their opponents in the worst. But in my opinion you handed her a hanging slider out over the heart of the plate on this one.

Bingo. I cringed when I read that line in the original linked article and even questioned whether it was an actual excerpt it was so bad. Alas, it was the real thing, if clearly taken free of important and relevant context. It was a quote designed to be mined and Justin will be having that one thrown in his face for some time to come.

Justin - I tend to give you a free pass on your activities most of the time, mostly because of your real world activism, but you have got to learn to slow down a bit and apply more consideration to the way you are being perceived because of a certain, well, naivete. Mark is exactly right - this is as much a political exercise as anything and in order to succeed, you will have to accept and respond to that reality. You have a distressingly regular habit, as others have pointed out, of shooting yourself in the foot when on the verge of making a valid point.

[welch]

Being an atheist means you can no longer learn your moral code by rote and tradition and obedience to authority*, but have to rely on reason and empathy and greater human goals, and you don’t get to justify actions simply because they “feel” right or good — you have to support them with evidence or recognition that they directly serve a secular purpose.

Wat? :think:

he's attempting to become a major leader with this. It's not supposed to make sense, it's an emotional call to arms. The last paragraph or two make this clear. This is the start of an attempt to become a Dawkins-level name.

I'm hardly an expert in that sort of thing (I usually head in the other direction), but it seems to me he's fucked that goal well and good already. The only leadership position Peezus is headed for is the lunatic fringe of the sjw's.

True, but hes not smart enough to realize it.

The larger issue is he has the wrong goal.

Dawkins, Harris, Shermer, Hitchens et al didn't set out to become big kahunas. They set out to support a number of goals:

- Advance secularism in society, so as to reduce religion's influence.
- Advance things like rational thinking, skepticism (as a process)
- Advance science both in what it's capable of and its popularity because it's the best way we have to fix a fuckton of problems and know How Things Work

They, and others, have different backgrounds, political views, etc., but they all set out to further a set of goals. They also happened to be dedicated, talented and worked really fucking hard at it. A side effect of this was them becoming thought of as leaders in the atheist and other related movements.

PeeZus doesn't get that. He wants to go from professor at obscure university to Dawkins, but he ignores the real, hard, valuable work Dawkins did that elevated him to being "The Dawkins". I mean, for fuck's sake, Dawkins has, on average, published a book almost every three years since 1976 on evolution and/or atheism. In terms of Academic Papers, he's written, or been involved in something like 43 since between 1968 and 2004. That's almost one per year.

Dawkins has also written a number of articles for all kinds of publications that advance things like science and science education outside of academia. His books are about science and atheism, but targeted at the non-academic community.

What has PeeZus done other than be a second-rate speaker at conferences? Well, for once, we can see http://www.morris.umn.edu/directories/p ... Myers.html

He has ALMOST written one book, and around 28 Academic publications, conference papers and presentations, between 1986 and 2002. First, I'm glad he finally has some details up, because it shows that at least up until 2002 or so, he was you know, being a scientist, not just an asshole. Secondly, in that time period, that is to me, a decent publication record, about two papers a year.

So it's not like PeeZus hasn't actually contributed to science in multiple ways. The problem is, that when you look at what he's done outside of science, and being a jerk on a blog, that's where he falls down. He's *almost* written a book that is going to be...well, his fucking blog. The non-science bits.

He wants to be at Dawkins' level, but that's the goal...to be a name. Dawkins wrote how many books explaining why science and evolution are so important to well, everything. PeeZus's writing, maybe one day, a book on how stupid religious people are.

That's how you become a gadfly, not a leader.

[Zenspace]

Thank you to those who are willing to stand up for atheism simply as a matter of choice and principle, but you should know and be warned that we intend to change the world. We are more dangerous than you can even imagine. And apparently, more dangerous than even some atheists can imagine.

Strange, cos not so long ago, the very idea that the Phelps Comedy Troupe might show up at WiS seemed to right scare the shit out of Peezee's 'dangerous' atheists.

Watch out!!! PZ's dangerous atheist's are comin' fer ya!

danger.jpg

(9.62 KiB) Downloaded 181 times

[Zenspace]

<snip>

I'm hardly an expert in that sort of thing (I usually head in the other direction), but it seems to me he's fucked that goal well and good already. The only leadership position Peezus is headed for is the lunatic fringe of the sjw's.

True, but hes not smart enough to realize it.

The larger issue is he has the wrong goal.

Dawkins, Harris, Shermer, Hitchens et al didn't set out to become big kahunas. They set out to support a number of goals:

- Advance secularism in society, so as to reduce religion's influence.
- Advance things like rational thinking, skepticism (as a process)
- Advance science both in what it's capable of and its popularity because it's the best way we have to fix a fuckton of problems and know How Things Work

They, and others, have different backgrounds, political views, etc., but they all set out to further a set of goals. They also happened to be dedicated, talented and worked really fucking hard at it. A side effect of this was them becoming thought of as leaders in the atheist and other related movements.

PeeZus doesn't get that. He wants to go from professor at obscure university to Dawkins, but he ignores the real, hard, valuable work Dawkins did that elevated him to being "The Dawkins". I mean, for fuck's sake, Dawkins has, on average, published a book almost every three years since 1976 on evolution and/or atheism. In terms of Academic Papers, he's written, or been involved in something like 43 since between 1968 and 2004. That's almost one per year.

Dawkins has also written a number of articles for all kinds of publications that advance things like science and science education outside of academia. His books are about science and atheism, but targeted at the non-academic community.

What has PeeZus done other than be a second-rate speaker at conferences? Well, for once, we can see http://www.morris.umn.edu/directories/p ... Myers.html

He has ALMOST written one book, and around 28 Academic publications, conference papers and presentations, between 1986 and 2002. First, I'm glad he finally has some details up, because it shows that at least up until 2002 or so, he was you know, being a scientist, not just an asshole. Secondly, in that time period, that is to me, a decent publication record, about two papers a year.

So it's not like PeeZus hasn't actually contributed to science in multiple ways. The problem is, that when you look at what he's done outside of science, and being a jerk on a blog, that's where he falls down. He's *almost* written a book that is going to be...well, his fucking blog. The non-science bits.

He wants to be at Dawkins' level, but that's the goal...to be a name. Dawkins wrote how many books explaining why science and evolution are so important to well, everything. PeeZus's writing, maybe one day, a book on how stupid religious people are.

That's how you become a gadfly, not a leader.

Excellent points all. :clap:

[Dick Strawkins]

Amanda Marcotte authors hit piece about me distorting my views and branding me a misogynist? Think she will defend her views at Women in Secularism 2?

Here's what I ACTUALLY said, in context
http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... positions/

Her piece:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/16/f ... chronicle/

Justin - I understand the points you make in your piece - and you make a very effective argument - but you did leave the door wide open for her criticism with this sentence: "I fail to see how refusing to believe in God leads to ‘the logical conclusion’ of abandoning the belief that women exist to serve men."

Read from a radical feminist point of view - and they are not prone to giving their critics the benefit of the doubt - it can appear that you are saying YOU HOLD the belief that women exist to serve men, and her arguments are not enough to sway you from that view.

Had you written this sentence - I fail to see how refusing to believe in God leads to ‘the logical conclusion’ of abandoning the belief (one which I do not share) that women exist to serve men - her ability to write that piece is limited. Of course, she's going to distort your views - this is a political argument and opposing sides always paint themselves in the best possible light and their opponents in the worst. But in my opinion you handed her a hanging slider out over the heart of the plate on this one.

I agree too.
I've long had the feeling that the FTB crew recognized quite some time ago that Vacula is the weak link in the chain of their opponents. He is either naive in the extreme in his dealings with them or he is deliberately provoking them just to drum up publicity for himself. Either way it doesn't paint a pleasant picture of a mature and resonsible leader. As you've said there is a political aspect to this and anyone aspiring to leadership must be able to take a more considered position - and realize that this constant stream of foot-in-mouth provocative sentences are going to be targets for quote-mining by more than just radical feminists.

[Gefan]

Turns out that odd balloon posted a couple of days ago is not only real - the Skywhale!, but is the cause of some hysterical controversy:

http://junkee.com/the-ten-most-wonderfu ... whale/8902

:lol:

I loved that story, especially the word; "Hindenboob".
It explains why, when I posted the thing, I was strangely reminded of Jen McReight.

[Dick Strawkins]

<snip>

I'm hardly an expert in that sort of thing (I usually head in the other direction), but it seems to me he's fucked that goal well and good already. The only leadership position Peezus is headed for is the lunatic fringe of the sjw's.

True, but hes not smart enough to realize it.

The larger issue is he has the wrong goal.

Dawkins, Harris, Shermer, Hitchens et al didn't set out to become big kahunas. They set out to support a number of goals:

- Advance secularism in society, so as to reduce religion's influence.
- Advance things like rational thinking, skepticism (as a process)
- Advance science both in what it's capable of and its popularity because it's the best way we have to fix a fuckton of problems and know How Things Work

They, and others, have different backgrounds, political views, etc., but they all set out to further a set of goals. They also happened to be dedicated, talented and worked really fucking hard at it. A side effect of this was them becoming thought of as leaders in the atheist and other related movements.

PeeZus doesn't get that. He wants to go from professor at obscure university to Dawkins, but he ignores the real, hard, valuable work Dawkins did that elevated him to being "The Dawkins". I mean, for fuck's sake, Dawkins has, on average, published a book almost every three years since 1976 on evolution and/or atheism. In terms of Academic Papers, he's written, or been involved in something like 43 since between 1968 and 2004. That's almost one per year.

Dawkins has also written a number of articles for all kinds of publications that advance things like science and science education outside of academia. His books are about science and atheism, but targeted at the non-academic community.

What has PeeZus done other than be a second-rate speaker at conferences? Well, for once, we can see http://www.morris.umn.edu/directories/p ... Myers.html

He has ALMOST written one book, and around 28 Academic publications, conference papers and presentations, between 1986 and 2002. First, I'm glad he finally has some details up, because it shows that at least up until 2002 or so, he was you know, being a scientist, not just an asshole. Secondly, in that time period, that is to me, a decent publication record, about two papers a year.

So it's not like PeeZus hasn't actually contributed to science in multiple ways. The problem is, that when you look at what he's done outside of science, and being a jerk on a blog, that's where he falls down. He's *almost* written a book that is going to be...well, his fucking blog. The non-science bits.

He wants to be at Dawkins' level, but that's the goal...to be a name. Dawkins wrote how many books explaining why science and evolution are so important to well, everything. PeeZus's writing, maybe one day, a book on how stupid religious people are.

That's how you become a gadfly, not a leader.

Excellent points all. :clap:

I might point out that Dawkins publication record for peer reviewed articles is not particularly great for an academic scientist.
I did a count of my own published papers and it came to over 40, in a much shorter time frame compared to Dawkins - and I don't consider myself particularly successful in number terms.
PZ Myers, on the other hand has a very sparse publication record. For all his pharyngula mentions of research being carried out in Morris, I don't think he's managed to get a single peer reviewed paper published for many years and before that he didn't have many publications. The average 'creation scientist' working at the Creation Museum has probably a better track record than Myers in this regard.

[Southern]

Thank you to those who are willing to stand up for atheism simply as a matter of choice and principle, but you should know and be warned that we intend to change the world. We are more dangerous than you can even imagine. And apparently, more dangerous than even some atheists can imagine.

Strange, cos not so long ago, the very idea that the Phelps Comedy Troupe might show up at WiS seemed to right scare the shit out of Peezee's 'dangerous' atheists.

Watch out!!! PZ's dangerous atheist's are comin' fer ya!

danger.jpg

Just imagine Sulky brandishing the Amulets of Ceramiceos Atheism +1, Becky the Drunkenmaster using her drunken kung-fu moves, Melody using the spell Wail of the Thousand E-Agonies, and Greta reciting the Chant of the Sadomasochistic Unicorn, all that directed at you.

I would shit my pants right there. Just thinking about it makes me need to change diapers!

[Reap]

Being an atheist means you can no longer learn your moral code by rote and tradition and obedience to authority*, but have to rely on reason and empathy and greater human goals, and you don’t get to justify actions simply because they “feel” right or good — you have to support them with evidence or recognition that they directly serve a secular purpose.

Wat? :think:

he's attempting to become a major leader with this. It's not supposed to make sense, it's an emotional call to arms. The last paragraph or two make this clear. This is the start of an attempt to become a Dawkins-level name.

I'm hardly an expert in that sort of thing (I usually head in the other direction), but it seems to me he's fucked that goal well and good already. The only leadership position Peezus is headed for is the lunatic fringe of the sjw's.

True, but hes not smart enough to realize it.

And that right there is the whole problem. Too dumb to realize how stupid he is.

[Pitchguest]

So Amanda Marcotte makes the incredible argument that sexual harassment is a right because free speech is a right, in response to someone who said that freedom of speech is a right and labelling speech you don't like as harassment doesn't magically make it so.

I said that was a correlation that didn't equal causation and thus a logical fallacy, because it is. (If there's a more appropriate logical fallacy that applies here, let me know. I'm drawing a blank.) But according to another poster, it's a ... syllogism. Huh.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/16/f ... -899458029

[some guy]

Justin - I understand the points you make in your piece - and you make a very effective argument - but you did leave the door wide open for her criticism with this sentence: "I fail to see how refusing to believe in God leads to ‘the logical conclusion’ of abandoning the belief that women exist to serve men."

Read from a radical feminist point of view - and they are not prone to giving their critics the benefit of the doubt - it can appear that you are saying YOU HOLD the belief that women exist to serve men, and her arguments are not enough to sway you from that view.

Had you written this sentence - I fail to see how refusing to believe in God leads to ‘the logical conclusion’ of abandoning the belief (one which I do not share) that women exist to serve men - her ability to write that piece is limited. Of course, she's going to distort your views - this is a political argument and opposing sides always paint themselves in the best possible light and their opponents in the worst. But in my opinion you handed her a hanging slider out over the heart of the plate on this one.

Although I didn't go read things to get the context, I fail to see how saying "I fail to see how 'A' leads to 'the logical conclusion' of 'B'" means that the speaker is implying anything about whether or not he believes 'B'.
And the proper response to someone who claims the speaker implied he believes B is not to chastise the originally speaker, but rather the person who can't understand what he said.

[Dick Strawkins]

First image of Vacula arriving at the WISC2 hotel.

Oi! Vacula, when we suggested you should take precautions against an attack by Marcotte, this isn't what we meant!

http://i.imgur.com/Z575AXG.jpg

[cunt]

Well it's not correlation/causation anyway. It's Amanda Marcotte being sarcastic and deliberately ignoring the original posters distinction between regular criticism and sexual harassment.

I don't think it's a logical fallacy, or even an actual argument. More like misdirection.

[bovarchist]

What has PeeZus done other than be a second-rate speaker at conferences? Well, for once, we can see http://www.morris.umn.edu/directories/p ... Myers.html

He has ALMOST written one book, and around 28 Academic publications, conference papers and presentations, between 1986 and 2002. First, I'm glad he finally has some details up, because it shows that at least up until 2002 or so, he was you know, being a scientist, not just an asshole. Secondly, in that time period, that is to me, a decent publication record, about two papers a year.

So it's not like PeeZus hasn't actually contributed to science in multiple ways. The problem is, that when you look at what he's done outside of science, and being a jerk on a blog, that's where he falls down. He's *almost* written a book that is going to be...well, his fucking blog. The non-science bits.

He wants to be at Dawkins' level, but that's the goal...to be a name. Dawkins wrote how many books explaining why science and evolution are so important to well, everything. PeeZus's writing, maybe one day, a book on how stupid religious people are.

That's how you become a gadfly, not a leader.

That CV just can't be up to date, can it? He's really published no papers since 2002? Brought no grant money to the university since then either? How does he still have a job? They don't give tenure to assistant professors, do they?

[Pitchguest]

Well it's not correlation/causation anyway. It's Amanda Marcotte being sarcastic and deliberately ignoring the original posters distinction between regular criticism and sexual harassment.

I don't think it's a logical fallacy, or even an actual argument. More like misdirection.

Or to compromise, it's a logical fallacy to serve as misdirection. Either way, she's being a prat. As usual.

[Sulaco]

it would not be entirely inaccurate to describe me as Amazonish.

Covered in vegetation and home to countless species unknown to science?

The parrots and butterflies in my hair are nice, but the monkeys are a bit too much.

I would have thought the bulldozers to be more of a problem.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

<snip>

I'm hardly an expert in that sort of thing (I usually head in the other direction), but it seems to me he's fucked that goal well and good already. The only leadership position Peezus is headed for is the lunatic fringe of the sjw's.

True, but hes not smart enough to realize it.

The larger issue is he has the wrong goal.

Dawkins, Harris, Shermer, Hitchens et al didn't set out to become big kahunas. They set out to support a number of goals:

- Advance secularism in society, so as to reduce religion's influence.
- Advance things like rational thinking, skepticism (as a process)
- Advance science both in what it's capable of and its popularity because it's the best way we have to fix a fuckton of problems and know How Things Work

They, and others, have different backgrounds, political views, etc., but they all set out to further a set of goals. They also happened to be dedicated, talented and worked really fucking hard at it. A side effect of this was them becoming thought of as leaders in the atheist and other related movements.

PeeZus doesn't get that. He wants to go from professor at obscure university to Dawkins, but he ignores the real, hard, valuable work Dawkins did that elevated him to being "The Dawkins". I mean, for fuck's sake, Dawkins has, on average, published a book almost every three years since 1976 on evolution and/or atheism. In terms of Academic Papers, he's written, or been involved in something like 43 since between 1968 and 2004. That's almost one per year.

Dawkins has also written a number of articles for all kinds of publications that advance things like science and science education outside of academia. His books are about science and atheism, but targeted at the non-academic community.

What has PeeZus done other than be a second-rate speaker at conferences? Well, for once, we can see http://www.morris.umn.edu/directories/p ... Myers.html

He has ALMOST written one book, and around 28 Academic publications, conference papers and presentations, between 1986 and 2002. First, I'm glad he finally has some details up, because it shows that at least up until 2002 or so, he was you know, being a scientist, not just an asshole. Secondly, in that time period, that is to me, a decent publication record, about two papers a year.

So it's not like PeeZus hasn't actually contributed to science in multiple ways. The problem is, that when you look at what he's done outside of science, and being a jerk on a blog, that's where he falls down. He's *almost* written a book that is going to be...well, his fucking blog. The non-science bits.

He wants to be at Dawkins' level, but that's the goal...to be a name. Dawkins wrote how many books explaining why science and evolution are so important to well, everything. PeeZus's writing, maybe one day, a book on how stupid religious people are.

That's how you become a gadfly, not a leader.

Excellent points all. :clap:

I might point out that Dawkins publication record for peer reviewed articles is not particularly great for an academic scientist.
I did a count of my own published papers and it came to over 40, in a much shorter time frame compared to Dawkins - and I don't consider myself particularly successful in number terms.
PZ Myers, on the other hand has a very sparse publication record. For all his pharyngula mentions of research being carried out in Morris, I don't think he's managed to get a single peer reviewed paper published for many years and before that he didn't have many publications. The average 'creation scientist' working at the Creation Museum has probably a better track record than Myers in this regard.

With The Selfish Gene alone Dawkins has had far more influence on the lay understanding of evolution than anyone else I can think of. The cultural impact of that book was enormous. Advances in scientific understanding don't always come from technical research papers, they can come from popular works changing the perspective on a field.