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

I love seeing the Baboons get pissed off at Dawkins. He fucking pwns them.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/s3tories-t ... 24x205.jpg

While the Slymepit is standing by to be overrun by Brony trained Rhetorical Assassins and Intellectual Kung-fu Masters, please allow me to extend to any Social Justice Warriors lurking on recon missions my warmest greetings and most cordial invitation.

[youtube]NwwY9y6O3hw[/youtube]

Of course, I do realize your invasion can lead to only one outcome.....
GLORIOUS VICTORY!!!!!

[youtube]NUHk2RSMCS8[/youtube]

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Anything.

A-n-y-t-h-i-n-g...except those fucking earlobe expanders.

Fuck off! I love my earlobe expanders!

comslave wrote:

Percentage wrote:The video game industry is only as male dominated as it needs to be. It is under no requirement to satisfy the needs of anyone other than it's own customers.

And there has never been any barrier keeping women from writing their own games. They simply have less of an interest in the medium. Her position is an example of the female sense of entitlement. Without writing their own games, and without being customers of games, they demand games they don't play be written to their specifications.

The one thing we know about the entertainment industry is that it is one giant whore willing to provide anything anyone is wanting to pay for. But you have to be willing to pay for it. You don't have a right to sit and complain about a lack of games for women or how women are portrayed if you have put money into the gaming industry. Every type of game has been tried and the reason we have the games we have is that all the other types failed.

She could have used her kickstarter money to start her own game company if she thinks she has ideas valueable to the gaming market. But her sense of female entitlement means she needs to make men do her bidding. She simply trying to exercise power over men for the gratification of her own ego. It's all about controlling men.

That just about perfectly sums up what, to me, was always the bottom of line of this whole particular fiasco.
Years ago I had a similar conversation regarding the "mail order bride" industry in the US. The feminist position apparently, was that it was sexist that there was not also a "mail order husband" industry (because, Patriarchy TM).
I suggested that, if there was indeed an unmet demand among American women for husbands from developing nations who the US women would have to financially support, then my colleague must have surely stumbled across a fantastic feminist business opportunity and should get to work immediately.
The conversation then drew to a decidedly chilly end.

I have no idea how far the hunded and sixty grand Sarkesian found, wandering around looking for a place to waste itself, would go towards starting to produce what she's demanding but I would actually admire her for finding out. Rather, she is using it produce a more elaborate and long-winded version of the standard; " listen to my demands and then fix it for me!"

TheMudbrooker wrote:While the Slymepit is standing by to be overrun by Brony trained Rhetorical Assassins and Intellectual Kung-fu Masters, please allow me to extend to any Social Justice Warriors lurking on recon missions my warmest greetings and most cordial invitation.

[youtube]NwwY9y6O3hw[/youtube]

Of course, I do realize your invasion can lead to only one outcome.....
GLORIOUS VICTORY!!!!!

[youtube]NUHk2RSMCS8[/youtube]

That's SWEET victory:
[youtube]ANk8xlsp1pQ[/youtube]

Jan Steen wrote:

Gefan wrote:https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos- ... 7831_n.jpg

Huh, who knew he was from Argentina?

http://i.imgur.com/v64SXmc.jpg

See? See? Yet more illegal handling of balls!

I still remember watching that game live, twenty seven years ago. The incident will always be a sore spot for my people (standing out even in the midst of decades of unmitigated collective agony and disappointment).

lol. Yep, your self-importance is apparent, McB (it came out strong specially after the Harvard rejection).
http://i.imgur.com/81baMKL.png

skepandsprinkles wrote:

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Anything.

A-n-y-t-h-i-n-g...except those fucking earlobe expanders.

Fuck off! I love my earlobe expanders!

How big are they and how do people generally react when they notice them?

Gefan wrote:

Jan Steen wrote:

Gefan wrote:https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos- ... 7831_n.jpg

Huh, who knew he was from Argentina?

http://i.imgur.com/v64SXmc.jpg

See? See? Yet more illegal handling of balls!

I still remember watching that game live, twenty seven years ago. The incident will always be a sore spot for my people (standing out even in the midst of decades of unmitigated collective agony and disappointment).

That was fucking beautiful.

Also, is that Stephen Colbert?

AbsurdWalls wrote:

John Brown wrote:I really do get the sense that the people who attack Hitchens with the most vitriol regarding his stances on war have never read (or have failed to understand if they have read) much of anything he ever wrote about it.

[youtube]XLKQGwVkczg[/youtube]

I find this debate tricky. I'm still not sure which side I come down on (though as a person I infinitely prefer Hitchens to Galloway). Fortunately the question of whether it was right to go to war in Iraq is no longer a useful one to answer.

Galloway is a gross political opportunist in my opinion. He does that 'take deep offence on behalf of others' trick other SJW's use, as seen here when discussing the Muslim heaven.

[youtube]StAmmJXUlLc[/youtube]

AndrewV69 wrote:

skepandsprinkles wrote:

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:Anything.

A-n-y-t-h-i-n-g...except those fucking earlobe expanders.

Fuck off! I love my earlobe expanders!

How big are they and how do people generally react when they notice them?

You can fly!!!!!!!!!

katamari Damassi wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

katamari Damassi wrote:

DeepInsideYourMind wrote:Good response to Feminist Frequency ...

[youtube]la9i2np0WTU[/youtube]

How was he able to do this without $160K?

I disagree with the idea of allowing comments on youtube videos when you are getting troll attacks. Sakeesian is doing the correct thing by disabling comments for the simple reason that the story will turn from her stated objective (examination of sexist video game tropes) to a separate issue of a sexist comment backlash. In other words she seems to be doing exactly the opposite of what Watson would do - turn the whole thing into a question of poor her being attacked by evil sexists.

Good point. It also allows well reasoned rebuttals like the above to get the attention they deserve.

Disagree. She made a point to disable comments and ratings on all her videos, so why not the Kickstarter one? So she should get the pity party a la Watson. She is just as dishonest and just as slimy. Besides, if she's acting as if she's doing it in 'good faith', then why not converse and discuss with the people who don't agree with her and maybe come to a common ground?

Probably because she doesn't want to. Probably because it was a calculated decision and people would see the comments and "WHY IS THIS WOMAN RECEIVING THIS ABUSE?" and she highlighted the comments on her Kickstarter for extra victim points. Which for a professional victim was PERFECT, it was a genius strategy and it paid off. Almost $160K and all she had to do was show people she was a woman and making a video (supposedly) about sexism in videogames. Profit. And they say us 'men' have privilege. (That's a joke, by the way. I realise women don't have it easy peasy, but you guys probably get what I mean so this is just redundant. Oh well.)

Anyway, noticing that the page is slowing down, so maybe a new thread is in order?

I'm also going to go ahead and say that I didn't mind Sarkeesian disabling comments. She knows that a good chunk of Youtube commentariat is not going to agree with her the fundamental premise upon which her videos are predicated; this isn't news and she isn't trying to cover anything up. She wants to have a more advanced discussion without people questioning her fundamental assumptions, in this context. Fair enough, as far as I'm concerned.

Also, by blocking all the comments, she isn't selectively picking out the most hateful trolls to strawman her opposition, while screening out legitimate criticism. Really, that right there is the core piece of bullshit upon which Watson operates.

(Yeah, she did that a little last year, but at least she's not doing it now. I know, that's not a ringing endorsement, but... I dunno, maybe my standards have just been lowered by Watson's incessant dishonesty.)

AbsurdWalls wrote:
[youtube]XLKQGwVkczg[/youtube]

I find this debate tricky. I'm still not sure which side I come down on (though as a person I infinitely prefer Hitchens to Galloway). Fortunately the question of whether it was right to go to war in Iraq is no longer a useful one to answer.

Humans go to war over resources. Oil is the resource by which we enjoy our quality of life and stability. I never understand when people don't think our quality of life, our civilization, isn't worth fighting for. But I'd hazard a guess it's probably the same people now having hissy fits about austerity cuts, protesting that they unacceptably affect our civilization and quality of life.

[quote="Percentage"]I'm also going to go ahead and say that I didn't mind Sarkeesian disabling comments. She knows that a good chunk of Youtube commentariat is not going to agree with her the fundamental premise upon which her videos are predicated; this isn't news and she isn't trying to cover anything up. She wants to have a more advanced discussion without people questioning her fundamental assumptions, in this context. Fair enough, as far as I'm concerned.

Also, by blocking all the comments, she isn't selectively picking out the most hateful trolls to strawman her opposition, while screening out legitimate criticism. Really, that right there is the core piece of bullshit upon which Watson operates.

(Yeah, she did that a little last year, but at least she's not doing it now. I know, that's not a ringing endorsement, but... I dunno, maybe my standards have just been lowered by Watson's incessant dishonesty.)[/quote

The issue is that there are genuine reasons to disable and non genuine reasons. However SJW's traditionally hate any form of criticism or flaming so they tend to be on the censorious side. So even if her reasons are valid she can thank her friends in the SJW movements for making people think less of her for it.

It is the same reason I feel her videos have no value for me. Not that they may be bad but that I have no interest in listening to someone's opinion which is so heavily biased. I can't know if I'm getting the information I need to make an informed opinion.

It was the same issue with me and global warming, there was so much bias and heavy politicising I found people from both sides doing more damage to their cause than if they had calmed down a bit and gave rational arguments I could give credence to.

DGS wrote:

AbsurdWalls wrote:
[youtube]XLKQGwVkczg[/youtube]

I find this debate tricky. I'm still not sure which side I come down on (though as a person I infinitely prefer Hitchens to Galloway). Fortunately the question of whether it was right to go to war in Iraq is no longer a useful one to answer.

Humans go to war over resources. Oil is the resource by which we enjoy our quality of life and stability. I never understand when people don't think our quality of life, our civilization, isn't worth fighting for. But I'd hazard a guess it's probably the same people now having hissy fits about austerity cuts, protesting that they unacceptably affect our civilization and quality of life.

And the same people jetting across the Atlantic for a jolly.

DGS said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 582#p75582):

Humans go to war over resources. Oil is the resource by which we enjoy our quality of life and stability. I never understand when people don't think our quality of life, our civilization, isn't worth fighting for. But I'd hazard a guess it's probably the same people now having hissy fits about austerity cuts, protesting that they unacceptably affect our civilization and quality of life.

:shock:

I must say, that is one of the most spellbinding, mind-numbingly ignorant, as in lack of world awareness, social awareness, historical awareness, et al, statements I have ever seen posted on the pit.

Amazing.

John Greg wrote:DGS said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 582#p75582):

Humans go to war over resources. Oil is the resource by which we enjoy our quality of life and stability. I never understand when people don't think our quality of life, our civilization, isn't worth fighting for. But I'd hazard a guess it's probably the same people now having hissy fits about austerity cuts, protesting that they unacceptably affect our civilization and quality of life.

:shock:

I must say, that is one of the most spellbinding, mind-numbingly ignorant, as in lack of world awareness, social awareness, historical awareness, et al, statements I have ever seen posted on the pit.

Amazing.

I'm going to give her/him the benefit of the doubt and just assume that it was poorly stated until further clarification is provided. As stated, it takes a fair amount of unpacking to be coherent, though I can catch a glimmer of what she/he was driving at.

As far as Hitch was concerned, his defense of the war in Iraq (in particular) had to do with the brutal oppression of the Kurds and his opposition to their Fascist regime. I don't recall him stating anything about oil other than him saying that an oil pipeline in Afghanistan would be a very big step in the right direction for that country.

John Greg wrote:DGS said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 582#p75582):

Humans go to war over resources. Oil is the resource by which we enjoy our quality of life and stability. I never understand when people don't think our quality of life, our civilization, isn't worth fighting for. But I'd hazard a guess it's probably the same people now having hissy fits about austerity cuts, protesting that they unacceptably affect our civilization and quality of life.

:shock:

I must say, that is one of the most spellbinding, mind-numbingly ignorant, as in lack of world awareness, social awareness, historical awareness, et al, statements I have ever seen posted on the pit.

Amazing.

I would like you to expand a bit more on the above. It is pretty much accepted in certain circles that conflict over resources is a given. So from that point of view it is very easy to see the primary motivation for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was a means to acquire control over resources. For the former oil. For the latter an oil pipeline.

What did you think it was about?

John Brown wrote:

John Greg wrote:DGS said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 582#p75582):

Humans go to war over resources. Oil is the resource by which we enjoy our quality of life and stability. I never understand when people don't think our quality of life, our civilization, isn't worth fighting for. But I'd hazard a guess it's probably the same people now having hissy fits about austerity cuts, protesting that they unacceptably affect our civilization and quality of life.

:shock:

I must say, that is one of the most spellbinding, mind-numbingly ignorant, as in lack of world awareness, social awareness, historical awareness, et al, statements I have ever seen posted on the pit.

Amazing.

I'm going to give her/him the benefit of the doubt and just assume that it was poorly stated until further clarification is provided. As stated, it takes a fair amount of unpacking to be coherent, though I can catch a glimmer of what she/he was driving at.

As far as Hitch was concerned, his defense of the war in Iraq (in particular) had to do with the brutal oppression of the Kurds and his opposition to their Fascist regime. I don't recall him stating anything about oil other than him saying that an oil pipeline in Afghanistan would be a very big step in the right direction for that country.

I can't remember what Hitchens said about the people who were carrying the 'no war for oil' placards. There are many reasons for going to war. Many of which we won't be aware of. Many moral reasons. Many practical ones. Oil being one of them. The West depends on oil - developing worlds depend on oil. That's maybe not how some people think it ought to be, but that's the way it is (after Hume)

John Brown wrote:

John Greg wrote:DGS said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 582#p75582):

Humans go to war over resources. Oil is the resource by which we enjoy our quality of life and stability. I never understand when people don't think our quality of life, our civilization, isn't worth fighting for. But I'd hazard a guess it's probably the same people now having hissy fits about austerity cuts, protesting that they unacceptably affect our civilization and quality of life.

:shock:

I must say, that is one of the most spellbinding, mind-numbingly ignorant, as in lack of world awareness, social awareness, historical awareness, et al, statements I have ever seen posted on the pit.

Amazing.

I'm going to give her/him the benefit of the doubt and just assume that it was poorly stated until further clarification is provided. As stated, it takes a fair amount of unpacking to be coherent, though I can catch a glimmer of what she/he was driving at.

As far as Hitch was concerned, his defense of the war in Iraq (in particular) had to do with the brutal oppression of the Kurds and his opposition to their Fascist regime. I don't recall him stating anything about oil other than him saying that an oil pipeline in Afghanistan would be a very big step in the right direction for that country.

Oil is one of the reasons the wars occurred. Or more importantly, attempts to maintain stability. The same people that are anti-war as they see them as pure oil wars are the same people happy to exploit the situation by taking advantage of that stability, as reflected in oil and commodity prices. They will happily drive their SUV's to the nearest anti-war protest or fly to conferences in Ireland.

There is double standards here. The same people who are Anti-war for oil reasons should not be against cuts due to oil shortages.

Of course that is very simplistic.

John Brown wrote:
I'm going to give her/him the benefit of the doubt

Her/him? Do I look like a her/him?! Is it the eyebrows?

DGS wrote:

John Brown wrote:

John Greg wrote:DGS said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 582#p75582):

Humans go to war over resources. Oil is the resource by which we enjoy our quality of life and stability. I never understand when people don't think our quality of life, our civilization, isn't worth fighting for. But I'd hazard a guess it's probably the same people now having hissy fits about austerity cuts, protesting that they unacceptably affect our civilization and quality of life.

:shock:

I must say, that is one of the most spellbinding, mind-numbingly ignorant, as in lack of world awareness, social awareness, historical awareness, et al, statements I have ever seen posted on the pit.

Amazing.

I'm going to give her/him the benefit of the doubt and just assume that it was poorly stated until further clarification is provided. As stated, it takes a fair amount of unpacking to be coherent, though I can catch a glimmer of what she/he was driving at.

As far as Hitch was concerned, his defense of the war in Iraq (in particular) had to do with the brutal oppression of the Kurds and his opposition to their Fascist regime. I don't recall him stating anything about oil other than him saying that an oil pipeline in Afghanistan would be a very big step in the right direction for that country.

I can't remember what Hitchens said about the people who were carrying the 'no war for oil' placards. There are many reasons for going to war. Many of which we won't be aware of. Many moral reasons. Many practical ones. Oil being one of them. The West depends on oil - developing worlds depend on oil. That's maybe not how some people think it ought to be, but that's the way it is (after Hume)

People also depend on land to support their way of life. Who could blame some country for going to war just to get a little extra 'living room', eh?

Wonderist wrote:

DGS wrote:

John Brown wrote:

John Greg wrote:DGS said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 582#p75582):

Humans go to war over resources. Oil is the resource by which we enjoy our quality of life and stability. I never understand when people don't think our quality of life, our civilization, isn't worth fighting for. But I'd hazard a guess it's probably the same people now having hissy fits about austerity cuts, protesting that they unacceptably affect our civilization and quality of life.

:shock:

I must say, that is one of the most spellbinding, mind-numbingly ignorant, as in lack of world awareness, social awareness, historical awareness, et al, statements I have ever seen posted on the pit.

Amazing.

I'm going to give her/him the benefit of the doubt and just assume that it was poorly stated until further clarification is provided. As stated, it takes a fair amount of unpacking to be coherent, though I can catch a glimmer of what she/he was driving at.

As far as Hitch was concerned, his defense of the war in Iraq (in particular) had to do with the brutal oppression of the Kurds and his opposition to their Fascist regime. I don't recall him stating anything about oil other than him saying that an oil pipeline in Afghanistan would be a very big step in the right direction for that country.

I can't remember what Hitchens said about the people who were carrying the 'no war for oil' placards. There are many reasons for going to war. Many of which we won't be aware of. Many moral reasons. Many practical ones. Oil being one of them. The West depends on oil - developing worlds depend on oil. That's maybe not how some people think it ought to be, but that's the way it is (after Hume)

People also depend on land to support their way of life. Who could blame some country for going to war just to get a little extra 'living room', eh?

That's silly.

Wonderist wrote: People also depend on land to support their way of life. Who could blame some country for going to war just to get a little extra 'living room', eh?

I don't get it

Wonderist wrote: People also depend on land to support their way of life. Who could blame some country for going to war just to get a little extra 'living room', eh?

You mean like annexing Austria?

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

TheMan wrote:

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Some fan had this tatoo made:
I won't comment about the artistic quality (ok, I find it quite tasteless), but it's still cool to see somebody commit my band to their body. Maybe not the best of ideas, since my next album may be crappy, but cool anyway.

And hope the person isn't an Aplusser. Imagine the outrage should the person learnt you're a pitter.

Mmmmm, I hadn't thought of that. Nah, just kidding. I've publicly advertized my views and my belonging to the Pit on my personnal and band pages before. It shoudln't come as a surprise to anyone in my audience.

Interestingly enough, I didn't get any backlash from anyone. I guess my audience and FTB/A+/Slymepit don't really overlap. Lots of atheist fans, but most, if not all, are not aware or do not care about the issues we are dealing with here. At best, I've had words of support with regard to Myers' Dungeon entry about me. Which is one of the reasons I don't feel the need to launch a libel suit against the prick.

Yesterday slymepitters disagreed with each other and now this! But Phil, what will Nugent et al think once they discover that your band is named "Fairyland". It completely ruins the MRA, masculine, evil image you guys have worked for so hard. On a side note, it's not exactly the (sub) genre of music I listen to, but I thought it pretty good :)

DGS wrote:

John Brown wrote:
I'm going to give her/him the benefit of the doubt

Her/him? Do I look like a her/him?! Is it the eyebrows?

Hey, it's the internet.
If you look at Lsuoma xe looks like a she, but frequently refers to himself as male gendered. And then there is all the interim genders to consider...

DGS wrote:

John Brown wrote:
I'm going to give her/him the benefit of the doubt

Her/him? Do I look like a her/him?! Is it the eyebrows?

I've made assumptions based on avatar pictures before. It did not go well for me.

free thoughtpolice wrote:

DGS wrote:

John Brown wrote:
I'm going to give her/him the benefit of the doubt

Her/him? Do I look like a her/him?! Is it the eyebrows?

Hey, it's the internet.
If you look at Lsuoma xe looks like a she, but frequently refers to himself as male gendered. And then there is all the interim genders to consider...

And they seem to change it daily depending on their mood.

Jack wrote:

Wonderist wrote:

DGS wrote:I can't remember what Hitchens said about the people who were carrying the 'no war for oil' placards. There are many reasons for going to war. Many of which we won't be aware of. Many moral reasons. Many practical ones. Oil being one of them. The West depends on oil - developing worlds depend on oil. That's maybe not how some people think it ought to be, but that's the way it is (after Hume)

People also depend on land to support their way of life. Who could blame some country for going to war just to get a little extra 'living room', eh?

That's silly.

I agree.

free thoughtpolice wrote:

DGS wrote:

John Brown wrote:
I'm going to give her/him the benefit of the doubt

Her/him? Do I look like a her/him?! Is it the eyebrows?

Hey, it's the internet.
If you look at Lsuoma xe looks like a she, but frequently refers to himself as male gendered. And then there is all the interim genders to consider...

Oh god. We don't have to do the 'cis' gender thing over here, do we?

DGS wrote:

Wonderist wrote: People also depend on land to support their way of life. Who could blame some country for going to war just to get a little extra 'living room', eh?

You mean like annexing Austria?

Poland is nice this time of year.

However SJW's traditionally hate any form of criticism or flaming so they tend to be on the censorious side.

Agreed. The rise of anti-feminist/anti-SJW sentiment on sites like Reddit is no coincidence; it's a result of a pattern of increasingly childish, obnoxious, repulsive behavior from a this cohort of sedentary keyboard warriors. They're like a fungus. There are communities on Tumblr and blogs on Wordpress that make FfTB look downright conservative.

Not all feminists and/or social activists are like this, obviously. I've always questioned some of the tenets of "internet feminism", which I'd say has had a significant web presence since the early 00s... but I've respected sites like Feministing as legitimate points of view, with a lot of good to say. However, since around 2008-2009, the community has been mutating into this hysterical clusterfuck, characterized by groupthink and driven by emotionalism (bringing up facts and trying to be objective is, of course, dismissed as tone trolling).

One reason anti-feminism seems especially virulent on the Internet is simply that feminism is the main hobbyhorse for these SJW assholes, with everything else secondary. Mostly I think this is because the majority of SJWs are twentysomething upper-middle-class white women, and so naturally they center themselves in the "struggle".

I'm not a fan of the MRAs/"the manosphere"/PUA culture, but I can certainly see how someone could be driven to sympathize with them after getting a look at that particular shitpile.

DGS wrote: I can't remember what Hitchens said about the people who were carrying the 'no war for oil' placards. There are many reasons for going to war. Many of which we won't be aware of. Many moral reasons. Many practical ones. Oil being one of them. The West depends on oil - developing worlds depend on oil. That's maybe not how some people think it ought to be, but that's the way it is (after Hume)

Sure, but that doesn't mean war is a good way of getting at the oil - especially under the guise of "liberation" or "regime change", since the new regime may just as well sell their oil to China or some other emerging power instead...

windy wrote:

DGS wrote: I can't remember what Hitchens said about the people who were carrying the 'no war for oil' placards. There are many reasons for going to war. Many of which we won't be aware of. Many moral reasons. Many practical ones. Oil being one of them. The West depends on oil - developing worlds depend on oil. That's maybe not how some people think it ought to be, but that's the way it is (after Hume)

Sure, but that doesn't mean war is a good way of getting at the oil - especially under the guise of "liberation" or "regime change", since the new regime may just as well sell their oil to China or some other emerging power instead...

I didn't say it was "good". Now your committing Moore's naturalistic fallacy!

Wonderist wrote:

Jack wrote:

Wonderist wrote:

DGS wrote:I can't remember what Hitchens said about the people who were carrying the 'no war for oil' placards. There are many reasons for going to war. Many of which we won't be aware of. Many moral reasons. Many practical ones. Oil being one of them. The West depends on oil - developing worlds depend on oil. That's maybe not how some people think it ought to be, but that's the way it is (after Hume)

People also depend on land to support their way of life. Who could blame some country for going to war just to get a little extra 'living room', eh?

That's silly.

I agree.

Lebensraum! Manifest Destiny! Greater East Asia Co-Prospertity Sphere!

Yea, silly. Who would ever give credence to such a concept, much less implement it ....

DGS wrote:

windy wrote:

DGS wrote: I can't remember what Hitchens said about the people who were carrying the 'no war for oil' placards. There are many reasons for going to war. Many of which we won't be aware of. Many moral reasons. Many practical ones. Oil being one of them. The West depends on oil - developing worlds depend on oil. That's maybe not how some people think it ought to be, but that's the way it is (after Hume)

Sure, but that doesn't mean war is a good way of getting at the oil - especially under the guise of "liberation" or "regime change", since the new regime may just as well sell their oil to China or some other emerging power instead...

I didn't say it was "good". Now your committing Moore's naturalistic fallacy!

You didn't? What's this then?:

Humans go to war over resources. Oil is the resource by which we enjoy our quality of life and stability. I never understand when people don't think our quality of life, our civilization, isn't worth fighting for.

Is this not saying that going to war to preserve one's way of life is 'worth fighting for'? If not, then what is it saying?

DGS wrote:

free thoughtpolice wrote:

DGS wrote:

John Brown wrote:
I'm going to give her/him the benefit of the doubt

Her/him? Do I look like a her/him?! Is it the eyebrows?

Hey, it's the internet.
If you look at Lsuoma xe looks like a she, but frequently refers to himself as male gendered. And then there is all the interim genders to consider...

Oh god. We don't have to do the 'cis' gender thing over here, do we?

More like the 'xis' gender thing, eh eh? Wink wink, nudge nudge? (It's a Nerd reference.)

I hope not. Hopefully free is just being a silly sod.

windy wrote:

DGS wrote: I can't remember what Hitchens said about the people who were carrying the 'no war for oil' placards. There are many reasons for going to war. Many of which we won't be aware of. Many moral reasons. Many practical ones. Oil being one of them. The West depends on oil - developing worlds depend on oil. That's maybe not how some people think it ought to be, but that's the way it is (after Hume)

Sure, but that doesn't mean war is a good way of getting at the oil - especially under the guise of "liberation" or "regime change", since the new regime may just as well sell their oil to China or some other emerging power instead...

Yeah, but you know what would be a really shitty way of getting at the oil. Fighting a war for it, holding an auction for the right to exploit the oil-fields, and allowing non-coalition companies to bid.

Pitchguest wrote:
More like the 'xis' gender thing, eh eh? Wink wink, nudge nudge? (It's a Nerd reference.)

Shite! I appear to be not nerdy enough!!

In other news, Ophelia's just taking the piss now.

cunt wrote:

windy wrote:

DGS wrote: I can't remember what Hitchens said about the people who were carrying the 'no war for oil' placards. There are many reasons for going to war. Many of which we won't be aware of. Many moral reasons. Many practical ones. Oil being one of them. The West depends on oil - developing worlds depend on oil. That's maybe not how some people think it ought to be, but that's the way it is (after Hume)

Sure, but that doesn't mean war is a good way of getting at the oil - especially under the guise of "liberation" or "regime change", since the new regime may just as well sell their oil to China or some other emerging power instead...

Yeah, but you know what would be a really shitty way of getting at the oil. Fighting a war for it, holding an auction for the right to exploit the oil-fields, and allowing non-coalition companies to bid.

Even worse, making up a cover story about WMDs to justify it to a gullible public. And acting unilaterally outside of UN approval. And then using the war to justify one's reelection (can't switch horses midstream, right?).

Maybe this is the start of the great SJW righteous charge on us infidels. They have turned peoples minds already. Run for the hills!!!!!!!

cunt wrote:
Yeah, but you know what would be a really shitty way of getting at the oil. Fighting a war for it, holding an auction for the right to exploit the oil-fields, and allowing non-coalition companies to bid.

People have fought wars for lesser things than oil. War stinks!. That's because humans can be pretty shitty sometimes.

DGS wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:
More like the 'xis' gender thing, eh eh? Wink wink, nudge nudge? (It's a Nerd reference.)

Shite! I appear to be not nerdy enough!!

viewtopic.php?p=75027#p75027

OK, I'll unpack.

Humans go to war over resources.

I agree, this is often, though certainly not solely and always the cause of war. There are also ideological, religious, political, territorial, and other critical issues involved that always play some part or other in war. So, that statement is too simplistic.

Oil is the resource by which we enjoy our quality of life and stability.

Oil is one of the means, and probably the primary one, by which we maintain, what is in the Western world, an undeniabley privileged (yes, I used the dreaded word, but I think in an appropriate and accurate context) and profoundly wasteful, selfsh lifestyle. North America alone uses more resources on an annual basis to maintain its leisure lifestyle than more than the rest of the world combined. And most of that goes to pleasure and profit, not need. And "stability"? What fucking stability? Blinders much?

I never understand when people don't think our quality of life, our civilization, isn't worth fighting for.

I read that as, for example:

Advocate: So, you think it's OK that 100,000, primarily innocent, civilians were killed in Iraq so that you can keep your big screen TV, have your bevvy of choice on demand, and ensure pizza delivery every Friday night?

DGS: Ya, sure ... I mean, it's pity all those civvies had some troubles, but fuck, man, this is my civilization, and I'm entitled to my vids, bevvies, and pizza. I mean fuck 'em. If they want to live in the third world and be poor, that's their problem; not mine.

But I'd hazard a guess it's probably the same people now having hissy fits about austerity cuts, protesting that they unacceptably affect our civilization and quality of life.

I, and no one within my cultural circle, has ever had "hissy fits" about austerity cuts when they are legitimate cuts to benefit social services, and not cuts specifically designed to benefit the already wealthy.

If I have misrepresented DGS's position, OK, then I retract. But if that's the case, perhaps DGS could clarify.

Jack wrote: The issue is that there are genuine reasons to disable and non genuine reasons. However SJW's traditionally hate any form of criticism or flaming so they tend to be on the censorious side. So even if her reasons are valid she can thank her friends in the SJW movements for making people think less of her for it.

Found this via James Onen's FB-
Ironic Effects of Anti-Prejudice Messages

The authors conducted two experiments which looked at the effect of two different types of motivational intervention -- a controlled form (telling people what they should do) and a more personal form (explaining why being non-prejudiced is enjoyable and personally valuable).

In experiment one; participants were randomly assigned one of two brochures to read: an autonomy brochure or a controlling brochure. These brochures discussed a new campus initiative to reduce prejudice. A third group was offered no motivational instructions to reduce prejudice. The authors found that, ironically, those who read the controlling brochure later demonstrated more prejudice than those who had not been urged to reduce prejudice. Those who read the brochure designed to support personal motivation showed less prejudice than those in the other two groups.
[...]
The authors suggest that when interventions eliminate people's freedom to value diversity on their own terms, they may actually be creating hostility toward the targets of prejudice.

cunt wrote:

windy wrote:

DGS wrote: I can't remember what Hitchens said about the people who were carrying the 'no war for oil' placards. There are many reasons for going to war. Many of which we won't be aware of. Many moral reasons. Many practical ones. Oil being one of them. The West depends on oil - developing worlds depend on oil. That's maybe not how some people think it ought to be, but that's the way it is (after Hume)

Sure, but that doesn't mean war is a good way of getting at the oil - especially under the guise of "liberation" or "regime change", since the new regime may just as well sell their oil to China or some other emerging power instead...

Yeah, but you know what would be a really shitty way of getting at the oil. Fighting a war for it, holding an auction for the right to exploit the oil-fields, and allowing non-coalition companies to bid.

Yea. Who would do such a morally reprehensible thing? ....

But I'd hazard a guess it's probably the same people now having hissy fits about austerity cuts, protesting that they unacceptably affect our civilization and quality of life.

Does pointing out that Georgie Boys plan isn't working qualify as a hissy fit?

Wonderist wrote:

DGS wrote:

Wonderist wrote: People also depend on land to support their way of life. Who could blame some country for going to war just to get a little extra 'living room', eh?

You mean like annexing Austria?

Poland is nice this time of year.

Actually, it's brass monkeys right now. Ali's parents woke up to -8°C and snow.

DGS wrote:

cunt wrote:
Yeah, but you know what would be a really shitty way of getting at the oil. Fighting a war for it, holding an auction for the right to exploit the oil-fields, and allowing non-coalition companies to bid.

People have fought wars for lesser things than oil. War stinks!. That's because humans can be pretty shitty sometimes.

Since we're naming fallacies that ones a non-sequitur.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:

Wonderist wrote:

DGS wrote:

Wonderist wrote: People also depend on land to support their way of life. Who could blame some country for going to war just to get a little extra 'living room', eh?

You mean like annexing Austria?

Poland is nice this time of year.

Actually, it's brass monkeys right now. Ali's parents woke up to -8°C and snow.

It snowed in London a few days back. In Aus they are in a heat wave. Not fair this earth tilt thing, god really messed up there.

Although ConcentratedH20, it seems the "xis" thing on FtB has occured more than once, and not just from teh Nerd.

For example,

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-403584

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-506359

Here's one where Nerd does the *FLOOSH* thing: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-549779

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-353704

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ment-80689

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-506279

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-508620

And Nerd again, with the 'xis' on a seperate occasion:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-510044

What is the point of having gender neutral pronouns if you're going to make up a pronoun where you obviously imply the person is a man? 'Xe' I get, he and she, 'xir' is borderline because of the blending of his and her', but 'xis'? If you're going to act all politically correct, then at least don't make yourself look more like an idiot.

cunt wrote:

DGS wrote:

cunt wrote:
Yeah, but you know what would be a really shitty way of getting at the oil. Fighting a war for it, holding an auction for the right to exploit the oil-fields, and allowing non-coalition companies to bid.

People have fought wars for lesser things than oil. War stinks!. That's because humans can be pretty shitty sometimes.

Since we're naming fallacies that ones a non-sequitur.

I think all fallacies are a non-sequitur of a certain form. I thought I'd say that before Steersman did a monograph on it.

Don't attempt to cock-block steersman.

DGS wrote:

windy wrote:

DGS wrote: I can't remember what Hitchens said about the people who were carrying the 'no war for oil' placards. There are many reasons for going to war. Many of which we won't be aware of. Many moral reasons. Many practical ones. Oil being one of them. The West depends on oil - developing worlds depend on oil. That's maybe not how some people think it ought to be, but that's the way it is (after Hume)

Sure, but that doesn't mean war is a good way of getting at the oil - especially under the guise of "liberation" or "regime change", since the new regime may just as well sell their oil to China or some other emerging power instead...

I didn't say it was "good". Now your committing Moore's naturalistic fallacy!

Not at all, I was talking about good as in practical, efficient ... as in "Using a screwdriver is not a good way of driving nails into wood"

You didn't explicitly say it was, but your comment does imply that wars for oil accomplish this goal: "I never understand when people don't think our quality of life, our civilization, isn't worth fighting for."

Jack wrote:

cunt wrote:

DGS wrote:

cunt wrote:
Yeah, but you know what would be a really shitty way of getting at the oil. Fighting a war for it, holding an auction for the right to exploit the oil-fields, and allowing non-coalition companies to bid.

People have fought wars for lesser things than oil. War stinks!. That's because humans can be pretty shitty sometimes.

Since we're naming fallacies that ones a non-sequitur.

I think all fallacies are a non-sequitur of a certain form. I thought I'd say that before Steersman did a monograph on it.

If anyone says citation needed (and I can see steers is online even as I type this) I am personally going to LMAO if he responds.

I don't really want to engage in that Iraq War thingy. All I know is Hitchens defended his position by trying to shed a light on the Kurd situation there. And in this regard, I agree with his stance. No more, no less.

France didn't join the coalition, which earned us a good deal of hate from American conservatives (freedom fries and all that shit). The reasons underlying this decision are multiple, from Chirac's affinities with Hussein's regime, to fears of riots by the quite large Frenco-Arab population.

So, I would say, none of my business...

Actually I think steersman is the type of person who knows that you can have a pure non-sequitur and that its a logical fallacy in its own right. Wars have been fought for much less than oil throughout history is an undeniably true statement but it does not follow that the iraq war was fought for oil.