::hangs head in shame::BlueShiftRhino wrote:Did anyone else read this in Dora the Explorer's voice a la "Swiper stop swiping"? No? Then NVM.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Graders stop grading!
yes.
::hangs head in shame::BlueShiftRhino wrote:Did anyone else read this in Dora the Explorer's voice a la "Swiper stop swiping"? No? Then NVM.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Graders stop grading!
I'm getting closer to calling it. :think:BlueShiftRhino wrote:I see anger, a strawman based on Mike Tyson (who is black, by the way :P ), some insults, and that's about it. If there was anything close to actual reasoned argument in there, I missed it. My bad, I'm sure. Care to try again?
I'm starting the think that Aneris' scolding (RE spamming up Nugent's blog) was even more prescient. We boasted of how open the 'Pit is and how no-one gets banned, etc. We're being tested.sinister wrote:I'm getting closer to calling it. :think:
Touché, counselor. :lol:BlueShiftRhino wrote:Objection! It is NOT established that the cigar party was a TAM event.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:It's also important we set aside what we suspect really happened when analyzing the legal ramifications. For, as of this moment, we have two current senior staff of JREF publicly stating that: 1) a TAM vendor did rape a TAM employee during a TAM; 2) that rape was reported to senior JREF personel; 3) JREF nevertheless chose to hire said vendor to appear at numerous future TAMs.
(I'm sure if you even need this for your argument, but you definitely don't want to include something that hasn't been demonstrated in your givens.)
Good points, though as you suggested, that so few are apparently familiar with the basic terms and concepts of statistics, and their implications, tends to preclude much in the way of a "good discussion" on those topics. Both Harris & Pinker have used the analogy with heights to some effect - as I've argued over on Nugent's blog - but many of the usual suspects - Benson & Lee in particular - seem to be too narrow-minded and pigheaded to consider those.BlueShiftRhino wrote:Steersman -
IMO, a good discussion of racism, sexism, and stereotypes must include more than just the mean. Some of the best work on the differences between men and women, for example, is that which centers on the oft-found difference in variance, as well as or instead of differences in the mean. .... It explains why, when you focus on the upper tail (e.g., greatest scientists), you find mostly males. Not because males are "better" on average, but because they have more variance so they have a longer upper tail to the distribution.
tl;dr - shitlords can claim that the patriarchy is adaptive
My one, only and final comment is :popcorn:BlueShiftRhino wrote:I'm starting the think that Aneris' scolding (RE spamming up Nugent's blog) was even more prescient. We boasted of how open the 'Pit is and how no-one gets banned, etc. We're being tested.sinister wrote:I'm getting closer to calling it. :think:
I am glad to have been exposed to this point of view, and appreciate the time you took to express it.UncaYimmy wrote: Do you even read the shit you write? It's patently obvious you're talking out your ass. Maybe you're used to people not calling you on your bullshit.
I wrote a comment that is presently in moderation and as it is not likely to get through I'll post it here.Brive1987 wrote:Lousy has the worst info graphic with the lamest sledgehammer message.
On behalf of PowerPoint Id like to apologise. Garbage in ...
http://i.imgur.com/jKwkA4B.jpg
Well I guess that flowchart doesn't apply to you as you are not a powerful atheist leader but it must apply at least apply to PZ.
All of the horde, being the brainwashed dimwits they are immediately went to the left hand box , "the bitch is OBVIOUSLY making it up!", "There's no way our dear leader (PZ) would do anything like that".
Clearly, only a deluded fool would believe that PZ didn't assault that victim.
Oh, and that "trust but verify" option would classify me as a good feminist, even if I'm not as big a fan of Ronald Regan as you are.
Coming from the same hand that penned this beauty....UncaYimmy wrote:Do you even read the shit you write? It's patently obvious you're talking out your ass.
...you really shouldn't be throwing stones.UncaYimmy wrote:Again: It's not a matter of belief but of opinion as to whether the events constitute a crime or even antisocial behavior.
I'll tell ya Steers, if you wantSteersman wrote:In your opinion. Your own quote of the OED clearly refers to all as a defining characteristic of racism:JacquesCuze wrote:Go to sleep and in your dreams think on the errors of your ways, because racist statements do not have to apply to every member of a class, they are beliefs about the class in general allowing for exceptions.Steersman wrote:[.quote="JacquesCuze"]You don't have to say all X are Y to make a *ist statement.[./quote]
That does seem to be the definition: a categorical claim about all of a group. ....You may wish to take up that argument with the editors of the OED, and those of many other dictionaries – you may run into PZ attempting to do the same thing with “atheismâ€.JacquesCuze wrote:Explore
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... ish/racismThat's not saying all Blacks make excellent basketball players. It's saying that the aggregate race of Blacks are better basketball players than whites.The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.Yes, it is a group thing. But I think you’re conflating entire groups with subsections of them - a fairly common but quite problematic tendency. There is maybe some justification for throwing stones at Rebecca Watson & company for trying to tar all “women against feminism†with a narrow brush – i.e., “stupid†– but that doesn’t, in itself, make what she’s doing sexist.JacquesCuze wrote:It's a group thing Steers.
This is a poorly phrased (and somewhat circular) description of how members of a race are defined by being different from other races.The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
That's a fucking laugh.Trust but Verify
This is a video of Yemmi doing a poetry slam, right?Parody Accountant wrote:HOLY FUCK. HAHAHAHAHAHA
[youtube]GGqPlYrrtKU[/youtube]
Watch for at least a minute or two. I couldn't make it very long myself... I just feel embarrassed for her.
Jeff Wagg became at least partially responsible, by being dragged into this by Mz. Smith. Yeah, Mz. Smith could (and in my opinion SHOULD) have reported it for herself. Instead she chose to share it with Wagg. Failure to report the accusation of rape to the "proper authorities" made Wagg an accomplice. She made a bad decision, he made a bad and apparently Shermer also made a bad decision in sleeping with Mz Smith. But now Mz. Smith & Mr. Wagg want their bad decisions to retroactively ding Shermer for them not reporting it when it occurred. This isn't even remotely reasonable from my point of view.UncaYimmy wrote:[insert "It's Not Jeff Wagg's Fault Rant]sinister wrote:I'm pretty sure that if an employee tells you they were raped, you don't get to choose to believe it or not when deciding to report.
Aww man, you left out the mom's basement bit. That was the most exciting part!Opyt wrote:Jeff Wagg became at least partially responsible, by being dragged into this by Mz. Smith. Yeah, Mz. Smith could (and in my opinion SHOULD) have reported it for herself. Instead she chose to share it with Wagg. Failure to report the accusation of rape to the "proper authorities" made Wagg an accomplice. She made a bad decision, he made a bad and apparently Shermer also made a bad decision in sleeping with Mz Smith. But now Mz. Smith & Mr. Wagg want their bad decisions to retroactively ding Shermer for them not reporting it when it occurred. This isn't even remotely reasonable from my point of view.UncaYimmy wrote:[insert "It's Not Jeff Wagg's Fault Rant]sinister wrote:I'm pretty sure that if an employee tells you they were raped, you don't get to choose to believe it or not when deciding to report.
In fact, from my point of view it's sending up more red flags. All I'm seeing is that some people can't handle their own bad decisions while others can.
Seems to me there's an implicit qualifier - i.e., all - in front of most if not all of those statements, e.g., "all good lawyers are Jews", "all Jews control the banks". If the implicit qualifier were "some" then it would hardly be an issue, would it? But you might pay some attention to the concept of qualifiers, elucidated here for example:JacquesCuze wrote:I'll tell ya Steers, if you wantSteersman wrote:In your opinion. Your own quote of the OED clearly refers to all as a defining characteristic of racism ....JacquesCuze wrote: <snip>
Go to sleep and in your dreams think on the errors of your ways, because racist statements do not have to apply to every member of a class, they are beliefs about the class in general allowing for exceptions.
<snip>
You may wish to take up that argument with the editors of the OED, and those of many other dictionaries – you may run into PZ attempting to do the same thing with “atheismâ€. ....
+ a good lawyer, get a Jew
....
And don't trust the media, because
+ Jews control the banks
....
None of those Steers, are racist statements, or rather, all of them are, even though none of them describe ALL Jews.
....
I haven't actually seen that point - an implicit "all" in the absence of specific qualfiers denoting portions - addressed anywhere yet, but it seems quite plausible to me. You're going to have to get down to brass tacks and provide solid evidence if you want to convince me otherwise."Lots" and "plenty" are also quantifiers, as they both describe the quantity of the noun in the sentence. The terms "lots" or "lots of" both imply a quantity of more than one, while the terms "plenty" and "plenty of" imply enough and more.
You can't tell the difference between anger and contempt? Sigh...BlueShiftRhino wrote:I see anger, a strawman based on Mike Tyson (who is black, by the way :P ), some insults, and that's about it. If there was anything close to actual reasoned argument in there, I missed it. My bad, I'm sure. Care to try again?
Challenge accepted.Parody Accountant wrote:paddybrown wrote: Anybody prepared to admit to fantasising about Elsie the Mofo? Or Melody?
I would argue that if Wagg didn't think it was a crime it wasn't a moral duty, which is where the CREDIBILITY DOES MATTER argument comes in. If he thought it was credible at the time, then he had a moral duty to report it. If he didn't think it was credible at the time, then what factors have changed between now and then, to make it credible?
If anyone in my office told me they where sexually assaulted by a coworker I would call the police immediately. End of story. I wouldn't even ask them if they wanted me to call the police. I would just do it. How could I even consider another choice????Za-zen wrote:I must live under another planetary jurisdiction. Because where I come from alleged rape is not equivalent to someone in the office next door you are accusing of taking your stapler without permission, and as such, is not a matter of internal disciplinary procedures.
Where I come from alleged rape gets kicked straight to the police, do not pass head office, because head office has fuck all to do with the adjudication in criminal matters.
What an absolute truckload of horseshit. Did Smith accuse Shermer of anything via the only substantive process we have of determining legality from illegality? The court system. Did she fuck! I wonder, oh I wonder, why the fuck she didn't. Actually I don't wonder.
cf. The best boxers are black.JacquesCuze wrote:Blacks make the best boxers.
Wow. The lack of critical thinking her is astounding. Any "it" Wagg could be "faulted" for assumes as truth the very thing in question.Opyt wrote:Jeff Wagg became at least partially responsible, by being dragged into this by Mz. Smith. Yeah, Mz. Smith could (and in my opinion SHOULD) have reported it for herself. Instead she chose to share it with Wagg. Failure to report the accusation of rape to the "proper authorities" made Wagg an accomplice. She made a bad decision, he made a bad and apparently Shermer also made a bad decision in sleeping with Mz Smith. But now Mz. Smith & Mr. Wagg want their bad decisions to retroactively ding Shermer for them not reporting it when it occurred. This isn't even remotely reasonable from my point of view.UncaYimmy wrote:[insert "It's Not Jeff Wagg's Fault Rant]sinister wrote:I'm pretty sure that if an employee tells you they were raped, you don't get to choose to believe it or not when deciding to report.
In fact, from my point of view it's sending up more red flags. All I'm seeing is that some people can't handle their own bad decisions while others can.
That's a bit too SJL for me, plus it seems to require stereotypes and that there be one target at a time. I define racism/sexism as taking ethnicity/sex into account when it is irrelevant. My definition allows for relevant information to be used without being racist/sexist and it draws attention to this by the wording.JacquesCuze wrote:Racism is projecting a group stereotype onto specific people, ignoring the unique individualness of those people.
Racism is comparing two groups based on stereotypes of those groups.
I wouldn't let them leave my office until the cops had arrived, regardless of protestations, if you tell me someone has committed a serious criminal act against your person, I'm lifting the phone to the police before you finish your sentence.John D wrote:If anyone in my office told me they where sexually assaulted by a coworker I would call the police immediately. End of story. I wouldn't even ask them if they wanted me to call the police. I would just do it. How could I even consider another choice????Za-zen wrote:I must live under another planetary jurisdiction. Because where I come from alleged rape is not equivalent to someone in the office next door you are accusing of taking your stapler without permission, and as such, is not a matter of internal disciplinary procedures.
Where I come from alleged rape gets kicked straight to the police, do not pass head office, because head office has fuck all to do with the adjudication in criminal matters.
What an absolute truckload of horseshit. Did Smith accuse Shermer of anything via the only substantive process we have of determining legality from illegality? The court system. Did she fuck! I wonder, oh I wonder, why the fuck she didn't. Actually I don't wonder.
First Pit LOL of the day, thanks.Parody Accountant wrote:
My feelings now at 1:09JayTeeAitch wrote:Challenge accepted.Parody Accountant wrote:paddybrown wrote: Anybody prepared to admit to fantasising about Elsie the Mofo? Or Melody?
Yeah, something similar: viewtopic.php?p=159947#p159947Jan Steen wrote:Ogvorbis discovers that Cainaji has changed her nym again:
http://i.imgur.com/uosw1ZW.jpg
I can't be bothered to look it up, but I remember that he wrote something very similar after she flounced as Caine and came back as Inaji.
There is something fishy about this, although I can't quite lay my finger on it. It seems unlikely that Oggie is a sockpuppet of Cainajiyeska, but it seems equally unlikely that Oggie is genuinely confused in the same way twice. Are these two playing some kind of game?
freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09 ... erdome-54/
he is calling it rape. There now go shout at the mirror.UncaYimmy wrote:Wow. The lack of critical thinking her is astounding. Any "it" Wagg could be "faulted" for assumes as truth the very thing in question.Opyt wrote:Jeff Wagg became at least partially responsible, by being dragged into this by Mz. Smith. Yeah, Mz. Smith could (and in my opinion SHOULD) have reported it for herself. Instead she chose to share it with Wagg. Failure to report the accusation of rape to the "proper authorities" made Wagg an accomplice. She made a bad decision, he made a bad and apparently Shermer also made a bad decision in sleeping with Mz Smith. But now Mz. Smith & Mr. Wagg want their bad decisions to retroactively ding Shermer for them not reporting it when it occurred. This isn't even remotely reasonable from my point of view.UncaYimmy wrote: [insert "It's Not Jeff Wagg's Fault Rant]
In fact, from my point of view it's sending up more red flags. All I'm seeing is that some people can't handle their own bad decisions while others can.
There was no legal rape. It was drunken consensual sex.
She can call it rape if she wants, but if you call a dog's tail a leg, he still only has four legs.
And I believe what you're trying to call Wagg is an accessory after the fact, not an accomplice. Of course, you'd be wrong about that, too, but at least it's less wrong.
Slow down, Hoss. He can only be an accomplice if what she did was criminal. It wasn't - at least, I don't see any possible crime.Opyt wrote:Failure to report the accusation of rape to the "proper authorities" made Wagg an accomplice.
There are states with mandatory reporting of certain crimes. In Texas, you must report any felony, for example.
I think it fits the definition the ADL was getting at and I tend to think it fits the definition most people use. I am somewhat surprised we are even having this conversation!BlueShiftRhino wrote:That's a bit too SJL for me, plus it seems to require stereotypes and that there be one target at a time. I define racism/sexism as taking ethnicity/sex into account when it is irrelevant. My definition allows for relevant information to be used without being racist/sexist and it draws attention to this by the wording.JacquesCuze wrote:Racism is projecting a group stereotype onto specific people, ignoring the unique individualness of those people.
Racism is comparing two groups based on stereotypes of those groups.
You got it about face hoss, as I read it, what is being suggested to you, is that it makes him an accomplice in the alleged rape, if indeed it was proven to be so. By admitting to knowledge of an alleged criminal act, and failing to provide the appropriate authority with said knowledge, he is by de facto, an accomplice.BlueShiftRhino wrote:Slow down, Hoss. He can only be an accomplice if what she did was criminal. It wasn't - at least, I don't see any possible crime.Opyt wrote:Failure to report the accusation of rape to the "proper authorities" made Wagg an accomplice.
Svan's post in summary: booga booga lawsuit, boo!Pitchguest wrote:I couldn't parse Svan's latest for at least several minutes because I was laughing too hard. Did she really make the argument that Melody's Twitter PTSD* is somehow the fault of CFI? Seriously?
*Which apparently, according to her own husband, doesn't exist. (Yeah. We could've told him that.)
Which I've said here and elsewhere is one reason why I had appreciated the discussions at FARK which included all sorts of anti-semitism (not just disagreement with Israeli policy.). And that was to help demonstrate to myself and to others that anti-semitism is alive and kicking.By trying to blot out unpleasant words and opinions, government and mob censors alike are essentially declaring that they would rather know less about the world they actually live in -- and they've decided that you should know less about it, as well. The result is that the general public will be less aware of those attitudes and may thus be lulled into a false sense of security, blinded to the existence and prevalence of problems in their communities. FIRE Co-founder and Chairman Harvey Silvergate put this very insight into practice as a young lawyer for the Massachusetts ACLU, when he successfully defended a group of neo-Nazis in court even though he himself is Jewish. He did so partly because he understood that people are better off when they're aware of the presence of bigots in their midst: "If there are Nazis in the room, I want to know who they are so that I can keep an eye on them." Simply put, it it is better to know the world as it is than stick your head in the sand and hope you'll be fine.
This is not the definition used in social psych (which is the group, IMO, most likely to have a good definition). To them, a stereotype is a belief that a difference exists (on one or more measures) between the target group and people in general. There are no specific claims about shapes of distributions, etc. For example, I can (and do) hold a stereotype with regard to distribution shape when it comes to risk-taking: I believe that male risk-taking is more positively skewed.JacquesCuze wrote:Stereotypes are some characteristic of a group of people. Perceived members of the claimed group fit that characteristic in basically a bell curve. A stereotype is in some respect the mean of that bell curve as perceived by some outside group that likes to stereotype groups. Two groups differ by mean and maybe variance, ie, have different stereotypes. Racism is projecting the group mean, the group stereotype, onto each individual member regardless of where an actual measurement of who they are might find them.
Oh, you meant an accessory after the fact, not an accomplice. Fine. Yeah. You could claim that.Za-zen wrote:You got it about face hoss, as I read it, what is being suggested to you, is that it makes him an accomplice in the alleged rape, if indeed it was proven to be so. By admitting to knowledge of an alleged criminal act, and failing to provide the appropriate authority with said knowledge, he is by de facto, an accomplice.BlueShiftRhino wrote:Slow down, Hoss. He can only be an accomplice if what she did was criminal. It wasn't - at least, I don't see any possible crime.Opyt wrote:Failure to report the accusation of rape to the "proper authorities" made Wagg an accomplice.
Legally trained minds (mine is not) will No don't correct me if I'm wrong.
Invite him over to our pool. Our collective knowledge is greater than any single part.Mykeru wrote:I got some Tweets from this guy. Apparently associated with #gamergate and does an online radio show. He was looking for info on Rebecca Watson.
Perhaps you fine students of Becky Booze can fill him in:
I've been saying for some time that oggie = Caine sock puppet. But alternate personality is also a possibility. Caine's gone through more transformations than David Bowie.Jan Steen wrote:Ogvorbis discovers that Cainaji has changed her nym again:
http://i.imgur.com/uosw1ZW.jpg
I can't be bothered to look it up, but I remember that he wrote something very similar after she flounced as Caine and came back as Inaji.
There is something fishy about this, although I can't quite lay my finger on it. It seems unlikely that Oggie is a sockpuppet of Cainajiyeska, but it seems equally unlikely that Oggie is genuinely confused in the same way twice. Are these two playing some kind of game?
freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09 ... erdome-54/
King of Pol (KoP) is sorta nuts.Mykeru wrote:I got some Tweets from this guy. Apparently associated with #gamergate and does an online radio show. He was looking for info on Rebecca Watson.
Perhaps you fine students of Becky Booze can fill him in:
Michael Nugent thread on the defamation of Ziggy Stardust in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Caine's gone through more transformations than David Bowie.
:clap:Pitchguest wrote:Hilarious.
Outrageous. :bjarte:
It would be inaccurate to say that the American Spectator will lose credibility generally as a result of this decision. Its breathless partisanship and assorted oddities limit its credibility to its target audience of the like-minded. Doing this will wound its general credibility in the sense that the Weekly World News would hurt its credibility by doing a very one-sided hit piece on Bat-Boy. But this surrender will, and should, eviscerate its credibility with its target audience and its readers. First, how can it be taken seriously as an institution willing to speak truth to power if it caves to a frivolous lawsuit by a domestic terrorist?3 Second, how can they be taken seriously as a conservative institution that will question liberals, when they yield to a blatant attempt to abuse the legal system to retaliate against conservative viewpoints?
No. They're done.
A number of serious thinkers and good writers have written for the Spectator over the years. It's possible for a serious person to write for an unserious publication. (I have to keep telling myself that, since I wrote a couple of things for Salon.) But at some point it's fair to ask a writer why they are associating with a particular publication. I propose that we begin to ask that of anyone writing for the American Spectator — by email, by Twitter, by whatever medium available. Take, say, Ben Stein. You're an in-print and on-screen tough guy, Ben. Why would you continue to write for an institution that acted this way? Just asking.
That's hilarious. She must have shocked any priest who she did that to. I don't get sexually aroused by pissing off religious people, but I do get some other type of satisfaction. Maybe like a revenge feeling, because I really hate the harm and deception they cause all over the world on a huge scale. Both mental harms, such as fears of hell, and physical harms, such as living environments run by religious laws in religious homes and theocracies. I enjoy seeing religions (and other scams) get exposed and pwned in videos. Also when I participate in stuff like Draw Mohamed Day and helping to spread the comics that the muslims freaked out about as well. I like doing that too.BlueShiftRhino wrote:At one point (DSM-II?) there was a specific Axis-2 paraphilia for getting off on doing sexual things to folks who could not resist or respond due to religious prohibitions. My favorite case study was a Catholic women who was aroused by licking the hand of the priest as he put the wafer in her mouth.Scented Nectar wrote:Is it cruel as a woman, to 'accidently on purpose' bump into them just a little when walking past one? They are under strict OCD-like orders not to touch a female. :lol:
Gotta love what Catholicism does to your sex-drive.
Does Lousy think that suspected religious sexual abusers should be reported to the police, or not?Brive1987 wrote:Lousy has the worst info graphic with the lamest sledgehammer message.
On behalf of PowerPoint Id like to apologise. Garbage in ...
http://i.imgur.com/jKwkA4B.jpg
It took me a moment to realize that you were referring to the woman from the case study. For a moment I thought that you were talking about the more general form of the Catholic woman's problem, which I define as being so good at oral sex that nobody wants to have intercourse any more.Scented Nectar wrote:I'm very glad that I don't have the Catholic woman's problem.