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

Jackie the social justice WIZZARD!!!
9 January 2015 at 8:52 am
I wonder why we are free to mock Islam when the US and Israel are bombing their children every fucking day. How long should those bodies be allowed to cool?
Fucking racism, how does it work?
The Nazis used antisemitic cartons to dehumanize Jews and convince people that violence toward them was just fine. White racists in the American south called MLK Jr. “Martian Lucifer Coon” and published racist cartoons of him and other black Americans. That racist propaganda fostered a climate of hate and encouraged violence toward those people. The targets being Muslim does the same.
Racism does kill. It is a lie to claim otherwise. There are no “little isms”, as John claims. There is nothing petty about being consistent in the denunciation of hate.
When Bill Cosby dies he should still be remembered as a rapist. His victims deserve better than being erased because their rapist died.
No one deserves to be murdered. No one. That does not mean that the method of your demise excuses every shitty thing you ever did. Right now in the US my human rights are being threatened daily. Black people are being murdered by racist cops who get away with it. The people doing those things are bigots and when they are gone their legacy will be bigotry. That is in no way saying that those people deserve to die.

John D wrote:

Pitchguest wrote:In the past I usually didn't become angry. Like, really angry. I'm generally very calm most of the time. However lately I've found myself fuming, and I mean really out the ears I'm-going-to-shin-somebody fuming, and I don't really know why. I suppose most of it comes from expecting to be reasonable but instead they are completely fucking mental, and most of the time you have no way of getting through to them. It frustrates me to no end. It didn't use to, and I tend to keep it together anyway, but fuck, man. Jesus. Events these past few years have almost sent me over the edge more than a few times.

This latest thing with Charlie Hebdo. I am done defending Muslims. I mean, I am still for the most part going to insist that these are extremists and doesn't represent the ideas and ethics and morals of all Muslims, because how could I? That would be hypocritical. I also know quite a few Muslims in my neighbourhood who besides their religion are just like any other person. One might even say quintessentially Swedish with the way they behave, what they eat (stuff like caviar in a tube which is a thing), how they behave, their thought process, their tolerance to different ideas, and so on and so forth. The only difference being that they pray to what they perceive to be a "god" every day and I don't. But here's the point. I don't care. Not anymore. If you sleuth my comments on YouTube from two to three years ago, you would find me almost defending the antics of Muslims based on what is said in the Koran (Quran, whatever) and in the hadiths as opposed to what they actually do, but these past few years have taught me that it doesn't matter. If your first thought, or second thought, learning of these attacks on that diner in the US, Charlie Hebdo and now a deli held up seemingly by the same people is to find an excuse for them, that this isn't what Islam teaches, that they aren't real Muslims, you've lost the plot.

No, you should escoriate them. Immediately. There is no excuse. And this is exactly what modern Islamism does to people. I mean, I don't mean that Muslims by virtue of them being Muslims should escoriate them. I mean it in the sense of them being fellow human beings and this isn't what fellow human beings ought to do. If ordinary Muslims are concerned that criticism of their religious ideas boils down to "Islamophobia", then they need to open their fucking eyes. A phobia is, by definition, an irrational fear. Fearing the religion itself is perhaps irrational, but fearing its followers is not. And people are afraid. I would be too. But in the words of Stéphane "Charb" Charbonnier, "I would rather die standing than live on my knees." Je suis Charlie.

When I get this angry I sometimes end up making mistakes in my reasoning. Does this happen to you sometimes????

Really? wrote:She crazy:

Jackie the social justice WIZZARD!!!
9 January 2015 at 8:52 am
I wonder why we are free to mock Islam when the US and Israel are bombing their children every fucking day. How long should those bodies be allowed to cool?
Fucking racism, how does it work?
The Nazis used antisemitic cartons to dehumanize Jews and convince people that violence toward them was just fine. White racists in the American south called MLK Jr. “Martian Lucifer Coon” and published racist cartoons of him and other black Americans. That racist propaganda fostered a climate of hate and encouraged violence toward those people. The targets being Muslim does the same.
Racism does kill. It is a lie to claim otherwise. There are no “little isms”, as John claims. There is nothing petty about being consistent in the denunciation of hate.
When Bill Cosby dies he should still be remembered as a rapist. His victims deserve better than being erased because their rapist died.
No one deserves to be murdered. No one. That does not mean that the method of your demise excuses every shitty thing you ever did. Right now in the US my human rights are being threatened daily. Black people are being murdered by racist cops who get away with it. The people doing those things are bigots and when they are gone their legacy will be bigotry. That is in no way saying that those people deserve to die.

Cunt of Personality wrote:Breaking: According to the live TV feed there may be an urgent need for 144 virgins.

Tony Parsehole wrote:

Cunt of Personality wrote:Breaking: According to the live TV feed there may be an urgent need for 144 virgins.

Paging Pharyngula!

John D wrote:Hebdo killers dead... as well as four others.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/fre ... n=newshour

Billie from Ockham wrote:

Cunt of Personality wrote:Breaking: According to the live TV feed there may be an urgent need for 144 virgins.

So why aren't you posting this on 4chan? Or did you mean female virgins? :rimshot:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

AnonymousCowherd wrote:
I've heard that Icelanders are such small population that someone has put out an app for phones so that, if you meet someone in the bar you just "bonk" the phones to see if they are too closely related for any other kind of bonking. That said, the way Icelanders drink, you wonder if the app (like the superego) is completely soluble in alcohol.

Now, who else can I offend?

Icelanders are inbred? Huh, that explains Of Monsters And Men.

Really? wrote:She crazy:

Jackie the social justice WIZZARD!!!
9 January 2015 at 8:52 am
I wonder why we are free to mock Islam when the US and Israel are bombing their children every fucking day. How long should those bodies be allowed to cool?
Fucking racism, how does it work?
The Nazis used antisemitic cartons to dehumanize Jews and convince people that violence toward them was just fine.

More Voices, This Time From Liberals, Suggest That Charlie Hebdo More or Less Brought the Massacre On Itself

I understand that calling someone a ‘racist asshole’ after their murder is a callous thing to do, and I don’t do it lightly. This isn’t ambiguous, though: the editorial staff of Hebdo consistently aimed to provoke Muslims. … The statement, “JE SUIS CHARLIE” works to erase and ignore the magazine’s history of xenophobia, racism, and homophobia.

But while I am neither French nor a regular reader of Charlie Hebdo, what I have seen of their work is enough to give me some serious concern. While I support Charlie Hebdo’s freedom to publish cartoons like the ones above, I find the messages the publication promotes—including its racism, sexism, and homophobia—extremely objectionable.

jimthepleb wrote:so I'm listening to radio 4 and who come on chatting about cancer....PZMyers that's fucking who.
I didn't realise he was a leading light in the genetics of cancer and probabilities the probabilities etc.. learn something new every day.

Dick Strawkins wrote:

jimthepleb wrote:so I'm listening to radio 4 and who come on chatting about cancer....PZMyers that's fucking who.
I didn't realise he was a leading light in the genetics of cancer and probabilities the probabilities etc.. learn something new every day.

Why the fuck would they ask him to speak about cancer?

He's never researched it and is certainly no expert. He gets a lot pf details wrong whenever he writes about it on his blog and I'm pretty sure he has never used it as a subject for one of his conference talks (because he knows he'd be in danger of a rel scientist asking him an awkward question.
Perhaps the radio4 idiot just spotted that Myers had written a crappy article criticising the recent paper about cancer probabilities.
Why didn't they get a real expert who knows what she or he is talking about?

another lurker wrote:Terry Firma, at The Friendly Atheist, writes:

More Voices, This Time From Liberals, Suggest That Charlie Hebdo More or Less Brought the Massacre On Itself

I understand that calling someone a ‘racist asshole’ after their murder is a callous thing to do, and I don’t do it lightly. This isn’t ambiguous, though: the editorial staff of Hebdo consistently aimed to provoke Muslims. … The statement, “JE SUIS CHARLIE” works to erase and ignore the magazine’s history of xenophobia, racism, and homophobia.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... on-itself/

Which is *exactly* what certain liberals are doing, such as the Love, Joy Feminism, even comparing Charlie Hebdo to the Westboro nuts:

But while I am neither French nor a regular reader of Charlie Hebdo, what I have seen of their work is enough to give me some serious concern. While I support Charlie Hebdo’s freedom to publish cartoons like the ones above, I find the messages the publication promotes—including its racism, sexism, and homophobia—extremely objectionable.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... peech.html

------------------------------

In the comments section, several commenters, those who live in France or who have spent time in France, are explaining that Charlie Hebdo was a *satire*, in the sense that Colbert was a satire. That the 'racist', 'sexist' and 'homophobic' slurs were a backhanded way of mocking the church etc...

Well, LJF's commenters will have *none* of that silliness! They know *better* than the people who are from France, and goddamnit, Hebdo was RACIST SEXIST AND HOMOPHOBIC. THEY WERE PUNCHING DOWN, ASSHOLES.

----------------

So, as has been demonstrated by Gilliel, SJW liberals, instead of backing down and saying 'hey, perhaps Islam isn't all happy rainbows and glitter farts after all' are instead doubling down on the innocence of Islam, and attacking the victims, just like Bill Donohue.

I wouldn't be surprised, now, that if anyone in SJW circles goes around saying "je suis charlie' in defense of freedom of speech, that they will immediately be accused of being sexist, racist and homophobic.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5154/587 ... 8819bb.jpg

Brive1987 wrote:There is a mild doxxing scandal over at the John Nyzell FtB thread. He's named Marilove. I don't know whether it counts as a dox, given Marilove guest posted on Skepchick linking the names and does so on FB as well.

Giliell has fired off a mod alert and no-one else has batted an eyelid so probable storm in a teacup.

But it was a weird escalation of sorts.

another lurker wrote:Terry Firma, at The Friendly Atheist, writes:

More Voices, This Time From Liberals, Suggest That Charlie Hebdo More or Less Brought the Massacre On Itself

I understand that calling someone a ‘racist asshole’ after their murder is a callous thing to do, and I don’t do it lightly. This isn’t ambiguous, though: the editorial staff of Hebdo consistently aimed to provoke Muslims. … The statement, “JE SUIS CHARLIE” works to erase and ignore the magazine’s history of xenophobia, racism, and homophobia.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... on-itself/

Which is *exactly* what certain liberals are doing, such as the Love, Joy Feminism, even comparing Charlie Hebdo to the Westboro nuts:

But while I am neither French nor a regular reader of Charlie Hebdo, what I have seen of their work is enough to give me some serious concern. While I support Charlie Hebdo’s freedom to publish cartoons like the ones above, I find the messages the publication promotes—including its racism, sexism, and homophobia—extremely objectionable.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... peech.html

------------------------------

In the comments section, several commenters, those who live in France or who have spent time in France, are explaining that Charlie Hebdo was a *satire*, in the sense that Colbert was a satire. That the 'racist', 'sexist' and 'homophobic' slurs were a backhanded way of mocking the church etc...

Well, LJF's commenters will have *none* of that silliness! They know *better* than the people who are from France, and goddamnit, Hebdo was RACIST SEXIST AND HOMOPHOBIC. THEY WERE PUNCHING DOWN, ASSHOLES.

----------------

So, as has been demonstrated by Gilliel, SJW liberals, instead of backing down and saying 'hey, perhaps Islam isn't all happy rainbows and glitter farts after all' are instead doubling down on the innocence of Islam, and attacking the victims, just like Bill Donohue.

I wouldn't be surprised, now, that if anyone in SJW circles goes around saying "je suis charlie' in defense of freedom of speech, that they will immediately be accused of being sexist, racist and homophobic.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5154/587 ... 8819bb.jpg

another lurker wrote:Terry Firma, at The Friendly Atheist, writes:

More Voices, This Time From Liberals, Suggest That Charlie Hebdo More or Less Brought the Massacre On Itself

I understand that calling someone a ‘racist asshole’ after their murder is a callous thing to do, and I don’t do it lightly. This isn’t ambiguous, though: the editorial staff of Hebdo consistently aimed to provoke Muslims. … The statement, “JE SUIS CHARLIE” works to erase and ignore the magazine’s history of xenophobia, racism, and homophobia.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... on-itself/

Which is *exactly* what certain liberals are doing, such as the Love, Joy Feminism, even comparing Charlie Hebdo to the Westboro nuts:

But while I am neither French nor a regular reader of Charlie Hebdo, what I have seen of their work is enough to give me some serious concern. While I support Charlie Hebdo’s freedom to publish cartoons like the ones above, I find the messages the publication promotes—including its racism, sexism, and homophobia—extremely objectionable.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... peech.html

------------------------------

In the comments section, several commenters, those who live in France or who have spent time in France, are explaining that Charlie Hebdo was a *satire*, in the sense that Colbert was a satire. That the 'racist', 'sexist' and 'homophobic' slurs were a backhanded way of mocking the church etc...

Well, LJF's commenters will have *none* of that silliness! They know *better* than the people who are from France, and goddamnit, Hebdo was RACIST SEXIST AND HOMOPHOBIC. THEY WERE PUNCHING DOWN, ASSHOLES.

----------------

So, as has been demonstrated by Gilliel, SJW liberals, instead of backing down and saying 'hey, perhaps Islam isn't all happy rainbows and glitter farts after all' are instead doubling down on the innocence of Islam, and attacking the victims, just like Bill Donohue.

I wouldn't be surprised, now, that if anyone in SJW circles goes around saying "je suis charlie' in defense of freedom of speech, that they will immediately be accused of being sexist, racist and homophobic.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5154/587 ... 8819bb.jpg

jimthepleb wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04xf1d5

starts at about 13:20
Myers makes his appearance at 17:50 and says very little.

Really? wrote:She crazy:

Jackie the social justice WIZZARD!!!
9 January 2015 at 8:52 am
I wonder why we are free to mock Islam when the US and Israel are bombing their children every fucking day. How long should those bodies be allowed to cool?
Fucking racism, how does it work?
The Nazis used antisemitic cartons to dehumanize Jews and convince people that violence toward them was just fine. White racists in the American south called MLK Jr. “Martian Lucifer Coon” and published racist cartoons of him and other black Americans. That racist propaganda fostered a climate of hate and encouraged violence toward those people. The targets being Muslim does the same.
Racism does kill. It is a lie to claim otherwise. There are no “little isms”, as John claims. There is nothing petty about being consistent in the denunciation of hate.
When Bill Cosby dies he should still be remembered as a rapist. His victims deserve better than being erased because their rapist died.
No one deserves to be murdered. No one. That does not mean that the method of your demise excuses every shitty thing you ever did. Right now in the US my human rights are being threatened daily. Black people are being murdered by racist cops who get away with it. The people doing those things are bigots and when they are gone their legacy will be bigotry. That is in no way saying that those people deserve to die.

Brive1987 wrote:No end in sight for the SW Awards rabbit hole.

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

Pitchguest wrote:Maybe I should clarify for people like Garlix that when I say I am "done" defending Muslims, I mean it in trying to rationalise their motives and trying to inject some sense into the teachings of the Koran and the hadiths. I'm just not going to do that song and dance anymore. Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists. Obviously. Even saying out loud, "not all Muslims are terrorists" sounds ridiculous. I'm just not going to accept their excuses any longer. "They are not real Muslims" is not an excuse. They are. They are a form of Muslim, bred and grown with the ideology of Islam firmly embedded in their psyche. It needs to be acknowledged sooner than later, rather than buried beneath minutia and politics.

However I should also make it clear that I do not encourage, nor condone, violence commited towards Muslims just because they are Muslims. Because I abhor violence and I would much rather have a nice, heated conversation down at the pub, but at the same time I'm not so naive that violence of any sort is not warranted or necessary to relegate conflict. But pigs will fly and sheep croak before I align myself with bonafide racists like the English Defense League or the Sweden Democrats.

John D wrote:Hebdo killers dead... as well as four others.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/fre ... n=newshour

NoGodsEver wrote:I have to give PZ a slight bit of credit for not banning John Nyzell yet. The only possible reason I can think of why he hasn't is that he agrees with him. If that's the case then he should say so, but of course he wouldn't have the balls to.

Peezis wrote: But it’s true. Atheists don’t like Islam. We also don’t like Catholicism, Episcopalianism, or whatever jelly-like dribble Karen Armstrong is peddling today. But I would still say that Islam as a religion is nastier and more barbaric than, say, Anglicanism. The Anglicans do not have as a point of doctrine that it is commendable to order the execution of writers or webcomic artists, nor that a reasonable punishment for adultery is to stone the woman to death. That is not islamophobia: that is recognizing the primitive and cruel realities of a particularly vile religion, in the same way that we can condemn Catholicism for its evil policies towards women and its sheltering of pedophile priests. We can place various cults on a relatively objective scale of repugnance for their attitudes towards human rights, education, equality, honesty, etc., and on civil liberties, you know, that stuff we liberals are supposed to care about, Islam as a whole is damnably bad.

Cunt of Personality wrote:

jimthepleb wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04xf1d5

starts at about 13:20
Myers makes his appearance at 17:50 and says very little.

Who?

Old_ones wrote:

Really? wrote:She crazy:

Jackie the social justice WIZZARD!!!
9 January 2015 at 8:52 am
I wonder why we are free to mock Islam when the US and Israel are bombing their children every fucking day. How long should those bodies be allowed to cool?
Fucking racism, how does it work?
The Nazis used antisemitic cartons to dehumanize Jews and convince people that violence toward them was just fine. White racists in the American south called MLK Jr. “Martian Lucifer Coon” and published racist cartoons of him and other black Americans. That racist propaganda fostered a climate of hate and encouraged violence toward those people. The targets being Muslim does the same.
Racism does kill. It is a lie to claim otherwise. There are no “little isms”, as John claims. There is nothing petty about being consistent in the denunciation of hate.
When Bill Cosby dies he should still be remembered as a rapist. His victims deserve better than being erased because their rapist died.
No one deserves to be murdered. No one. That does not mean that the method of your demise excuses every shitty thing you ever did. Right now in the US my human rights are being threatened daily. Black people are being murdered by racist cops who get away with it. The people doing those things are bigots and when they are gone their legacy will be bigotry. That is in no way saying that those people deserve to die.

The most dangerous ideologues are the ones who don't realize that they are following an ideology. I have to wonder how long it'll be before we get social justice warriors forming The Weather Underground part 2, and instigating pogroms against comedians.

Old_ones wrote:

Really? wrote:She crazy:

Jackie the social justice WIZZARD!!!
9 January 2015 at 8:52 am
I wonder why we are free to mock Islam when the US and Israel are bombing their children every fucking day. How long should those bodies be allowed to cool?
Fucking racism, how does it work?
The Nazis used antisemitic cartons to dehumanize Jews and convince people that violence toward them was just fine. White racists in the American south called MLK Jr. “Martian Lucifer Coon” and published racist cartoons of him and other black Americans. That racist propaganda fostered a climate of hate and encouraged violence toward those people. The targets being Muslim does the same.
Racism does kill. It is a lie to claim otherwise. There are no “little isms”, as John claims. There is nothing petty about being consistent in the denunciation of hate.
When Bill Cosby dies he should still be remembered as a rapist. His victims deserve better than being erased because their rapist died.
No one deserves to be murdered. No one. That does not mean that the method of your demise excuses every shitty thing you ever did. Right now in the US my human rights are being threatened daily. Black people are being murdered by racist cops who get away with it. The people doing those things are bigots and when they are gone their legacy will be bigotry. That is in no way saying that those people deserve to die.

The most dangerous ideologues are the ones who don't realize that they are following an ideology. I have to wonder how long it'll be before we get social justice warriors forming The Weather Underground part 2, and instigating pogroms against comedians.

Peezis wrote: But it’s true. Atheists don’t like Islam. We also don’t like Catholicism, Episcopalianism, or whatever jelly-like dribble Karen Armstrong is peddling today. But I would still say that Islam as a religion is nastier and more barbaric than, say, Anglicanism. The Anglicans do not have as a point of doctrine that it is commendable to order the execution of writers or webcomic artists, nor that a reasonable punishment for adultery is to stone the woman to death. That is not islamophobia: that is recognizing the primitive and cruel realities of a particularly vile religion, in the same way that we can condemn Catholicism for its evil policies towards women and its sheltering of pedophile priests. We can place various cults on a relatively objective scale of repugnance for their attitudes towards human rights, education, equality, honesty, etc., and on civil liberties, you know, that stuff we liberals are supposed to care about, Islam as a whole is damnably bad.

Oglebart wrote: Well, if it gets left to the FTB ,A+ ,Skepchick crew, they'll be lucky to get the spoons together to form the Weather Girls Part 2 at a karaoke night at one of these pointless fucking conferences that they constantly bang on about. Unfortunately "It's Raining Non-Binary Genderfluid Persons" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

:rimshot:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

jimthepleb wrote:so I'm listening to radio 4 and who come on chatting about cancer....PZMyers that's fucking who.
I didn't realise he was a leading light in the genetics of cancer and probabilities the probabilities etc.. learn something new every day.

Why the fuck would they ask him to speak about cancer?

He's never researched it and is certainly no expert. He gets a lot pf details wrong whenever he writes about it on his blog and I'm pretty sure he has never used it as a subject for one of his conference talks (because he knows he'd be in danger of a rel scientist asking him an awkward question.
Perhaps the radio4 idiot just spotted that Myers had written a crappy article criticising the recent paper about cancer probabilities.
Why didn't they get a real expert who knows what she or he is talking about?

Shatterface as Guest wrote:

Peezis wrote: But it’s true. Atheists don’t like Islam. We also don’t like Catholicism, Episcopalianism, or whatever jelly-like dribble Karen Armstrong is peddling today. But I would still say that Islam as a religion is nastier and more barbaric than, say, Anglicanism. The Anglicans do not have as a point of doctrine that it is commendable to order the execution of writers or webcomic artists, nor that a reasonable punishment for adultery is to stone the woman to death. That is not islamophobia: that is recognizing the primitive and cruel realities of a particularly vile religion, in the same way that we can condemn Catholicism for its evil policies towards women and its sheltering of pedophile priests. We can place various cults on a relatively objective scale of repugnance for their attitudes towards human rights, education, equality, honesty, etc., and on civil liberties, you know, that stuff we liberals are supposed to care about, Islam as a whole is damnably bad.

Someone should post that in the comments at Pharyngula.

Don't post it as a quote, just Avicenna it there as if it's your own opinion and see what the response is.

Shatterface

Old_ones wrote:

NoGodsEver wrote:I have to give PZ a slight bit of credit for not banning John Nyzell yet. The only possible reason I can think of why he hasn't is that he agrees with him. If that's the case then he should say so, but of course he wouldn't have the balls to.

This is one topic that I could imagine inducing an "Oh shit moment" wherein he contemplates his ideological excesses and wonders what kind of demented inbred monster he's created. Peez has never been very friendly to organized religion, Islam included. Its only been a couple of years since he wrote the following statement:

Peezis wrote: But it’s true. Atheists don’t like Islam. We also don’t like Catholicism, Episcopalianism, or whatever jelly-like dribble Karen Armstrong is peddling today. But I would still say that Islam as a religion is nastier and more barbaric than, say, Anglicanism. The Anglicans do not have as a point of doctrine that it is commendable to order the execution of writers or webcomic artists, nor that a reasonable punishment for adultery is to stone the woman to death. That is not islamophobia: that is recognizing the primitive and cruel realities of a particularly vile religion, in the same way that we can condemn Catholicism for its evil policies towards women and its sheltering of pedophile priests. We can place various cults on a relatively objective scale of repugnance for their attitudes towards human rights, education, equality, honesty, etc., and on civil liberties, you know, that stuff we liberals are supposed to care about, Islam as a whole is damnably bad.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... oth-right/ (apologies for the link; this doesn't seem to be on the wayback machine)

As an aside, I wonder if "civil liberties" are still the kind of thing he'd be willing to defend. It seems awfully "libertarian" of him to bring those up.

Jiminy Cricket wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

jimthepleb wrote:so I'm listening to radio 4 and who come on chatting about cancer....PZMyers that's fucking who.
I didn't realise he was a leading light in the genetics of cancer and probabilities the probabilities etc.. learn something new every day.

Why the fuck would they ask him to speak about cancer?

He's never researched it and is certainly no expert. He gets a lot pf details wrong whenever he writes about it on his blog and I'm pretty sure he has never used it as a subject for one of his conference talks (because he knows he'd be in danger of a rel scientist asking him an awkward question.
Perhaps the radio4 idiot just spotted that Myers had written a crappy article criticising the recent paper about cancer probabilities.
Why didn't they get a real expert who knows what she or he is talking about?

Did you get a chance to call in and ask when he was going to apologize for his defamatory smears about Michael Nugent?

Shatterface as Guest wrote:

Peezis wrote: But it’s true. Atheists don’t like Islam. We also don’t like Catholicism, Episcopalianism, or whatever jelly-like dribble Karen Armstrong is peddling today. But I would still say that Islam as a religion is nastier and more barbaric than, say, Anglicanism. The Anglicans do not have as a point of doctrine that it is commendable to order the execution of writers or webcomic artists, nor that a reasonable punishment for adultery is to stone the woman to death. That is not islamophobia: that is recognizing the primitive and cruel realities of a particularly vile religion, in the same way that we can condemn Catholicism for its evil policies towards women and its sheltering of pedophile priests. We can place various cults on a relatively objective scale of repugnance for their attitudes towards human rights, education, equality, honesty, etc., and on civil liberties, you know, that stuff we liberals are supposed to care about, Islam as a whole is damnably bad.

Someone should post that in the comments at Pharyngula.

Don't post it as a quote, just Avicenna it there as if it's your own opinion and see what the response is.

Shatterface

Shatterface as Guest wrote:

Peezis wrote: But it’s true. Atheists don’t like Islam. We also don’t like Catholicism, Episcopalianism, or whatever jelly-like dribble Karen Armstrong is peddling today. But I would still say that Islam as a religion is nastier and more barbaric than, say, Anglicanism. The Anglicans do not have as a point of doctrine that it is commendable to order the execution of writers or webcomic artists, nor that a reasonable punishment for adultery is to stone the woman to death. That is not islamophobia: that is recognizing the primitive and cruel realities of a particularly vile religion, in the same way that we can condemn Catholicism for its evil policies towards women and its sheltering of pedophile priests. We can place various cults on a relatively objective scale of repugnance for their attitudes towards human rights, education, equality, honesty, etc., and on civil liberties, you know, that stuff we liberals are supposed to care about, Islam as a whole is damnably bad.

Someone should post that in the comments at Pharyngula.

Don't post it as a quote, just Avicenna it there as if it's your own opinion and see what the response is.

Shatterface

Southern wrote:

Shatterface as Guest wrote:

Peezis wrote: But it’s true. Atheists don’t like Islam. We also don’t like Catholicism, Episcopalianism, or whatever jelly-like dribble Karen Armstrong is peddling today. But I would still say that Islam as a religion is nastier and more barbaric than, say, Anglicanism. The Anglicans do not have as a point of doctrine that it is commendable to order the execution of writers or webcomic artists, nor that a reasonable punishment for adultery is to stone the woman to death. That is not islamophobia: that is recognizing the primitive and cruel realities of a particularly vile religion, in the same way that we can condemn Catholicism for its evil policies towards women and its sheltering of pedophile priests. We can place various cults on a relatively objective scale of repugnance for their attitudes towards human rights, education, equality, honesty, etc., and on civil liberties, you know, that stuff we liberals are supposed to care about, Islam as a whole is damnably bad.

Someone should post that in the comments at Pharyngula.

Don't post it as a quote, just Avicenna it there as if it's your own opinion and see what the response is.

Shatterface

If no one of your faggots do it, I'll do it later. I'll just set a proxy first, as a safety measure against doxxing.

LurkerPerson wrote:Sorry, but Islam is historically practiced by people whose skin melanin content is higher than the european average. Ergo, anything they do is like a poor orphan child rebelling against the capitalist fatcat keeping him chained up in his basement.
Congrats by the way to the anglo "liberal" media. You want to stare into the root of what's killing western civilization? Look no further than these ivory tower cunts and their useful idiots. These demented assholes are rooting against the very mechanisms that enable them to exist in the first place. They are a literal disease. It's as if red blood cells started trying to eradicate antibodies.

John D wrote:

LurkerPerson wrote:Sorry, but Islam is historically practiced by people whose skin melanin content is higher than the european average. Ergo, anything they do is like a poor orphan child rebelling against the capitalist fatcat keeping him chained up in his basement.
Congrats by the way to the anglo "liberal" media. You want to stare into the root of what's killing western civilization? Look no further than these ivory tower cunts and their useful idiots. These demented assholes are rooting against the very mechanisms that enable them to exist in the first place. They are a literal disease. It's as if red blood cells started trying to eradicate antibodies.

I actually watched a bit of "The O'Reily Factor" yesterday at the gym. I found myself agreeing with him on quite a few of his points. He was attacking a bunch of Huff Po writers who were saying Hebdo was "asking for it". A strange reversal of the universe.

Tribble wrote:

comhcinc wrote:

AnonymousCowherd wrote:Yo' Momma?

Well, at least I didn't make a crap pun about "incestors".

My father's family has lived in this area since it was first settled by the evil white man. Because of that at one point before NASA came in, we were related to just about everyone.

My great grandfather had the entire family tree(at least in the US) in his head. People would come to him to make sure the person their were dating was not too close a relative.

I have relatives in that part of the country. Lot Campbell's settled in Tennessee and Alabama. They're all 3rd, 4th and further-out cousins, none of whom I don't know beyond the odd few that honor their Scottish Ancestry and are at the Campbell table in various annual 'Scottish Gmaes" gatherings, so it's not like we're all that close. But they're there. And some of them were famous in their day. For example, the very distant ancestral William Campbell a former Governor of Tennessee and for whom Fort Campbell is named.

But like every other famous relative who has accomplished something, it means nothing in my life as I sure as fuck didn't get any 'privilege' out of it. Though I did get a boat-load of unreasonable expectations dropped on my shoulders as a kid.

Tribble wrote:

John D wrote:

LurkerPerson wrote:Sorry, but Islam is historically practiced by people whose skin melanin content is higher than the european average. Ergo, anything they do is like a poor orphan child rebelling against the capitalist fatcat keeping him chained up in his basement.
Congrats by the way to the anglo "liberal" media. You want to stare into the root of what's killing western civilization? Look no further than these ivory tower cunts and their useful idiots. These demented assholes are rooting against the very mechanisms that enable them to exist in the first place. They are a literal disease. It's as if red blood cells started trying to eradicate antibodies.

I actually watched a bit of "The O'Reily Factor" yesterday at the gym. I found myself agreeing with him on quite a few of his points. He was attacking a bunch of Huff Po writers who were saying Hebdo was "asking for it". A strange reversal of the universe.

It's weird to see the right (Bill Donohue among many) and the Left (HuffPo among many) come together and victim blame the victims of this terrorist act.

Billie from Ockham wrote:Where is the line between victim-blaming and partial responsibility due to known avoidability?

When Thunderf00t argued that the extreme form of "no victim-blaming!" was preventing people from giving good advice on how to avoid being raped, I agreed with him and even went so far as to wonder if some people actually want undergrad women to be raped, just to help their cause. I could not explain their extreme rejection of giving good advice in any other way. We tell people to lock their doors, etc, but we aren't allowed to give anything like that advice for rape. It seems crazy.

If I were to say that one can reduce the odds of being killed from Muslim nut-jobs by not publishing certain cartoons, which side of the line would I be on? Or is this a case of the bodies not being cold enough to even ask this question?

comhcinc wrote:I see what you are saying but I see a big difference in telling people to be careful of sexual predators by taking simple common sense precautions that also btw will keep you from getting robbed or bust by the cops as well, and telling people to curtail their rights because otherwise they may be killed.

John D wrote:I actually watched a bit of "The O'Reily Factor" yesterday at the gym. I found myself agreeing with him on quite a few of his points. He was attacking a bunch of Huff Po writers who were saying Hebdo was "asking for it". A strange reversal of the universe.

Billie from Ockham wrote:Where is the line between victim-blaming and partial responsibility due to known avoidability?

When Thunderf00t argued that the extreme form of "no victim-blaming!" was preventing people from giving good advice on how to avoid being raped, I agreed with him and even went so far as to wonder if some people actually want undergrad women to be raped, just to help their cause. I could not explain their extreme rejection of giving good advice in any other way. We tell people to lock their doors, etc, but we aren't allowed to give anything like that advice for rape. It seems crazy.

If I were to say that one can reduce the odds of being killed from Muslim nut-jobs by not publishing certain cartoons, which side of the line would I be on? Or is this a case of the bodies not being cold enough to even ask this question?