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

... aaaand Michael Nugent doesn't disappoint this week http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/12/01 ... able-theo/

Parody Accountant wrote:

NoGodsEver wrote:

Parody Accountant wrote:Holy fuck. Why didn't you assholes tell me that the Replacements were pretty much the best band ever?

I've devoured their first four LP's in a row. Plus booze.

Still though, it's like discovering VU, X, Flaming Lips, Chris Knox, Social D, The Feelies, etc... all at once.

Because it's common knowledge?

NOW YOU TELL ME. FFS I'M 31. COULDA HELPED ME OUT EARLIER?!?

What the fuck, amazing shit. Going to bed, because I know half/most you don't music the same way. You like what you like, it's cool.

So you haven't even heard Tim or Pleased to Meet me yet. Get ready to shit your pants and have more rage tears.

fuzzy wrote:... aaaand Michael Nugent doesn't disappoint this week http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/12/01 ... able-theo/

About fucking time! I was about to give up and go to bed. :popcorn:

NoGodsEver wrote:

Parody Accountant wrote:

NoGodsEver wrote: Because it's common knowledge?

NOW YOU TELL ME. FFS I'M 31. COULDA HELPED ME OUT EARLIER?!?

What the fuck, amazing shit. Going to bed, because I know half/most you don't music the same way. You like what you like, it's cool.

So you haven't even heard Tim or Pleased to Meet me yet. Get ready to shit your pants and have more rage tears.

I just shit my pants. Then I tried to get up. Shit the couch. Shit everywhere.

mykeru.gif

Incontinent at 31? You are fucking doomed, boy. Doomed. Suck a barrel ASAP.

Parody Accountant wrote:
I just shit my pants. Then I tried to get up. Shit the couch. Shit everywhere.

mykeru.gif

Wow, what are the odds of reading the words "shit my pants" in one tab, then switching over to the Pit and immediately seeing the words "shit my pants" again?

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Nec_ron99 is becoming increasingly obnoxious, but on my tablet it's a couple of swipes until I'm past the bore. I've never understood how some people consider the ability to obfuscate their meaning to be a sign of their own intelligence.

You mean, like philosophers?

NoGodsEver wrote:

Parody Accountant wrote:Holy fuck. Why didn't you assholes tell me that the Replacements were pretty much the best band ever?

I've devoured their first four LP's in a row. Plus booze.

Still though, it's like discovering VU, X, Flaming Lips, Chris Knox, Social D, The Feelies, etc... all at once.

Because it's common knowledge?

The Replacrments sucked beyond belief.

I listened to a flaming lips cd once; there was no discernible music on it.

Guest wrote:

Arthur Chu...

How can someone blessed with such an amazing brain be such a dolt?

BlueShiftRhino wrote:

fuzzy wrote:... aaaand Michael Nugent doesn't disappoint this week http://www.michaelnugent.com/2014/12/01 ... able-theo/

About fucking time! I was about to give up and go to bed. :popcorn:

Hmm...

From the article:

http://www.michaelnugent.com/wp-content ... ymepit.png

The IP address is from Vodafone Ireland, Wireless Broadband, Static Assignment.

I would not suspect that of being a spammers paradise. Perhaps the person got flagged as spam for shitty posts on other forums.

However uceprotect.net clearly flags this person's ip range as being heaving on the spam.

Guestus Aurelius wrote:

Guest wrote:

Arthur Chu...
How can someone blessed with such an amazing brain be such a dolt?

...what might lead you to believe that Chu is intelligent?

Archive link to SZvan's post "Why I am not a rationalist Q&A":
https://archive.today/0nHq8

(includes the 15 comments at the time this link was made)

Guestus Aurelius wrote:

Guest wrote:

Arthur Chu...

How can someone blessed with such an amazing brain be such a dolt?

He's a self-hating nerd. Most male SJW feminists are. Although most of them aren't as clever as Chu.

Basically, when you've been a social outcast for most of your life it's very easy to become either an obnoxious assholes who thinks he's always right (so if others reject you, it's their fault) or a spineless masochist who thinks he deserved to be rejected and still deserves to be abused by the cruel gods of fate or of your favorite ideology.

It's hard to fight back against years of abuse and become a well-adjusted, confident, socially aware individual. It takes a lot of time, effort and pain. Being a SJW is easier: you get to best of both worlds. You're better than the rabble of misogynistic dudebros, and you're entitled to whine. But at the same time when you fail to appease your superiors you can can grovel and wallow into your self-hate. It's an endless circle of obnoxious pride, self-righteousness and humiliation. If you practice it for too long it can become so addictive that no matter how smart you are you're never going to see that it's actually hurting you and others.

People smarter than Chu have fallen for bullshit before. The Curies supported a medium, Kary Mullen believes in every conspiracy theory under the sun. The only difference is that Chu's brand of bullshit is popular among nerds and even skeptics.

Another reasonable video by Cristina Rad:

[youtube]2ViLexabcIw[/youtube]

BlueShiftRhino wrote:Svan and many others are really having a hard time with: “Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.” They are going to keep bringing it up (in trickier ways, as they layers on top of the original shit) for a long time.

SZvan is equivocating "grading issues" with "rejecting empirical knowledge". For example she writes that:

ranking” rape is not only factually incorrect but serves–socially–to minimize the problem of acquaintance rape (well supported by literature on rape myths)

How is "grading rape" factually incorrect?

Obviously SZvan isn't talking about a more or less severe moral judgement, which is by its nature non-empirical and subjective. There's no way to empirically measure morality. I want to be charitable and assume that she's talking about the psychological and physical consequences of "stranger rape at knifepoint" compared to those of "date rape".

The different psychological effects of different types of rape are hard to quantify: it can be argued that a forcible rape at knifepoint is more explicitly traumatic, but at the same time the violation of trust from someone familiar to the victim can be more traumatizing than an assault from a complete stranger. Psychological consequences vary according to many factors, and "grading" assaults according to their psychological consequences is almost impossible.

It's hard to argue, though, that the physical consequences of a forcible penetration at gun or knifepoint aren't more likely to be more severe than those of penetration of an unconscious or willing but intoxicated person.

Forcible penetration causes more damages than the penetration of an orifice of an unconscious or willing but intoxicated human being, and the physical consequences of a knife or gun assault are usually more severe than those of those of someone who sexually assault an unconscious person.

Is it possible that this is what Dawkins meant?

The social minimization of "date rape" is a true phenomenon, but it depends on a variety of factors, which include the degree of trust that the accusers receive based on the evidence they provide. A claim of "date rape" can sometimes be supported only by the accuser's self-witness. It's easier to prove that forcible rape happened, based on the physical evidence of forced penetration. This doesn't mean that date rape is less morally abhorrent, but that people are more likely to dismiss a claim of date rape that a claim of stranger rape at knifepoint.

There are no doubt some cultural reasons why society in general is less likely to trust people who accuse others of date rape than of stranger rape. However, the SJW approach that urges people to believe all accusations of rape regardless of whether the're supported by evidence can easily backfire. If more and more claims made with no evidence are supported by SJWs and eventually some of them are found to be false (as it is bound to happen) the cultural attitude could change so that all claims are perceived to be false if the person is supported by SJWs. Accusations of rape could become subject to political debate. This could hurt rape victims who turn to the SJWs for help.

A better approach is to take all accusation of rape seriously and thoroughly investigate them. If you remove the requirement to blindly believe the accusers, false accusations won't be seen as politically motivated but as personal failures of the accusers. This way we can avoid painting all accusers who belong to certain social or cultural background with a broad brush, and judge each case individually, on its own merits.

SoylentAtheist wrote: From the article:

http://www.michaelnugent.com/wp-content ... ymepit.png

The IP address is from Vodafone Ireland, Wireless Broadband, Static Assignment.

I would not suspect that of being a spammers paradise. Perhaps the person got flagged as spam for shitty posts on other forums.

However uceprotect.net clearly flags this person's ip range as being heaving on the spam.

The confirmation e-mail address is wrong. Could that have anything to do with it?

BlueShiftRhino wrote:I'm assuming that people saw the Oafie post setting up a smear against Michael Nugent for something Sinn Fein may have done. Maybe she was looking forward to a new MN post as much as I was. We are joined in our mutual disappointment.

Anyone got a freeze page for that ?

Shatterface

piero wrote:

SoylentAtheist wrote: From the article:

http://www.michaelnugent.com/wp-content ... ymepit.png

The IP address is from Vodafone Ireland, Wireless Broadband, Static Assignment.

I would not suspect that of being a spammers paradise. Perhaps the person got flagged as spam for shitty posts on other forums.

However uceprotect.net clearly flags this person's ip range as being heaving on the spam.

The confirmation e-mail address is wrong. Could that have anything to do with it?

1. I would expect a different error message.
2. uceprotect.net actually did show a significant amount of what was flagged as spam as coming from a very small range of near by ip addresses, which is explicitly why that IP address was pre-banned.

My best guess is that one of his ip address neighbors is infected with a scorching case of malware doing the spammy dirty.

Is Vodaphone a respected carrier in the UKish area (or whatever the F you want to call your set of Islands), or is it one of those cheap disposable pre-paid burner phone operations?

dog puke wrote:

Nec_V20 wrote:

dog puke wrote:-. . -.-. / ...- ..--- ----- / .. ... / .- / -.. ..- -- -... / ..-. ..- -.-. -.- / --- ..-. / - .... . / .... .. --. .... . ... - / --- .-. -.. . .-. .-.-.-

Really? V40?

Simple Morse code with only two symbols and you can't even get that right?

Sorry to say you have not made the team of infinite chimps who have been hired under RFC 2795 to write the works of Shakespeare.

Thou appeareth nothing to me but a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.

segue back in time to Shakespeare meeting 1969 on Broadway...

[youtube]fstxNFdQWZQ[/youtube]

Kirbmarc wrote: Obviously SZvan isn't talking about a more or less severe moral judgement, which is by its nature non-empirical and subjective. There's no way to empirically measure morality. I want to be charitable and assume that she's talking about the psychological and physical consequences of "stranger rape at knifepoint" compared to those of "date rape".

The different psychological effects of different types of rape are hard to quantify: it can be argued that a forcible rape at knifepoint is more explicitly traumatic, but at the same time the violation of trust from someone familiar to the victim can be more traumatizing than an assault from a complete stranger. Psychological consequences vary according to many factors, and "grading" assaults according to their psychological consequences is almost impossible.

It's hard to argue, though, that the physical consequences of a forcible penetration at gun or knifepoint aren't more likely to be more severe than those of penetration of an unconscious or willing but intoxicated person.

Forcible penetration causes more damages than the penetration of an orifice of an unconscious or willing but intoxicated human being, and the physical consequences of a knife or gun assault are usually more severe than those of those of someone who sexually assault an unconscious person.

Is it possible that this is what Dawkins meant?

The social minimization of "date rape" is a true phenomenon, but it depends on a variety of factors, which include the degree of trust that the accusers receive based on the evidence they provide. A claim of "date rape" can sometimes be supported only by the accuser's self-witness. It's easier to prove that forcible rape happened, based on the physical evidence of forced penetration. This doesn't mean that date rape is less morally abhorrent, but that people are more likely to dismiss a claim of date rape that a claim of stranger rape at knifepoint.

There are no doubt some cultural reasons why society in general is less likely to trust people who accuse others of date rape than of stranger rape. However, the SJW approach that urges people to believe all accusations of rape regardless of whether the're supported by evidence can easily backfire. If more and more claims made with no evidence are supported by SJWs and eventually some of them are found to be false (as it is bound to happen) the cultural attitude could change so that all claims are perceived to be false if the person is supported by SJWs. Accusations of rape could become subject to political debate. This could hurt rape victims who turn to the SJWs for help.

A better approach is to take all accusation of rape seriously and thoroughly investigate them. If you remove the requirement to blindly believe the accusers, false accusations won't be seen as politically motivated but as personal failures of the accusers. This way we can avoid painting all accusers who belong to certain social or cultural background with a broad brush, and judge each case individually, on its own merits.

QFT

Concerning what Dawkins meant, I think he left out the details in order to emphasise the logical structure. As I interpret it, his argument was something like this:

"Not all instances of rape are equally damaging to the victim; some are worse than others. That doesn't mean some are better than others; it means some are less bad. Judging something as the lesser evil is not endorsing it."

He chose "date rape" and "knifepoint rape" as illustrative of bad and worse. Was he wrong? I don't think so. Not provably wrong, at least. Once, when I was teaching geometry, I explained that surface area varies as the square of the linear dimensions, whereas volume varies as their cube, and that sets a limit to the body size of mammals because of heat dissipation issues: very small mammals have trouble keeping their bodies warm, and very large ones have the opposite problem. A (bright) student pointed out that a field mouse and a whale could not be compared, because their bodies are shaped differently: the field mouse has legs and feet and ears that increase its surface area disproportionately. Was he right? Well, yes and no: it is true that, given their body lengths, we cannot always determine in advance which of two animals has the greater surface area or the greater volume; but it is also true that plotting a graph of length vs. surface area and length vs. volume give us fairly nice fits to a parabola and a cubic, respectively.

Back to Dawkins. Was he wrong to say that date rape is not as bad as knifepoint rape? I can't say: as far as I know, there are no systematic data that would allow us to decide the question. It is of course true that the effects will vary from one case to another, but whether there is a discernible tendency I could not say.

I would nevertheless like to point out what I'd expect a reasonable person to think of Dawkins's statement: "Well, it could be the case that an instance of date rape is actually worse than some instance of knifepoint rape; however, I understand the point, so I won't nitpick."

SoylentAtheist wrote: Is Vodaphone a respected carrier in the UKish area (or whatever the F you want to call your set of Islands), or is it one of those cheap disposable pre-paid burner phone operations?

Vodafone is the largest European operator. Don't know whether Vodaphone is a typo or an El Cheapo clone.

Article on an upcoming Supreme Court case on the line of 'online threats.' Evidently the issue is not as clearly defined as we have thought.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an- ... ee-speech/

Shatterface as Guest wrote:

BlueShiftRhino wrote:I'm assuming that people saw the Oafie post setting up a smear against Michael Nugent for something Sinn Fein may have done. Maybe she was looking forward to a new MN post as much as I was. We are joined in our mutual disappointment.

Anyone got a freeze page for that ?

Shatterface

http://web.archive.org/web/201412011133 ... ng-to-say/

piero wrote:

SoylentAtheist wrote: Is Vodaphone a respected carrier in the UKish area (or whatever the F you want to call your set of Islands), or is it one of those cheap disposable pre-paid burner phone operations?

Vodafone is the largest European operator. Don't know whether Vodaphone is a typo or an El Cheapo clone.

Probably the same carrier with either a typo or multilingual spellings.

SoylentAtheist wrote:Article on an upcoming Supreme Court case on the line of 'online threats.' Evidently the issue is not as clearly defined as we have thought.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an- ... ee-speech/

Can I just say that I am ecstatic to listen to the argument audio in the Elonis v. United States case?

Perhaps we will finally get a legal definition of when an online threat is credible or not. I have done a lot of searching to find something that gives the criteria for when an online threat is indeed a credible threat. If anyone knows of anywhere that can definitively show what the criteria are already, then I'd love to know where the hell it is.

From Nugent's latest post:

Chigua, Ichthyc and Nerd of Redhead then scolded Tom Foss for his skepticism, with Nerd suggesting that Tom should:

“Read Nugent’s blogs asshole, like you don’t believe a word he says, rather than with worship. DUH. Apply the same skepticism you want us to use, upon Nugent. Come back when you are done. In a couple of years or so.”

Of course we're all familiar with NoR's abysmal level of critical thinking. I'd just like to point out that chigau and Icthyic can also be numbered amongst Pharyngula's most cognitively desolate commenters. They're both dishonest as feck, probably by accident, or through inability to comprehend simple facts and short trains of logic.

piero wrote: QFT

Concerning what Dawkins meant, I think he left out the details in order to emphasise the logical structure. As I interpret it, his argument was something like this:

"Not all instances of rape are equally damaging to the victim; some are worse than others. That doesn't mean some are better than others; it means some are less bad. Judging something as the lesser evil is not endorsing it."

He chose "date rape" and "knifepoint rape" as illustrative of bad and worse. Was he wrong? I don't think so. Not provably wrong, at least. Once, when I was teaching geometry, I explained that surface area varies as the square of the linear dimensions, whereas volume varies as their cube, and that sets a limit to the body size of mammals because of heat dissipation issues: very small mammals have trouble keeping their bodies warm, and very large ones have the opposite problem. A (bright) student pointed out that a field mouse and a whale could not be compared, because their bodies are shaped differently: the field mouse has legs and feet and ears that increase its surface area disproportionately. Was he right? Well, yes and no: it is true that, given their body lengths, we cannot always determine in advance which of two animals has the greater surface area or the greater volume; but it is also true that plotting a graph of length vs. surface area and length vs. volume give us fairly nice fits to a parabola and a cubic, respectively.

Back to Dawkins. Was he wrong to say that date rape is not as bad as knifepoint rape? I can't say: as far as I know, there are no systematic data that would allow us to decide the question. It is of course true that the effects will vary from one case to another, but whether there is a discernible tendency I could not say.

I would nevertheless like to point out what I'd expect a reasonable person to think of Dawkins's statement: "Well, it could be the case that an instance of date rape is actually worse than some instance of knifepoint rape; however, I understand the point, so I won't nitpick."

It's pretty simple, actually. Date rape usually involve getting the victim drunk/drugged so she* cannot properly consent. Violent rape involves, well, being violent and threatening to kill the victim if she doesn't complain.

Anyone with two functional brain cells can conclude that both are despicable acts, but threatening to kill someone is way worse than spiking her drink, simply because it involves a direct threat to end her life. Could spiking a drink end up killing the victim? Absolutely, maybe the person has some intolerance to the drug used or it can react badly with some medication she's using, and the rapist probably just doesn't care to find out. However, that's criminal negligence, while waving a knife at the victim is a good old murder threat. Which one is more heinous? The law can tell you.

In the end, that's Svanatee being obtuse to score a point against Dawkins, because their Dear Leader Peezus is anti-Dawkins since he's 15 or some bullshit. Yawn.

*Not all rape victims are female. Go fuck yourselves with gender-neutral pronouns, you English-speaking shitlords.

It's true, however, that date rape used to not be punished under sexual assault and rape laws, because it was seem as innocuous or that the victim "assumed the risk" or whatever. Because everybody knew back then that a good family woman would never be in this kind of situation in the first place, if she just stayed at home and read the Bible like good Christian women are supposed to do. I can see why comparing both types of rape and saying one is worse can be a touchy subject, but that doesn't make the comparison factually wrong. Besides, we moved past these days, thank fucking God (PBUHN), and date rapists can get they well deserved time in jail after due process like any other criminal.

There is also the issue of what constitutes date rape. Normal people understand it as "getting the other person drunk or drugged so that she cannot consent and perform sexual acts on them". SJWs sometimes see it as "a man having sex with a woman who has drunk alcohol, no matter how drunk she is, and no matter how drunk he is".

There's also the issue of "lying in order to get consensual sex" which normal people see as sleazy, but not as rape. Many SJWs think it's rape, and just as bad as a stranger holding a knife to someone's throat to sexually abuse them.

To say nothing of the people who argue that if you promise to marry someone if they'll have sex with you, they cheat on you and you don't marry them, you retroactively raped them, and you probably are just as bad as the stranger rapist with the knife. Normal people call this kind of behavior "leaving someone who cheated on you" and it's seen by many as a sign of sanity and of not being a spineless masochist.

So not only not all rapes are equally as bad, but some SJW definition of rape aren't rape at all. Dawkins is not only right, but (inadvertently?) has revealed one of the tactics of the SJW: they get to change the definition of a crime and then claim under their own definition all crimes of the same kind are equally as bad.

Unless you're Ogvorbis. Then you can confess that you raped three children and get pounce-hugs anyway.

Southern wrote:Which one is more heinous? The law can tell you.

Yes, that's it: our current inability to probe the victim's brain to establish how much she suffers forces us to set objective parameters of seriousness. From the victim's viewpoint, there can be no objective parameters; from the law's, there must be.

BarnOwl wrote:From Nugent's latest post:

Chigua, Ichthyc and Nerd of Redhead then scolded Tom Foss for his skepticism, with Nerd suggesting that Tom should:

“Read Nugent’s blogs asshole, like you don’t believe a word he says, rather than with worship. DUH. Apply the same skepticism you want us to use, upon Nugent. Come back when you are done. In a couple of years or so.”

Of course we're all familiar with NoR's abysmal level of critical thinking. I'd just like to point out that chigau and Icthyic can also be numbered amongst Pharyngula's most cognitively desolate commenters. They're both dishonest as feck, probably by accident, or through inability to comprehend simple facts and short trains of logic.

Chigau is the one who really got on my case when I explained that I don't care if my spelling and punctuation are correct as I am often typing with frozen fingers. I was accused of being an abelist shitlord, basically. When I tried to defend myself, and explained that I only don't give a shit in online gaming, where sentences are fragmented anyway, and that I wasn't trying to torture the disabled at FTB with my typos, chigau told me that "no one cares" and gave the very strong impression that I should go DIAF for my crimes. Improbable Joe, another intellectual powerhouse, then chided me for ruining the atmosphere since he didn't want to hear ableist shitlords defending themselves.

Yes, that's it: our current inability to probe the victim's brain to establish how much she suffers forces us to set objective parameters of seriousness. From the victim's viewpoint, there can be no objective parameters; from the law's, there must be.

"The laws and the justice system in general are a product of The Patriarchy. All rapes are equal. All accusations of rape are true. Unless you're one of us. Then the accusations against you are false. And if you confess to have raped someone, you were brainwashed by your abusers."

Kirbmarc wrote:So not only not all rapes are equally as bad, but some SJW definition of rape aren't rape at all. Dawkins is not only right, but (inadvertently?) has revealed one of the tactics of the SJW: they get to change the definition of a crime and then claim under their own definition all crimes of the same kind are equally as bad.

In other words, woman=good, man=bad. Pity that in the real world things are slightly more complex. As in the case you mentioned, what happens if both are drunk? Is the less drunk one the rapist? How can it be determined who was less drunk? Is being able to recollect having had sex evidence of sufficient ability to consent?

No wonder the SJW opt for a simplification. The problem is that their definition would make it practically impossible to have sex without the risk of being accused of rape. Forget about Ferguson's police: now everyone will carry a bodycam around.

piero wrote:

Kirbmarc wrote:So not only not all rapes are equally as bad, but some SJW definition of rape aren't rape at all. Dawkins is not only right, but (inadvertently?) has revealed one of the tactics of the SJW: they get to change the definition of a crime and then claim under their own definition all crimes of the same kind are equally as bad.

In other words, woman=good, man=bad. Pity that in the real world things are slightly more complex. As in the case you mentioned, what happens if both are drunk? Is the less drunk one the rapist? How can it be determined who was less drunk? Is being able to recollect having had sex evidence of sufficient ability to consent?

No wonder the SJW opt for a simplification. The problem is that their definition would make it practically impossible to have sex without the risk of being accused of rape. Forget about Ferguson's police: now everyone will carry a bodycam around.

The entire mantra that you need to have affirmative verbal 'enthusiastic consent' in order for sexual activity to not be considered rape makes it possible for two people, who both want to have sex with each other, under the law, to be raping each other simultaneously. But of course all of their legal proposals apply to men being the ones asking, and women being the ones giving this 'enthusiastic consent'.

another lurker wrote:Chigau is the one who really got on my case when I explained that I don't care if my spelling and punctuation are correct as I am often typing with frozen fingers. I was accused of being an abelist shitlord, basically. When I tried to defend myself, and explained that I only don't give a shit in online gaming, where sentences are fragmented anyway, and that I wasn't trying to torture the disabled at FTB with my typos, chigau told me that "no one cares" and gave the very strong impression that I should go DIAF for my crimes. Improbable Joe, another intellectual powerhouse, then chided me for ruining the atmosphere since he didn't want to hear ableist shitlords defending themselves.

Let's drop Comhcinc in their midst and see how they like that.

Reactions to the Guardian rape letter..
http://www.womensagenda.com.au/index.ph ... Hx4e3PTmv0

1) as long as the woman thinks that it is rape, it is rape

2) rape is bad, so it's OK to falsely accuse men of rape

Nec_V20 wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:

Parody Accountant wrote:Wow, watching the (ever-awesome) Scented Nectar lash out at Nec... it's without a doubt a shitty troll. I mean we all called it in the first few minutes, but SN has him in a corner that he can't figure his way out of.

I think Jan Steen has it right, along with the growing number of you. I'm putting the troll on ignore. He's boring now. I used to have fun batting him down. Will still look forward to Lsuoma doxxing him by saying how many ignores he has. I don't mind if others quote him, but I'm going to get off the ride now.

goodnight sweet prince

Ah shucks, thanks for the compliment. :)

You can't be too interested in the answer to your question otherwise you would have opened the PM I sent.

:evil: I tried to scroll up the page to check but couldn't because I'm literally shaking with rage right now. Did you... i can't even... did.. you.. get permission to send a PM? If not, pounce tugs to Scented Nectar for the unsolicited inbox rape.

another lurker wrote:Reactions to the Guardian rape letter..
http://www.womensagenda.com.au/index.ph ... Hx4e3PTmv0

1) as long as the woman thinks that it is rape, it is rape

2) rape is bad, so it's OK to falsely accuse men of rape

"The bottom line is this: rape accusations – true and false – will only stop when men in society stop systematically and repeatedly committing rape, and we have a much better chance of making that happen if we don't champion the voices of the accused at the expense of the victim."

The fucking. the..fuck..fucking. fuck? What? Did Lucia just claim that false rape claims will ONLY stop when men in society stop systematically and repeatedly committing rape?

And notice at the end when she says 'accused' and then says 'victim'. Well if that person is accused and it hasn't been proven that he is a rapist, then how can we establish that she is a victim yet. Only that she made an accusation. And in that op-ed it was explained that she wasn't a victim, but someone who claimed rape after consent was given for some reason or another. Yet they still say that this girl is a victim. This drives me up the wall. Completely ignoring women who rape. The word 'systematically' confuses me. Is there some sort of assembly line of men gearing up to rape women? "Alright Jeffery, it's your turn to take care of the daily rape quota."

piero wrote:
Concerning what Dawkins meant, I think he left out the details in order to emphasise the logical structure. As I interpret it, his argument was something like this:

"Not all instances of rape are equally damaging to the victim; some are worse than others. That doesn't mean some are better than others; it means some are less bad. Judging something as the lesser evil is not endorsing it."

He chose "date rape" and "knifepoint rape" as illustrative of bad and worse. Was he wrong? I don't think so.

Actually, Dawkins was explicit in stating that his point had nothing to do with the truth value of whether stranger rape at knifepoint was worse than date rape. His point was that a logically valid argument remains logically valid even if the actual premises are emotionally charged. Heck, it remains valid even if the premises are false. The rape example was a mere hypothetical. His larger point is that when discussing a subject rationally, we should not let the emotional content of what we are discussing cloud our judgement. And the baboons failed the test so badly that they are still failing it four months later.

In fact, far from asserting the "rape grading" statement as a fact, Dawkins was eloquent in stating that there are reasonable objections:

Richard Dawkins wrote:Actually, it’s rather plausible that some people might find date rape WORSE than being raped by a stranger (let’s leave the “at knifepoint” out of it). Think of the disillusionment, the betrayal of trust in someone you thought was a friend.

and that he's not even endorsing "rape grading" as a concept:

Richard Dawkins wrote:I wasn’t even saying it is RIGHT to rank one kind of rape as worse than another (that caused an immense amount of agony and a scarcely creditable level of vitriolic abuse in the Twittosphere). You may be one of those who thinks all forms of rape are EQUALLY bad, and should not, in principle be ranked at all, ever. In that case my logical point won’t be relevant to you and you don’t need to take offence (although you might have trouble being a judge who is expected to give heavier sentences for worse versions of the same crime).

Cliché Guevara wrote:

another lurker wrote:Chigau is the one who really got on my case when I explained that I don't care if my spelling and punctuation are correct as I am often typing with frozen fingers. I was accused of being an abelist shitlord, basically. When I tried to defend myself, and explained that I only don't give a shit in online gaming, where sentences are fragmented anyway, and that I wasn't trying to torture the disabled at FTB with my typos, chigau told me that "no one cares" and gave the very strong impression that I should go DIAF for my crimes. Improbable Joe, another intellectual powerhouse, then chided me for ruining the atmosphere since he didn't want to hear ableist shitlords defending themselves.

Let's drop Comhcinc in their midst and see how they like that.

If my spelling is bad, talk to google. If my, punctuation is, off blame my love of Captain Kirk; My sentence structure being wonky is because of Nec.
:shifty:

JayTeeAitch wrote:

Nec_V20 wrote:You can't be too interested in the answer to your question otherwise you would have opened the PM I sent.

:evil: I tried to scroll up the page to check but couldn't because I'm literally shaking with rage right now. Did you... i can't even... did.. you.. get permission to send a PM? If not, pounce tugs to Scented Nectar for the unsolicited inbox rape.

Thanks for the pouncetugs. I needed them. I've been huddled in a corner crying ever since I learned there was a PM waiting. I've developed pm-box-ptsd as well. *sniff* :cry:

If SN says that a PM is rape, it's rape.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

NoGodsEver wrote:

Parody Accountant wrote:Holy fuck. Why didn't you assholes tell me that the Replacements were pretty much the best band ever?

I've devoured their first four LP's in a row. Plus booze.

Still though, it's like discovering VU, X, Flaming Lips, Chris Knox, Social D, The Feelies, etc... all at once.

Because it's common knowledge?

The Replacrments sucked beyond belief.

I listened to a flaming lips cd once; there was no discernible music on it.

We're talking about the band, not the movie, here. Try to keep up.

Scented Nectar wrote:

JayTeeAitch wrote:

Nec_V20 wrote:You can't be too interested in the answer to your question otherwise you would have opened the PM I sent.

:evil: I tried to scroll up the page to check but couldn't because I'm literally shaking with rage right now. Did you... i can't even... did.. you.. get permission to send a PM? If not, pounce tugs to Scented Nectar for the unsolicited inbox rape.

Thanks for the pouncetugs. I needed them. I've been huddled in a corner crying ever since I learned there was a PM waiting. I've developed pm-box-ptsd as well. *sniff* :cry:

What is your patreon link?

another lurker wrote:If SN says that a PM is rape, it's rape.

Maybe Carrie Poppy could send a grenade letter to PZ for me.

another lurker wrote:If SN says that a PM is rape, it's rape.

Listen and believe.

comhcinc wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:Thanks for the pouncetugs. I needed them. I've been huddled in a corner crying ever since I learned there was a PM waiting. I've developed pm-box-ptsd as well. *sniff* :cry:

What is your patreon link?

I knew I was forgetting something! The patreon link to make the magic misery money flow in. :)

comhcinc wrote:

another lurker wrote:If SN says that a PM is rape, it's rape.

Listen and believe.

Yes. And if it isn't actually a rape, that's OK too, because the entire ordeal will make you *think* about how, as a man, you are living, breathing rape.

another lurker wrote:

comhcinc wrote:

another lurker wrote:If SN says that a PM is rape, it's rape.

Listen and believe.

Yes. And if it isn't actually a rape, that's OK too, because the entire ordeal will make you *think* about how, as a man, you are living, breathing rape.

Unfortunately this now means that we are in fact harboring a rapist.

This SJ lesson on consensual sex is your ticket to avoiding accidental rape.

Naw. It's as cringe-y as Christian comedy, skeevy as 8mm porn. And stoooopid. Turn your sound down, the slurping soundtrack is epic.

[youtube]bVHYvUpeqKI[/youtube]

Nec_V20 wrote:

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Nec, if you have to advertise that you're clever, you ain't. Give it a rest. Count your remaining teeth, raid the couch cushions for beer money and give us a rest.

One problem with that plan, I don't have a couch - not even a chaise longue. I do have some really nice chairs though.

It is not a case of me advertising any cleverness, it is however about others proclaiming their abysmal stupidity.

I still have more teeth that your normal Red State extended family - not on average, but added together. So I think my blessings are pretty well taken care of as far as that goes.

Your concern trolling does touch me, but not half as touched as you must be to even consider addressing me in this fashion.

Fuck me! Please don't pull on the cord, people.

Ape+lust wrote:This SJ lesson on consensual sex is your ticket to avoiding accidental rape.

Naw. It's as cringe-y as Christian comedy, skeevy as 8mm porn. And stoooopid. Turn your sound down, the slurping soundtrack is epic.

[youtube]bVHYvUpeqKI[/youtube]

In the video the woman clear ask if she can take his shirt off. The man says yes. She doesn't do it until much later and then does not seek consent again.

That's rape right?

Ape+lust wrote:This SJ lesson on consensual sex is your ticket to avoiding accidental rape.

Naw. It's as cringe-y as Christian comedy, skeevy as 8mm porn. And stoooopid. Turn your sound down, the slurping soundtrack is epic.

[youtube]bVHYvUpeqKI[/youtube]

Anyone know the correct spelling of "projectile vomit"?

Where the fuck was the breathalyzer? Did he promise to marry her? Otherwise what the fuck is she doing? She should be at home reading the bible. Slut.

I am shaking with something or other right now... I just can't... remember what I am shaking with... but it's bad... like men.

Yeh, that's gonna end up as the most awkward sex encounter ever. At all. Thank FSM modern 'feminists" and SJWs were not around during mu puberty years.

SpacePope wrote:

another lurker wrote:Reactions to the Guardian rape letter..
http://www.womensagenda.com.au/index.ph ... Hx4e3PTmv0

1) as long as the woman thinks that it is rape, it is rape

2) rape is bad, so it's OK to falsely accuse men of rape

"The bottom line is this: rape accusations – true and false – will only stop when men in society stop systematically and repeatedly committing rape, and we have a much better chance of making that happen if we don't champion the voices of the accused at the expense of the victim."

The fucking. the..fuck..fucking. fuck? What? Did Lucia just claim that false rape claims will ONLY stop when men in society stop systematically and repeatedly committing rape?

And notice at the end when she says 'accused' and then says 'victim'. Well if that person is accused and it hasn't been proven that he is a rapist, then how can we establish that she is a victim yet. Only that she made an accusation. And in that op-ed it was explained that she wasn't a victim, but someone who claimed rape after consent was given for some reason or another. Yet they still say that this girl is a victim. This drives me up the wall. Completely ignoring women who rape. The word 'systematically' confuses me. Is there some sort of assembly line of men gearing up to rape women? "Alright Jeffery, it's your turn to take care of the daily rape quota."

This column is kind of a one stop shop for the most common logical, factual, and rhetorical errors that feminists make on the subject. Feminists, and really all left wing social critics, love peppering their statements with 'systematic' and 'institutional', to the point it becomes a standard adornment devoid of meaning.

On false rape allegations, she uses the 2-8% range. OK, I'll give her a little bit of credit for not simply saying 2%. But she then says these numbers are believed to be high estimates, and as a citation links to a piece that states, demonstrably wrongly that “reports that can’t be prosecuted due to statute of limitations, lack of evidence, or some other reason, but no doubt the victim was assaulted" are included as false in these estimates. And, get this, her citation for this statement is a comment on Pharygula from Crip Dyke, which itself doesn't reference anything. How's that for rigorous analysis!

The fact is the low end of that range is clearly wrong, and the actual low end of false rape report frequncy estimates is around 8-10%. The actual frequency is very likely higher than this, but it's impossible with the current information available to say how much.

She also links to a source claiming that it documents that 17% of Australian women over the age of 15 have been raped. I went to the source knowing what I would find, and was rewarded: the 17% was for sexual assault, not rape. And given that the definition of sexual assault is very nebulous, this number cannot simply be transferred to an argument about rape.

Ape+lust wrote:This SJ lesson on consensual sex is your ticket to avoiding accidental rape.

Naw. It's as cringe-y as Christian comedy, skeevy as 8mm porn. And stoooopid. Turn your sound down, the slurping soundtrack is epic.

[youtube]bVHYvUpeqKI[/youtube]

"This video is not available" :(

jugheadnaut wrote:..........Actually, Dawkins was explicit in stating that his point had nothing to do with the truth value of whether stranger rape at knifepoint was worse than date rape. His point was that a logically valid argument remains logically valid even if the actual premises are emotionally charged. Heck, it remains valid even if the premises are false. The rape example was a mere hypothetical. His larger point is that when discussing a subject rationally, we should not let the emotional content of what we are discussing cloud our judgement. And the baboons failed the test so badly that they are still failing it four months later.....

But it IS all about the feels and Dick is a bad boy for not being sensitive. At least that's what the Oaf says. She sometimes does this, argues that although you did not actually say X you must be aware that shitheads like her will understand what you said as X and that's your fault.

Ape+lust wrote:This SJ lesson on consensual sex is your ticket to avoiding accidental rape.

Naw. It's as cringe-y as Christian comedy, skeevy as 8mm porn. And stoooopid. Turn your sound down, the slurping soundtrack is epic.

[youtube]bVHYvUpeqKI[/youtube]

The whole 'enthusiastic consent' thing looks less like a guide to avoid accidentally raping someone than legal advice on how to ensure a rape case against you won't stick.

It's not surprising most of those embracing it have been accused of rape in the past.

Shatterface

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:

jugheadnaut wrote:..........Actually, Dawkins was explicit in stating that his point had nothing to do with the truth value of whether stranger rape at knifepoint was worse than date rape. His point was that a logically valid argument remains logically valid even if the actual premises are emotionally charged. Heck, it remains valid even if the premises are false. The rape example was a mere hypothetical. His larger point is that when discussing a subject rationally, we should not let the emotional content of what we are discussing cloud our judgement. And the baboons failed the test so badly that they are still failing it four months later.....

But it IS all about the feels and Dick is a bad boy for not being sensitive. At least that's what the Oaf says. She sometimes does this, argues that although you did not actually say X you must be aware that shitheads like her will understand what you said as X and that's your fault.

Sure, but the 'trigger' argument seems to be their minor point during this imbroglio. Their major point has always involved treating Dawkins' statement as his actual opinion, and central to the point he was trying to make, rather than a hypothetical used to illustrate a point that has nothing to do with rape. Her Corpulence still is focused on this in her latest turd.

Jerry Coyne on a Myers' latest brainfart:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... haryngula/

Shatterface