Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[Steersman]

FWIW, another recent comment of mine on Ed Brayton’s blog – currently “awaiting moderation”:

Raging Bee (#67):

Lou Jost: Raging Bee, what would you like to see regarding the claim that Avicenna’s father visited the WTC as a tourist just before it got hit?
Raging Bee: As dingojack said, a direct quote and cite of the actual claim.

Kind of difficult – doncha think? – in light of the fact that Ed has deleted all of Avi’s posts – maybe somewhat too conveniently. And that neither you nor DingoJack apparently have either the balls or the intellectual integrity to actually check the Pit doesn’t help either.

However, since you seem incapable of exhibiting even the least amount of skepticism or willingness to engage in “due diligence”, maybe the following quotes (with links) will disabuse you of some of your hyperskepticism and tendency to motivated reasoning (AKA bigotry).

This is apparently from one of Avi’s posts (1), apparently dated September 12, 2001:

Can you imagine throwing yourself to your death? On 11/9/2001, my father was on the World Trade Centre as a tourist. He had left well before the plane’s struck and was in fact in the air so he didn’t realize what had happened but for a few minutes after the planes hit we were worried if it was his plane.

And this is from the NIST-WTC Investigation Reports (2):

The New York Stock Exchange does not open ... until 9:30 a.m., therefore many people from trading firms had not come into work yet. Tuesday, September 11, 2001, was the first day of school in several primary school districts, and many parents accompany their children to school on this day. Visitor hours had not started yet, as the viewing platform in the WTC 2 did not open to the public until 9:30 a.m. Perhaps the biggest factor of all was the early hour — many simply had not arrived at work by 8:46 a.m. In addition, dozens of investment firms in the WTC had closed their offices or cut employment sharply. Some offices were leased but empty or under renovation (Cauchon 2001).

Now one might, charitably, think that Avi was confused on the dates – maybe his father was there on November 9, although that would then have to have happened in a previous year. But any rational, unbiased person, when confronted with such evidence, would have to have at least raised an eyebrow at some serious inconsistencies between those two accounts.

----
1) “_http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=246765#p246765”;
2) “_http://archive.org/stream/NIST_WTC_Investigation_Reports-101422/NIST_WTC_Investigation_Reports-101422_djvu.txt”;

[comhcinc]

A lot of rednecks have spent more time shooting than you lot have spent wanking

IT'S THE SAME THING.

[Parody Accountant]

WHAT IF I WANT TO READ ABOUT HORSE MASTURBATION???

WHO WILL SATISFY ME

Come visit the ranch, and we'll have a grand old time:

excalibur.jpg

[Billie from Ockham]

A lot of rednecks have spent more time shooting than you lot have spent wanking, so they're as trustworthy around loaded firearms as a law enforcement officer or soldier.

bold added

http://kdvr.com/2015/01/02/police-chief ... t-my-wife/

[Billie from Ockham]

Well, that was weird. I tried posting a suggestion to shatterface that he listen to Michael Nugent and try a charitable reading of Ed Brayton (especially when you can't know what he knew) and got the "your IP is blocked message" in red. Logged out and back on, and it was fine.

Maybe Avi had a point?

It is well known that the pit's anti-spam defenses are extremely aggressive. But so are the spammers. PM your ip address to the facist tit for him to whitelist.

A reboot fixed it. Plus, the idea of being on a "whitelist" is so offensive, I ... just ... can't

[John D]

Nonetheless, and all that being said, it is quite specifically and quite strictly a genitalia focussed phenomenon (phenomena?). I do not in any way whatsoever find any man sexually attractive, though I do still find many women sexually attractive, and therefore I still define myself as straight.

All in all, it's rather confusing. Not important; not requiring new and heretofore unseen personal pronouns, or statues erected in my name, nor websites, political movements, or whole social constructs designed to emulate me, worship me, and do as I demand ... just interesting and somewhat confusing.

As you were.

:violin:

Several names come to mind... "penis-faggot" might work. "vagiphobe" is also interesting (but perhaps too strongly vag negative.) "hermaphrosexual" may be close since it sort of implies a general acceptance of both sets of organs. "heterocock" blends a sort of basic heterosexuality with love of the dick. "CISdisk" is rather short and rolls off the tongue. Hmmmm.... none of these are very satisfying to me.... I will keep working on it.

[comhcinc]

http://i.imgur.com/5piANL9.jpg

It's been too many pages without titties.

[Steersman]

Mr. PA said:

Avicenna plagiarized. I lied about who I was off-site.

I skppied several pages, so I might have missed an explanation, but did you actually lie about who you were, or did you just present as someone other than PA? That is, I think, an important distinction.

Maybe of some relevance, a definition:

lie: v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

Presenting information that would suggest that PA was unfamiliar with the Pit - as seems to have been the case - would seem to qualify.

Though not entirely sure that lying is necessarily always unethical - the "paradigmatic" case being where one is hiding Anne Frank and the Gestapo show up at the door and ask if you've seen her. The "problematic" nature of insisting on absolutes - why I tend to be willing to consider that, as Damion has argued, there might well be cases where doxxing is the order of the day.

[Parody Accountant]

Mr. PA said:

Avicenna plagiarized. I lied about who I was off-site.

I skppied several pages, so I might have missed an explanation, but did you actually lie about who you were, or did you just present as someone other than PA? That is, I think, an important distinction.

eh, somewhere in the middle, I suppose.

I definitely communicated ideas and thoughts and worldviews that I truly believe - while simply identifying as someone other than PA. However, I sometimes use intentional deception to imply or explicitly state that I'm new to the arguments.

Also, I'm a parody accountant, I have an entire sock market. :bjarte: Besides, aren't we all Franc's socks?

[KiwiInOz]

According to some SJW vegans I've seen on the 'net, most definetely. Although they usually focus on the inseminating part as being rape. Everyone knows bulls are horny bastards and enjoy being jacked off regardless of who or what is doing it. The damsely cows are the real victims here.

Maybe that can be Sarkeesian's new game. It starts as a platformer. An empowered cow who doesn't need help from any bull, manages her own escape. Then she takes out all of the strictly male farm hands, the hen raping rooster, and then the final boss-the farmer himself. Then she establishes a barnyard femocracy. Now it becomes a resource management and strategy game, as you direct the cows, sows, and hens to use there other ways of knowing to develop advanced tech which you will use to liberate neighboring farms. I see it as a combination of Prince of Persia, FarmVille, and Civilization. It can't fail!

You can call it Feminal Farm.

Bet that it will never be a seminal game.

[Ape+lust]

FWIW, another recent comment of mine on Ed Brayton’s blog – currently “awaiting moderation”:

(Baboon obstinacy snipped)

Here you go Steersman, an archived copy of Avi's 9/11 WTC page. It's a waste of time, but they say they want citations, so enjoy stuffing this up their noses:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140925131 ... lling-man/

[Billie from Ockham]

What is so magical about having a second account when the first account is also anonymous? It's what you write with the accounts that would seem to matter, not the number. I, for example, use two other different nyms (both of which I have linked to my real name, as the topics aren't controversial) when I am on websites that have to do with my hobbies. And then I have an account for work that doesn't use a nym.

The only kind of sock-puppetry that I can see as being highly dishonest is when you use a second account to create fake support for (or start an argument with) the first account. That and trying to sneak onto a site from which you've been rightfully banned.

[Shatterface as Guest]

Putting someone on ignore is no more 'censorship' than not visiting the Pit at all. Nobody is obliged to visit here and those who do aren't obliged to read everything.

Not being read is not being censored.

I don't read FTB anymore - is that censorship?

If you don't have a Twatter account are you censoring the Twatters you can't read?

If you don't read every fucking book in the library are you censoring authors?

Are you censoring someone on a train because you'd rather sit somewhere else than listen them bellowing down their mobile phone that they're just going into a tunnel?

People have a right to speak; they don't have a right to demand that everybody listens.

There are billions of people in the world and I have only so much time in the day.

Shatterface

[Steersman]

FWIW, another recent comment of mine on Ed Brayton’s blog – currently “awaiting moderation”:

(Baboon obstinacy snipped)

Here you go Steersman, an archived copy of Avi's 9/11 WTC page. It's a waste of time, but they say they want citations, so enjoy stuffing this up their noses:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140925131 ... lling-man/

Thanks. If Ed lets my comment out of moderation I'll probably comment again to reference the link (but others may want to try doing so - hint, hint ;-) ). Although I note that Lou Jost and Abear have made similar points. And the former provided an indirect link back to your original comment so if anyone is paying attention over there - a seriously moot point - then they may see the link to the archived version of that original post of Avi's.

"Put that in your pipe and smoke it FfTBers!" :-)

[Steersman]

What is so magical about having a second account when the first account is also anonymous? It's what you write with the accounts that would seem to matter, not the number. I, for example, use two other different nyms (both of which I have linked to my real name, as the topics aren't controversial) when I am on websites that have to do with my hobbies. And then I have an account for work that doesn't use a nym.

The only kind of sock-puppetry that I can see as being highly dishonest is when you use a second account to create fake support for (or start an argument with) the first account. That and trying to sneak onto a site from which you've been rightfully banned.

??? Discuss ....

[Really?]

That's right. FYI, I'm every person ever who ever said anything good about the pit, or suggested that they were unfamiliar. It was all me.

You've just admitted to lying for the Pit. So I take it you'll be giving Avi a bit of leeway then? Or is the IOWWDI clause in effect?

Avicenna plagiarized. I lied about who I was off-site. Wrong comparison.

Unfortunately, the real comparison is worse, and it's the one I made previously. Oolon. I'm fighting fire with fire, as the vast majority of people who avoid the pit have only heard about it from a small group of vocal toxic SJW's like oolon.

Yeah, I've made peace with it. It is not okay when either side uses deception. I'm rationalizing it like this: I use deception to cause people to look for themselves or think for themselves. Oolon and co. use deception to prevent people from looking or thinking for themselves. It works for me.

Fun fact: I've only done it probably 10 times over the years. It's way more fun to troll people like parsehole does (do you guys really think he's the only one? yes, he's the funniest and most prolific - admittedly.)

The only thing I regret was, as Franc pointed out, drunkenly blabbertizing it here. Haha I'm a retard.

Oh well.

I also think there's a huge difference between what you've done and what the Horde does.

Can any of us really say that we're the same person in every situation? When you go on a first date, do you treat your partner the same way you'll treat them if you go out for a year? Hell no. Who would chastize a first date for being late or taking too long in the bathroom or choosing a shitty movie?

The important thing is that the bad guys in this situation are straight-out lying, no matter their nyms. "The pit doxxes!" No, it doesn't. "The Pit is building an underground cage for Rebecca Watson!" No, it isn't. "The pit is filled with rapists." I've seen no evidence of that. (Although many of you people are pretty fucked up...all those messages about jacking off horses and stallion smegma...)

I think Michael Bay put it best: "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. KABOOM."

[Scented Nectar]

John D. brought it up earlier but got ignored--people do milk bulls for semen. How is that functionally different from giving bulls handjobs without involving cow bait? And how about artificial selection in animal breeding? Since an agent capable of legal consent is involved (the human breeder/semen collector), we could consider this conspiracy to rape. Are you opposed to these things as well?

Yes, I am opposed to that. I think they should be allowed to fuck and breed the old fashioned way. But my opposition to that does not change, mitigate, alter, affect, or have anything to do with, the fact that I would oppose you fucking the family poodle.

Also, teens being with their fellow teens (assuming that you mean legally underage teens in your example) is a very different issue than someone fucking a human who's in a vegetative state. Stop trying to conflate things.

Just as a practical matter.... the reason that teens fucking teens is not illegal is simply due to the fact that MILLIONS of teens are fucking teens. If it was illegal half of the 15 year-olds in the US would be in juvi. Also, Millions of 18 and 19 year old men are fucking 16 and 17 year old women. Again... the reason the law is written the way it is is that you could never lock that many people up. I am actually very much in support of lower consent ages. I think 14 or 15 should be the age of consent.

The average age of first sex for women in the US is 17 and in Germany is 16. This is the average age, so you know there are millions of women having sex at 14 and 15 years of age.

http://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/200 ... first-sex/

Here in Canada, it's 14 or 16 depending on how old the other person is. Last I heard, anyways. It may have changed. I'm not arguing for or against any specific age, just against RoboKitty's stance, which seems to abandon age of consent altogether based on a non-existent 'science'.

[Tribble]

cow.png

You don't have to put arm up the rectum. It does help with positioning and insemination rates. But it's not mandatory.

[Parody Accountant]

My wife told me a story about her dog-walking buddy.

Lady's dog had a boner. The boner would not go away. The dog seemed to be in discomfort (aside from not getting any bitches). She called the veterinarian...

"Look you can either spend over a hundred dollars on a visit here or you can fix it yourself."

...

"Masturbate the dog."

This lady was a bit off and I kind of doubt some of the stories she's told me. But why lie about this? I wish we had a vet here to see if this is ever recommended.

So, assuming that vet actually said this, I believe this was that rare ethical case of human + pet sexy times.

[James Caruthers]

bovarchist said:

More and more I'm wondering if there is even such a thing as sexual orientations, or merely sexual tastes. Tastes that develop for who knows what reasons in one's early development, but which can change.

Ya, I'm wondering about that too. For most of my 58 years, on this woeful plane, I've been a big fan of teh Pussy. Lately, for some reason or other whose cause I am unaware of, I have become a big fan of teh Dick, and quite enjoy the occasional anonymous visit to the local steam room. :shhh:

Go figure. :think:

I am unaware of what might have caused this change, and it has been gradual, but I now find the idea of giving BJs as arousing as I once found the idea (and act) of giving cunilinguals arousing. And I no longer much find the idea of giving cunilinguals much arousing at all.

Nonetheless, and all that being said, it is quite specifically and quite strictly a genitalia focussed phenomenon (phenomena?). I do not in any way whatsoever find any man sexually attractive, though I do still find many women sexually attractive, and therefore I still define myself as straight.

All in all, it's rather confusing. Not important; not requiring new and heretofore unseen personal pronouns, or statues erected in my name, nor websites, political movements, or whole social constructs designed to emulate me, worship me, and do as I demand ... just interesting and somewhat confusing.

As you were.

:violin:

For what it's worth, your story is extremely common, from what I've researched into this subject. I've heard this story several times from married men. They don't particularly find men sexually desirable and they don't want to get their asses rammed (or vice-versa) but there seems to be a later-in-life craving for, um, performing fellatio on penises. :think:

I find this really bizarre myself, because it's not a fetish/orientation that personally appeals to me, and I don't really get the whole "I'm not into guys, but I love sucking dick" phenomenon. But it is definitely a very common situation, at least as far as my own internet research shows.

I could probably PM you some links, or you could google it. I suspect a lot of the older men in the same situation as you feel a similar amount of confusion over what that means re: their sexuality. For my part, I'm convinced that sexual tastes can and do change, but there is some underlying sexual orientation which doesn't change all that much.

IE I used to get feel really uncomfortable doing greco-roman wrestling with my very fit martial arts instructor. Now I know why that is.

That's my over-share for today.

Anyway, glad to hear you're working your kinks out yourself. Just stay safe and hopefully you're not keeping secrets from your spouse. I mean, it's none of my business, but those secrets have a way of causing problems if they come out later.

[Really?]

My wife told me a story about her dog-walking buddy.

Lady's dog had a boner. The boner would not go away. The dog seemed to be in discomfort (aside from not getting any bitches). She called the veterinarian...

"Look you can either spend over a hundred dollars on a visit here or you can fix it yourself."

...

"Masturbate the dog."

This lady was a bit off and I kind of doubt some of the stories she's told me. But why lie about this? I wish we had a vet here to see if this is ever recommended.

So, assuming that vet actually said this, I believe this was that rare ethical case of human + pet sexy times.

Either that vet is one hell of a practical joker or she dialed one number off and got a fifteen year old with a bunch of his friends.

"Tell her to jerk the dog off!"

"Shhh...shut up shut up. I can't laugh. Ahem. Well, Mrs. Johnson, you'll need to masturbate your dog manually." snicker.

[John D]

Here in Canada, it's 14 or 16 depending on how old the other person is. Last I heard, anyways. It may have changed. I'm not arguing for or against any specific age, just against RoboKitty's stance, which seems to abandon age of consent altogether based on a non-existent 'science'.

Yeah... I understand. Age is used as a surrogate for maturity in the law. It is not perfect, but until there is a better method it is the best that we have. This problem exists in criminal law, civil law, drinking, gambling, joining the military, etc. All of these things use age as a surrogate concept for the idea of maturity. I don't know of any better system (and neither does RK - or RK wold have spelled it out).

It is not uncommon for men to have sex with donkeys in some regions in South America. I don't think this sounds very appealing to me, but it is hard for me to find the harm in it as long as the donkey doesn't get hurt. I realize this sounds really weird, but I think that every crime needs a victim. Is it worse for these South Americans to do sex times on a donkey than it is to force them to carry a load up and down a steep mountain trail? I don't think so. Perhaps we should make it illegal to force animals to do any tasks for us.... but this doesn't seem necessary to me. I also fail to see any harm in jerking off dogs and bulls to collect their semen. We do much worst stuff to animals all the time. Some consistency might be in order.

[Tribble]

What is one Ed Brayton post that is simply a must read?

None. He was dull at SciBlogs. He's dull at FTB.

[Parody Accountant]

What is one Ed Brayton post that is simply a must read?

None. He was dull at SciBlogs. He's dull at FTB.

He sorta blogs as if he's curating the liberal news for us non-google-havers.

[John D]

fellatoCIS

[James Caruthers]

If you'd kill an animal and eat it, why not jerk it off or rape it?

I realize that's some PETA argumentation right there, but I eat meat all the time. Why would I find it morally repugnant to rape an animal for my sexual satisfaction when I'm already murdering them for my nutritional satisfaction? Both are animal needs. In today's world, I could fulfill my nutritional needs without meat, but I don't. I eat animals because they taste good. Why wouldn't I rape/have sex with an animal if it feels good?

Notwithstanding, I don't actually rape animals. I find the idea unappealing.

Oh sure, you don't need to have sex to continue living. You do need to eat to live. However, you don't need to eat meat in today's world in order to live. Certainly don't need to eat nearly as much as the average westerner eats. So at some point, yes, I am eating meat because it tastes good to me. Ergo, having sex with animals because it feels good to me would be a similar line of reasoning. Rape, contrary to what feminists say, is a natural part of the animal kingdom and not a uniquely human crime.

Furthermore, I am using the word "rape" regarding sex with animals for the shock value of the word. But of course, this raises the question of whether animals can consent to sex. I think in some cases, they probably can.

My own ethical values on this subject do make me uncomfortable. However, when one reasons on the basis of logic rather than feelz, uncomfortable moral values are often the result. I cannot in all good conscience say that having sex with an animal is less moral than (for example) supporting the meat packing industry. And since I already support said industry by purchasing meat and consuming it, I have no moral basis to stand against sex with animals.

If you are a 100% vegan and wish to argue that sex with animals is immoral and wrong, I suppose you might have a strong foundation upon which to stand. Although vegan products do cause a remarkable amount of animal deaths, in the form of smaller creatures like rodents and birds.

[ROBOKiTTY]

"It's not just the right of the speaker to speak-it's also the right of others to listen."

Please refer to this part in my post:

... members of the intended audience are free to ignore said speech on an individual basis ...

Now, taking your own forum example, some of the people within the great Senate of Rome are choosing to get up and leave, or to daydream while you are speaking. That, my dear Cato, they are perfectly within their rights to do.

As is consistent with my definition above.

Now it may be that Caesar himself is choosing to daydream while you speak. I'm sorry, but tough shit. He has heard you speak in the past and decided your contributions in the future were not worth his attention. If your goal is to force everyone to listen to you when you speak, you will never realize this aim. My individual rights include the right to walk away when you start talking, or to think of something else. Your right to free speech does not include the right to a captive audience every time you open your mouth.

Still bloody consistent with my definition above.

You seem to be implying that dear Caesar is... What? Going behind your back to encourage his supporters not to listen to you? Openly suggesting that the members of the Senate should shun you?

Unfortunately for my (your) Senate example, we are not in Rome, but the Slymepit. As long as he's not acting as the admin of this website, I don't personally give anything Lsuoma says any more weight than I would the opinions of any other user. Him putting you on his personal ignore list is not a recommendation to me about what I must do.

The correct analogy, to continue in this classical theme, would be that Caesar and certain other people decided to speak up after my speech declaring they would henceforth ignore all I had to say. When they did this, the result was that they put their charisma and reputation on the line and implicitly invited others who approved of them to follow in like wise. This situation is markedly different from private decisions to ignore me. Even Caesar being overheard by his neighbours loudly snoring during a speech would not necessarily make his opinion of the speaker clear; Caesar might just find the topic dull or be tired from all his administrative duties.

Now you may imagine that Pitters, being all upstanding perfect skeptics, are immune from human social dynamics. As it happens, I distinctly recall the Fascist Tit recommending the venerable Elias Canetti's book, Crowds and Power; as such, it must've made an impression on him. He must all the more acutely understand the power of group dynamics, irrespective of the individual intelligence and skepticism of a group's members.

Outside of those few who have spoken up, there are doubtless others who have privately put me on ignore or scroll past all my posts without making a spectacle of it. Such is their right, and I have nothing to say about them.

TL:DR You're not being oppressed.

Enough with the hyperbolic language. I would be oppressed if I were to face possible jail time for criticizing the government. Suffering minor obstacles in what I hold to be free speech (which I freely admit is a much more stringent standard than yours) on a niche Internet forum is hardly what I would consider oppression.

[Parody Accountant]

So I asked my wife just now about that crazy friend... sounds like some was lost in translation. She didn't masturbate the dog, she applied some lubricant to the penis and rolled it back into place. It actually wasn't an erection, it was funky dog penis syndrome.

Her friend is german, and speaks broken english. My bad, sorry to disappoint all you fappers out there.

[another lurker]

If that is sugared soda, that would be about 710 calories. Assuming a base diet of 2100 calories, that would mean on third of her calories each day comes from sugar.

another lurker consumes 400 calories/day.

"Snow" has lots of calories, btw.

Not nonstop. I cycle.

[Tribble]

WHAT IF I WANT TO READ ABOUT HORSE MASTURBATION???

WHO WILL SATISFY ME

Come visit the ranch, and we'll have a grand old time:

excalibur.jpg

Do you have one where her top comes off?

[Parody Accountant]

Come visit the ranch, and we'll have a grand old time:

excalibur.jpg

Do you have one where her top comes off?

NO. FUCK MY LIFE.

[windy]

I also think there's a huge difference between what you've done and what the Horde does.

Can any of us really say that we're the same person in every situation? When you go on a first date, do you treat your partner the same way you'll treat them if you go out for a year? Hell no. Who would chastize a first date for being late or taking too long in the bathroom or choosing a shitty movie?

Except... we don't know if others have tried to "work" neutral audiences the way PA did, but in the opposite direction.

For example, now and then you see people claim they checked out the Pit for the first time and found it's too "nasty" or "angry", or whatever. If they're sincere, fair enough - can't please everyone. But if it turned out that it's a regular from FTB pretending to be a neutral observer, would you defend them because no one really is "the same person in every situation"?

[ROBOKiTTY]

Yes, I am opposed to that. I think they should be allowed to fuck and breed the old fashioned way. But my opposition to that does not change, mitigate, alter, affect, or have anything to do with, the fact that I would oppose you fucking the family poodle.

Also, teens being with their fellow teens (assuming that you mean legally underage teens in your example) is a very different issue than someone fucking a human who's in a vegetative state. Stop trying to conflate things.

I will concede to finding a commonality between things that may not really have common ground. However, you seem to be misunderstanding or misrepresenting me again. What I conflated was the common belief that it's okay to have like pair up with like in sexual congress amongst those who are unable to give legal consent: teen with teen, animal with animal, child with child, etc. I did not suggest it was therefore okay for a healthy person to have sex with a vegetable.

Why do you insist on attributing the nastiest of motives to me?

My view is not unique amongst atheists and secularists, so don't try to make me out to be a fringe freak. A new morality defined by disinterested, consequentialist thought informed by reason and science has demonstrated itself to be superior to the type of deontological just-so morality that religion and tradition have forced on society for millennia. Here I am, trying to do what Dawkins and Harris and other intellectual giants have encouraged atheists and secularists to do, while you continue to insinuate all kinds of perversion on my part.

Here in Canada, it's 14 or 16 depending on how old the other person is. Last I heard, anyways. It may have changed. I'm not arguing for or against any specific age, just against RoboKitty's stance, which seems to abandon age of consent altogether based on a non-existent 'science'.

What "non-existent 'science'"? Here, for example, are two fairly recent news reports on new insights into brain development:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24173194
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publicat ... ndex.shtml

Just read the first two paragraphs if you don't have time.

[John Greg]

James Caruthers said:

For what it's worth, your story is extremely common, from what I've researched into this subject. I've heard this story several times from married men.... I find this really bizarre myself.

I kind of find it bizarre too. It doesn't bother me, but I think it's kind of odd.

... I used to get feel really uncomfortable doing greco-roman wrestling with my very fit martial arts instructor.

LOL. I also did, when I had to do it in high school -- yucko yucko pphhhffftt -- but I still would find such a thing deeply distasteful. HAHAHA. I mean, it's sort of like "Sure, I'll suck your dick, but don't try to kiss me". :naughty:

Like you say: bizarre. :think:

Anyway, glad to hear you're working your kinks out yourself. Just stay safe and hopefully you're not keeping secrets from your spouse.

Well, I don't have a spouse, gave up on that game many years ago, so ya, working out the kinks by myself is fairly easy. Mind you, that being said, considering the general tone, temper, and timbre of all of my past relationships, I would almost certainly be working out the same kinks with my spouse -- assuming I had one -- meaning I often tried to involve the lassies I was involved with in a wide range of rinkykinkydinky ... so to speak.

John D said:

fellatoCIS

HAHAHAHA.

Parody Accountant said:

... it was funky dog penis syndrome.

Yeeks! Don't tell Mallady H. about that; she'll double her PTSD.

[dog puke]

So I asked my wife just now about that crazy friend... sounds like some was lost in translation. She didn't masturbate the dog, she applied some lubricant to the penis and rolled it back into place. It actually wasn't an erection, it was funky dog penis syndrome.

Her friend is german, and speaks broken english. My bad, sorry to disappoint all you fappers out there.

Too late... :cdc:

[KiwiInOz]

snip

My view is not unique amongst atheists and secularists, so don't try to make me out to be a fringe freak. A new morality defined by disinterested, consequentialist thought informed by reason and science has demonstrated itself to be superior to the type of deontological just-so morality that religion and tradition have forced on society for millennia. Here I am, trying to do what Dawkins and Harris and other intellectual giants have encouraged atheists and secularists to do, while you continue to insinuate all kinds of perversion on my part.

snip

I was in equal parts a) bemused at the negative response to Dawkin's thought experiments, and b) totally understood the negative reaction to Dawkin's thought experiments.

It is a hard thing to let go of one's mental models of the world, and being reactive to new ways of thinking seems to be a very human defense mechanism.

[Scented Nectar]

Yes, I am opposed to that. I think they should be allowed to fuck and breed the old fashioned way. But my opposition to that does not change, mitigate, alter, affect, or have anything to do with, the fact that I would oppose you fucking the family poodle.

Also, teens being with their fellow teens (assuming that you mean legally underage teens in your example) is a very different issue than someone fucking a human who's in a vegetative state. Stop trying to conflate things.

I will concede to finding a commonality between things that may not really have common ground. However, you seem to be misunderstanding or misrepresenting me again. What I conflated was the common belief that it's okay to have like pair up with like in sexual congress amongst those who are unable to give legal consent: teen with teen, animal with animal, child with child, etc. I did not suggest it was therefore okay for a healthy person to have sex with a vegetable.

Yikes! That's salt in the rape wound. Not only do you want to force sex on a vegetable, but it has to be with someone who's sick - generally considered more physically repulsive than healthy people. If a person must be raped, which would they prefer if no other choices? An ordinary healthy person, or an extra gross sick person? What kind of freak are you? Seriously, what the fuck?

Why do you insist on attributing the nastiest of motives to me?

My view is not unique amongst atheists and secularists, so don't try to make me out to be a fringe freak. A new morality defined by disinterested, consequentialist thought informed by reason and science has demonstrated itself to be superior to the type of deontological just-so morality that religion and tradition have forced on society for millennia. Here I am, trying to do what Dawkins and Harris and other intellectual giants have encouraged atheists and secularists to do, while you continue to insinuate all kinds of perversion on my part.

Oh sure. You're just trying to improve the world. I suspect that your firm grasp of reality will come in handy for you.

Here in Canada, it's 14 or 16 depending on how old the other person is. Last I heard, anyways. It may have changed. I'm not arguing for or against any specific age, just against RoboKitty's stance, which seems to abandon age of consent altogether based on a non-existent 'science'.

What "non-existent 'science'"? Here, for example, are two fairly recent news reports on new insights into brain development:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24173194
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publicat ... ndex.shtml

Just read the first two paragraphs if you don't have time.

You need to show me something that definitively determines whether a person is old enough to consent to sex. That's the nonexistent science I mean. The magic one that will determine whether Jane or John Doe is ready to fuck at age [fill in the blank]. You indicated that that age is different for different people (and it probably is), but how can the science you mention determine that? Specifically that. Age of consent on an individual basis, since that's what you think the above science enables you to do. Not just vague stuff about everyone's brains continuing to change until the age of 25, but specifically how would it determine when a person is ready to consent to, and have, sex. I think this is just a fantasy science that you hope comes true in the future, because it's certainly not here yet.

[another lurker]

snip

My view is not unique amongst atheists and secularists, so don't try to make me out to be a fringe freak. A new morality defined by disinterested, consequentialist thought informed by reason and science has demonstrated itself to be superior to the type of deontological just-so morality that religion and tradition have forced on society for millennia. Here I am, trying to do what Dawkins and Harris and other intellectual giants have encouraged atheists and secularists to do, while you continue to insinuate all kinds of perversion on my part.

snip

I was in equal parts a) bemused at the negative response to Dawkin's thought experiments, and b) totally understood the negative reaction to Dawkin's thought experiments.

It is a hard thing to let go of one's mental models of the world, and being reactive to new ways of thinking seems to be a very human defense mechanism.

I like you.

However, you failed to provide a citation. I'll help you out.

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

[BarnOwl]

So PeeZus posts a video about some bow hunter who sprays himself with elk urine and then gets attacked by a mule deer buck, and in the comments ...

carolw
6 January 2015 at 3:55 pm
Could someone convince The Nuge to try this?

Jafafa Hots
6 January 2015 at 4:37 pm
Nugent would shit his pants.
Not out of fear, mind you… he’d do it as a deliberate ploy to get out of the action.

WTF does a deer attack video filmed in Washington state have to do with Michael Nugent? carolw and Jafafa Hots seem like Pharyngutards who are frustrated at not being able to shove a rotting porcupine up someone's backside, and Nugent is just a convenient target of their idiotic wrath.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

So PeeZus posts a video about some bow hunter who sprays himself with elk urine and then gets attacked by a mule deer buck, and in the comments ...

carolw
6 January 2015 at 3:55 pm
Could someone convince The Nuge to try this?

Jafafa Hots
6 January 2015 at 4:37 pm
Nugent would shit his pants.
Not out of fear, mind you… he’d do it as a deliberate ploy to get out of the action.

WTF does a deer attack video filmed in Washington state have to do with Michael Nugent? carolw and Jafafa Hots seem like Pharyngutards who are frustrated at not being able to shove a rotting porcupine up someone's backside, and Nugent is just a convenient target of their idiotic wrath.

"A deliberate ploy to get out of the action"?

Where "the action" is being mounted by 200kg of stag? Fucking idiots.

[NoGodsEver]

So PeeZus posts a video about some bow hunter who sprays himself with elk urine and then gets attacked by a mule deer buck, and in the comments ...

carolw
6 January 2015 at 3:55 pm
Could someone convince The Nuge to try this?

Jafafa Hots
6 January 2015 at 4:37 pm
Nugent would shit his pants.
Not out of fear, mind you… he’d do it as a deliberate ploy to get out of the action.

WTF does a deer attack video filmed in Washington state have to do with Michael Nugent? carolw and Jafafa Hots seem like Pharyngutards who are frustrated at not being able to shove a rotting porcupine up someone's backside, and Nugent is just a convenient target of their idiotic wrath.

I believe they are talking about well-known hunter and right-wing nutcase Ted Nugent.

[NoGodsEver]

At least the first reference is certainly to Uncle Ted. The other commenter, I'm not sure, they may have assumed Michael too.

[NoGodsEver]

Nope, second reference is to Ted also, evidently he shit his pants to get out of going to Viet Nam. So there you go.

[John Greg]

Ah! Gotta love a place where you actually get clarifications.

[katamari Damassi]

So PeeZus posts a video about some bow hunter who sprays himself with elk urine and then gets attacked by a mule deer buck, and in the comments ...

carolw
6 January 2015 at 3:55 pm
Could someone convince The Nuge to try this?

Jafafa Hots
6 January 2015 at 4:37 pm
Nugent would shit his pants.
Not out of fear, mind you… he’d do it as a deliberate ploy to get out of the action.

WTF does a deer attack video filmed in Washington state have to do with Michael Nugent? carolw and Jafafa Hots seem like Pharyngutards who are frustrated at not being able to shove a rotting porcupine up someone's backside, and Nugent is just a convenient target of their idiotic wrath.

I believe they are talking about well-known hunter and right-wing nutcase Ted Nugent.

Hence the pants shitting-something Ted Nugent claimed to do to avoid being drafted to Vietnam.

[NoGodsEver]

http://gawker.com/5983634/patriotic-ame ... -the-draft

[katamari Damassi]

Ninja'ed!

[screwtape]

A quick thought on Parody Accountant and his faked 'the scales have fallen from my eyes' revelation-posts wherein SJW's read the Pit and are charmed by its rustic but honest simplicity, whilst being genuinely moved by the abundant flow of the milk of human kindness here. It's not the use of a different identity that's a problem—it would be if he also posted on the same site under his PA identity, as that constitutes clear sock puppetry and that means he is, in essence, having two voices within a conversation and I think we all agree that's cheating. To use a different name on a different site is perfectly OK, as long as you use just one. Those of you who tweet have some other handle that we may or may not recognise as belonging to the person we think we know and love on the Pit—same thing. There is no secret that I use my long-banned FTB identity of Lancelot Gobbo in most places, and don't think anyone would complain (except for the poor quality of the content....) Our opposition also does this; the few defenders of FTB that have tried their luck in the lists at Mick Nugent's have tended to disguise themselves, sometimes openly claiming to be amused at efforts to find their FTB identity.

The problem is that he told a porkie, and is thus a very naughty boy. Now we can go into ethics, means justifying ends, moral topography and all, but in the end we will each make a judgement as to the correctness of his action. I wouldn't have done it, but I'd say there have been far worse things done in the Social Justice Wars. He doesn't need my forgiveness anyway (and I was amused rather than harmed by the prank). Leave him be.

[NoGodsEver]

From the Gawker article...what the fuck is 'buttered poop?'

[BarnOwl]

Nope, second reference is to Ted also, evidently he shit his pants to get out of going to Viet Nam. So there you go.

Ahhh, that makes sense at least. Thanks for the clarification. :mrgreen:

[NoGodsEver]

Buttered poop...all I can think of is Last Tango in Paris.

[katamari Damassi]

A quick thought on Parody Accountant and his faked 'the scales have fallen from my eyes' revelation-posts wherein SJW's read the Pit and are charmed by its rustic but honest simplicity, whilst being genuinely moved by the abundant flow of the milk of human kindness here. It's not the use of a different identity that's a problem—it would be if he also posted on the same site under his PA identity, as that constitutes clear sock puppetry and that means he is, in essence, having two voices within a conversation and I think we all agree that's cheating. To use a different name on a different site is perfectly OK, as long as you use just one. Those of you who tweet have some other handle that we may or may not recognise as belonging to the person we think we know and love on the Pit—same thing. There is no secret that I use my long-banned FTB identity of Lancelot Gobbo in most places, and don't think anyone would complain (except for the poor quality of the content....) Our opposition also does this; the few defenders of FTB that have tried their luck in the lists at Mick Nugent's have tended to disguise themselves, sometimes openly claiming to be amused at efforts to find their FTB identity.

The problem is that he told a porkie, and is thus a very naughty boy. Now we can go into ethics, means justifying ends, moral topography and all, but in the end we will each make a judgement as to the correctness of his action. I wouldn't have done it, but I'd say there have been far worse things done in the Social Justice Wars. He doesn't need my forgiveness anyway (and I was amused rather than harmed by the prank). Leave him be.

All in good fun, but he should stop now that he did the reveal. Everytime someone posts something positive about the Pit, we're going to think it's PA.

[screwtape]

A new avatar for ConcH2O:

bananas.jpg

(161.24 KiB) Downloaded 234 times

[ROBOKiTTY]

Yikes! That's salt in the rape wound. Not only do you want to force sex on a vegetable, but it has to be with someone who's sick - generally considered more physically repulsive than healthy people. If a person must be raped, which would they prefer if no other choices? An ordinary healthy person, or an extra gross sick person? What kind of freak are you? Seriously, what the fuck?

A kinky one.

Oh sure. You're just trying to improve the world. I suspect that your firm grasp of reality will come in handy for you.

I have a firm grasp on reality. Here, let me show you it in my paw.

You need to show me something that definitively determines whether a person is old enough to consent to sex. That's the nonexistent science I mean. The magic one that will determine whether Jane or John Doe is ready to fuck at age [fill in the blank]. You indicated that that age is different for different people (and it probably is), but how can the science you mention determine that? Specifically that. Age of consent on an individual basis, since that's what you think the above science enables you to do. Not just vague stuff about everyone's brains continuing to change until the age of 25, but specifically how would it determine when a person is ready to consent to, and have, sex. I think this is just a fantasy science that you hope comes true in the future, because it's certainly not here yet.

Fair enough. I haven't talked about the relevant science for that. How about this?

http://www.livescience.com/8604-5-minut ... urity.html

I think the science is here. It's just that policymakers have no incentive to change the status quo, and so the necessary demand for a proliferation of this technique doesn't exist.

In a hypothetical future, the default age of consent might be 25. However, you could take a scan and obtain documentation to demonstrate your maturity. Then you might be a precocious 15, but you'd be free to drink, skydive without parental supervision, have sex with someone likewise demonstrated to be developmentally 25 or above, or whatever an age barrier is used for right now.

[Shatterface as Guest]

If I had to supply a scan to prove my maturity I'd never get laid.

Shatterface

[SoylentAtheist]

You need to show me something that definitively determines whether a person is old enough to consent to sex. That's the nonexistent science I mean. The magic one that will determine whether Jane or John Doe is ready to fuck at age [fill in the blank]. You indicated that that age is different for different people (and it probably is), but how can the science you mention determine that? Specifically that. Age of consent on an individual basis, since that's what you think the above science enables you to do. Not just vague stuff about everyone's brains continuing to change until the age of 25, but specifically how would it determine when a person is ready to consent to, and have, sex. I think this is just a fantasy science that you hope comes true in the future, because it's certainly not here yet.

Fair enough. I haven't talked about the relevant science for that. How about this?

http://www.livescience.com/8604-5-minut ... urity.html

I think the science is here. It's just that policymakers have no incentive to change the status quo, and so the necessary demand for a proliferation of this technique doesn't exist.

In a hypothetical future, the default age of consent might be 25. However, you could take a scan and obtain documentation to demonstrate your maturity. Then you might be a precocious 15, but you'd be free to drink, skydive without parental supervision, have sex with someone likewise demonstrated to be developmentally 25 or above, or whatever an age barrier is used for right now.

I have a simple test. If you are too scared to buy your own condoms at the store, or too scared to talk to your doctor about obtaining birth control, then you are not mature enough to have sex.

[bhoytony]

As far as the "ugly retard face" goes, I will have to agree. "Slimy turd" was coined for him, and I think it fits.

And it was me that coined it. No need to thank me.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Does anybody know when Peez first got chummy with The Skank?

I'm writing a biography, thanks.

[franc]

Yeah, I've made peace with it. It is not okay when either side uses deception. I'm rationalizing it like this: I use deception to cause people to look for themselves or think for themselves.

You fucking dingbat. It's no longer "deception" if you keep bragging about it in a public space. Whatever "good" you may have done, you have utterly trashed by not shutting up about it.

Duh.

[Steersman]

[Post 7461]

….
So "population" can't be used for anything other than, presumably, species because that's what, presumably, Darwin had in mind? And since the discussion was the genome, and various regulatory networks encompassed by it, I didn't think it much of a stretch to use the concept - analogously - there.

Not without confusing people, no. … If you're talking about the genome within an individual, you can sub-divide first by chromosome; then the somewhat vague parameter of 'gene' ….

And, as mentioned, the genome was precisely what I was “talking about”. And, even apart from the fact that within the genome there are some rather large populations (“any aggregation of things or individuals subject to statistical study”) of genes and chromosomes, there is apparently an awful lot of “stuff” that doesn’t fall into any of those categories but which might reasonably be grouped into populations. Apropos of which, I wonder whether you read Strawkins’ comment that precipitated this exchange, notably this:

The idea of deleting non critical bases is proposed in the most extreme form by Larry Moran who has suggested that we can delete all of the non junk DNA in a human (80-90% of the genome) without it affecting viability. To me this is like saying that if you chop down any one tree on the planet and it has no effect on the climate this means you can chop down all the trees without resulting a change in the climate. Transcription factors bind all over the genome.

So we can add “transcription factors” (?) to the list of populations you described – and we’re a long ways from “done” even then. For instance, you might take a look at the Wikipedia article on “gene regulatory networks” [GRNs] of which their seem to be a rather large number as suggested by this Google set of images of them. But of some particular interest is the following bit from the section on different models used to describe them, notably Boolean networks, and which includes a reference to your good friend and mine, Stuart Kauffman:

The following example illustrates how a Boolean network can model a GRN together with its gene products (the outputs) and the substances from the environment that affect it (the inputs). Stuart Kauffman was amongst the first biologists to use the metaphor of Boolean networks to model genetic regulatory networks.

1) Each gene, each input, and each output is represented by a node in a directed graph in which there is an arrow from one node to another if and only if there is a causal link between the two nodes.
2) Each node in the graph can be in one of two states: on or off.
3) For a gene, "on" corresponds to the gene being expressed; for inputs and outputs, "off" corresponds to the substance being present.
4) Time is viewed as proceeding in discrete steps. At each step, the new state of a node is a Boolean function of the prior states of the nodes with arrows pointing towards it.

The validity of the model can be tested by comparing simulation results with time series observations.

Fascinating field of study, but one not easy to get a good handle on, although there are, of course, a great many simulations that go some distance in illustrating them. For instance, there are several on the Wolfram Mathematica Demonstrations page, notably this one which models the transition “from homeostasis toward liver cirrhosis in hepatocytes infected by HCV” – fiddling with the control for the gene KRT23 most clearly shows the transition. But the page also has a couple of other demonstrations that might be of some interest as well (here, and here).

In any case, I hardly think it tenable to insist that “it's non-sensical to talk of intra-individual groupings of genes outside” of the limited hierarchy within the genome that you described.

Computer systems can have goals; robots - even kittenish ones - can have goals; homeostasis is a manifestation of goal seeking in biological systems: the concept is rather ubiquitous - arguably, "all the way down" (and up for that matter) - and has a substantial degree of utility, and a substantial degree of hard-edged math and physics behind it.

No, the goal of the computer or the robot is that of its maker; to ascribe a goal to evolution is to imply a maker. One could say that the 'goal' of self-replicating molecules is to self-replicate. But it's an entirely unconscious process, with no pre-conceived goals and no aforethought. Evolution cannot look ahead and say, 'some day, this trait will be of value.'

Interesting that you would address the first two cases – computers and robots – while ignoring the third, i.e., homeostasis; you’re a better man than that Gunga Din. But no, it is you who are inferring that someone ascribing “a goal to evolution” is insisting on the existence of a maker, particularly an anthropomorphic one. While I’ll concede that anthropomorphizing can be somewhat problematic, since you’ve recently quoted from or referenced several of Dawkins’ works, you might take gander at the introduction to “the 30th anniversary edition” of The Selfish Gene wherein he says, “Personifying genes, if done with due care and caution, often turns out to be the shortest route to rescuing a Darwinian theorist drowning in a muddle.” Which one might reasonably extend to talking about evolution as well.

Probably not - at least not fully. Why I tend to use analogies. And in this case, emergence also has a substantial degree of hard-edged math & science behind it ....

The whole point of emergence in evolution is that what emerges was not 'planned' ....

Define “planned”. You might take a close look at Penrose’s The Emperor’s New Mind, particularly the section on quasicrystals, and his comments about “intelligent groping” in the context of evolution.

In any case, it seems you have a rather narrow definition of emergence and self-organization, although I’ll readily concede they are complex phenomena. However the fact of the matter is that, as those two topics argue, nature tends to “cause” things to clump together into coherent, self-organized, self-sustaining wholes – many of which, mirabile dictu, seem to exhibit the phenomenon of consciousness. But maybe more importantly or at least to the point, it seems sheer fantasy to insist that evolution is driven merely by random mutations, particularly when the fairly credible principle of self-organization suggests that variation is driven by that as well.

But for an interesting illustration of that, you might take a look at the video in this Wikipedia article on Rayleigh–Bénard convection; you might note in particular that “convection cells” “spontaneously organize” themselves – no “maker” involved there that I can see – and that they are both self-sustaining and cover the environment enclosed. Now it is maybe a stretch to argue that that is directly analogous to what transpires within either the genome, or within the external environment in which organisms have evolved. But the nature of analogies is that they have some utility in getting a handle on, and organizing, vast quantities of data. Seems something similar is rather badly need in the case of the genome and evolution itself.

Since you continue to present garbage like this as valid scientific research, I must conclude that you have an a priori belief in sentience &/or 'purpose' to the universe; ergo, you are a deist.

It's ok to admit that. We'll still let you join in on all the reindeer games. Just stop dicking around.

Just call me Rudolph.

But it’s less a case of insisting that what Salthe and company present is “valid scientific research” than suggesting that the principles they are using are actually fairly solid ones, and that the conjectures and hypotheses they present, while no doubt flawed in many aspects, might actually contain a grain or two of “truth” and value. The “Standard Model of Physics” didn’t spring, full-grown like Athena from the forehead of Zeus, but had its roots in Democritus’ theory some 2500 years ago. You might try separating the wheat from the chaff.

As for being a “deist”, that is again, I think, an untenable inference. While it is true that I do think there is at least the possibility of a “purpose to the universe”, although it might consist only of running down into a universal “heat death”, and do think that consciousness, or the principle behind it, is rather ubiquitous, that is, I think, a very long ways from anything approaching “deism”.