Happy 3rd Pit Birthday!

[twocunts]

Would anyone have some mercy and fill me in on what's happened the last weeks? I've been almost completely isolated from the rest of the world for the last 3½ weeks, since our internet was completely dead (for complicated reasons) and since I live in the woods and the only news I had access to was the local newspaper, which have 1 page world/national news, which has been almost completely dominated by the Syrian refugee situation each and every day...

I'd be eternally grateful if someone could just give me some rough outlines of what's happened lately. Have FTB imploded up their own arsehole yet? Who did Carrier spunk on (I see there's a new page-title). How many more bomb threats have GG gotten, or did GG finally die? What's the biggest SJW lulz that have been dug up the last weeks? And how many limbs have Phil broken while I was gone? etc.

Huh? The what, now?

[Spike13]

Past whether the kid was right , wrong, or some level in between.

What he built/brought in wasn't nor bore any real resemblance to what most of us would call a bomb.( granted in the real world a bomb can and usually does, look like anything but a bomb. The PLO used to stuff the frames of bicycles with explosive and lock them up in areas of heavy foot traffic for example)

He's a kid. In this situation it is up to the adults to behave as adults. Each failed miserably.

His teacher should have shown the due diligence to inform school authorities that one if his students brought in a project that could be problematic, inert but problematic.( he should have had the student leave the project with him/her until school was dismissed.

The school authorities could have shown a modicum of common sense and restraint instead of losing their shot and calling the cops.

The cops could have spoken to the kid and realized that there was no there, there and asked the kid to be more careful in the future.
From what I can see it seems each and every adult failed to show any adult qualities in this affair.

[Ape+lust]

Fresh off her own gangpiling, Ophelia can't resist piling on Dawkins.

http://imgur.com/WV23OFI.png

But this is different, you see. Like when she was caught hee-hee-heeing over a Dawkins photoshop after crying about Pit shoops. The Dawkins pic was different.

It's OK when she does it.

Although to be fair Dawkins is kind of a tool. So is Ophie, too.

Yeah, Dawkins stepped in it today. Despite what the baboons say though, the rest of the world doesn't regard him as the infallible atheist Pope, it's just that baboons have little standing to criticize anyone. It's like being lectured about civility by Pol Pot.

[Shatterface]

Feminist Susan Brownmiller on the failures of modern feminism:

Against Our Will Author on What Today’s Rape Activists Don’t Get

By Katie Van Syckle

Susan Brownmiller, who published the groundbreaking Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape in 1975, takes issue with the current conversation around sexual assault. She believes it's unrealistic for women to think they can drink like men and still be safe, and that women are responsible for keeping themselves out of dangerous situations. The 80-year-old is also concerned the campus activist movement ignores the experiences of women of color and low socioeconomic status, whom she says are statistically more likely to be assaulted.

We caught up with Brownmiller Monday night at the Peggy Siegal Company's premiere screening of Peace Officer — a new film that looks at the militarization of the police.

I was wondering if you have been following the discussions of rape activism on college campuses.

Yes, very closely. In the 1970s we had an extraordinary movement against sexual assault in this country and changed the laws. They [the campus activists] don't seem to know that. They think they are the first people to discover rape, and the problem of consent, and they are not.

They have been tremendously influenced by the idea that "You can drink as much as you want because you are the equal of a guy," and it is not true. They don't accept the fact there are predators out there, and that all women have to take special precautions. They think they can drink as much as men, which is crazy because they can't drink as much as men. I find the position "Don't blame us, we're survivors" to be appalling.

Also, they [college women] are not the chief targets of rapists. Young women and all women in housing projects and ghettos are still in far greater danger than college girls.

So what would you tell the college activists right now?

Extend your focus to the larger percentage of women and girls who are in danger of being raped. They are more important than the college kids. Also, the rape kits that have not been processed are a huge problem, and they are not dealing with that.

Is there a reason why you think the conversation has reemerged on college campuses?

I don't know. The women's movement in the '70s was not a campus movement at all. I like to see activism wherever it rears its head, but this is a very limited movement that doesn't accept reality. Culture may tell you, "You can drink as much as men," but you can't. People think they can have it all ways. The slut marches bothered me, too, when they said you can wear whatever you want. Well sure, but you look like a hooker. They say, "That doesn't matter," but it matters to the man who wants to rape. It's unrealistic. I don't know what happened to the understanding people had in the 1970s.

Do you worry that if you say people are drinking, and therefore putting themselves at risk, that your perspective could be considered victim-blaming?

If you drink you lose your sense of judgment. Everybody knows that. You should know that when you are going into a fraternity party, something can happen. It happened to my roommate, she went to a party, got skunk-drunk, and she was gang-raped by the fraternity guys. They broke her arm.

You are taking a strong position here.

Well, I take a hard line with victims of domestic violence, too. I feel it is my place as a feminist to say, "Get out, get out, get out of this relationship." They feel that we should respect their opinions and beliefs because they are survivors. If they can’t get out because they don’t want to reduce their living circumstances, or they don’t want to go, or they are passive people, then I am supposed to respect that. But I don’t. My feeling is "Get out."

And my feeling about young women trapped in sex situations that they don’t want is: "Didn’t you see the warning signs? Who do you expect to do your fighting for you?" It is a little late, after you are both undressed, to say "I don’t want this."

I guess the hope is that young men would respect that.

That would be nice. There is not much attention on them is there?

http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/09/what-to ... t-get.html

[Shatterface]

Fresh off her own gangpiling, Ophelia can't resist piling on Dawkins.

http://imgur.com/WV23OFI.png

But this is different, you see. Like when she was caught hee-hee-heeing over a Dawkins photoshop after crying about Pit shoops. The Dawkins pic was different.

She's got another whine up about impurity because what happened to her was totally unfair and she shouldn't be forced out of FTB just because she hates transexuals.

Then it's back to attacking others for their impure thoughts.

[Spike13]

Apparently Susan Brownmiller needs to "shut up and listen".

Clearly she is a misogynistic MRA gender traitor.

(For the dimmer lurkers out there that was sarcasm)

[Spike13]

Oaffies lack of self awareness is staggering.

She's like a living comedy skit.

[free thoughtpolice]

I also remember a Muslim engineer from Algeria that I worked with. My strongest memory of him is when he said: "John, I have read the Koran, and nowhere in there does Allah command us to be stupid!"

I think having to re-do your dumbass ritual hand-washing, just cuz a menstruating woman passed you by, is pretty fucking stupid.

He was an idiot and/or had poor reading skills:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/q ... /long.html

[Ape+lust]

Fresh off her own gangpiling, Ophelia can't resist piling on Dawkins.

http://imgur.com/WV23OFI.png

But this is different, you see. Like when she was caught hee-hee-heeing over a Dawkins photoshop after crying about Pit shoops. The Dawkins pic was different.

She's got another whine up about impurity because what happened to her was totally unfair and she shouldn't be forced out of FTB just because she hates transexuals.

Then it's back to attacking others for their impure thoughts.

Yeah, she's a brat. The world's oldest brat. It's not age-ism to note she's old enough to know better, although she's always whining about that too. She really is fargin' old enough to know better.

[AndrewV69]

Has anyone been following the recent trial in the UK involving the woman who supposedly disguised herself as a man in order to sleep with her female friend?

<chop chop>

It may be the case that the UK laws are different to those in other countries but the case I mentioned at the beginning of this comment made it curious for me - if she is guilty of a sexual crime then why isn't it called rape?

I dunno if you are aware of it but you just brought up a MRA talking point.

[papillon]

Proposal #3 for wimmens on our moneees:

http://imgur.com/AKdYcYF.jpg

Truly, it's the fine detail that makes your shoops godlike!

:lol: :dance:

Agreed - They are just so polished; I've got a nasty touch of 'sh00p envy.
Ape - you've really helped me out on another Photoshop/Gimp issue that I was very grateful for.
Would it be too cheeky to ask how the fuck you get those wavy lines over Becky's mush?
It's for a non 'Pit related project, [No, it has nothing to do with paper currency - honest m'lud]
I'd be willing to pay in virtual hugs [but only if you want them] - I can stretch to a reach around
If I can achieve similar results. :obscene-buttsway:

[AndrewV69]

Reading the other posts on that site convinces me it's a poe.

I saw it yesterday and I could not tell. As I have been fooled a couple of times recently I was reticent about bringing it up. No fool like an old fool and all that.

[Service Dog]

Here's a data-point:

The first article to go viral-- about Ahmed-- included quite a few tweeted reactions in support of him.

At first, I assumed that Ahmed's supporters would be a bunch of SJWs. So I looked-at the twitter feeds quoted in the story.

I searched for terms like "rape culture". My angle was-- "That kid is lucky he wasn't accused of rape"-- because his supporters wouldn't have
given him the Benefit Of The Doubt, then.

But... my SJW assumption was incorrect. The accounts quoted were Engineering types, critical of Obama, against gun-control panics.

They leaned a bit to the Right. They saw it as a case of a can-do, all-american, inventor/future-entrepaneur being hassled for doing what made America great.

If there was a whiff of racism-- it was that this Model Immigrant or Good Minority was being hassled/ while the troublemakers run wild.
But that's not =against= Ahmed.

I mention this now because the narrative has shifted to SJWs claiming Ahmed as 'theirs' (and he does talk their talk), and SJWs wanting to pigeonhole anyone critical of the genius-kid-discriminated-against narrative... as a cartoon Dittohead type.

But, before Obama got involved, that's not how people reacted.

[John D]

I also remember a Muslim engineer from Algeria that I worked with. My strongest memory of him is when he said: "John, I have read the Koran, and nowhere in there does Allah command us to be stupid!"

I think having to re-do your dumbass ritual hand-washing, just cuz a menstruating woman passed you by, is pretty fucking stupid.

He was an idiot and/or had poor reading skills:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/q ... /long.html

Well, most of the Muslims I have met do not think the Koran should be taken literally. There is such a thing as a moderate Muslim. Of course, the more Muslims we blow up the more radical they become... so yeah.... Moderates are a dying breed right now.

[screwtape]

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

"Call Me Caitlyn Jaclyn"

FTFY.

Nah, Jaclyn's kinda skinny.

[Cnutella]

Fresh off her own gangpiling, Ophelia can't resist piling on Dawkins.

http://imgur.com/WV23OFI.png

But this is different, you see. Like when she was caught hee-hee-heeing over a Dawkins photoshop after crying about Pit shoops. The Dawkins pic was different.

She's got another whine up about impurity because what happened to her was totally unfair and she shouldn't be forced out of FTB just because she hates transexuals.

Then it's back to attacking others for their impure thoughts.

But it's completely differnet, don't you see? Dawkins is a public figure (i.e. successful, wealthy and famous) whereas Ophie... isn't.

So, punching up. Although what the people who talk about the punching analogy don't seem to get is just as it might seem like bullying to them when someone punches down, it's equally inadvisable to pick a fight with someone much bigger than you.

Of course, that's even assuming they deign to notice your pathetic taps. Punching down does have its costs to the attacker, because it can confer many social justice victimhood points. And Ophie's SJW credibility account is badly overdrawn since she became a TERF and punched down at the helpless and voiceless transgendered furies of the SJW internet.

[katamari Damassi]

Woman of Thai origins writes article about cultural appropriation entitled: Keep Your Hands Off My Kimono, White People!

http://www.americantheatre.org/2015/09/ ... te-people/

[AndrewV69]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPX2idfUYAA2OEu.jpg

Sad to see Graham Linehan in that list. :cry:

I am not. I went over to look at his twatter profile and found that he has blocked me. :o The dumbass possibly used the blockbot. :lol:

[Ape+lust]

Agreed - They are just so polished; I've got a nasty touch of 'sh00p envy.
Ape - you've really helped me out on another Photoshop/Gimp issue that I was very grateful for.
Would it be too cheeky to ask how the fuck you get those wavy lines over Becky's mush?
It's for a non 'Pit related project, [No, it has nothing to do with paper currency - honest m'lud]
I'd be willing to pay in virtual hugs [but only if you want them] - I can stretch to a reach around
If I can achieve similar results. :obscene-buttsway:

Thank you, Papillon :dance:

The lines are from a 3rd-party program called ZebraTrace.

http://maxim-s-barabash.github.io/ZebraTrace/

It's open source, which means it's kind of wonky. It requires Python (I think the Windows install file includes Python, but I'm not sure). There's little in the way of docs, so here's a bit for a running start:

http://imgur.com/V2UmEv9.png

Number of Curves - line density. Poorly named, it just means the total number of lines.

Minimum / Maximum width - line thickness.

Writing - these values set the direction the lines are written, from solid to fade. I usually leave it at the default, "center". Definitely fool with it though, the differences can sometimes be striking.

Node Reduction - okay, this is really stupid, but I don't remember what this is for, except that it's kinda important. I think it sets the number of nodes in the curves (the program works with vectors), and can make a difference in whether or not the lines generate unwanted Moire patterns at the pic's current size/resolution. (Try to always load a pic already sized to the resolution you need. If you send the result to a bitmap editor like GIMP or Photoshop and then resize it, it can get really ugly).

Advanced Functions - it's clear what this is for. Probably fun if you know your trig. I wish I did :D

Trace button - click this to render. You'll need to push this button every time you change the settings.

File --> Open bitmap - load a pic. Recognizes pngs and jpgs.

File --> Load preset - a collection of algorithm presets for the Advanced Functions. This is where the different types of line shapes come from, for math challenged goobs like me.

File --> Save As - saves your work as an .svg file. Fortunately, GIMP will load vector files. If you're handy with Illustrator or Inkscape, you can work on it natively as a vector image.

[John D]

Woman of Thai origins writes article about cultural appropriation entitled: Keep Your Hands Off My Kimono, White People!

http://www.americantheatre.org/2015/09/ ... te-people/

So somehow the Mikado is racist if the actors are white and it is not racist if the actors are Asian? How does this even work? The Mikado is a farce set in a fictitious kingdom. Gilbert and Sullivan used England's obsession with China as a setting because they could make Asian sounding songs (that where not Asian). So, either The Mikado is racist, or it isn't, but the race of the actors has nothing to do with this topic.

I have had only one problem with the race of a performer in any show. This was when the Beggar Woman in Sweeny Todd was cast as a black woman. Part of the story line is that she is Sweeny's wife who had blond hair. Part of the story revolves around her, and his daughter having blond hair. So, this put me off. I also saw a production if Sweeny Todd where Joanna was a white woman with black hair. That was even worse than casting an African... cause it's like... "Hey... put on a fucking blond wig please." There is a whole song about the color of your blond hair. Fucking stupid.

[Ape+lust]

One more thing --

Just using the vector result alone from ZebraTrace looks terrible. I put the original image underneath, then desaturated and recolored it. After that, I adjusted the opacity/brightness/contrast of the 2 layers until it looked the way I wanted it.

[Parody Accountant]

Here's a data-point:

The first article to go viral-- about Ahmed-- included quite a few tweeted reactions in support of him.

At first, I assumed that Ahmed's supporters would be a bunch of SJWs. So I looked-at the twitter feeds quoted in the story.

I searched for terms like "rape culture". My angle was-- "That kid is lucky he wasn't accused of rape"-- because his supporters wouldn't have
given him the Benefit Of The Doubt, then.

But... my SJW assumption was incorrect. The accounts quoted were Engineering types, critical of Obama, against gun-control panics.

They leaned a bit to the Right. They saw it as a case of a can-do, all-american, inventor/future-entrepaneur being hassled for doing what made America great.

If there was a whiff of racism-- it was that this Model Immigrant or Good Minority was being hassled/ while the troublemakers run wild.
But that's not =against= Ahmed.

I mention this now because the narrative has shifted to SJWs claiming Ahmed as 'theirs' (and he does talk their talk), and SJWs wanting to pigeonhole anyone critical of the genius-kid-discriminated-against narrative... as a cartoon Dittohead type.

But, before Obama got involved, that's not how people reacted.

I typed out several of the questions you have just answered. I deleted it, as I do with 1/2 my posts before I hit submit.

I also wonder who is the media whore. Who gave the first interview? The family? The cops? Kids at school with rumors?

[Parody Accountant]

One more thing --

Just using the vector result alone from ZebraTrace looks terrible. I put the original image underneath, then desaturated and recolored it. After that, I adjusted the opacity/brightness/contrast of the 2 layers until it looked the way I wanted it.

Couldn't you just have bypassed all that by googling for 'curved line pattern', then set the results to only return transparent 'color' images from the color menu. That way you get lines with no mess...

http://i.stack.imgur.com/9OHrE.png

[Parody Accountant]

er... http://i.stack.imgur.com/9OHrE.png

[Parody Accountant]

dang, that wasn't the best example, and luckily I then reposted the exact same example, but made you click on it instead.

[Parody Accountant]

http://hackaday.com/2015/09/21/this-is- ... ooks-like/

https://hackadaycom.files.wordpress.com ... =338&h=400

[free thoughtpolice]

He was an idiot and/or had poor reading skills:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/q ... /long.html

Well, most of the Muslims I have met do not think the Koran should be taken literally. There is such a thing as a moderate Muslim. Of course, the more Muslims we blow up the more radical they become... so yeah.... Moderates are a dying breed right now.

What do you mean we, Merkin? So you are saying it is American's fault there are so many violent Muslims? :P
Actually, I agree the majority of Muslims are much better people than the people that strictly follow their religion. That is mostly because they ignore much of the violent militaristic stuff in the Quran and hadiths more than they interpret it metaphorically.

[Ape+lust]

Yes, that'll work too. But, when you do something other than straight TV scanlines, it doesn't look so great. The rendered lines are more varied, depending on what lies beneath.

http://imgur.com/0SwzKy5.jpg

http://imgur.com/P5vmGkq.jpg

[Service Dog]

This recent GirlWritesWhat video is a whole lotta Karen Straughan, compressed into one lesson.

Her historic examples remind me of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast.

[youtube]0RarlU_gTCU[/youtube]

[Michael J]

If I was an US American, which I am not, I would vote for Bernie Sanders. He sounds like a social democrat and a dash of that politics would be the best thing for the United States, and for everybody else. Then there is a huge gap.

Hillary Clinton is right wing for a Democrat, Donald Trump is left wing for a Republican. This phenomenon has a name and I knew it once, but forgot about it (please share its name when you know it). Candidates tend to reach the top that could attract most people from the centre and opposite side, since out of partisan reasons the outer wings of their party would anyway vote for “their” candidate. Since Donald Trump is politically all over the map, he would be better from an international point of view than Hillary Clinton. Trump's international views are actually more left-wingish, than Clinton's. She was pro-Iraw war, he was against it. She was also for arming Syrian insurgents. She is a bona fide neo con, also with all the big money and wall street support. Both want to tax the rich and reduce taxes for the middle-class, and that's the same talking point Bernie Sanders is making (but he seems more genuine). What's if things go downhill wirth Clinton or Trump, we'd at least have some decent Lulz along the way with Trump. But I stress, these two would be terrible. Bernie Sanders would be great.

I think that Trump is on the nose to the left and so is unelectable. What I think is far more dangerous is that if somebody came out from the Tea Party right and had the entire platform except questioned whether the top 1% are good for America. Say if they were religious conservative - anti gay marriage - anti welfare etc. BUT said that the top 1% don't pay a living wage - dump shit into the environment - Pay less tax as a percentage as most working people. I think that you would clean up in the polls.

[Billie from Ockham]

Just listen to the gushing over the kid being such a genius for putting a clock in a different case. You'd think he'd built a cold fusion device.

Which is more racist? Believing that a bomb-like device might be a bomb because the person holding it is brown-skinned and named Ahmed or believing that kid who moved the guts of a clock from one box to another should get a free ride to MIT because the person who did it is brown-skinned and named Ahmed.

What if you believe that the kid and the kid's family was the victim of some pretty ugly social bullying involving practically the entire leadership of that particular community, and that I'm fully in support of helping those people just to send a big fuck you to the bullies?

You do realize that that is almost exactly the justification given by some of the more thoughtful SJWs when asked why they contributed to, e.g., Rebecca Watson's or Melody Hensley's GoFundMe, yes?

[Billie from Ockham]

You should go to schools and insult children

I do. Every morning at 8 am. Thanks. And, as far as I know, none have flown an airplane into a building (on purpose).

[Billie from Ockham]

This is Texas, where education is the 128th priority, just under crosswalks for armadillos. Our school had a robotics class and club, but that isn't common. I have no idea where the school was, but if it was a more urban school, it's entirely possible they couldn't afford to have such things. When teachers have to buy their own paper and notebooks for the kids, a robotics club is just a little out of reach.

I like to rag on Texas as much as the next guy, but at least once in that last three years, one of the final four teams in the FIRST robotics competition was from Texas. With that said, it's usually a team from a place like Ann Arbor Michigan or Madison Wisconsin (i.e.., a liberal, college town) that wins.

[Billie from Ockham]

This recent GirlWritesWhat video is a whole lotta Karen Straughan, compressed into one lesson.

Her historic examples remind me of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast.

[youtube]0RarlU_gTCU[/youtube]

That reminds me ... whatever happened with the Honey Badger suit against that Canadian conference?

[Gumby]

Fresh off her own gangpiling, Ophelia can't resist piling on Dawkins.

[.img]http://imgur.com/WV23OFI.png[/img]

But this is different, you see. Like when she was caught hee-hee-heeing over a Dawkins photoshop after crying about Pit shoops. The Dawkins pic was different.

Ophie can't tweet about Dawkins without mentioning how many followers he has (usually followed by how few followers she has). She has a serious case of follower envy. So she sour-grapes her own twittersmallness by equating Dawkins having lots of followers = bullying every time Dawkins tweets something she or other SJWs don't like. Idiot.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

This is Texas, where education is the 128th priority, just under crosswalks for armadillos. Our school had a robotics class and club, but that isn't common. I have no idea where the school was, but if it was a more urban school, it's entirely possible they couldn't afford to have such things. When teachers have to buy their own paper and notebooks for the kids, a robotics club is just a little out of reach.

I like to rag on Texas as much as the next guy, but at least once in that last three years, one of the final four teams in the FIRST robotics competition was from Texas. With that said, it's usually a team from a place like Ann Arbor Michigan or Madison Wisconsin (i.e.., a liberal, college town) that wins.

Is it because the Texas team is like, 45 years old average while all the other teams are in their early teens?

[Parody Accountant]

Yes, that'll work too. But, when you do something other than straight TV scanlines, it doesn't look so great. The rendered lines are more varied, depending on what lies beneath.

http://imgur.com/0SwzKy5.jpg

http://imgur.com/P5vmGkq.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/hfxcKI5.png

I see what you're saying... You just... jesus man, so much more effort to do things the right way. You rock!

[Ape+lust]

http://i.imgur.com/hfxcKI5.png

I see what you're saying... You just... jesus man, so much more effort to do things the right way. You rock!

Haha, thanks PA, but all I did was crank an image through a program. There's actually an elaborate way to do it natively in GIMP (plus, a collection of filters called G'MIC). The results are nice. Too nice for currency though.

http://imgur.com/LOs35IZ.png

http://blog.patdavid.net/2014/09/woodcu ... ffect.html

[CommanderTuvok]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPX2idfUYAA2OEu.jpg

Sad to see Graham Linehan in that list. :cry:

I was gutted - about a year ago. But Linehan went FULL SJW and deserves everything he fucking gets. He is an enemy. He repeats the lies of the SJWs, the anti-GamerGaters, the FTBullies, etc.

Fuck him.

[Parody Accountant]

http://i.imgur.com/hfxcKI5.png

I see what you're saying... You just... jesus man, so much more effort to do things the right way. You rock!

Haha, thanks PA, but all I did was crank an image through a program. There's actually an elaborate way to do it natively in GIMP (plus, a collection of filters called G'MIC). The results are nice. Too nice for currency though.

http://imgur.com/LOs35IZ.png

http://blog.patdavid.net/2014/09/woodcu ... ffect.html

I'm not worthy. I'm not worthy :)

As always, thanks for all of your work, and also the humor. I don't always respond or reply but I always laugh like a bastard.

You have come so far that I thought you were Richard Carrier.

[papillon]

Thank you, Papillon :dance:

The lines are from a 3rd-party program called ZebraTrace.

http://maxim-s-barabash.github.io/ZebraTrace/

Thanks so much to go to the trouble, Ape.
Very generous of you, and also PA for an alternative solution.
It's exactly what I'm looking for - now just need to see if my thick head can absorb it.
Cheerz guise.

[Ape+lust]

I'm not worthy. I'm not worthy :)

As always, thanks for all of your work, and also the humor. I don't always respond or reply but I always laugh like a bastard.

You have come so far that I thought you were Richard Carrier.

Thank you PA, but.... Carrier! I should live so long to be that perfect without getting snatched and crucified.

That stippled pic isn't mine, BTW. It's by Pat David, a photographer with some renown as a GIMP guru.

[Ape+lust]

http://imgur.com/4VMMUpa.png

From clownshoes Alex.

Alex, who likes to publicly berate and disown his mom and grandma. Who presented his mom with a bullet list of 15 things she needed to apologize for before he'd talk to her or consider her an "ally".

Such a pretentious little knob. And always at the front of the line to ridicule Dawkins.

[Sunder]

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

Welp, ordered.

And y'know, I was thinking, just to be fair, I might later get one of Stollznow's books, as I don't think personal moral failings necessarily preclude someone from being a good writer or having interesting things to say. Plus I enjoy doing the little things that I feel separate myself from FTBullies, such as giving people I may not like personally a chance.

Or to put it another way, they burn books by authors they don't like, I read them, and that's the difference.

[Parody Accountant]

"They don't have to burn the books, they just remove them."

[Jan Steen]

Continued fun with Dr. Richard Carrier PhD.

Richard Carrier -> Jan Steen • a day ago

Okay, now I know you are just lying.

First, you just conveniently ignored the fact that I caught you lying about what's in OHJ. You made a false claim about it. I never come to such an absurdly precise probability conclusion, I actually come to a conclusion with very wide margins of error, with enormous rounding. You've been caught. Don't pretend that didn't just happen.

Second, if you had actually read Chapter 6 of PH, you would know what the probability of someone existing is the frequency of, because I explain in detail there what it means: the frequency of your being right about the conclusion given your estimates of the three variables.
So you have to defend those estimates. Hence the method of a fortiori reasoning (see the index of PH), whereby we enter estimates as favorable to the opposing view as can be reasonably maintained. The debate can then focus on the reasonableness of those three inputs. You seem to have no idea that that is the case.

Thirdly, you embarrassingly try to deploy a Red Herring fallacy by talking about a completely unrelated topic that has nothing to do with OHJ or PH or your lie about the precision of OHJ's conclusion.

Jan Steen -> Richard Carrier • a day ago

Are you denying that you have calculated the strongest case for the existence of a historical Jesus as having a probability of 32%, which you based on an intermediary calculation yielding the number 0.3232989576422? The fact that you think you should use numbers with that many decimals strongly suggests that you have no clue of numerical computational mathematics. Yes, I made fun of that. But more importantly, even this rounded figure of 32% suggests an absurd precision, considering the sketchy information underlying the whole sorry mess (by which I mean the origins of Christianity).

Yes, you also come up with a much lower estimate, based on different assumptions, of 1/12500. Which is again absurdly precise. But you are wrong to say that this range corresponds to the margins of error, because properly there should be a range of error associated with each of those two numbers (1/12500 and 32%). These numbers are, as I just said, based on different assumptions, therefore they represent two different probability models. Therefore, they should each have their own margins of error. Your numbers, as they are, have been plucked from your posterior, and nothing better can be said of them. They are worthless as long as we have no idea how accurate they are.

But what do these numbers, these probabilities, actually mean? Let's say that according to your a forteriori reasoning you have obtained the number 0.32. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this number represents the frequency with which you are right.

There are at least two problems here: (1) Your definition assumes that your calculation is based on perfect information about the prior probabilities. Otherwise your estimate can never correspond to the actual frequency. But there is no perfect information about prior probabilities, therefore your posterior probability can only be an estimate. So it cannot, in principle, be the true frequency with which you are right.
(2) You haven't explained what it even means to talk about the frequency of a unique historic event. Are you saying that if history were to repeat itself infinitely often, that you would be right in 32% of those histories? But if that were the case, then history would not actually repeat itself. So this cannot be the proper frequency interpretation. But what is? Is there one?

As to your third issue, a red herring is an argument of which it is suggested that it is relevant to the discussion at hand, while it is in fact irrelevant. By that definition, my question about the Trevor-Roper citation is not a red herring, because I have explicitly introduced it as a completely separate issue. I could even say, however, that it is still relevant to the broader discussion here, which is about your chronical dishonesty. If you refuse to answer my simple request (show where and how Trevor-Roper stated that his translations was made from the German), then this doesn't help your reputation at all.

I am surprised that the folks who peer-reviewed your paper let you get away with your accusation (that Trevor-Roper lied about his translation). Clearly a failure of the peer review process.

Richard Carrier -> Jan Steen • 7 hours ago

You cannot claim I did not round to a whole percentage point (in fact, more so), yet here you are pretending I advanced a precision that in fact I repudiate in the book. My conclusion conveys exactly the imprecision warranted: a huge margin of error, and highly rounded final results. I do this even for the prior! As well as the posterior.

Stop lying about what is in my book.

Jan Steen -> Richard Carrier • 3 hours ago

Can't you read? I wrote that you comically used a number with lots of superfluous decimals as an intermediary result and then rounded this to 32%. Are you saying that is a lie? Do you know your own book?

Also, you don't understand what error margins are. Hint: an error margin looks like this: [0.32 - 0.23, 0.32 + 0.57]. What you give in your book are not error margins. They are just numbers you have pulled from you-know-where.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringo ... 2263837528

[Service Dog]

http://i.imgur.com/YhjamR3.png

[comhcinc]

He'd make up bullshit stories & we loved busting him. I remember one about "Marvel Comics" suing Sioux City, Iowa for trademark infringement because their "Siouxperland" slogan infringed on Superman. Nerds said "Superman is D.C. comics, not Marvel." And he said, "It's D.C. now, but originally it was published by Marvel." Gibberish. He'd always go further out on the limb.

He was only half wrong.

[Really?]

Continued fun with Dr. Richard Carrier PhD.

Richard Carrier -> Jan Steen • a day ago

Okay, now I know you are just lying.

First, you just conveniently ignored the fact that I caught you lying about what's in OHJ. You made a false claim about it. I never come to such an absurdly precise probability conclusion, I actually come to a conclusion with very wide margins of error, with enormous rounding. You've been caught. Don't pretend that didn't just happen.

Second, if you had actually read Chapter 6 of PH, you would know what the probability of someone existing is the frequency of, because I explain in detail there what it means: the frequency of your being right about the conclusion given your estimates of the three variables.
So you have to defend those estimates. Hence the method of a fortiori reasoning (see the index of PH), whereby we enter estimates as favorable to the opposing view as can be reasonably maintained. The debate can then focus on the reasonableness of those three inputs. You seem to have no idea that that is the case.

Thirdly, you embarrassingly try to deploy a Red Herring fallacy by talking about a completely unrelated topic that has nothing to do with OHJ or PH or your lie about the precision of OHJ's conclusion.

Jan Steen -> Richard Carrier • a day ago

Are you denying that you have calculated the strongest case for the existence of a historical Jesus as having a probability of 32%, which you based on an intermediary calculation yielding the number 0.3232989576422? The fact that you think you should use numbers with that many decimals strongly suggests that you have no clue of numerical computational mathematics. Yes, I made fun of that. But more importantly, even this rounded figure of 32% suggests an absurd precision, considering the sketchy information underlying the whole sorry mess (by which I mean the origins of Christianity).

Yes, you also come up with a much lower estimate, based on different assumptions, of 1/12500. Which is again absurdly precise. But you are wrong to say that this range corresponds to the margins of error, because properly there should be a range of error associated with each of those two numbers (1/12500 and 32%). These numbers are, as I just said, based on different assumptions, therefore they represent two different probability models. Therefore, they should each have their own margins of error. Your numbers, as they are, have been plucked from your posterior, and nothing better can be said of them. They are worthless as long as we have no idea how accurate they are.

But what do these numbers, these probabilities, actually mean? Let's say that according to your a forteriori reasoning you have obtained the number 0.32. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this number represents the frequency with which you are right.

There are at least two problems here: (1) Your definition assumes that your calculation is based on perfect information about the prior probabilities. Otherwise your estimate can never correspond to the actual frequency. But there is no perfect information about prior probabilities, therefore your posterior probability can only be an estimate. So it cannot, in principle, be the true frequency with which you are right.
(2) You haven't explained what it even means to talk about the frequency of a unique historic event. Are you saying that if history were to repeat itself infinitely often, that you would be right in 32% of those histories? But if that were the case, then history would not actually repeat itself. So this cannot be the proper frequency interpretation. But what is? Is there one?

As to your third issue, a red herring is an argument of which it is suggested that it is relevant to the discussion at hand, while it is in fact irrelevant. By that definition, my question about the Trevor-Roper citation is not a red herring, because I have explicitly introduced it as a completely separate issue. I could even say, however, that it is still relevant to the broader discussion here, which is about your chronical dishonesty. If you refuse to answer my simple request (show where and how Trevor-Roper stated that his translations was made from the German), then this doesn't help your reputation at all.

I am surprised that the folks who peer-reviewed your paper let you get away with your accusation (that Trevor-Roper lied about his translation). Clearly a failure of the peer review process.

Richard Carrier -> Jan Steen • 7 hours ago

You cannot claim I did not round to a whole percentage point (in fact, more so), yet here you are pretending I advanced a precision that in fact I repudiate in the book. My conclusion conveys exactly the imprecision warranted: a huge margin of error, and highly rounded final results. I do this even for the prior! As well as the posterior.

Stop lying about what is in my book.

Jan Steen -> Richard Carrier • 3 hours ago

Can't you read? I wrote that you comically used a number with lots of superfluous decimals as an intermediary result and then rounded this to 32%. Are you saying that is a lie? Do you know your own book?

Also, you don't understand what error margins are. Hint: an error margin looks like this: [0.32 - 0.23, 0.32 + 0.57]. What you give in your book are not error margins. They are just numbers you have pulled from you-know-where.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringo ... 2263837528

At least we know how he got away with cheating on his wife for so long.

Wife: Why do you smell like magenta hair dye and mothballs? Were you fucking Greta Christina?

Carrier: You're a liar and everyone knows it.

Wife: Why the fuck is Rebecca Watson calling here at three in the morning to ask about "that thing, um, he'll know?"

Carrier: You're increasingly unhinged and I am sad to say you are insane.

Wife: Why did you put "fuck girl who is drunk, but not too drunk to consent" on your to-do list for your talk in Santa Fe?

Carrier: I did nothing of the sort.

Wife: It's right here. On your 'From the Genius Mind of Master Sergeant Doctor Richard C. Carrier PhD., MssC, USCG, M4F, DTF' stationery. See? This is your handwriting.

Carrier: No document like that has ever existed.

[James Caruthers]

SJWism was never more than a fad, and so it passes.... Feminism will still be around, but it'll be exactly like creationism is right fucking now: Nobody Will Care. 8-)

Your post is oddly similar to a piece by Paul Elam on AVFM right now. He says that Feminism is debunked to the point of irrelevance, so it's time to set sights on the final boss, Gynocentrism. He also serves eviction notice to the slacktivist preponderance of AVFM followers, who don't do anything except complain about how The Real Activists handle things.

I wasted a lot of my late teens in online communities talking about other stupid fads like SJWism. But they passed, as this one is doing, and now nobody cares about them. Some of the most famous of the personalities we obsessed over....

Which fads? I'm curious.

Paul is wrong though, as my own post shows. Feminism will always be with us. And defeating gynocentrism? Ha! You may as well defeat death while you're about it!

Which fads? Creationism of course, amazing how something so trivial was made to such a big deal. And then also movie and game reviews/let's play. Total waste of time.

But y'know, that's how it goes when you spend any time online. You look for things you like, and in the process you find shit you don't like. Sometimes you obsess about the things you don't like and sometimes (rarely) the internet as a collective decides to obsess along with you. And then you have an internet shitposting fad like SJWism vs Anti-SJW or creationism vs atheism.

[James Caruthers]

He, wife, & I... all know a certain SJW. She's kinda-famous. Let's call her PJ. PJ's drunken misbehavior is Elyse-esque. They're basically interchangeable. After watching Bernie Sanders on Colbert's Late Show; neighbor said Sanders is 'where this country needs to go'. I said-- that if going in that direction means putting Elyse/PJ in charge: which is worse. 4 years of that, or 4 years of Scott Walker. He ducked answering the dilemma. He just wanted to say Sanders is better than Trump. Well yeah. Nothing to see here, move along.

But scrutinizing the Good Guys closer than that doesn't mean you're a misogynist or a reactionary bigot.

I'm voting Trump this term.

I'd rather fuck this country for good than let Hillary take over for another 8 years of a Bush presidency.

[James Caruthers]

If I was an US American, which I am not, I would vote for Bernie Sanders. He sounds like a social democrat and a dash of that politics would be the best thing for the United States, and for everybody else. Then there is a huge gap.

Hillary Clinton is right wing for a Democrat, Donald Trump is left wing for a Republican. This phenomenon has a name and I knew it once, but forgot about it (please share its name when you know it). Candidates tend to reach the top that could attract most people from the centre and opposite side, since out of partisan reasons the outer wings of their party would anyway vote for “their” candidate. Since Donald Trump is politically all over the map, he would be better from an international point of view than Hillary Clinton. Trump's international views are actually more left-wingish, than Clinton's. She was pro-Iraq war, he was against it. She was also for arming Syrian insurgents. She is a bona fide neo con, also with all the big money and wall street support. Both want to tax the rich and reduce taxes for the middle-class, and that's the same talking point Bernie Sanders is making (but he seems more genuine). What's if things go downhill wirth Clinton or Trump, we'd at least have some decent Lulz along the way with Trump. But I stress, these two would be terrible. Bernie Sanders would be great.

Well, back when I took courses on US politics, it was called a New Democrat move. It's based on the idea that your political opponent is too strong to beat by appealing solely to your base. You need to take away your opponent's votes. You can't take them all, but many voters are somewhere between Democrat and Republican and you can take advantage of this. But that's not enough, because you also need some of the opposition's voting base.

So you move towards their position. Socially, economically, whatever. You gamble that your base STILL will vote for you even though you no longer represent all their interests, because you're still closer to your base than the opposition. But you're now close enough to your opponent on some issues that undecided voters or frustrated core voters on the other side will jump over to you.

Clinton is one of the most famous examples of this. He moved pretty well to the right on a number of issues (don't ask don't tell?) and AFAIK the Democrat party has continued the trend with Obama's warmongering and Hillary's support for crony capitalism. People like Hillary are career politicians with no values.

But Trump isn't much better. He's an empty suit with a fake hairpiece. I'm voting Trump just to see what crazy shit he can come up with next. I want to see him try to put up electrified fencing across the entire border and post armed thugs to shoot down anyone trying to sneak into this country to find a better life. :cdc:

[Sunder]

In what sense was creationism a fad? It's not as if there was a period where science education in America was doing fine, then creationists showed up one day, were annoying for a bit, and now they're gone. There was never a point at which we shrugged off their nonsense and they just went away. Didn't happen. We won a few legal battles here and there because the law is objectively on our side in this, but many people are still fighting similar battles today because creationists have not given up, and the way they win is for us to give up.

[comhcinc]

In what sense was creationism a fad? It's not as if there was a period where science education in America was doing fine, then creationists showed up one day, were annoying for a bit, and now they're gone. There was never a point at which we shrugged off their nonsense and they just went away. Didn't happen. We won a few legal battles here and there because the law is objectively on our side in this, but many people are still fighting similar battles today because creationists have not given up, and the way they win is for us to give up.

I am not sure about a fad but creationism as we know it today really is a product of the 60s. It didn't really start coming to prominence until the late 70s.

[Sunder]

Bible-based science denialism (which is the real issue for which creationism is mostly a shorthand) has a longer history than that. Scopes was 90 years ago.

[comhcinc]

Bible-based science denialism (which is the real issue for which creationism is mostly a shorthand) has a longer history than that. Scopes was 90 years ago.

Scopes was also a circus because it was so odd. Everyone everywhere was teaching evolution.

[Bhurzum]

At least we know how he got away with cheating on his wife for so long.

Wife: Why do you smell like magenta hair dye and mothballs? Were you fucking Greta Christina?

Carrier: You're a liar and everyone knows it.

Wife: Why the fuck is Rebecca Watson calling here at three in the morning to ask about "that thing, um, he'll know?"

Carrier: You're increasingly unhinged and I am sad to say you are insane.

Wife: Why did you put "fuck girl who is drunk, but not too drunk to consent" on your to-do list for your talk in Santa Fe?

Carrier: I did nothing of the sort.

Wife: It's right here. On your 'From the Genius Mind of Master Sergeant Doctor Richard C. Carrier PhD., MssC, USCG, M4F, DTF' stationery. See? This is your handwriting.

Carrier: No document like that has ever existed.

:lol: :clap:

And of course, massive props to Jan for engaging the sticky hobbit in the first place!

:dance:

[comhcinc]

:lol: :clap:

And of course, massive props to Jan for engaging the sticky hobbit in the first place!

:dance:

Very much so. I made a comment about wanting to get laid and a certain yeti drew the hobbit toward me.

I am kinda insulted he didn't realize I was one of those nasty pitters.

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET YOUR ATTENTION RICHARD!!!!!

[Aneris]

If I was an US American, which I am not, I would vote for Bernie Sanders. He sounds like a social democrat and a dash of that politics would be the best thing for the United States, and for everybody else. Then there is a huge gap.

Hillary Clinton is right wing for a Democrat, Donald Trump is left wing for a Republican. This phenomenon has a name and I knew it once, but forgot about it (please share its name when you know it). Candidates tend to reach the top that could attract most people from the centre and opposite side, since out of partisan reasons the outer wings of their party would anyway vote for “their” candidate. Since Donald Trump is politically all over the map, he would be better from an international point of view than Hillary Clinton. Trump's international views are actually more left-wingish, than Clinton's. She was pro-Iraq war, he was against it. She was also for arming Syrian insurgents. She is a bona fide neo con, also with all the big money and wall street support. Both want to tax the rich and reduce taxes for the middle-class, and that's the same talking point Bernie Sanders is making (but he seems more genuine). What's if things go downhill wirth Clinton or Trump, we'd at least have some decent Lulz along the way with Trump. But I stress, these two would be terrible. Bernie Sanders would be great.

Well, back when I took courses on US politics, it was called a New Democrat move. It's based on the idea that your political opponent is too strong to beat by appealing solely to your base. You need to take away your opponent's votes. You can't take them all, but many voters are somewhere between Democrat and Republican and you can take advantage of this. But that's not enough, because you also need some of the opposition's voting base.

So you move towards their position. Socially, economically, whatever. You gamble that your base STILL will vote for you even though you no longer represent all their interests, because you're still closer to your base than the opposition. But you're now close enough to your opponent on some issues that undecided voters or frustrated core voters on the other side will jump over to you.

Clinton is one of the most famous examples of this. He moved pretty well to the right on a number of issues (don't ask don't tell?) and AFAIK the Democrat party has continued the trend with Obama's warmongering and Hillary's support for crony capitalism. People like Hillary are career politicians with no values.

But Trump isn't much better. He's an empty suit with a fake hairpiece. I'm voting Trump just to see what crazy shit he can come up with next. I want to see him try to put up electrified fencing across the entire border and post armed thugs to shoot down anyone trying to sneak into this country to find a better life. :cdc:

You vote someone for fun despite that you suspect he makes lives miserable for people, or let them shot?

And you don't need to explain the principle back to me, and it is not a Democrat move, either, but a phenomenon that shows up in many a democracy whenever there are two poles. For example Angela Merkel is left wingish for the right-wing party, and was often accused of being in the wrong party. Since her base are conservatives (though far more moderate than your Republicans), who tend to be loyal, she could stretch it far and thus get elected several times. The last candidate of the left-wingish party was, correspondingly, also on the right wing side of his party.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Continued fun with Dr. Richard Carrier PhD.

Richard Carrier -> Jan Steen • a day ago

Okay, now I know you are just lying.

First, you just conveniently ignored the fact that I caught you lying about what's in OHJ. You made a false claim about it. I never come to such an absurdly precise probability conclusion, I actually come to a conclusion with very wide margins of error, with enormous rounding. You've been caught. Don't pretend that didn't just happen.

Second, if you had actually read Chapter 6 of PH, you would know what the probability of someone existing is the frequency of, because I explain in detail there what it means: the frequency of your being right about the conclusion given your estimates of the three variables.
So you have to defend those estimates. Hence the method of a fortiori reasoning (see the index of PH), whereby we enter estimates as favorable to the opposing view as can be reasonably maintained. The debate can then focus on the reasonableness of those three inputs. You seem to have no idea that that is the case.

Thirdly, you embarrassingly try to deploy a Red Herring fallacy by talking about a completely unrelated topic that has nothing to do with OHJ or PH or your lie about the precision of OHJ's conclusion.

Jan Steen -> Richard Carrier • a day ago

Are you denying that you have calculated the strongest case for the existence of a historical Jesus as having a probability of 32%, which you based on an intermediary calculation yielding the number 0.3232989576422? The fact that you think you should use numbers with that many decimals strongly suggests that you have no clue of numerical computational mathematics. Yes, I made fun of that. But more importantly, even this rounded figure of 32% suggests an absurd precision, considering the sketchy information underlying the whole sorry mess (by which I mean the origins of Christianity).

Yes, you also come up with a much lower estimate, based on different assumptions, of 1/12500. Which is again absurdly precise. But you are wrong to say that this range corresponds to the margins of error, because properly there should be a range of error associated with each of those two numbers (1/12500 and 32%). These numbers are, as I just said, based on different assumptions, therefore they represent two different probability models. Therefore, they should each have their own margins of error. Your numbers, as they are, have been plucked from your posterior, and nothing better can be said of them. They are worthless as long as we have no idea how accurate they are.

But what do these numbers, these probabilities, actually mean? Let's say that according to your a forteriori reasoning you have obtained the number 0.32. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this number represents the frequency with which you are right.

There are at least two problems here: (1) Your definition assumes that your calculation is based on perfect information about the prior probabilities. Otherwise your estimate can never correspond to the actual frequency. But there is no perfect information about prior probabilities, therefore your posterior probability can only be an estimate. So it cannot, in principle, be the true frequency with which you are right.
(2) You haven't explained what it even means to talk about the frequency of a unique historic event. Are you saying that if history were to repeat itself infinitely often, that you would be right in 32% of those histories? But if that were the case, then history would not actually repeat itself. So this cannot be the proper frequency interpretation. But what is? Is there one?

As to your third issue, a red herring is an argument of which it is suggested that it is relevant to the discussion at hand, while it is in fact irrelevant. By that definition, my question about the Trevor-Roper citation is not a red herring, because I have explicitly introduced it as a completely separate issue. I could even say, however, that it is still relevant to the broader discussion here, which is about your chronical dishonesty. If you refuse to answer my simple request (show where and how Trevor-Roper stated that his translations was made from the German), then this doesn't help your reputation at all.

I am surprised that the folks who peer-reviewed your paper let you get away with your accusation (that Trevor-Roper lied about his translation). Clearly a failure of the peer review process.

Richard Carrier -> Jan Steen • 7 hours ago

You cannot claim I did not round to a whole percentage point (in fact, more so), yet here you are pretending I advanced a precision that in fact I repudiate in the book. My conclusion conveys exactly the imprecision warranted: a huge margin of error, and highly rounded final results. I do this even for the prior! As well as the posterior.

Stop lying about what is in my book.

Jan Steen -> Richard Carrier • 3 hours ago

Can't you read? I wrote that you comically used a number with lots of superfluous decimals as an intermediary result and then rounded this to 32%. Are you saying that is a lie? Do you know your own book?

Also, you don't understand what error margins are. Hint: an error margin looks like this: [0.32 - 0.23, 0.32 + 0.57]. What you give in your book are not error margins. They are just numbers you have pulled from you-know-where.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringo ... 2263837528

Will the slaughter neve cease? Excellent stuff, Jan. I appreciate the updates, as the comments at Patheos often get screwed up on my phone. Keep his feet to the fire, please!