Justin, if the Wilkes-Barre city government and police department do nothing, you may want to consider contacting the ACLU. Keep fightin'!justinvacula wrote:A better recording will be available :)Dilurk wrote:He lost his shit big time. And please. Next time. No typing?justinvacula wrote:Admitted vandal of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s “Let reason prevail†freethought holiday banner which was placed on Public Square in Wilkes-Barre appeared on WILK Newsradio to discuss his position. Within the interview, he admits to his criminal activity although claiming he didn’t commit a crime. This is comedy gold. Enjoy.
http://skepticink.com/justinvacula/2012 ... recording/
I wanted to release ASAP.
Periodic Table of Swearing
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Wait, doesn't scouring the internet looking for potential "dirt" from years ago exactly fit their definition of cyberstalking? But... but... that would make Ophelia... a HYPOCRITE!!!! Oh man, my whole world just went all topsy-turvy and shit.CommanderTuvok wrote:Have you guys noticed that Ophelia Benson is STILL raging tears at Shermer. The mental breakdown candidate has being going over 4-year old posts from Jerry Coyne's blog where apparently ALL IS REVEALED that Shermer is EVIL.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Slither wrote:
A little while ago, the topic of the usual suspects whining about catcalling came up. This reminded me of http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44182286/ ... NT2M280V8E. an interview with Ninalee Craig, who is the woman shown in the photo "An American Girl in Italy":
http://misskmaas.files.wordpress.com/20 ... 408697.jpg.
This photo has been used for ages as an example of the evils of catcalling. Ninalee Craig is rather upset about this -- she saysIt is a very nice interview, and very different from what you usually hear about this photo."It’s not a symbol of harassment. It’s a symbol of a woman having an absolutely wonderful time!" She knows the men in the photo appear to be leering and lascivious, but she insists they were harmless. “Very few of those men had jobs,†Craig said. “Italy was recovering from the war and had really been devastated by it … I can tell you that it wasn’t the intent of any man there to harass me....none of those men crossed the line at all.â€
The photo is primarily a celebration of strong, independent women who aren’t afraid to live life.
-
- .
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:07 am
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
I was quietly reading, experiencing the usual mild simmering ire that stems from the latest pratfalls of the pseudo-skeptic clown posse when I saw that name. Sir my rage doth runneth over such that I do near choke on the bile, why I'm fairly certain I'd be openly weeping tears of rage were I given to being a complete tool. Cheers, I'll have that fucking meaningless tripe, "the medium is the message," running through my head for a hellish age now.nippletwister wrote:Marshall Mcluhan
Empty, meaningless verbal diarrhea. How did this jargon filled dreck masquerade its way into the academy? Why do I keep encountering this rank manure playing at deep profundity when someone should surely have said, "hang on a minute, you just made this shit up."nippletwister wrote:Chaining Rhetorical Visions from the Margins...
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
PZ has a new post up about Shermer, and he wants "anti-feminists" to come and post. Yeah, he's that desperate for hits. While he doesn't say he'll censor, edit, or ban anyone, we all know how he operates. Maybe he wants someone else to fill his dungeon?
His choice bits (at the bottom of his post)
His choice bits (at the bottom of his post)
Well, first, if you haven't been listening the past few years, you're not going to start thinking on what people have been saying, PZ. "Dogmatic excuses" is code for "anything different than what I say". The last strawman is pretty bad, since saying that skepticism shouldn't associate with radical feminism like PZ believes in (supposedly), that doesn't mean skeptics shouldn't do anything that has any social implication. How stupid is he (no need to answer that)?So let's try an experiment. Let's hear from some of these anti-feminists. I'd like them to comment here and explain themselves, and to do so a little more deeply than just reiterating dogmatic excuses. If you think feminism is a religion, explain why, and be specific. If you think feminism is unsupported by the evidence, explain what evidence opposes the principles of feminism. If you think it's wrong for the skeptic movement to have a social agenda, explain what you think it should be doing that has no social implications.
It's a shame that PZ conveniently misses the mark, since his brand of feminism really doesn't believe in any of those things. Sorry, Peezus, but disagreeing with radical feminism doesn't mean we don't support equality. We support equality, while you don't. Too bad you can't accept that, but it's true.Most importantly, if you think feminism, that is equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequalities, is irrational, let's see you explain your opposition rationally.
or they could just ignore your witless attempt at begging for trafficThis could go a couple of ways; there could be dead silence as the anti-feminists wilt under pressure to honestly explain themselves,
Funny, the baboons don't seem to shriek of misogyny...oh, you mean anybody else saying anything that disagrees with your views. Sorry, my bad.or there could be an eruption of the usual shrieking misogyny,
Hee hee hee - as if the baboons can crush anything. But with such a stirring plea for understanding and conversation, how can anyone resist being a cockroach and post something for the Great and Powerful PZ to dissect?or there might actually be a few who try to explain themselves. If it's the latter, the rest of you behave yourselves - pretend you've got a cockroach under the microscope and try to probe it to figure out what makes it work, and don't just ry to crush it under the heel of your shoe, OK?
Wow. Well, considering that the amount of people trying to figure out what goes on inside what passes for baboon brains, we can at least agree on some things. I guess PZ is feeling the heat and trying to stay relevant, and drum up traffic. Is anyone really stupid enough to go to among the baboons and get shit flung on them? I also wonder how many of those conversations with creationists have been in forums where PZ doesn't have the power to censor, edit, or ban? I only know of a handful of times where he did it in public (radio, podcast, or debate). Given the cowardice he's shown, such as the Pappa/Rationalia affair (boy, did he run with his tail between his legs!), I am skeptical. Still, I think it would be fun to see PZ come here and have the same conversation with "anti-feminists". Of course, since he or his ilk reads here, he already knows the views of people he considers anti-feminist, and posting here would mean he'd have to ban himself to the dungeon.I'm a bit curious myself. I've had these sorts of conversations with creationists, and it's always like wandering through an alien world; let's try to figure out what weird things are going on inside the skulls of anti-feminists.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Crap. No you've done spoiled Christmas! We can't live in a world like that, so Parallel Logic to the rescue. Just a tablespoon a day, and the world is beautiful and trouble free, and Nanny Phee-Phee can do no wrong and is a saint to boot!Gumby wrote:Wait, doesn't scouring the internet looking for potential "dirt" from years ago exactly fit their definition of cyberstalking? But... but... that would make Ophelia... a HYPOCRITE!!!! Oh man, my whole world just went all topsy-turvy and shit.CommanderTuvok wrote:Have you guys noticed that Ophelia Benson is STILL raging tears at Shermer. The mental breakdown candidate has being going over 4-year old posts from Jerry Coyne's blog where apparently ALL IS REVEALED that Shermer is EVIL.
-
- .
- Posts: 2244
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
- Location: Kent, WA
- Contact:
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Aspergers - definitely not what I thought of. Because I have a daughter who is very tactile defensive and may have some minor forays into Aspergers Syndrome. I'm thinking just out and out not right mentally. Not quite clear in right and wrong. Not able to control urges to do things we, as a society, know are wrong. Very, very different in my mind.sacha wrote:clearly he was mentally ill, those two words cover quite a wide spectrum.ReneeHendricks wrote:Ok, so I stupidly read a blog post by Szvan today regarding mental illness which then prompted me to look at other posts on FfTB regarding the Newtown masscre and mental illness.
I can't be the only one thinking "a completely sane person with no mental issues whatsoever would not do this", right? I don't feel I'm stigmatizing those with mental issues because there are varying degrees as well as so many types and *many* afflicted would not be driven to this level of horror.
The posts are just pissing me off because they're pretty much stating that if you even thought Lanza was not in complete control of his mental faculties, you're in the wrong.
What I have been infuriated with is the media insinuating that Aspergers could be the reason he gunned down six and seven year old children. Implying that is unethical and inexcusable.
The idea of major media organisations not-so-subtle indication of horrific malice associated with ASD, that has absolutely no basis in reality, has me seething. Mind you, I'm not surprised, just angry.
Demonising ASD and creating irrational fear and bigotry without any accountability for reporting the information.
None of the reports even added a disclaimer stating that there has never been any evidence linking Aspergers and violence, and why? Because people want a reason, and they want that reason to be as distant as possible to them, preferably one that is a brain "disorder". It makes for an easier target.
The irresponsibility of suggesting a connection between extreme and fatal violence against innocent children and ASD has just negated all of the time and effort that has been made over the past 30 years to de-stigmatise Autism.
Aspergers is the opposite side of the spectrum to what most people think of when they hear the word Autism. It is considered "high-functioning" Autism. I have a lot of close friends with Aspergers, and a couple of the men I have been involved with, and actually loved (it doesn't happen often) have Aspie traits (never diagnosed). It's part of why I loved them.
There are quite a few Aspies here.
-
- .
- Posts: 5429
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Hey small world! My dad is from Pittston. I haven't been back in years though I still have some relatives there.Al Stefanelli wrote:Yeah, Bullshit. My family has been in Luzerne County for hundreds of fucking years, particularly in the Wilkes-Barre/Pittson area and were very instrumental in the development of the area. They still own more land and businesses than probably any private family within a 100 fucking miles of the place. So fuck this fucken fuck and his 'Christians built Wilkes-Barre' bullshit. Douchecanoe.Gumby wrote:He's also claiming (in the comments on that news story) claiming that only Christians built Wilkes-Barre, but then said Jews did too. He claims people have been worshiping his god since the beginning of time ( :lol: ), but then says he knows all about polytheism. He can't spell, he has no grasp of punctuation, can barely regurgitate his thoughts onto the comments section.... yet insists he's a brilliant student and knows more about the evolution of religion (and history) than any of the people who are currently fucking him into the ground in the comments. He is SO typical of the least-educated, mouth-breathing fundies who so cluelessly think they're successfully bluffing everyone. He's making a complete ass out of himself, and I've been happily helping him.justinvacula wrote:Admitted vandal of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s “Let reason prevail†freethought holiday banner which was placed on Public Square in Wilkes-Barre appeared on WILK Newsradio to discuss his position. Within the interview, he admits to his criminal activity although claiming he didn’t commit a crime. This is comedy gold. Enjoy.
http://skepticink.com/justinvacula/2012 ... recording/
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
He really does have some difficulty comprehending that there are different branches of feminism, that some of them are quite “virulent†– and to suggest that that is the case really doesn’t qualify as misogyny in spite of what Ophelia might pontificate on the point from her bully pulpit. Same as with Christianity and Islam which might be real peachy if all of their proponents lived up to the best of their religions – tolerance, no compulsion in religion, equality, etc. – and if the religions themselves weren’t so easily abused.Badger3k wrote:PZ has a new post up about Shermer, and he wants "anti-feminists" to come and post. Yeah, he's that desperate for hits. While he doesn't say he'll censor, edit, or ban anyone, we all know how he operates. Maybe he wants someone else to fill his dungeon?
His choice bits (at the bottom of his post)
It's a shame that PZ conveniently misses the mark, since his brand of feminism really doesn't believe in any of those things. Sorry, Peezus, but disagreeing with radical feminism doesn't mean we don't support equality. We support equality, while you don't. Too bad you can't accept that, but it's true.PZ wrote: So let's try an experiment. Let's hear from some of these anti-feminists. I'd like them to comment here and explain themselves, and to do so a little more deeply than just reiterating dogmatic excuses. If you think feminism is a religion, explain why, and be specific. If you think feminism is unsupported by the evidence, explain what evidence opposes the principles of feminism. If you think it's wrong for the skeptic movement to have a social agenda, explain what you think it should be doing that has no social implications.
Most importantly, if you think feminism, that is equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequalities, is irrational, let's see you explain your opposition rationally.
He really should take a close look at the video by Girl Writes What on the topic of “nice feminists†[I don’t have the link handy].
And one of those ways is for some of the people who he’s banned for rather specious reasons, many of which were due to the criticisms of feminism that he now wants to hear, might check whether that is still the case – it is as I’ve just found out, at least in my case – and conclude that he is not being particularly honest himself to begin with. Try again PZ.PZ wrote:This could go a couple of ways; there could be dead silence as the anti-feminists wilt under pressure to honestly explain themselves,
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
I really don’t mind that she reviews what Shermer has said – from what I’ve seen she might have some credible criticisms. But it would be nice to see precisely what she was saying during recent arguments about cyberstalking; the least she could do – in the event that she was complaining about it – would be to concede that she had been wrong. Right, when pigs fly ….Badger3k wrote:Crap. No you've done spoiled Christmas! We can't live in a world like that, so Parallel Logic to the rescue. Just a tablespoon a day, and the world is beautiful and trouble free, and Nanny Phee-Phee can do no wrong and is a saint to boot!Gumby wrote:Wait, doesn't scouring the internet looking for potential "dirt" from years ago exactly fit their definition of cyberstalking? But... but... that would make Ophelia... a HYPOCRITE!!!! Oh man, my whole world just went all topsy-turvy and shit.CommanderTuvok wrote:Have you guys noticed that Ophelia Benson is STILL raging tears at Shermer. The mental breakdown candidate has being going over 4-year old posts from Jerry Coyne's blog where apparently ALL IS REVEALED that Shermer is EVIL.
-
- .
- Posts: 6555
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
It's time again:
[youtube]RYGy-j_oH5Q[/youtube]
[youtube]RYGy-j_oH5Q[/youtube]
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
It was not directed to you, Renee. I did not think you were referring to mentions of ASD. I apologise for the ambiguity.ReneeHendricks wrote:Aspergers - definitely not what I thought of. Because I have a daughter who is very tactile defensive and may have some minor forays into Aspergers Syndrome. I'm thinking just out and out not right mentally. Not quite clear in right and wrong. Not able to control urges to do things we, as a society, know are wrong. Very, very different in my mind.sacha wrote:clearly he was mentally ill, those two words cover quite a wide spectrum.ReneeHendricks wrote:Ok, so I stupidly read a blog post by Szvan today regarding mental illness which then prompted me to look at other posts on FfTB regarding the Newtown masscre and mental illness.
I can't be the only one thinking "a completely sane person with no mental issues whatsoever would not do this", right? I don't feel I'm stigmatizing those with mental issues because there are varying degrees as well as so many types and *many* afflicted would not be driven to this level of horror.
The posts are just pissing me off because they're pretty much stating that if you even thought Lanza was not in complete control of his mental faculties, you're in the wrong.
What I have been infuriated with is the media insinuating that Aspergers could be the reason he gunned down six and seven year old children. Implying that is unethical and inexcusable.
The idea of major media organisations not-so-subtle indication of horrific malice associated with ASD, that has absolutely no basis in reality, has me seething. Mind you, I'm not surprised, just angry.
Demonising ASD and creating irrational fear and bigotry without any accountability for reporting the information.
None of the reports even added a disclaimer stating that there has never been any evidence linking Aspergers and violence, and why? Because people want a reason, and they want that reason to be as distant as possible to them, preferably one that is a brain "disorder". It makes for an easier target.
The irresponsibility of suggesting a connection between extreme and fatal violence against innocent children and ASD has just negated all of the time and effort that has been made over the past 30 years to de-stigmatise Autism.
Aspergers is the opposite side of the spectrum to what most people think of when they hear the word Autism. It is considered "high-functioning" Autism. I have a lot of close friends with Aspergers, and a couple of the men I have been involved with, and actually loved (it doesn't happen often) have Aspie traits (never diagnosed). It's part of why I loved them.
There are quite a few Aspies here.
Funny how the Baboons immediately started shrieking about the idea that he was mentally ill, but completely silent over the media's insinuation that Aspergers may have been the reason for his calculated annihilation of kindergarten children, which is a complete fabrication. The media's vilification of an entire group of people did not even register.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Two things women hate: Cat calls, and when they stop.Slither wrote: http://misskmaas.files.wordpress.com/20 ... 408697.jpg.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
that sums up Becky right there.comslave wrote:Two things women hate: Cat calls, and when they stop.Slither wrote: http://misskmaas.files.wordpress.com/20 ... 408697.jpg.
-
- .
- Posts: 5357
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
This got air time at Atheism+ forum (several people there identify as Asperger's or as being on the autism spectrum).sacha wrote:Funny how the Baboons immediately started shrieking about the idea that he was mentally ill, but completely silent over the media's insinuation that Aspergers may have been the reason for his calculated annihilation of kindergarten children, which is a complete fabrication. The media's vilification of an entire group of people did not even register.
-
- .
- Posts: 5357
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Amazed that my post capped below got through. Last several posts I tried at various blogs at FtB were blocked, if that's the right term. (I'm logged in, can preview, hit submit and my post doesn't appear, nor is there any message that it's in moderation.) I'm giving even odds that it'll vanish into thin air at Pharyngula. (Ignore the italics fail; I hadn't bothered to preview it, assuming there was no point because noone would ever see it.)Badger3k wrote:PZ has a new post up about Shermer, and he wants "anti-feminists" to come and post. Yeah, he's that desperate for hits. While he doesn't say he'll censor, edit, or ban anyone, we all know how he operates. Maybe he wants someone else to fill his dungeon?
His choice bits (at the bottom of his post)
<snip>So let's try an experiment. Let's hear from some of these anti-feminists. I'd like them to comment here and explain themselves, and to do so a little more deeply than just reiterating dogmatic excuses. If you think feminism is a religion, explain why, and be specific. If you think feminism is unsupported by the evidence, explain what evidence opposes the principles of feminism. If you think it's wrong for the skeptic movement to have a social agenda, explain what you think it should be doing that has no social implications.
It's a shame that PZ conveniently misses the mark, since his brand of feminism really doesn't believe in any of those things. Sorry, Peezus, but disagreeing with radical feminism doesn't mean we don't support equality. We support equality, while you don't. Too bad you can't accept that, but it's true.Most importantly, if you think feminism, that is equality for men and women and opposition to cultural institutions that perpetuate inequalities, is irrational, let's see you explain your opposition rationally.
<snip>This could go a couple of ways; there could be dead silence as the anti-feminists wilt under pressure to honestly explain themselves,
http://i.imgur.com/w6vcE.png
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Skep tickle wrote:This got air time at Atheism+ forum (several people there identify as Asperger's or as being on the autism spectrum).sacha wrote:Funny how the Baboons immediately started shrieking about the idea that he was mentally ill, but completely silent over the media's insinuation that Aspergers may have been the reason for his calculated annihilation of kindergarten children, which is a complete fabrication. The media's vilification of an entire group of people did not even register.
thanks for the correction. I don't venture there.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Nice post.Skep tickle wrote:http://i.imgur.com/w6vcE.png
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Does anyone else think that "A Real Woman Never Lets Her Man Leave The House" model has the best fucking body ever?
Motherfuck. No wonder people keep accidentally forgetting to remove the images when they post afterwards.
/aside
Motherfuck. No wonder people keep accidentally forgetting to remove the images when they post afterwards.
/aside
-
- .
- Posts: 5357
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Thanks; a couple of people have replied, dropping the odds that PZ will delete it. Thanks, PZ's regulars! :dance:rayshul wrote:Nice post.Skep tickle wrote:(some skeptical stuff)
As you can imagine, their responses address the <i>content</i> of my post in a meaningful and substantial way, instead of simply casting aspersions. :whistle:
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Not sure I'd say the best... but it's a damned fine one, yes.rayshul wrote:Does anyone else think that "A Real Woman Never Lets Her Man Leave The House" model has the best fucking body ever?
Motherfuck. No wonder people keep accidentally forgetting to remove the images when they post afterwards.
/aside
-
- .
- Posts: 5357
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Well, her ass is certainly eye-catching. Can't get a good sense of the rest of her, though.rayshul wrote:Does anyone else think that "A Real Woman Never Lets Her Man Leave The House" model has the best fucking body ever?
Motherfuck. No wonder people keep accidentally forgetting to remove the images when they post afterwards.
/aside
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
I'm pretty heterosexual but my mouth keeps wanting to make wolf noises.Rystefn wrote:Not sure I'd say the best... but it's a damned fine one, yes.rayshul wrote:Does anyone else think that "A Real Woman Never Lets Her Man Leave The House" model has the best fucking body ever?
Motherfuck. No wonder people keep accidentally forgetting to remove the images when they post afterwards.
/aside
-
- .
- Posts: 5357
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Meh, I gotta stop posting at PZ's. Time to re-read welch's post on NMDs as homework, since apparently there's a test. :)
http://i.imgur.com/IhEG8.png
http://i.imgur.com/IhEG8.png
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Good post there and the previous one. And I see they’re laying in some faggots and readying the post to burn you at it at the first opportunity – sunrise, by the look of it. They do enjoy their stereotyping, don’t they; “four legs good; two legs badâ€, indeed.Skep tickle wrote:Meh, I gotta stop posting at PZ's. Time to re-read welch's post on NMDs as homework, since apparently there's a test. :)
http://i.imgur.com/IhEG8.png
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Tuvok's list is a good idea.
I can't say I've followed FTB's descent into totalitarian group-think as avidly as many here so my End of Year award list will necessarily be myopic and brief.
5) Richard Carrier - Your spit riddled clarion call to separate the wheat from the chaff, to cast out the demons among your flock was fucking hilarious. The icing on the cake was Massimo Pigliucci noting dryly that, yes, Richard has a history of such behaviour.
4) Oolon - A tragic (read: hilarious) case of one man's desire to appear above it all. Which might have worked had he not been found out to be a slimy fuck...by all sides. Crashed, burned and then, predictably (and without a drop of self awareness) pleaded the puppet-master defense. He's still trying to ingratiate himself on any FTB board that will have him, poor bastard.
3) Rebecca Watson - Hadn't actually made my list until her amazing Evo Psych lecture and confession of being a rapist. Good job.
2) PZ Meyers - For the spectacularly funny white knight response to the wave of criticism that followed Watson's EP speech. "Rebecca has been slighted - therefore I, PZ Meyrs, shall publish a series on why EP is terrible.". Embarrassing at best.
1) Hug-gate - I could have just left it at Atheism plus and its plummet from being FTB darling to a wretched, forgotten forum - but Simpleflower's e-hug melt-down epitomizes the whole non-movement.
I can't say I've followed FTB's descent into totalitarian group-think as avidly as many here so my End of Year award list will necessarily be myopic and brief.
5) Richard Carrier - Your spit riddled clarion call to separate the wheat from the chaff, to cast out the demons among your flock was fucking hilarious. The icing on the cake was Massimo Pigliucci noting dryly that, yes, Richard has a history of such behaviour.
4) Oolon - A tragic (read: hilarious) case of one man's desire to appear above it all. Which might have worked had he not been found out to be a slimy fuck...by all sides. Crashed, burned and then, predictably (and without a drop of self awareness) pleaded the puppet-master defense. He's still trying to ingratiate himself on any FTB board that will have him, poor bastard.
3) Rebecca Watson - Hadn't actually made my list until her amazing Evo Psych lecture and confession of being a rapist. Good job.
2) PZ Meyers - For the spectacularly funny white knight response to the wave of criticism that followed Watson's EP speech. "Rebecca has been slighted - therefore I, PZ Meyrs, shall publish a series on why EP is terrible.". Embarrassing at best.
1) Hug-gate - I could have just left it at Atheism plus and its plummet from being FTB darling to a wretched, forgotten forum - but Simpleflower's e-hug melt-down epitomizes the whole non-movement.
-
- .
- Posts: 1061
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm
PeePee
[bolding mine]PZ Myers
21 December 2012 at 10:23 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
regulars don’t make gendered insults. How quickly we forget the “Dear Dick†incident.
1. That was posted on Skepchick, not here, by Stephanie Zvan, not me.
2. It was not a gendered insult, but a calculatedly informal salutation.
Gosh PeePee, who knew you were such a lying sack of horseshit? Once you perpetuate a lie, you don't ever back down, do you?
Re: Laden's trailer
Extreme response to a jokemordacious1 wrote:http://www.odditycentral.com/wp-content ... 50x412.jpg
I don't know if this image will show here, it doesn't on "preview", but if you want to get a look at where Laden lives, just paste the url.
@Mykeru @Thomas_Bird67 @rebeccawatson Still living here?
Re: Laden's trailer
Laden, still living here?aqi wrote:Extreme response to a jokemordacious1 wrote:http://www.odditycentral.com/wp-content ... 50x412.jpg
I don't know if this image will show here, it doesn't on "preview", but if you want to get a look at where Laden lives, just paste the url.
@Mykeru @Thomas_Bird67 @rebeccawatson Still living here?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/39/84746 ... 8193_o.jpg
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Okay, I regret posting that, that managed to be both classist and racist. :/ Sorry.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Yea, some pretty far out stuff there – I assume you found that page on Dawkins’ site on the Sokal hoax that posts that “essay†by Guertin. Just the title – Quantum Feminist Mnemotechnics – speaks volumes.nippletwister wrote:I read the Dawkins article, and did a little looking around for Carolyn Guertin, and Oh my sweet titty christ....in her "Assemblage The Women's New Media Gallery: a 1998 "dissertation" comprised of the shittiest website I've ever seen( I know, they were all pretty shitty back then, but without pages of "theory"). Insanity is now a path to a doctorate...thanks, Marshall Mcluhan. ….Steersman wrote:...
One of the arguments of postmodernism is apparently that “reality is a social construct†and the AtheismPlus crowd seems deep into creating a plethora of their own idiosyncratic varieties; most people who are actually sane are more likely to characterize that as simply “delusionalâ€. And that inference of “Perry’s homophobia†has to take the cake.
However, you might be interested in these observations by Richard Dawkins on the phenomenon ...
Although portions of that “Internet Nutball†site actually make a little bit of sense:
People have different styles of conversation and that “free-wheeling†type reminds me of this place at times. However, as she suggests, it is very easy to lose the thread if people get sloppy or careless in not providing references of one sort or another. But that “ways of knowing†is getting rather far out into left field. Reminds me of a relevant passage from that first post by Dawkins on postmodernism:… many of our family gatherings were loud and interruptive, and most of us developed the unconscious habit of making associative leaps by spinning out probable meanings for the missing word or sound. We were all contextualizers, for in context we found clues that helped us decipher the missing parts. Much of the time we seemed permanently befuddled when we couldn't make the connection, which led to blank looks and misunderstandings.
Seems that “vacuous rhetoric†is the more probable case for a lot of what passes for modern scholarship or even modern “artâ€; our tax dollars at work ….No doubt there exist thoughts so profound that most of us will not understand the language in which they are expressed. And no doubt there is also language designed to be unintelligible in order to conceal an absence of honest thought. But how are we to tell the difference? What if it really takes an expert eye to detect whether the emperor has clothes? In particular, how shall we know whether the modish French 'philosophy', whose disciples and exponents have all but taken over large sections of American academic life, is genuinely profound or the vacuous rhetoric of mountebanks and charlatans?
Re: PeePee
Yeah, cause it couldn't possibly be both a gendered insult and a "calculatedly informal salutation", becuase those two are, liek, totally mutually exclusive. And anyway, at least one of the FC5 has already declared "calculatedly informal salutations" as a mortal sin. (Over the "Becky" term - was that Orwellia?)mordacious1 wrote:[bolding mine]PZ Myers
21 December 2012 at 10:23 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
regulars don’t make gendered insults. How quickly we forget the “Dear Dick†incident.
1. That was posted on Skepchick, not here, by Stephanie Zvan, not me.
2. It was not a gendered insult, but a calculatedly informal salutation.
Gosh PeePee, who knew you were such a lying sack of horseshit? Once you perpetuate a lie, you don't ever back down, do you?
PeeWee score card
False dichotomy: check
Cognitive dissonance: check
Denial: check
Lying sack of shit: check
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Not to mention that this "calculatedly informal salutation"" excuse was coined by the "Dear Dick" generator herself: Stephanie "my name is not Stef, nor Stephie!!!" Zvan.
Well, yet more FC(N) bullshit. Nothing new under the sun...
Well, yet more FC(N) bullshit. Nothing new under the sun...
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: PeePee
WTF!mordacious1 wrote:[bolding mine]PZ Myers
21 December 2012 at 10:23 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
regulars don’t make gendered insults. How quickly we forget the “Dear Dick†incident.
1. That was posted on Skepchick, not here, by Stephanie Zvan, not me.
2. It was not a gendered insult, but a calculatedly informal salutation.
Gosh PeePee, who knew you were such a lying sack of horseshit? Once you perpetuate a lie, you don't ever back down, do you?
I know that Svan tried that tactic after her stupid mistake was pointed out but absolutely nobody believes that no insult was implied.
Remember, we are dealing with a group that flies off the handle when Rebecca Watson's name is shortened to Becky or Becca. Apparently that is disrespectful - and presumably misogynistic.
Yet take the most famous atheist in the world and use a name that he has never been known by before, a name that is practically solely used as an insult (or an exceedingly witty slymepit handle!), and in a context where Svan is being very angry with Dawkins - you know, the sort of situations where insults might be used. Well apparently that is fine!
It's an "informal salutation"!
Does PZ Myers seriously think his readers are fucking idiots?
Look, we know why Svan used that excuse. She never admits a mistake. Ever.
That doesn't mean, however, that you simply accept her excuses, especially the more preposterous ones, without question.
Look, it's reaaly quite simple. Svan called Dawkins a dick.
At the time she did it the whole idea of "gendered insults" was not common currency amongst the FTB social justice warriors. I doubt it is going to be difficult to find numerous instances of people getting called dicks. Even Rebecca Watson has a (terrible!) talk on youtube called "Don't be a dick!", that she presented at some international Atheist convention (Copenhagen?)
It was Ophelia that brought in the language of "gendered insults" and the inclusion of dick and prick into this is relatively recent.
So when Svan wrote the "Dear Dick" letter she didn't realize she was using a gendered insult that was comparable to calling someone a cunt. She simply thought she was calling Dawkins a dick - a common insult in atheist/skeptical circles at that time.
It was only after Ophelia's 'gendered insult' became the accepted excuse why cunt and pussy were so terrible that svan's 'Dick' required retrofitting and became 'an informal salutation'.
Hey Peezus, when you wrote to Dawkins, asking him for a quote for the cover of your book, did you begin the letter "Dear Dick"?
Re: PeePee
Does he think it? I think he counts on it. Either that, or he is a stupid as they are.Dick Strawkins wrote:Does PZ Myers seriously think his readers are fucking idiots?
-
- .
- Posts: 4969
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
I really think he'll ignore it on purpose due to you being involved in the newsworthy story. He's so far gone, that he will even refuse to write about news that is right up his alley for no better reason than not liking the messenger.justinvacula wrote:FTB should 'jump on this' - perhaps in a matter of unexpected solidarity. The olive branch is here...and these are quite 'exemplary' examples of misogynistic thought I must say! So far, though, prior to this post, there has been an FTB blackout as it seems... I would expect at least a post from PZ in support because he loves this type of 'confrontationalist' activism regardless of what he thinks of me. Oh well. I'm not holding my breath.
Way back before EGate, I used to occasionally email him news, knowing his commentors were crazy but still thinking PZ was sane. One was of an atheist living in Morocco, who had angry mobs wanting to kill him due to finding his atheist blog. He needed publicity and help. PZ totally ignored it, but luckily, thanks to guy's youtube friends, he was able to escape to Switzerland and is now safely a refugee there.
http://scentednectar.blogspot.com/2011/ ... ouble.html
http://scentednectar.blogspot.com/2011/ ... fe-in.html
Another was when a politician said that keeping one's rapist's baby (resulting from rape) is a good way to stop him from raping you anymore. The politician said as part of his attempts to disallow rape victims the right to abortions.
http://scentednectar.blogspot.ca/2011/0 ... u-wtf.html
I now believe that PZ specifically did NOT cover these stories because *I* was the one who was the messenger. These were sent to him AFTER I had been fighting with his commentors sometime earlier, but BEFORE I realized that PZ was an asshole too. I finally realized he was an asshole by the time ElevatorGate happened.
-
- .
- Posts: 4969
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
I strongly recommend that no one go over there.Weasel PZ, as quoted above by someone, wrote:So let's try an experiment. Let's hear from some of these anti-feminists. I'd like them to comment here and explain themselves, and to do so a little more deeply than just reiterating dogmatic excuses. If you think feminism is a religion, explain why, and be specific. If you think feminism is unsupported by the evidence, explain what evidence opposes the principles of feminism. If you think it's wrong for the skeptic movement to have a social agenda, explain what you think it should be doing that has no social implications.
He is setting up a very restricted game, with plenty of strawpeople. The first one's ok, PROVIDED he's not trying to restrict people to just that subtopic of 'is feminism a religion?'.
The next is a weasel move. He says "If you think feminism is unsupported by the evidence, explain what evidence opposes the principles of feminism." Well, here's the thing. We might all agree with whatever PZ is meaning by "the principles of feminism". If it is something like "equal rights for both sexes", we probably all do agree. But, none of our arguments, the one's we are said to "think feminism is unsupported by the evidence", have anything at all to do with the base principles. More likely we would bring up things to do with the bad stats feminists circulate in regards to violence, sex work, income, and various other things. Bringing up these things over there are thought to be unquestionable and therefore "misogyny!" What reason do we have for thinking Lucy REALLY won't pull away the football this time from Charlie Brown again? None. Verdict: PZ is a WEASEL!!!
Next is another weasel move. He says "If you think it's wrong for the skeptic movement to have a social agenda, explain what you think it should be doing that has no social implications"
A social agenda does NOT equal the fact that almost everything one does in this world has social implications of some sort. Being against the bumbling antics of Social Justice Warriors, and embarrassing results that occur in any movement infested by them, does not mean that one is against actions that actually DO have have good resulting social implications. Verdict: PZ is a WEASEL!!!
Ok, that's enough analysing the Stupid Himself for me right now. PZ is such a compulsive bullshitter and weaseler, he's almost unreadable anymore.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Isn't PZ doing the equivalent of "have you stopped beating your wife?" With this latest thread? No matter what you write you have shown yourself to be an anti-feminist. And if you don't respond you are just a troll who can't defend himself.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Even though it is a trap. I think that it shows PZ is getting worried about tye amount of criticism they are generating.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
In my opinion, not even this has been satisfactorily established.Pitchguest wrote:Here's the thing about people who supposedly are "sane" but do utterly mental things, like shoot children in the face multiple times: it's a lapse of sanity. A "normal" person wouldn't do that. A person who's grounded wouldn't spontaneously begin shooting up schools, or theaters, or student camps, in their right mind. Something has snapped.
However, that isn't an indictment on all people with mental illnesses. But it is a mental illness nonetheless, albeit a temporary one.
It is certainly comforting to think that certain heinous acts are foreign to our nature, but that puts us at great risk of wishful thinking and of stretching the definition of insanity to exclude from the spectrum of normal human behaviour those actions which we generally find abhorrent.
Although it deals with a somewhat different sort of crimes, I'd recommend taking into consideration the Banality of Evil theory.
-
- .
- Posts: 4969
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Or he's hurting for a big long comment thread with an extra big dogpiling of his (illiterate and non-comprehending) commentors on a whole team of "other siders".Michael J wrote:Even though it is a trap. I think that it shows PZ is getting worried about tye amount of criticism they are generating.
It's hilarious when Stuffy, and now PZ, make their demands that we come over there and discuss this or that specific loaded questions and strawpeople.
Hey both of you, and yeah, we know you read the Pit, you act like abusive nieghbours. Whenever any of us have been to your parties (comment threads), we've been treated like shit. Plus we've all been blocked multiple times for presenting evidence and arguments that happen to go against your ideology. We've been banned, deleted, had our comments changed to things we never said, etc, etc. So why the fuck do you think we'll come to your dog-whistle demand to come over to your place and let you ply us with your childish inability to reason and argue, YET AGAIN?
Who the fuck do they think they are? After treating us consistantly like shit, they want a command appearance, and a command performance in their loaded and weaselly questions.
The only safe spot for any GENUINE discussions they might want to have, is right here in the Slimepit itself. We don't delete (exception being sales spam, personal info, Mabus). You can express any view and your comment will remain intact. We are even kept honest here in regards to our own posts too, as one cannot edit one's post once it's up.
So, come on over, PZ, ask your questions here. This is safe space for both sides, since neither side can delete or ban people they don't like. Guaranteed many of us will answer your questions, including me. But first, I'll need to establish from you what you mean in some parts of what you challenged.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
This advert is shown on Pharyngula:
http://i.imgur.com/CfdlX.jpg
There is a word for people who accept money from those whom they despise.
http://i.imgur.com/CfdlX.jpg
There is a word for people who accept money from those whom they despise.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Yeah, being "examined like a cockroach" by PZs gang of shrieking harridans doesn't really appeal to me. He can come here if he's actually interested.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
lol
So let’s try an experiment. Let’s hear from some of these anti-feminists...
PZ Myers on 22 December 2012 at 8:16 am
Skeptixx: Slymepitters are never welcome here — your gang crosses the line from sexism into outright misogyny, and I don’t think that group’s fondness for inventing ‘creative’ versions of people’s names using crude slang for genitals counts as rational discussion. Banned with extreme prejudice.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
just plain creepy. Searching for Harriet Hall/Sulky Amy images, I found -
http://www.usapowerlifting.com/halloffa ... arriet.jpg
Harriet Hall, powerlifter
http://www.usapowerlifting.com/halloffa ... arriet.jpg
Harriet Hall, powerlifter
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
How will they ever learn what makes a cockroach tick if they prevent cockroaches from entering their trap?cunt wrote:lol
So let’s try an experiment. Let’s hear from some of these anti-feminists...PZ Myers on 22 December 2012 at 8:16 am
Skeptixx: Slymepitters are never welcome here — your gang crosses the line from sexism into outright misogyny, and I don’t think that group’s fondness for inventing ‘creative’ versions of people’s names using crude slang for genitals counts as rational discussion. Banned with extreme prejudice.
Experiment fail.
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
"Sexism", "misogyny"? Myers: citation fucking wanted!cunt wrote:lol
So let’s try an experiment. Let’s hear from some of these anti-feminists...PZ Myers on 22 December 2012 at 8:16 am
Skeptixx: Slymepitters are never welcome here — your gang crosses the line from sexism into outright misogyny, and I don’t think that group’s fondness for inventing ‘creative’ versions of people’s names using crude slang for genitals counts as rational discussion. Banned with extreme prejudice.
Dear Dick...fondness for inventing ‘creative’ versions of people’s names using crude slang for genitals counts as rational discussion
-
- .
- Posts: 5859
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Even if you ignore the fact that he's decided to use guilt by association to tar everyone here for the actions of one or two people on another forum (the old ERV forum - I don't think anyone has come up with new genitalia based insults since this place has started and virtually nobody uses those insults, in contrast to Ophelia), I don't know how he has the nerve to try that tactic when in the same thread he's excused Svan calling Richard Dawkins 'dick'.cunt wrote:lol
So let’s try an experiment. Let’s hear from some of these anti-feminists...PZ Myers on 22 December 2012 at 8:16 am
Skeptixx: Slymepitters are never welcome here — your gang crosses the line from sexism into outright misogyny, and I don’t think that group’s fondness for inventing ‘creative’ versions of people’s names using crude slang for genitals counts as rational discussion. Banned with extreme prejudice.
That's about as believable as saying "I only called him a cunt because it's an informal salutation for "country person".It was not a gendered insult, but a calculatedly informal salutation
-
- .
- Posts: 1505
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:59 am
- Location: In a band of brigands.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
How does PeeZus expect anyone to "comment here" when all known Pitters are banned?
Certainly no-one is going to get a chance to "explain themselves". And who decided the onus was on your critics to do that anyway? You and your fellow Baboons are the ones making all the wild claims about patriarchy and rape-culture and all the terrible (and credible) threats Watson et al receive from sceptics and atheists. So, do the sceptical thing: Show us your evidence.
Really this is like the bully who offers you a 'fair fight' in his back yard with all his mates present. When you're too smart to walk into an obvious ambush he goes around school the next day calling you a coward, but only his goons even pretend to believe it. Welch is right, only a fool fights by rules the enemy wont follow.
That's actually three ways PZed. I can see how you made the mistake though. It's only the first two you're interested in. Either someone shows up to comment, which you've defined, in advance as "an eruption of the usual shrieking misogyny", or no-one does, in which case you'll claim victory by default.This could go a couple of ways: there could be dead silence as the anti-feminists wilt under pressure to honestly explain themselves, or there could be an eruption of the usual shrieking misogyny, or there might actually be a few who try to explain themselves.
Certainly no-one is going to get a chance to "explain themselves". And who decided the onus was on your critics to do that anyway? You and your fellow Baboons are the ones making all the wild claims about patriarchy and rape-culture and all the terrible (and credible) threats Watson et al receive from sceptics and atheists. So, do the sceptical thing: Show us your evidence.
Really this is like the bully who offers you a 'fair fight' in his back yard with all his mates present. When you're too smart to walk into an obvious ambush he goes around school the next day calling you a coward, but only his goons even pretend to believe it. Welch is right, only a fool fights by rules the enemy wont follow.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Who says using crude slang for people's nicknames is rational discussion. It's called an insult, Peenus...er....Peezus. You know, like telling people to die in fire, get raped by porcupines, things like that. Just like calling someone a misogynist - not an attempt at rational discourse. It's nice that PZ can't stop showing his flaws - he just can't help showing that he has no intention of looking for discourse, just another money-making pigpile.cunt wrote:lol
So let’s try an experiment. Let’s hear from some of these anti-feminists...PZ Myers on 22 December 2012 at 8:16 am
Skeptixx: Slymepitters are never welcome here — your gang crosses the line from sexism into outright misogyny, and I don’t think that group’s fondness for inventing ‘creative’ versions of people’s names using crude slang for genitals counts as rational discussion. Banned with extreme prejudice.
-
- .
- Posts: 6658
- Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
- Location: Middlesbrough
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
Oh PZ! You are such a clown.
You know, by your own admission, that "Slymepitters" are banned automatically from Pharyngula so instead of asking us to comment on your blog why not comment here?
Sure you have zero power on the Pit, you will be ridiculed and called out on every piece of bullshit you have ever written and you WILL be utterly demolished by even daring to rear your fat, hairy head but don't be afraid. Leave a comment.
Unless you are a chicken shit?
You know, by your own admission, that "Slymepitters" are banned automatically from Pharyngula so instead of asking us to comment on your blog why not comment here?
Sure you have zero power on the Pit, you will be ridiculed and called out on every piece of bullshit you have ever written and you WILL be utterly demolished by even daring to rear your fat, hairy head but don't be afraid. Leave a comment.
Unless you are a chicken shit?
-
- .
- Posts: 6658
- Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
- Location: Middlesbrough
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
For every day that PZ refuses to comment here (even though we know he lurks) we can safely call him a fucking chicken shit who wears little girls panties.
PZ Is a chicken shit who wears little girl panties.
PZ Is a chicken shit who wears little girl panties.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
PZ is stooping to the same exact tactic that people like Duane Gish and William Lane Craig use. Badger opponents into a debate that can't possibly go in a rational fashion because they'll bend and twist and Gish-gallop... either that, or sneer at the people who refuse to fall for the sucker-bait and tell everyone "They won't debate me because they have nothing and they know it".Steersman wrote:And one of those ways is for some of the people who he’s banned for rather specious reasons, many of which were due to the criticisms of feminism that he now wants to hear, might check whether that is still the case – it is as I’ve just found out, at least in my case – and conclude that he is not being particularly honest himself to begin with. Try again PZ.PZ wrote:This could go a couple of ways; there could be dead silence as the anti-feminists wilt under pressure to honestly explain themselves,
These are the EXACT reasons Richard Dawkins won't debate creationists. PZ eagerly jumped on the Dawkins bandwagon and agreed yeah, that's why he won't debate creationists either. So what does he do here? Trot out the same exact disingenuous "debate" that the creationists do. Oh PZ, how far you have fallen.
Re: PeePee
Ah, but calling Rebecca "Becky" is demeaning and sexist according to them.mordacious1 wrote:[bolding mine]PZ Myers
21 December 2012 at 10:23 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
regulars don’t make gendered insults. How quickly we forget the “Dear Dick†incident.
1. That was posted on Skepchick, not here, by Stephanie Zvan, not me.
2. It was not a gendered insult, but a calculatedly informal salutation.
Gosh PeePee, who knew you were such a lying sack of horseshit? Once you perpetuate a lie, you don't ever back down, do you?
Gotcha.
Fucking hypocrites!
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
After seeing that, I immediately thought of this song. Let him declare his little victory.real horrorshow wrote:How does PeeZus expect anyone to "comment here" when all known Pitters are banned?
That's actually three ways PZed. I can see how you made the mistake though. It's only the first two you're interested in. Either someone shows up to comment, which you've defined, in advance as "an eruption of the usual shrieking misogyny", or no-one does, in which case you'll claim victory by default.This could go a couple of ways: there could be dead silence as the anti-feminists wilt under pressure to honestly explain themselves, or there could be an eruption of the usual shrieking misogyny, or there might actually be a few who try to explain themselves.
Certainly no-one is going to get a chance to "explain themselves". And who decided the onus was on your critics to do that anyway? You and your fellow Baboons are the ones making all the wild claims about patriarchy and rape-culture and all the terrible (and credible) threats Watson et al receive from sceptics and atheists. So, do the sceptical thing: Show us your evidence.
Really this is like the bully who offers you a 'fair fight' in his back yard with all his mates present. When you're too smart to walk into an obvious ambush he goes around school the next day calling you a coward, but only his goons even pretend to believe it. Welch is right, only a fool fights by rules the enemy wont follow.
[youtube]gAGP24eq_0o[/youtube]
-
- .
- Posts: 6658
- Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
- Location: Middlesbrough
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
>Ban every dissenting commentator from your blog.
>Ask those same dissenters to provide a rational argument for their positions on your blog
>Claim a "win" when nobody steps forward.
>Masturbate over bestiality snuff porn for the 90th night in a row.
>Ask those same dissenters to provide a rational argument for their positions on your blog
>Claim a "win" when nobody steps forward.
>Masturbate over bestiality snuff porn for the 90th night in a row.
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
"I'm a Country Member."Dick Strawkins wrote:
That's about as believable as saying "I only called him a cunt because it's an informal salutation for "country person".
"Yes. Yes, I do remember."
-
- .
- Posts: 6658
- Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
- Location: Middlesbrough
Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
PZ Myer's style of debate from 3:50 onwards:
[youtube]n5jpVbEL0jc[/youtube]
[youtube]n5jpVbEL0jc[/youtube]