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

justinvacula wrote:Thanks again for all the support including e-mails (and donations!) to the SCA if anyone here sent them.
Many have questioned about my health and expressed concern elsewhere.
I am fine although am very exhausted and have a headache.

Also, Emily Dietle has offered a very reasonable blog post concerning my SCA nomination and the controversy which ensued. The comments are building up, too, including Greg Laden, Watson, Karla Porter and others.

http://emilyhasbooks.com/second-chances/

***'
,,,and at risk of another debate here on tone, language, I would request to not heap abuse on my detractors no matter what they say. Attack ideas, not persons has been my mantra for a great majority of time when considering public disagreements. Take it or leave it...and thanks again.

So Justin in that blog you link to Emily clearly says "So, I did a bit of digging, looked at the concerns of others, and found their claims somewhat substantiated. " ... and ... "He’s a human-being, with feelings, and the ability to grow"

I have to agree with her the claims are somewhat substantiated, especially the AVfM post. Are you really happy to have a post on a site where the owner of the network has some disgusting views on rape? Your post is nicely tagged as coming under "FEMINIST LIES" ... How lovely.
The posting of Surly Amys address on here and an image of the building where she lives - was that attacking the ideas not the person? Was it just a mistake?

You may get a thrill out of being "Witch of the Week" but if you look at the comments there many are agreeing if you back down and apologise then they would withdraw the complaints and see how it goes. I may be wrong but I thought as a leader you need to represent your community more and yourself less. Maybe part of the 'growing' bit she references?

Tkmlac wrote:Dipping my toe in the slyme pit. Apparent indefensible rape apologist & chill girl here -- questioned Rebecca Watson why she thinks violent humor she participates in is okay, but reddit is a horrible pool of rape threats. After she called me a twit, I called her a bitch. I'm currently the founder and one of two members of my very own atheist club in the Sacramento area. (Davis Area FreeThinkers, or D.A.F.T.). Glad to be here.

Welcome.

It has been noted many times about the apparent double standard between what the Baboons can laugh about, or simply discuss, and everybody else. It has been noted many times about the double standard between their "rage" over supposed doc-dropping, only for them to turn a blind eye to Scurvy Amy/PZ Liars/Twatson doc-dropping on numerous occasions. It has been noted many times about the double standard with regard to their "opposition to bullying", only for them to consistently defend and support someone (Greg Laden) who has a history of bullying, harassing, and sending threats of violence to people.

Finally, it has been noted that they are complete wankstains.

** Gah! Guest above is oolon if you had not realised... Bloody login on here is irretrievable.

Anyway Crommunist puts it a lot better than me

We spoke about this "second chances" meme, and it seems that you still haven't accepted the argument that second chances ought to be reserved for those who have shown a willingness to change their behaviour. Justin has not done this. He still thinks that he has done nothing wrong, and that the people who are disturbed by both his actions and his appointment are simply cultivating an unreasonable personal grievance. There is no reason to expect that he will stop his belligerence and harassment, especially now that a national organization (with absolutely no vetting) has elevated him to a position of authority. I do not share your assessment that second chances should be given to everyone regardless of their behaviour or their future plans, nor do I expect "growth" to happen spontaneously out of the goodness of their hearts.

Justin didn't dox Amy. He was accused of trying to get her personal info by counterfiling with the DMCA business so he could dox her. His response was basically "I can't dox her because she's already doxxed herself. See?"

Guest wrote: The posting of Surly Amys address on here and an image of the building where she lives - was that attacking the ideas not the person? Was it just a mistake?

Dear Slimy Turd,
you know what happened and why regarding Scurvy Amy's address so you are deliberately misrepresenting it. I don't see why anybody here should pay you any attention.

Tkmlac wrote:Dipping my toe in the slyme pit. Apparent indefensible rape apologist & chill girl here -- questioned Rebecca Watson why she thinks violent humor she participates in is okay, but reddit is a horrible pool of rape threats. After she called me a twit, I called her a bitch. I'm currently the founder and one of two members of my very own atheist club in the Sacramento area. (Davis Area FreeThinkers, or D.A.F.T.). Glad to be here.

Welcome! And to any lurking!

(seems like we have more registered than actively post which I'm curious about because guests are allowed to post too)

JV recognized that making Amy's info easier to find was wrong (even if it only took a minute of googling to find) so it was removed at his request. Sounds like improvement to me?

oolon** wrote:You may get a thrill out of being "Witch of the Week" but if you look at the comments there many are agreeing if you back down and apologise then they would withdraw the complaints and see how it goes. I may be wrong but I thought as a leader you need to represent your community more and yourself less. Maybe part of the 'growing' bit she references?

Justin, Yeah.. represent your community more.. like 'listen to the women' PeeZus does.. and represent yourself less.. let your own person die and become a toilet slave like PeeZus.

LMU wrote:Justin didn't dox Amy. He was accused of trying to get her personal info by counterfiling with the DMCA business so he could dox her. His response was basically "I can't dox her because she's already doxxed herself. See?"

Oolong, the above is true. Do you still think that Justin docdropped anyone?

Michael K Gray wrote:

JackRayner wrote:How then, do you explain reluctance to mate from the females (or, hell, even just the female half of hermaphroditic species) of many other species? :think: I fully admit that I haven't looked at the rates of child-birth related deaths in other species, but I'm sure they happen... And something tells me that, in the great majority of these, there is no cognitive process comparable to "I saw Molly die due to her pregnancy, so I'm going to avoid becoming pregnant as best I can!"

I can see why you raise it, but to amplify your speculation:
One MUST refer to species who are cognitively able to recognise that they are female "put themselves in another female's place" and imagine that what other females experience is likely their fate.
They MUST cognitively connect the act of copulation with the risk of pregnancy, of course.
Those who regularly accidentally die in giving birth.
And those who have mutually cryptic ovulation.
(To name but 3 of scores of necessary caveats by which to make any sane comparison with homo sapiens.)
This dramatically reduces the pool of species down to at most a handful, more more realistically: just one.
And for that putative residue that has been previously mentioned I, and others have already comprehensively dismissed them.

The problem with the 'sex avoidance instinct' is that (as you noted previously), the risks of childbirth were pretty much inescapable in pre-modern societies. Therefore any female who was to pass on their genes would have had to face them, so it's not clear that sex-avoidance would have had a selective benefit. On the other hand who they had sex with would have been something the individual could much more readily affect with their own behavior. (For balancing the risks of childbirth with reproduction, prolonged breastfeeding would have been much more effective in spacing births, and that is what we do observe in extant hunter-gatherer societies)

It's theoretically possible that there would be selection for general female reluctance to mate in a species where sexual coercion was routine so that females get impregnated anyway (mallard ducks, or some of those hermaphroditic critters, would be better candidates than humans), but it's much more common for females (and males as well) to be selective about when and where and who with to mate.

John Greg wrote:Rebbecca Watson, in a truly spell-binding post of two-faced baffle-gab, finds The Truth:

http://skepchick.org/2012/10/the-value-of-truth/

Watson says:

I believe that truth has inherent value and that skepticism is most crucially applied to the things we want to believe.

Who'd a thunkit?

Next up, a thousand word treatise from Jason Thibblededoo decrying Watson's hyper-skepticism, right? Right?

Why would anybody apologize to a group that takes offense at everything that disagrees with them (even imaginary things)? You know if an apology was given one of them would pipe up that it wasn't sincere enough, or it wasn't a real apology because they still disagree, still speak to certain people, etc.

The only response warranted would be "I have a ball. Perhaps you would like to bounce it?"

I mean jesus fuck oolong? Are you retarded?

Amy DMCAs everyone who writes negative posts about her. Not EVERYONE who uses her images. Not the people who use her images plugging her wares. She ONLY DMCAed people who criticized her.

Lets just totally ignore whether Justins use was fair use. What is important is that Justin thought his use was fair use, so he filed a counter claim.

He was accused of ONLY filing a counter claim to get Amys name/addy/etc, when that info is publicly available via a simple Google search. Not 'if you know the right sites to go to'. Not 'if you pay $19.99 you can get the info' sites. Not anything illegal or underhanded. A SIMPLE GOOGLE SEARCH brings up her home address, which makes the accusation that Justin ONLY filed a counter claim to d0x STUPID.

Which brings me to two primary issues that have yet to be addressed by Amy, Watson, Myers, Svan, et ass:

1-- Amy ONLY filed DMCAs on people using her images in posts that criticized her. Amy did NOT follow through on one, ONE, of those DMCA claims. Those two facts lead one to the conclusion that Amy ONLY filed those DMCAs in the hopes of using the legal system to intimidate critics into silence. It doesnt matter whether Justins use of the image is fair use or not, because AMY didnt think she had the legal right to DMCA him, or else SHE WOULD HAVE DONE IT. Her plan wasnt for anyone to file a counter claim. Her plan was SILENCE DISSENT.

What do we call it when Creationists use DMCAs in disingenuous attempt to silence dissent? BULLSHIT.

What do we call it when anti-vaxers use DMCAs in disingenuous attempt to silence dissent? BULLSHIT.

What do we call it when chiropractors use DMCAs in disingenuous attempt to silence dissent? BULLSHIT.

What do we call it when Surly Amy uses DMCAs in disingenuous attempt to silence dissent? BULLSHIT.

What Amy did was BULLSHIT regardless of her gender. Regardless of her BFFs. Regardless of her atheism.


2-- When the targets of Amys BULLSHIT DMCAs (remember, she followed up on a grand total of ZERO claims!) didnt just bend over and take it, they were make targets even further. Exhibit A: Justin. Exhibit B: Elevatorgate. When he filed a counter claim, Amy Roth DID NOT follow through with the DMCA. SHE LEAKED AN ANON COMMENTORS REAL-LIFE INFO ON THE INTERNET. Information NOT readily found by a simple Google search. Information provided to her via the counter claim.

What do we call it when Creationists maliciously drop the real info of anon dissenters? BULLSHIT.

What do we call it when anti-vaxers maliciously drop the real info of anon dissenters? BULLSHIT.

What do we call it when chiropractors maliciously drop the real info of anon dissenters? BULLSHIT.

What do we call it when Surly Amy maliciously drops the real info of an anon dissenter? BULLSHIT.

What Amy did was BULLSHIT regardless of her gender. Regardless of her BFFs. Regardless of her atheism.

Surly Amy has NO defense for her actions, so her retard-in-arms come to her defense by going on the offense.

BULLSHIT.

And you have to be a fucking idiot not to 'get it'.

I love it when Abbie slaps the Baboons with logic and facts!

JackRayner wrote:

John Greg wrote:Jean Kazez drinking ever more deeply of the intellect-free Flavor-aid:

http://kazez.blogspot.ca/2012/10/guilt- ... ation.html

I assume this is supposed to be in defense of those who claim individual X is a misogynist because they post on a website Y, which is claimed by some to be misogynistic?

I think that before they even attempt to reach a conclusion about individual X, [whose behavior isn't even misogynistic] they first need to prove that website Y is what they claim it is. By this logic, wouldn't everyone on Twitter be a misogynist too? :)

Everyone who disagrees with a fembot is a misogynist, you know that! Kazez's entire argument is a nonsense. People are 'guilty' of what they do, not what others do. Even if person A provokes or encourages person B to do a thing, person A is 'guilty' only of the provocation, person B is 'guilty' of whatever they did. Kazez though, isn't even citing provocation. She's saying: 'if you associate with people who do X, you are guilty of X', and that is guilt by association however much she denies it. This woman holds an academic post in philosophy? She couldn't pass basic logic on this evidence!

Munkhaus wrote:

John Greg wrote:Rebbecca Watson, in a truly spell-binding post of two-faced baffle-gab, finds The Truth:

http://skepchick.org/2012/10/the-value-of-truth/

Watson says:

I believe that truth has inherent value and that skepticism is most crucially applied to the things we want to believe.

Who'd a thunkit?

The myriad levels of irony and hypocrisy weaving through that post, like huge, misty chinese dragons doing battle is almost too much for my feeble brain to contain.
To top it off nicely, Tracy "I was once longlisted for something" King comments that she has received abuse for "asking questions".
Hyperskeptic- reversal! What a move! Has the universe imploded?

I particularly liked this bit:

the name of the site apparently comes from a quotation by former Guardian editor CP Scott: “Comment is free, but facts are sacred.”
That’s a sentiment I quite like. Facts are sacred, but stories are not – not even the stories of victims.

My italics. To which I can only respond: Rebecca, are there any mirrors in your house?

real horrorshow wrote:This woman holds an academic post in philosophy? She couldn't pass basic logic on this evidence!

Abuse of basic logic is such a ubiquitous syndrome amongst Professional Philosophers that it must surely be classed as an acquired pathology.

justinvacula wrote:
***
Also, Emily Dietle has offered a very reasonable blog post concerning my SCA nomination and the controversy which ensued. The comments are building up, too, including Greg Laden, Watson, Karla Porter and others.

http://emilyhasbooks.com/second-chances/

Reasonable? You're being far too charitable, JV. Patronising bilge from a self-righteous bint, I call it. What, exactly, have you done that requires as 'second chance' in her oh so pristine and glacial estimation? Well, I guess not being like her kinda people, I suppose. One minor slip-up involving Surly Amy's address, which - as I said at the time - was probably not a great idea, but hardly a piece of nefarious doxxing on the level of what that muslim guy (I forget who he is - in which case: keep up the good work, muslim bloke) did to Thunderf00t. After all, Amy's info was in the public domain. Just like the addresses and one phone number of two people very prominent in in the FfTB/Skepchick/A+ sphere, which I found after five minutes of half-assed interwebbing because I was bored. Course, I'm not going to give this info out. Not a fan of it, even if the info is very easily acquirable. Unless either one of these people does a very norty bit of real doxxing themselves, of course. :twisted: So if you're reading this and you think it's you, be nice!

BTW for anyone interested there is a post up at A Voice for Men taking Paul to task on his stance of jury nullification for all rape cases.

AVfM Nullification Debate Part II
http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for ... e-part-ii/

Back to my earlier query: why not vote to acquit in any and all criminal cases? Elam’s reasoning is just as applicable in murder trials as it is in rape trials. But, no reasonable person would wish to set any and all defendants free.Jury duty is an important and difficult task. If called to serve, one must look at the evidence carefully, disregard emotion and visceral reactions, and determine the facts as best as possible. If reasonable doubt exists, then by all means, acquit.

Very well done Amanda Marcott et. al. Congrats! Thanks to the endless promotion of you and your ilk this is the result.

This is the flip side of the stance that to be accused of rape is to be presumed guilty and a trial is a waste of time. In my view this emerging trend in the manosphere to view rape charges as false 50% to 90% in all cases is rooted in that attitude.

Remember what I stated earlier about how quickly social mores can change? This is just one of them. Are you afraid yet? You should be.

CommanderTuvok wrote:I love it when Abbie slaps the Baboons with logic and facts!

Oh dear, rather inconvient that. Logic and Facts... from a woman (she who must be obeyed) yet.

What will oolong do now. He has to listen to the women right? Right?

Guest wrote:You may get a thrill out of being "Witch of the Week" but if you look at the comments there many are agreeing if you back down and apologise then they would withdraw the complaints and see how it goes. I may be wrong but I thought as a leader you need to represent your community more and yourself less. Maybe part of the 'growing' bit she references?

Something you do not appear to fathom "Guest" is when I consider the source it is trivial to dismiss anything they have to say. They are in no position to judge anyone much less Justin.

Finally, the author of the post condems herself with these words:

along with a petition for his removal, from persons it should be noted that I respect and admire

It is quite clear that these people, like yourself seriously believe that your views are worth considering. They are not. So do not be surprised when they are ignored.

Tigzy wrote:

justinvacula wrote:
***
Also, Emily Dietle has offered a very reasonable blog post concerning my SCA nomination and the controversy which ensued. The comments are building up, too, including Greg Laden, Watson, Karla Porter and others.

http://emilyhasbooks.com/second-chances/

Reasonable? You're being far too charitable, JV. Patronising bilge from a self-righteous bint, I call it. What, exactly, have you done that requires as 'second chance' in her oh so pristine and glacial estimation? Well, I guess not being like her kinda people, I suppose. One minor slip-up involving Surly Amy's address, which - as I said at the time - was probably not a great idea, but hardly a piece of nefarious doxxing on the level of what that muslim guy (I forget who he is - in which case: keep up the good work, muslim bloke) did to Thunderf00t. After all, Amy's info was in the public domain. Just like the addresses and one phone number of two people very prominent in in the FfTB/Skepchick/A+ sphere, which I found after five minutes of half-assed interwebbing because I was bored. Course, I'm not going to give this info out. Not a fan of it, even if the info is very easily acquirable. Unless either one of these people does a very norty bit of real doxxing themselves, of course. :twisted: So if you're reading this and you think it's you, be nice!

Just shows you how nice a guy Justin is - as soon as I heard that this individual respected people like Myers and his ilk....lost all respect and knew there wouldn't be a fair hearing of anything. I'd love to see the evidence for the harassment, plus please, please let us hear all about the numerous credible death threats to poor Squirrelly Amy - and the police reports to go with them. Does anyone think Amy is worth the effort to even make a fake threat, let alone the effort to make a real one or even carry it out? She's not worth the time or the effort - these baboons need to get over themselves - they really aren't that important.

AndrewV69 wrote:This was in the news in Kanukistan yesterday. I was boggling because I had no idea that this sort of thing had been going on at all.

California bans teenage gay conversion therapy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19789505

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law a ban on therapy aimed at making gay teenagers straight.

I can only imagine the effect that this sort of nonsense would have had on my childhood friend had he been subjected to this "therapy" as a teen.

I too missed this
GO JERRY! Funny - who'd a thunk Jerry Brown, a skinny hippie, could beat the living fuck outta Arnold. They should make an action movie outta this shit

ERV wrote:I mean jesus fuck oolong? Are you retarded?

Amy DMCAs everyone who writes negative posts about her. Not EVERYONE who uses her images. Not the people who use her images plugging her wares. She ONLY DMCAed people who criticized her.

Lets just totally ignore whether Justins use was fair use. What is important is that Justin thought his use was fair use, so he filed a counter claim.

He was accused of ONLY filing a counter claim to get Amys name/addy/etc, when that info is publicly available via a simple Google search. Not 'if you know the right sites to go to'. Not 'if you pay $19.99 you can get the info' sites. Not anything illegal or underhanded. A SIMPLE GOOGLE SEARCH brings up her home address, which makes the accusation that Justin ONLY filed a counter claim to d0x STUPID.

Which brings me to two primary issues that have yet to be addressed by Amy, Watson, Myers, Svan, et ass:

1-- Amy ONLY filed DMCAs on people using her images in posts that criticized her. Amy did NOT follow through on one, ONE, of those DMCA claims. Those two facts lead one to the conclusion that Amy ONLY filed those DMCAs in the hopes of using the legal system to intimidate critics into silence. It doesnt matter whether Justins use of the image is fair use or not, because AMY didnt think she had the legal right to DMCA him, or else SHE WOULD HAVE DONE IT. Her plan wasnt for anyone to file a counter claim. Her plan was SILENCE DISSENT.

What do we call it when Creationists use DMCAs in disingenuous attempt to silence dissent? BULLSHIT.

What do we call it when anti-vaxers use DMCAs in disingenuous attempt to silence dissent? BULLSHIT.

What do we call it when chiropractors use DMCAs in disingenuous attempt to silence dissent? BULLSHIT.

What do we call it when Surly Amy uses DMCAs in disingenuous attempt to silence dissent? BULLSHIT.

What Amy did was BULLSHIT regardless of her gender. Regardless of her BFFs. Regardless of her atheism.


2-- When the targets of Amys BULLSHIT DMCAs (remember, she followed up on a grand total of ZERO claims!) didnt just bend over and take it, they were make targets even further. Exhibit A: Justin. Exhibit B: Elevatorgate. When he filed a counter claim, Amy Roth DID NOT follow through with the DMCA. SHE LEAKED AN ANON COMMENTORS REAL-LIFE INFO ON THE INTERNET. Information NOT readily found by a simple Google search. Information provided to her via the counter claim.

What do we call it when Creationists maliciously drop the real info of anon dissenters? BULLSHIT.

What do we call it when anti-vaxers maliciously drop the real info of anon dissenters? BULLSHIT.

What do we call it when chiropractors maliciously drop the real info of anon dissenters? BULLSHIT.

What do we call it when Surly Amy maliciously drops the real info of an anon dissenter? BULLSHIT.

What Amy did was BULLSHIT regardless of her gender. Regardless of her BFFs. Regardless of her atheism.

Surly Amy has NO defense for her actions, so her retard-in-arms come to her defense by going on the offense.

BULLSHIT.

And you have to be a fucking idiot not to 'get it'.

A large group gathers to watch as a hammer hits a nail squarely on the head ,driving it in.... meanwhile back at the ranch....

I did like how Tuvok pointed out the doc-dropping avtivities (and worse) or Watson, Laden, etc. I somehow missed the response to that, though - I'm sure the baboons and apologists will be along there to explain how that was different.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3qehn2/
Seems appropriate.


http://oi47.tinypic.com/2zhl3ko.jpg

If I were Amy, yeah I would be mad that my address was posted whether it was easy to find or not. But she conveniently forgets all of this happened AFTER her patently cynical DMCA claim. But she lives in a secure, newer building, in an area of Hollywood with lots or tourists (therefore lots of nearby police), with plenty of locked entry ways with alarms and cameras. She knows she is in no danger, her neighbors are in no danger, and yet she milks this for all she's got.

It is beneath the actions of an adult

From August 18, 2012
http://oi48.tinypic.com/kdodxg.jpg

I wonder how members of Atheism+ who are not privileged white women think about her take of the LAPD?

Oolon the Guest:

You may get a thrill out of being "Witch of the Week" but if you look at the comments there many are agreeing if you back down and apologise then they would withdraw the complaints and see how it goes. I may be wrong but I thought as a leader you need to represent your community more and yourself less. Maybe part of the 'growing' bit she references?

Your writings betray psychopathy, a tendency to stalk and leanings toward the drowning of kittens in paper bags. However, if you were to apologise and change your ways, many here might magnanimously postpone the firing squad.

You'll notice that on that thread by Emily, one user (LeftSidePositive) really does go to lengths to downplay Greg Laden's behaviour, and exaggerate the behaviour of Justin and the The Pitters.

He/she is also really concerned about doc-dropping, except when it comes to PZ, Queen Bee and Scurvy.

A few years ago, unrelated to this fiasco entirely, I found out this 'friend' on facebook was giving me the silent treatment. Apparently, he had been doing this for over two years. Didnt unfriend me, didnt say 'Hey, Im upset now because of X. Can we talk about it?' Just 'gave me the silent treatment'. I never noticed.

I think thats what organizations must feel like when PZ Myers 'withdraws his support' from their groups.

Oh for the love of the FSM....


http://oi48.tinypic.com/2wn1dli.jpg

Or, and hear me out here, you could just block people you don't want to see on twitter and not be a drama whore about it.

But that would get you less sympathy necklace sales, so I guess that will not do.

Meanwhile, the mortuary attendants have wheeled Ophelia in so she can croak out:

That's a falsehood. I didn't say anything about Abbie Smith at any conference. It's also a falsehood that I call people "gender traitors" or "sister punishers" or "chill girls." You recycle that falsehood a lot, C Tuvok. Please note that it's not true.

Marcotte now implies Justin sees women as "sex objects".
You couldn't make this shit up.

As a tangent to the Mars vs Venus discussion, I wonder why nobody has mentioned epigenetics and genomic imprinting. I worry if it could be because I am misremembering my genetics or it is out of date or I heard something false and am misattributing the source, so if someone knows better than I please speak up.

If I remember my genetics prof correctly, he was of the view that generally genes imprinted by the father, if they affected growth, would cause a fetus or infant to grow more quickly at the expense of the mother while genes imprinted by the mother would slow down growth. The thinking was that the father's genes were best served by creating an infant that grew as fast as possible no matter the cost in order to get the next generation breeding as soon as possible, while the mothers genes were better served with a little more restraint so that no particular child would create too much of a burden and "break the bank". The point being that male and female evolutionary strategies can be in competition even at that small scale.

real horrorshow wrote:Meanwhile, the mortuary attendants have wheeled Ophelia in so she can croak out:

That's a falsehood. I didn't say anything about Abbie Smith at any conference. It's also a falsehood that I call people "gender traitors" or "sister punishers" or "chill girls." You recycle that falsehood a lot, C Tuvok. Please note that it's not true.

Funny stuff.

If Ophelia could read properly she will have seen that I said she allows her commentators to call people those slurs.

Oh, and there is a video with Greg Laden proudly stating how he got Abbie shut down. The rest of the Baboons and the gormless audience applauded.

So, Ophelia is wrong - TWICE.

Speaking of which...
The Baboons won't like that!!!

CommanderTuvok wrote:You'll notice that on that thread by Emily, one user (LeftSidePositive) really does go to lengths to downplay Greg Laden's behaviour, and exaggerate the behaviour of Justin and the The Pitters.

He/she is also really concerned about doc-dropping, except when it comes to PZ, Queen Bee and Scurvy.

That LSP person is really sick, and needs to seek professional help. I considered saying something, but there is nothing you can say to a crazy person. LSP is one of the baboons who epitomizes the ends-justify-the-means-if-they-are-my-ends standards of the baboons. You can't win, unless she (or he, I forget which they are) flounces off in tears of rage.

CommanderTuvok wrote:Marcotte now implies Justin sees women as "sex objects".

MarcotteCrazy.JPG

You couldn't make this shit up.

But it is very true. I have one word of advise for JV. Pay attention now:

http://www.lionsdenu.com/wp-content/upl ... kq_400.jpg

LMU wrote: (seems like we have more registered than actively post which I'm curious about because guests are allowed to post too)

I registered because some of the media posted here isn't viewable unless you're registered and logged in. Don't know if that's the case for anyone else.

Badger3k wrote:

CommanderTuvok wrote:You'll notice that on that thread by Emily, one user (LeftSidePositive) really does go to lengths to downplay Greg Laden's behaviour, and exaggerate the behaviour of Justin and the The Pitters.

He/she is also really concerned about doc-dropping, except when it comes to PZ, Queen Bee and Scurvy.

That LSP person is really sick, and needs to seek professional help. I considered saying something, but there is nothing you can say to a crazy person. LSP is one of the baboons who epitomizes the ends-justify-the-means-if-they-are-my-ends standards of the baboons. You can't win, unless she (or he, I forget which they are) flounces off in tears of rage.

Seems LSP has self-identified some time back as a woman, although she has an affectation for using ze & zir and the like. And she’s sensitive to “gender traitor” as it is supposedly used against trans people; guess it’s ok to use against your enemies but not against your friends ….

But I think she isn’t particularly honest in her argumentation which is probably consistent with the foregoing ….

LeftSidePositive is a great example of how the Baboons seem to think they are the arbiters of word usage.

She got schooled over the meaning of the term "slur", and then complained about "a dictionary defence" (quote: OOooooohhh! A "Dictionary Defense"!) She sounds a bit like a dishonest Creationist.

AndrewV69 wrote:

CommanderTuvok wrote:Marcotte now implies Justin sees women as "sex objects".

MarcotteCrazy.JPG

You couldn't make this shit up.

But it is very true. I have one word of advise for JV. Pay attention now:

http://www.lionsdenu.com/wp-content/upl ... kq_400.jpg

I was tempted to make a shirt in honor of the social justice warriors (although it may already be made). It would be "I'm with stupid" and an arrow pointing up. Damn, just realized it could be taken to mean some god, even though I mean it to point at the wearer. Back to the drawing board.

CommanderTuvok wrote:LeftSidePositive is a great example of how the Baboons seem to think they are the arbiters of word usage.

She got schooled over the meaning of the term "slur", and then complained about "a dictionary defence" (quote: OOooooohhh! A "Dictionary Defense"!) She sounds a bit like a dishonest Creationist.

They are great at that - words mean what they want them to mean, and they are the only ones to decide that. I'm not sure if it started with PZ's ridiculous "dictionary atheist" post or if it existed before, though. When you can't win an argument, change the definitions - and yeah, they have many similarities with creationists and other cranks (as Abbie pointed out). But they are the "Social Justice Friends" and so we must be the ones that are wrong (boy, that screams photoshop to me, but I have no photoshop or skills).

LMU wrote:As a tangent to the Mars vs Venus discussion, I wonder why nobody has mentioned epigenetics and genomic imprinting. I worry if it could be because I am misremembering my genetics or it is out of date or I heard something false and am misattributing the source, so if someone knows better than I please speak up.

Speaking for myself, I tend to not babble on about stuff on which I do not think I have an acceptable (to my standards anyway) comprehension.

LMU wrote:If I remember my genetics prof correctly, he was of the view that generally genes imprinted by the father, if they affected growth, would cause a fetus or infant to grow more quickly at the expense of the mother while genes imprinted by the mother would slow down growth. The thinking was that the father's genes were best served by creating an infant that grew as fast as possible no matter the cost in order to get the next generation breeding as soon as possible, while the mothers genes were better served with a little more restraint so that no particular child would create too much of a burden and "break the bank". The point being that male and female evolutionary strategies can be in competition even at that small scale.

Interesting but at this point in time, given my other interests I do not have the time to get into it at this point. But it is on my list.

I had put around 60 hours into microbiology around the time Abbie did her magic trick on Dr. Judy, smacked her one in the kisser, and convinced everyone at that point that Dr. Judy was full of shit.

I do not think it was a coincidence BTW that the roof collapsed on Dr. Judy at that point. Although to the best of my knowledge only one paper cited Abbie, I would not be surprised if that post was in fact the Rubicon, and all others who delivered a subsequent Coup de grâce were in part directly and indirectly prompted to do so from it.

Congratz again Abbie!

AndrewV69 wrote:
Speaking for myself, I tend to not babble on about stuff on which I do not think I have an acceptable (to my standards anyway) comprehension.

That is a good point and maybe I should have restrained myself until I had something more concrete to share :oops:

@reap

I too missed this
GO JERRY! Funny - who'd a thunk Jerry Brown, a skinny hippie, could beat the living fuck outta Arnold. They should make an action movie outta this shit

I'm not sure what you mean by the "Arnold" jab. Governor Schwarzenegger married (Governors can perform marriage ceremonies) two same sex couples while in office.

WoolyBumblebee talks about Zvan, Greta, Vacula, petition to ban Vacula
[youtube]Q0327PnsIlI[/youtube]

http://secularwoman.org/farewell_Bridget_Gaudette

Bridget Gaudette resigns from Secular Woman following her comments about Vacula on Twitter and Emily's blog.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/ju ... nd-burned/

A voice for men

Justin Vacula loves Satan and eats kittens

http://manboobz.com/2012/10/02/why-is-t ... -position/

Manboobz

Why is the Secular Coalition for America giving Justin Vacula — online bully, A Voice for Men contributor — a leadership position?

Michael K Gray wrote:

JackRayner wrote:How then, do you explain reluctance to mate from the females (or, hell, even just the female half of hermaphroditic species) of many other species? :think: I fully admit that I haven't looked at the rates of child-birth related deaths in other species, but I'm sure they happen... And something tells me that, in the great majority of these, there is no cognitive process comparable to "I saw Molly die due to her pregnancy, so I'm going to avoid becoming pregnant as best I can!"

What do you think about this?

I can see why you raise it, but to amplify your speculation:
One MUST refer to species who are cognitively able to recognise that they are female "put themselves in another female's place" and imagine that what other females experience is likely their fate.
They MUST cognitively connect the act of copulation with the risk of pregnancy, of course.
Those who regularly accidentally die in giving birth.
And those who have mutually cryptic ovulation.
(To name but 3 of scores of necessary caveats by which to make any sane comparison with homo sapiens.)
This dramatically reduces the pool of species down to at most a handful, more more realistically: just one.
And for that putative residue that has been previously mentioned I, and others have already comprehensively dismissed them.

Mate choice, and the reluctance to mate in the sex with the higher parental investment have been selected for for hundreds of millions [billions, maybe?] of years before any cognitive abilities of significance developed. I guess I'm having a hard time believing that something that can happen at random would make much of a blip as far as naturally selected behavior goes.

Or rather; can you explain how exactly reluctance to mate out of fear of pregnancy related death would be selected for? Any ideas? It almost seems like this reluctance is something that would be selected against. If women A, B, and C are afraid of becoming pregnant out of fear of death, and women X, Y, and Z recognize that this is a possibility [or, Hell, aren't even aware that it could happen] but don't let it inform their behavior, which group do you think is more likely to pass on their traits into the future?

From what I've been reading about the way some of these still surviving hunter-gatherer tribes function, punitive rape/gang-rape for women who are frigid is not at all uncommon, so it is even a possibility that women far in our ancestral past never had such a choice in the matter.

JackRayner wrote:Or rather; can you explain how exactly reluctance to mate out of fear of pregnancy related death would be selected for?

I have never proposed such a thing.

Baron wrote:http://secularwoman.org/farewell_Bridget_Gaudette

Bridget Gaudette resigns from Secular Woman following her comments about Vacula on Twitter and Emily's blog.

Her twitter feed, @bridgetgaudette, appears to be gone.

Michael K Gray wrote:

JackRayner wrote:Or rather; can you explain how exactly reluctance to mate out of fear of pregnancy related death would be selected for?

I have never proposed such a thing.

To elucidate on that remark:
Not every behaviour has to be adaptive.
There are scores of examples of maladaptive behaviours that persist because they hitch a lift in the package that does confer benefits.
The most widespread of these maladaptive behaviours is religious practice, which hitches a free ride on the fact that infants must trust their elders in order to reach reproductive age.

If 'reluctant mate choice' had to be adaptive in order to persist, then celibate Nuns (for but one example) would have died out after a generation.
But the behaviour has persisted for many thousands of years.

It is a mistake to assume that all behaviours must be positively selected for.

Michael K Gray wrote:

JackRayner wrote:Or rather; can you explain how exactly reluctance to mate out of fear of pregnancy related death would be selected for?

I have never proposed such a thing.

I misread you here then;

It must be instinct in females, 'born' over eons of dying in childbirth, that they intrinsically couple coitus with a good potential of having it kill them after 9 months.

Did I take "instinct" too literally?

Baron wrote:http://secularwoman.org/farewell_Bridget_Gaudette

Bridget Gaudette resigns from Secular Woman following her comments about Vacula on Twitter and Emily's blog.

Can someone expand upon this?

I hadn't really followed her, so I do not know much about Bridget. But I did see the tweets where she wasn't falling in line concerning Justin Vacula.
So this sudden departure seems more than odd, and possibly something that needs to be more well known.

AndrewV69 wrote:

justinvacula wrote:***
Also, Emily Dietle has offered a very reasonable blog post concerning my SCA nomination and the controversy which ensued. The comments are building up, too, including Greg Laden, Watson, Karla Porter and others.
http://emilyhasbooks.com/second-chances/
***'
... and at risk of another debate here on tone, language, I would request to not heap abuse on my detractors no matter what they say. Attack ideas, not persons has been my mantra for a great majority of time when considering public disagreements. Take it or leave it...and thanks again.

Yes I see the usual suspects commenting there. My only comment is that one can only hope they do not breed if one believes as I do, that they are genetically incapable of being decent human beings.

Careful of the collateral damage there mate! There’s at least several of us in the trenches over there too! :-)

JackRayner wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:

JackRayner wrote:Or rather; can you explain how exactly reluctance to mate out of fear of pregnancy related death would be selected for?

I have never proposed such a thing.

I misread you here then;

It must be instinct in females, 'born' over eons of dying in childbirth, that they intrinsically couple coitus with a good potential of having it kill them after 9 months.

Did I take "instinct" too literally?

No, you did not.
I was in complete error using that word! Sorry.
(I kinda knew it was wrong, but was hoping to get away with not wracking my brain in order to come up with a better term.)
If I replace "instinct' with 'habit', would that clarify matters at all?

LMU wrote:

AndrewV69 wrote:
Speaking for myself, I tend to not babble on about stuff on which I do not think I have an acceptable (to my standards anyway) comprehension.

That is a good point and maybe I should have restrained myself until I had something more concrete to share :oops:

Oh I was not taking a shot at you, just explaining why I said nothing on the subject.

Michael K Gray wrote:

JackRayner wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:

JackRayner wrote:Or rather; can you explain how exactly reluctance to mate out of fear of pregnancy related death would be selected for?

I have never proposed such a thing.

I misread you here then;

It must be instinct in females, 'born' over eons of dying in childbirth, that they intrinsically couple coitus with a good potential of having it kill them after 9 months.

Did I take "instinct" too literally?

No, you did not.
I was in complete error using that word! Sorry.
(I kinda knew it was wrong, but was hoping to get away with not wracking my brain in order to come up with a better term.)
If I replace "instinct' with 'habit', would that clarify matters at all?

I think that would clarify it some. If what you're saying is that part of the difference in female psychology is caused by a consciously acquired awareness of the fact that pregnancy can lead to death, then I've got less of an interest to press for more information on that thought.

Also, I'm aware than adverse/neutral [to survival and reproduction] traits can be passed on. [By, essentially, "piggybacking" through with a trait that is far more beneficial to survival and/or reproduction, as I understand it.] I was just wondering, under my prior misunderstanding, how that would work with regards to the specific fear of pregnancy related death.

Drama bomb incoming.

Matt Dillahunty tests out the A+ forums under a different name. Gets treated like shit and banned.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... p=887#p887

Sceencapped the whole lot.

Verified by his twitter just now
@Matt_Dillahunty

Ahahaha. Praise satan!!

Whoops, wrong thread. Here's the actual link.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1502