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

Just had the weirdest fucking dream about moving to a pioneer town in the US West and having Arnold Schwarzenegger as the mayor of that little community. What do you guys think the AtheismPlus people think of Arnold? Do you think they think of him as a double-plus good non-conformist revolutionary or a privileged potential rapist and a double-minus binary sexual oppressor?

I happen to think Arnold Schwarzenegger rocks, something this picture confirms:

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

welch wrote:

BarnOwl wrote: ... Probably none of us here at the SlymePit wishes any physical or mental ill health or harm on those FtB/Skepchick/A+ folk who paint us as dangerous misogynists. ...

Not me. I hope they are all plagued by ticks on their nipples.

That's not physical or mental ill. That's just a dirty weekend.

"Pass the possum, Valerie! This one here's fixin' to pop!"

In case anyone is interested, the poster at A+, kitsy, has now been banned: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... start=1250

Altair wrote:

somedumbguy wrote: That is because they are lying to you and Nasreen is lying to you.

I should have taken a screenshot, but I didn't but she changed the title. You can see by the url what her original title was:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/201 ... everywhere

She has kept the post the same.

Badgersdaughter also acknowledges the title change, so I don't think a screenshot is going to be needed

Thank you, Taslima, I appreciate you changing the title from “Men are the same everywhere” to “Are men the same everywhere?”. I did not mean to imply that I had any objection to the content of the post, or any intent to minimize the rape and abuse.

Sorry, to “Are men more or less the same everywhere?” This is a question that can be honestly engaged with. Thanks again.

I don't think the change fixed anything, though.

Yeah, I can't figure out how that title change changed anything.

@Dick Strawkins, why do you think more skeptics aren't able to identify patriarcy as a conspiracy theory? It seems immediately obvious to me. Maybe some combination of wanting to protect women andfear of being labeled a rape enabler/oppologist misogynis?

somedumbguy wrote:
Find my post. It is clear that Thermodynamics is not repealed. But you fail to recognize that a heat calorie is not the same as a food calorie.

The fact that you agree with such a dumb statement doesn't make it true or scientifically accurate. Nor does quoting the Bienveniste-equivalents for faddism shift the scientific consensus by an iota.

In fact, you're not an MD. If you were one, you should publish on the peer-reviewed literature in order to persuade the medical establishment (not me).
You'r left with the reasonable thing for you to do would be to defer to the scientific consensus rather than cherry-pick charlatans. Anything short of that makes you an abject failure at skepticism 101.

JackRayner wrote:

Skep tickle wrote:

JackRayner wrote:

Skep tickle wrote: Yeah, but how much does curly/straight hair (on one's head), hair color, breast size, or penis size have to do with changes of getting laid?

If any of these are perceived as having more value by a greater number of the people in your culture/area, then having any of these will increase your value and probably get you laid more.

Yeah, but there's so much more to it than that. Behavior, opportunity, inclination, inhibitions, use of disinhibiting agents, etc. Big-breasted shy woman who spends her time reading in a corner of the library is less likely to get laid that day than a small-breasted extrovert who drinks at the pub and strikes up conversations with guys.

... Of course these things are relative, and the rest of a person's other traits will decide their subjective attractiveness to each individual, but I would have thought this wouldn't need to be spelled out.

I have a friend whose reaction to blonde women is literally "Ew". In the hypothetical that there are two women he finds nearly identically attractive standing side by side, and who are receptive to his advance, the brunette/red head is going to beat the blonde.

We really don't need to bust out our calculators or consider things like the butterfly effect over such a mundane statement.

Well "need" is stronger than I might use, but yes, ideally they would be spelled out if you want me to believe your claim. (Then again, maybe you don't. That's fine. I can argue about it anyway. :lol: )

The anecdote about your friend is all well & good, but it doesn't support their being a widespread preference for not-blonde women.

You're right, if people in the local culture highly value one variant of a feature over another in a sexual partner, then having that feature should, given everything else is the same, result in more opportunities for someone with that feature to get laid. But what I asked was, "how much does curly/straight hair (on one's head), hair color, breast size, or penis size have to do with changes of getting laid?"

My guess would be that breast size might have the greatest effect, given the casual observation that plenty of men seem to start drooling and thinking with the little head when abundant mammary glands come into view (and are large relative to the size of the woman overall, and ideally are perky too). I haven't found anything to suggest that necessarily translates to a higher likelihood of large-breasted women getting laid but maybe it does. I did find this article titled "Men More Likely to Pick Up Large-Breasted Hitchhikers" (large-breasted female hitchhikers, that is) http://jalopnik.com/5614937/men-more-li ... itchhikers

When OKCupid looked at this question, they may not have tried to evaluate the physical features that correlated with likelihood-to-get-laid, but here's what they did find http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/magaz ... .html?_r=0:

...built a composite of four sets of personal characteristics that might correlate with openness toward new (but not necessarily long-lasting) relationships.

Two measures he studied were explicitly concerned with sex: what percentage of singles out on a given evening listed casual sex as a “romantic priority” and what percentage was willing to sleep with someone on a first date. The other two measures were less sex-centric: what percentage described themselves as extroverted and what percentage fancied themselves as adventurous.

When he put all the numbers together, he got a curious result. Weekdays, not weekends, are better for singles on the prowl — and the mix of people out on Wednesday nights are the friskiest. (The least surprising bit of data is that someone’s chances of success increase over the course of an evening.)

decius wrote:

somedumbguy wrote:
Find my post. It is clear that Thermodynamics is not repealed. But you fail to recognize that a heat calorie is not the same as a food calorie.

The fact that you agree with such a dumb statement doesn't make it true or scientifically accurate. Nor does quoting the Bienveniste-equivalents for faddism shift the scientific consensus by an iota.

In fact, you're not an MD. If you were one, you should publish on the peer-reviewed literature in order to persuade the medical establishment (not me).
You'r left with the reasonable thing for you to do would be to defer to the scientific consensus rather than cherry-pick charlatans. Anything short of that makes you an abject failure at skepticism 101.

Yeah, there are better alternatives to deferring to the scientific consensus, and that is becoming informed.

You should consider that, because of course, much of what doctors know is wrong. And um, that's actually a measurable fact.

First of all, Simon Davies is a slimy, disingenuous toady, and Taslima Nasreen has once again showed she's nothing more than a mouthpiece for the radical feminist agenda. However, one thing that A Hermit said on that post was particularly funny.

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/2635 ... whoops.jpg

And then later, in response to Eucliwood:

http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/9826/ahermitlol.jpg

:clap:

Maximus wrote:@Dick Strawkins, why do you think more skeptics aren't able to identify patriarcy as a conspiracy theory? It seems immediately obvious to me. Maybe some combination of wanting to protect women andfear of being labeled a rape enabler/oppologist misogynis?

I think it's a combination of those two and also wanting to be perceived as a different kind of man, "the man who gets it".

They want to feel morally superior and to be considered by themselves and others (especially female others) as an enlightened, different, more evolved kind of man.

My guess is that for some, it feeds their ego, and for others, it helps them feel appreciated by some women.

LMU wrote:In case anyone is interested, the poster at A+, kitsy, has now been banned: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... start=1250

I took at look at the last two pages. Sickening, really. A whole bunch of arguing over nothing. Just "hey kitsy you hurt our feelings cuz, like, you asked us to look at something made by a privileged white dude. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa".

All these A+ers ever seem to do is argue about tone and definitions. Ugh. To make "something" out of "nothing" def requires a special and unique talent.

windy wrote:The damned patriarchy made me double post!

LOL!

I hope my comment makes it past moderation. I almost never read Taslima's blog, is she a heavy moderator?

Altair at Taslima's blog wrote: Here



you can see the infamous episode of "The Talk" where the women in the panel AND in the audience cheered and laughed at the man who got his penis cut off by his wife.

Are all women more or less the same misandric violent mutilating creatures everywhere? Women love castration jokes. They verbally mutilate the already mutilated man.

The bitter truth is, Misandrists are everywhere

LMU wrote:In case anyone is interested, the poster at A+, kitsy, has now been banned: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... start=1250

Anyone want to bet how long it takes before we can count one more in the Pit?

It's awesome that they are so banhappy, soon it will only be sad-lonely- coyote, setarrd and anti-lovely left.

LMU wrote:In case anyone is interested, the poster at A+, kitsy, has now been banned: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... start=1250

Flewellyn wrote:
Kitsy, what do you want?

To participate in A+. I was turned on to this place by TAE and Godless Bitches. I have a great respect for Tracie Harris, Dillahunty, Myers, etc, and I am progressive.

I don't think my dissenting opinion on some issues should be met with banning so quickly. I have concerns I wish to address and I want to do it in a respectful way. I disagree with certain practices that occur and I have legitimate concerns that I won't be able to discuss those publicly without getting banned.

HAHA fuck! As if to prove kitsy's point.

My latest reply to Simon:

Simon - “Now we’re getting to the bottom of this. A tweet from last September is what put her on your “radar” and four months later your are still upset. Apparently the letter writing campaign to the CEO wasn’t enough. Since you felt so strongly at the time, did you also write one?”

Me - Actually, I’m not upset at all. I don’t know Melody from Eve. I’ve never tweeted at her. I’ve probably only mentioned her two or three times in conversation over the past 5 months.

So, I will invite you to stop trying to project this back at me, Simon. It’s not going to work. You’ve done everything in your power to obfuscate and deflect during this discussion. This isn’t about me. This is about Melody, and to a lesser extent, you.

Melody used her position as Director of CFI-DC to flag a video of someone she dislikes because they said something “mean” to her. There is also very good evidence that she is responsible for flagging Twitter accounts as spam owned by people whom she doesn’t like.

Add that to her preemptively blocking people because they are “following the wrong people,” and you have someone who is wholly incapable of leading herself out of a paper bag, much less leading a secularist organization.

In case the irony has escaped you (and I suspect it has, because you are coming across as rather dim in this conversation), secularist and skeptical organizations are supposed to take pride in engaging in a free exchange of ideas.

Orchestrating a flagging campaign against an individual who said something mean to them is pretty much the antithesis of a free exchange of ideas. When said flagging campaign is orchestrated by the leader of a secularist organization the intended effect is to silence the person being flagged. QED.

Now, I’m growing rather bored with you, Simon. Either step up your game a bit and flex that mass between your ears or fall back on the same cheap rhetorical flourishes and obfuscations. It’s completely your choice, but every time you type something out, people are actually reading what you’re saying.

Knowing that, I’m starting to feel quite embarrassed for you.

In short. Grow up, man.

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/01/04 ... ent-173824

Hey guise, I just found out that the water pressure regulator valve to my house has to be replaced, and an expansion tank has to be added to the water heater.

But I really want to buy a Garmin Forerunner GPS and an extra pair of New Balance running shoes too, so maybe y'all can help me out with some donations so I don't have to dip into my checking account. The running gear is really essential to the continued maintenance of my exceptional good health, so I know you'll all want to chip in.

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

:mrgreen:

Altair wrote:

Maximus wrote:@Dick Strawkins, why do you think more skeptics aren't able to identify patriarcy as a conspiracy theory? It seems immediately obvious to me. Maybe some combination of wanting to protect women andfear of being labeled a rape enabler/oppologist misogynis?

I think it's a combination of those two and also wanting to be perceived as a different kind of man, "the man who gets it".

They want to feel morally superior and to be considered by themselves and others (especially female others) as an enlightened, different, more evolved kind of man.

My guess is that for some, it feeds their ego, and for others, it helps them feel appreciated by some women.

It is also a very emotional topic , perhaps it bypasses logic easily in favor of emotional responses, but that shouldn't be a problem for skeptics... I'm sure this must have been discussed here before, I'm going to go search. :think:

Scented Nectar wrote:

another lurker wrote:I need to take up yoga, I hear its good for sciatica. Which is a result of my having scoliosis. (fuck carrying heavy books on my right hip all those years, grr)

Consider a doctor instead. And by doctor, I don't mean fake ones like chiropractors or yoga swamis. And if a real doctor recommends exercise, find something that is not yoga. Don't just gullibly believe wild health claims.

although if s/he promises to get you to suck your own cock/clit might be worth pursuing...just saying

BarnOwl wrote:Hey guise, I just found out that the water pressure regulator valve to my house has to be replaced, and an expansion tank has to be added to the water heater.

But I really want to buy a Garmin Forerunner GPS and an extra pair of New Balance running shoes too, so maybe y'all can help me out with some donations so I don't have to dip into my checking account. The running gear is really essential to the continued maintenance of my exceptional good health, so I know you'll all want to chip in.

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

:mrgreen:

u must getz pretendz cancer!
then you get special shoes dontcha know!

BarnOwl wrote:Hey guise, I just found out that the water pressure regulator valve to my house has to be replaced, and an expansion tank has to be added to the water heater.

It's the fucking patriarchy messing with you.

Altair wrote:I hope my comment makes it past moderation. I almost never read Taslima's blog, is she a heavy moderator?

Altair at Taslima's blog wrote: Here



you can see the infamous episode of "The Talk" where the women in the panel AND in the audience cheered and laughed at the man who got his penis cut off by his wife.

Are all women more or less the same misandric violent mutilating creatures everywhere? Women love castration jokes. They verbally mutilate the already mutilated man.

The bitter truth is, Misandrists are everywhere

Your comment is up.

And the stuff those women say, and laugh "hysterically" at, on that video clip? Absolutely HORRIBLE. Thanks for posting that.

jimthepleb wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote:

another lurker wrote:I need to take up yoga, I hear its good for sciatica. Which is a result of my having scoliosis. (fuck carrying heavy books on my right hip all those years, grr)

Consider a doctor instead. And by doctor, I don't mean fake ones like chiropractors or yoga swamis. And if a real doctor recommends exercise, find something that is not yoga. Don't just gullibly believe wild health claims.

although if s/he promises to get you to suck your own cock/clit might be worth pursuing...just saying

I might believe it if they showed me them doing it to themselves first. And they'd also have to give me a note from their doctor saying they don't have that syndrome/condition (I forget what it's called) that causes abnormal flexibility. :P

decius wrote:

codelette wrote:

decius wrote:

codelette wrote:
Pftt. Atkins? My low-carb god is Brillat Savarin, bitch.

I see, no true-carb. What's your homeopathy, again?

My homeopathy are my rock-hard abs.
BTW, last I checked sweet potatoes are carbs. That was part of dinner yesterday. :)

Good on you, mate. So, if you exercise and don't wage jihad against the eeevil magic food that makes you fat, why do you want to give the impression that you promote quackery? People do still believe that crap by the shitload and shouldn't be encouraged in their delusions.

Atkins died an obese (a rich one, because he scammed generations of gullible faddists). Let everyone know.

decius wrote:

codelette wrote:

decius wrote:

codelette wrote:
Pftt. Atkins? My low-carb god is Brillat Savarin, bitch.

I see, no true-carb. What's your homeopathy, again?

My homeopathy are my rock-hard abs.
BTW, last I checked sweet potatoes are carbs. That was part of dinner yesterday. :)

Good on you, mate. So, if you exercise and don't wage jihad against the eeevil magic food that makes you fat, why do you want to give the impression that you promote quackery? People do still believe that crap by the shitload and shouldn't be encouraged in their delusions.

Atkins died an obese (a rich one, because he scammed generations of gullible faddists). Let everyone know.

Atkins was born in 1930 in Ohio.
Life Expectancy for a male born in the US in 1930 was 58.1
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html (source CDC)

He lived to be about 72.5 years old, or ~25% longer than his peers.

Cause of death was a head injury, he was walking across Manhattan and slipped on ice.

When admitted to the hospital on April 8, 2003, he weighed 195lb, according to his official hospital admittance records. Atkins was 6'0".

http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp

Who wants to see me ranting and raving about the sexism in her recent post and the comments on it? http://ftbcomments.blogspot.com/

somedumbguy wrote:Taslima Nasreen on her FfTB soapbox today:

All men everywhere are rapists and misogynists.

*chuckle*

Sounds like she has hit the "wall" and her sexy fun times are over.

(If i remember correctly she had no problem fucking men, especially men owned by other women just because she could before she was run out of India by her outraged women frenemies (plus some fundy death threats), after being run out of Bangladesh for similar reasons).

Hey, you read this on the internet so it must be true!

http://www.fhiredekha.com/forum/index.p ... 161.0;wap2

Taslima discussed about her personal (literary & sex) life in the
book. She also touched upon the characters of people she came in touch
with. There is a category of people with whom she had sex irrespective
of religion or social status. The other category is known as secular
(Actually atheists), India-loyal politicians, writers, poets,
novelists and cultural artistes. She never had sexual encounters with
people who were at odds with her political views. Six persons with
whom she had pre and extra-marital sexual affairs were novelist
Imdadul Haque Milon, Rudra Mohammad Shahidullah (later her first
husband), journalist Naimul Islam Khan (later her second husband),
Mohammad Ali Minar aka Minar Mahmud (later her third husband and
former Bichinta editor; currently living in the USA), poet Syed Hasmat
Jalal (son of Calcatian litterateur Syed Mustafa Shiraj) and Kaiser
(former Gazipur subdistrict chairman). Among the people who wanted to
take her to bed were novelist Syed Shamsul Huq, poet Helal Hafiz,
journalist Abu Hasan Shahriar, Mozammel Babu, publisher Khoka, et al.
Taslima divulged the dark side of the lives of medical practitioners
Shipra & Manu, Shipra & Harun, Neepa & Naheed, Farhad Mazhar & Farida
Akhter, poet Shamsur Rahman & Oyshwaryashila (a married hindu
housewife) and Mriganka (a 21-year old young hindu man) & Sharifa
Khatun (a 58-year old woman).

The message is quite clear to all people everywhere. Have sex with Taslima and people are going to be able to read all about it later.

Eucliwood wrote:Who wants to see me ranting and raving about the sexism in her recent post and the comments on it? http://ftbcomments.blogspot.com/

Good post. My only suggestion would be splitting the big image into smaller ones to make it easier to read.
:clap:

I'll be on WILK Newsradio soon to talk about the Wilkes-Barre Freedom From Religion Foundation banner which has now been restored and criminal charges to be filed against admitted vandal Joe McDonald. Listen live!

http://player.tritonmedia.com/entercom/WILKAM

justinvacula wrote:I'll be on WILK Newsradio soon to talk about the Wilkes-Barre Freedom From Religion Foundation banner which has now been restored and criminal charges to be filed against admitted vandal Joe McDonald. Listen live!

http://player.tritonmedia.com/entercom/WILKAM

That's great news Justin. There was so much official silence on the matter I thought nothing would be done.

AndrewV69 wrote:The message is quite clear to all people everywhere. Have sex with Taslima and people are going to be able to read all about it later.

Does she know Taylor Swift??

Gumby wrote:

justinvacula wrote:I'll be on WILK Newsradio soon to talk about the Wilkes-Barre Freedom From Religion Foundation banner which has now been restored and criminal charges to be filed against admitted vandal Joe McDonald. Listen live!

http://player.tritonmedia.com/entercom/WILKAM

That's great news Justin. There was so much official silence on the matter I thought nothing would be done.

Here's a press release the FFRF put out just today.

http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item ... lkes-barre

I love how Simon is now telling my my behavior and my "obsession" with him and his wife will do me no favors in my quest to enter the speaker circuit.

Ye gods. I idly speculate about it, and recommend that if people dislike the current speakers, to step up and fix that, and now I'm on a kwest.

you know, given that simon is married to someone with "pull" in CFI, that could be taken as him threatening to blacklist me.

funny how it's okay when he does it.

justinvacula wrote:I'll be on WILK Newsradio soon to talk about the Wilkes-Barre Freedom From Religion Foundation banner which has now been restored and criminal charges to be filed against admitted vandal Joe McDonald. Listen live!

http://player.tritonmedia.com/entercom/WILKAM

Way to go, Justin! I had little confidence in any official reaction to the incident. Excellent effort!

welch wrote:I love how Simon is now telling my my behavior and my "obsession" with him and his wife will do me no favors in my quest to enter the speaker circuit.

Ye gods. I idly speculate about it, and recommend that if people dislike the current speakers, to step up and fix that, and now I'm on a kwest.

you know, given that simon is married to someone with "pull" in CFI, that could be taken as him threatening to blacklist me.

funny how it's okay when he does it.

"Hey buddy, it sure would be a shame if something happened to that speaking gig you wanted..."

Yeah, that smells big time.

justinvacula wrote: Here's a press release the FFRF put out just today.
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item ... lkes-barre

They forgot to add the "Fucking" between your two names. Other than that, well done!

Ophelia, arbiter of netiquette:

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p60 ... 52cd5f.png

I just don't know where people get the idea that feminists are a bunch of man-hating nutjobs. And I'd like to thank Taslima for my daily dose of "what in the fuck is wrong with these people?"

welch wrote:I love how Simon is now telling my my behavior and my "obsession" with him and his wife will do me no favors in my quest to enter the speaker circuit.

Ye gods. I idly speculate about it, and recommend that if people dislike the current speakers, to step up and fix that, and now I'm on a kwest.

you know, given that simon is married to someone with "pull" in CFI, that could be taken as him threatening to blacklist me.

funny how it's okay when he does it.

He implied the "obsessive" thing with me, too. I called him out on it and told him to stop obfuscating. He's out of his element, here. He's used to hit and run Twitter posts or posting safely in his own space. Just like the Michael Shermer thing, people like him have been drawn into a public space free of moderation and he apparently doesn't know how to handle that.

If you follow his conversation, you'll notice how many times he attempts to deflect and project back on his interlocutor instead of answering the questions or accusations directed towards him. I'm guessing this kind of rhetoric has worked well for him in the past. Now, not so much.

BarnOwl wrote:Ophelia, arbiter of netiquette:

[spoiler]http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p60 ... 52cd5f.png[/spoiler]

Typical muleheaded FTBer, won't cede an inch of ground even when others have the decency to do so when demonstrated they were wrong.

Skep tickle wrote:

JackRayner wrote:[spoiler]

Skep tickle wrote:

JackRayner wrote:

Skep tickle wrote: Yeah, but how much does curly/straight hair (on one's head), hair color, breast size, or penis size have to do with changes of getting laid?

If any of these are perceived as having more value by a greater number of the people in your culture/area, then having any of these will increase your value and probably get you laid more.

Yeah, but there's so much more to it than that. Behavior, opportunity, inclination, inhibitions, use of disinhibiting agents, etc. Big-breasted shy woman who spends her time reading in a corner of the library is less likely to get laid that day than a small-breasted extrovert who drinks at the pub and strikes up conversations with guys.

[/spoiler]
... Of course these things are relative, and the rest of a person's other traits will decide their subjective attractiveness to each individual, but I would have thought this wouldn't need to be spelled out.

I have a friend whose reaction to blonde women is literally "Ew". In the hypothetical that there are two women he finds nearly identically attractive standing side by side, and who are receptive to his advance, the brunette/red head is going to beat the blonde.

We really don't need to bust out our calculators or consider things like the butterfly effect over such a mundane statement.

Well "need" is stronger than I might use, but yes, ideally they would be spelled out if you want me to believe your claim. (Then again, maybe you don't. That's fine. I can argue about it anyway. :lol: )

The anecdote about your friend is all well & good, but it doesn't support their being a widespread preference for not-blonde women.

That wasn't my point, so it's fine if it doesn't.

You're right, if people in the local culture highly value one variant of a feature over another in a sexual partner, then having that feature should, given everything else is the same*, result in more opportunities for someone with that feature to get laid.

I would correct this to *given everything else adds up to being the same*, but now I'm just being pedantic. ;)

But what I asked was, "how much does curly/straight hair (on one's head), hair color, breast size, or penis size have to do with changes of getting laid?"

...were you asking how much each of those would affect your chances? Pfft! Fuck if I know! :lol: Braggy anecdote about my hair:
[spoiler]My hair is curly, and from first hand experience I can say that growing it out longer has exponentially increased the amount of positive [often vocal] attention that I receive from women whenever I'm out in public. [When compared to the short fade I used to sport before...] Final year of school has kept me busy, so I'm sticking to one woman for the moment, but the prospects seem much better than when I kept it short. :dance:

The only girls giving me shit about it are a friend who thinks it's not masculine enough [fuck if I care] and my lover who squeals about how much she likes it, says she wishers her hair was curly, and then tells me to cut it off. http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... y/Durp.gif[/spoiler]

My guess would be that breast size might have the greatest effect, given the casual observation that plenty of men seem to start drooling and thinking with the little head when abundant mammary glands come into view (and are large relative to the size of the woman overall, and ideally are perky too). I haven't found anything to suggest that necessarily translates to a higher likelihood of large-breasted women getting laid but maybe it does. I did find this article titled "Men More Likely to Pick Up Large-Breasted Hitchhikers" (large-breasted female hitchhikers, that is) http://jalopnik.com/5614937/men-more-li ... itchhikers

I would argue that you and your source are being anglo-centric, but all I've got is anecdote from myself and non-white friends/acquaintances who, when compared to white friends/acquaintances, seem much less interested in tits. :whistle:

When OKCupid looked at this question, they may not have tried to evaluate the physical features that correlated with likelihood-to-get-laid, but here's what they did find http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/magaz ... .html?_r=0:
[spoiler]

...built a composite of four sets of personal characteristics that might correlate with openness toward new (but not necessarily long-lasting) relationships.

Two measures he studied were explicitly concerned with sex: what percentage of singles out on a given evening listed casual sex as a “romantic priority” and what percentage was willing to sleep with someone on a first date. The other two measures were less sex-centric: what percentage described themselves as extroverted and what percentage fancied themselves as adventurous.

When he put all the numbers together, he got a curious result. Weekdays, not weekends, are better for singles on the prowl — and the mix of people out on Wednesday nights are the friskiest. (The least surprising bit of data is that someone’s chances of success increase over the course of an evening.)

[/spoiler]

Not sure how this connects to any of the rest. http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... /shrug.gif

JackRayner wrote:[spoiler]My hair is curly, and from first hand experience I can say that growing it out longer has exponentially increased the amount of positive [often vocal] attention that I receive from women whenever I'm out in public. [When compared to the short fade I used to sport before...] Final year of school has kept me busy, so I'm sticking to one woman for the moment, but the prospects seem much better than when I kept it short. :dance:

The only girls giving me shit about it are a friend who thinks it's not masculine enough [fuck if I care] and my lover who squeals about how much she likes it, says she wishers her hair was curly, and then tells me to cut it off. http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... y/Durp.gif[/spoiler]

Yes, dear. I'm sure you're quite irresistible with your curly long hair. (Indeed, that's generally a turn-on for me, but then again the whole package has to be appealing...no, not just that package, those of you with your minds in the gutter. :D )

And do be careful of letting your girlfriend near the scissors while you're asleep... :o

JackRayner wrote:

My guess would be that breast size might have the greatest effect...

I would argue that you and your source are being anglo-centric, but all I've got is anecdote from myself and non-white friends/acquaintances who, when compared to white friends/acquaintances, seem much less interested in tits. :whistle:

Hmm, point taken. http://broadblogs.com/2010/11/04/men-ar ... ttractive/ So then will we have to bring all sorts of other features into the discussion, for example the neck-coils & appearance of elongated neck of Kayan women?

JackRayner wrote:

When OKCupid looked at this question, they may not have tried to evaluate the physical features that correlated with likelihood-to-get-laid, but here's what they did find http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/magaz ... .html?_r=0:
[spoiler]

...built a composite of four sets of personal characteristics that might correlate with openness toward new (but not necessarily long-lasting) relationships.

Two measures he studied were explicitly concerned with sex: what percentage of singles out on a given evening listed casual sex as a “romantic priority” and what percentage was willing to sleep with someone on a first date. The other two measures were less sex-centric: what percentage described themselves as extroverted and what percentage fancied themselves as adventurous.

When he put all the numbers together, he got a curious result. Weekdays, not weekends, are better for singles on the prowl — and the mix of people out on Wednesday nights are the friskiest. (The least surprising bit of data is that someone’s chances of success increase over the course of an evening.)

[/spoiler]

Not sure how this connects to any of the rest. http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... /shrug.gif

I couldn't find any studies to suggest that people with one feature or another are more likely to get laid than people with a different common variant of that feature. This at least attempted to look at some characteristics that bear on likelihood-of-getting-laid.

My favourite search term in my blog stats this week:

pz myers insane

Yes, certifiably in my opinion. :lol:

John Brown wrote:

welch wrote:I love how Simon is now telling my my behavior and my "obsession" with him and his wife will do me no favors in my quest to enter the speaker circuit.

Ye gods. I idly speculate about it, and recommend that if people dislike the current speakers, to step up and fix that, and now I'm on a kwest.

you know, given that simon is married to someone with "pull" in CFI, that could be taken as him threatening to blacklist me.

funny how it's okay when he does it.

He implied the "obsessive" thing with me, too. I called him out on it and told him to stop obfuscating. He's out of his element, here. He's used to hit and run Twitter posts or posting safely in his own space. Just like the Michael Shermer thing, people like him have been drawn into a public space free of moderation and he apparently doesn't know how to handle that.

If you follow his conversation, you'll notice how many times he attempts to deflect and project back on his interlocutor instead of answering the questions or accusations directed towards him. I'm guessing this kind of rhetoric has worked well for him in the past. Now, not so much.

That's one reason why I hit on his wife's attack on Sara mayhew. If he wants to play that, I will HAPPILY do so, but it isn't going to be fun for him.

Angry_Drunk wrote:

welch wrote:

But you are correct. I wouldn’t consider Mr. Welch as a contributor to my conference. We are a humanist organization. For some odd reason, I really don’t see that someone calling people “New Media Douchebags” is very humanistic.

You had little to worry about. Although I'd point out that deciding someone is good or bad based on the use of "douchebag" is not only not humanistic, but hardly intellectually honest either.

But calling people "rape-enablers" and actively pissing off religious people is totally "humanistic." Sounds like she went to the Marco* school of management

*The rest of you ignore that, in-joke between me and John.

At least there's still a coffee connection.

another lurker wrote:
Steubenville football team players kidnapped, raped and urinated on a 16-year-old girl. But instead of blaming the players, former students blamed the girl. They were laughing as they were talking about her. Men love rape jokes. They verbally rape the girls who are already raped.

We haven’t finished protesting against brutal gang rape in India. Indian society is deeply misogynistic. If the boys were Indian, we could have said, ‘it’s their cultural upbringing and socialization’. But the boys in the video are North American. Women, we all know, is much safer in North America than India. But the bitter truth is, misogynists are everywhere, they are in the North, in the South, in the West and in the East. And Men, unfortunately, educated or illiterate, rich or poor, young of old, black or white, are more or less the same everywhere.

1. Take a rare crime.
2. Identify the demographic that committed that crime.
3. Claim everyone of that demographic is a committer of that crime.
4. Build gas chambers.

comslave wrote:

another lurker wrote:
Steubenville football team players kidnapped, raped and urinated on a 16-year-old girl. But instead of blaming the players, former students blamed the girl. They were laughing as they were talking about her. Men love rape jokes. They verbally rape the girls who are already raped.

We haven’t finished protesting against brutal gang rape in India. Indian society is deeply misogynistic. If the boys were Indian, we could have said, ‘it’s their cultural upbringing and socialization’. But the boys in the video are North American. Women, we all know, is much safer in North America than India. But the bitter truth is, misogynists are everywhere, they are in the North, in the South, in the West and in the East. And Men, unfortunately, educated or illiterate, rich or poor, young of old, black or white, are more or less the same everywhere.

1. Take a rare crime.
2. Identify the demographic that committed that crime.
3. Claim everyone of that demographic is a committer of that crime.
4. Build gas chambers.

another lurker did not write the above comment
taslima nasreen did

/hopes no one thinks another lurker is an batshit insane FTBer

crosses fingers:P

decius wrote:Nice to see Atkin's low-carb pseudo-science rearing its ugly head also here.

Get a fucking skeptical and scientific clue and stop listening to unqualified charlatans like Taubes.


http://www.quackwatch.org/06ResearchProjects/lcd.html

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... or-dinner/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... -get-thin/

I have seen low carb discussed, but not so much Atkins. I see nothing wrong with reducing my carbs. Most carbs reduced are the processed sorts, anyway. My health has improved and my lipids have improved.
I have searched for studies that look at ketosis or low carb long term that show negative health repercussions, but the ones I have found have usually been observational studies that can be taken apart as they may be using correlation = causation, or ones called low carb, but were not in fact low carb.
I would like a true long term study done on low carb.
I certainly eat less with out even thinking about it because the higher fat keeps me sated. When I used to eat carbs, they always made me hungry for more and more carbs.

Your first link includes the following:

The AMA Council on Foods and Nutrition [4], Consumer Reports [5], and many individual experts have warned that the unlimited intake of saturated fats under Atkins' food plan can increase the dieter's risk of heart disease. In 2000, experts at the University of Kentucky did a computer analysis of a week's worth of sample menus and reported that the diet contained 59% fat and provided fewer servings of grains, vegetables, and fruits than recommended by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. Noting that the diet could produce short-term weight loss, they thought that long-term use would probably increase the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cancer [6]. However, clinical trials have not upheld this prediction.

The second link seems to poo-poo the conclusions of Taubes, but the diet recommendation seems very similar to what low carbers eat.
And the it also goes after the lipid hypothesis, which has contributed to our overall health problems.

The third link discusses some issues with the people associated with low carb, but I am not really seeing any proof that it is bad.

Regardless, the links all seem to be towards the realization that dietary fat is not the enemy that is has been portrayed, and a more balanced diet is in order.

The Quakewatch link lists a lot of studies I have seen before. They really fail to show actual long term negative health issues with low carb. Some studies may show that people don't stay on it, or feel tired the first few weeks. And some say that a high protein diet has health consequences (which I can see), but low carb does not necessarily = high protein. I know I have to work to get the recommended daily amount of protein, and I am usually far below it. I know that I would be more likely to eat low carb long term than eat an Ornish style diet, so that is what I do. Other people may choose the opposite. Whatever works for the individual.

I might have missed on those pages, studies with low carb where heart disease increases, diabetes gets worse, or similar. That is the info I am looking for, because that would really concern me. I am fully aware that I am biased because this works for me, and I want it to be healthy in the long term, but I won't ignore real studies on its affects on human health.


Certainly, I think it seems logical that getting one's carbs from veggies and fruit is superior to getting them from processed foods.

Guest wrote:

Angry_Drunk wrote:

welch wrote:

But you are correct. I wouldn’t consider Mr. Welch as a contributor to my conference. We are a humanist organization. For some odd reason, I really don’t see that someone calling people “New Media Douchebags” is very humanistic.

You had little to worry about. Although I'd point out that deciding someone is good or bad based on the use of "douchebag" is not only not humanistic, but hardly intellectually honest either.

But calling people "rape-enablers" and actively pissing off religious people is totally "humanistic." Sounds like she went to the Marco* school of management

*The rest of you ignore that, in-joke between me and John.

At least there's still a coffee connection.

Well-played :D

ahahaha! This is just too rich!
http://i.imgur.com/Yjcrh.png
http://i.imgur.com/75OwT.png

Kabuki Face is trying to make conferences safer for women, by inviting a self-confessed murderer, rapist and perv to attend one. She's even offering protection. lol

I uploaded a new Youtube video - yet another concerning current controversy in the blogosphere.

[youtube]F_Egqqnc3D4[/youtube]

EllenBeth just tried to derail the whole conversation with a stupid, petty lawyer trick.

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/01/04 ... ent-173885

welch wrote:

justinvacula wrote:PZ Myers removed from the lineup of speakers at Rock Beyond Belief 2?

http://rockbeyondbelief.com/lineup/

note the blogroll.

Well, at least the two grifters will have some money coming in. Does this mean we won't expect to see more blogposts begging for money?

justinvacula wrote:Here's a press release the FFRF put out just today.
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item ... lkes-barre

In that single act, Justin Vacula has managed to achieve far more for the atheist cause than A✟Theism will ever, ever, ever achieve!
Congrats for actually getting out there in the real world and getting things done, without whining!

Mykeru wrote:
The laminated name badges, the linen-if-you're lucky tablecloths over folding tables, the temporary partition separating the community of skeptics from the community of Amway reps listening to the Gospel According to Zig Zigler, the hotel staff who sees your special little group as clones of the once and future assholes they see on a daily basis, and the shit-tastic little coffee service in the back of the room that makes everyone Yelp where the nearest Starbucks is. If you are really important, the short path from check-in to podium to hotel bar so you don't even have to go outside and stroll around the downtown version of an office park that's more or less the same regardless of what city you're in.

It can be amusing though. One time the USENIX conference happened to be in the same hotel with the annual Southern Baptist Convention meeting. Believe me, it wasn't difficult to figure out who was attending what.

That said, the hotel staff doesn't see all of them as clones. Some groups have good reputations, others bad. I always make it a point to ask various people about this as I'm leaving. USENIX usually got pretty good marks. So did the IETF, although eating every bit of food available during breaks in record time was noted. A query about the Baptists, OTOH, evoked a decidedly nasty response regarding poor tipping habits as well as the attendees being a general PITA.

I wonder what kind of rep skeptics conferences have. It would be interesting for someone to inquire.

Michael K Gray wrote:

justinvacula wrote:Here's a press release the FFRF put out just today.
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item ... lkes-barre

In that single act, Justin Vacula has managed to achieve far more for the atheist cause than A✟Theism will ever, ever, ever achieve!
Congrats for actually getting out there in the real world and getting things done, without whining!

Thanks! I also have the social justice covered :p

codelette wrote:ahahaha! This is just too rich!
http://i.imgur.com/Yjcrh.png
http://i.imgur.com/75OwT.png

Kabuki Face is trying to make conferences safer for women, by inviting a self-confessed murderer, rapist and perv to attend one. She's even offering protection. lol

I forgot to paste this here

As bad as things were, she didn’t want “out” — and felt shocked and unfathomably betrayed by our my unilateral decision to kill us both.

-Hugo Schwyzer in his own words [Jan 3, 2011]
See: What You Need To Remember, What You Need To Forget […] [cache]

http://hellnohugo.tumblr.com/

fucken hell eucliwood, you carry that butthurt round in a sack?
pull it in dude
you wanna be a bit less aspie round these (n them) parts

meh i'm a cunt
sorry euc meant to be playing on ftb
my very very bad

John Brown wrote:EllenBeth just tried to derail the whole conversation with a stupid, petty lawyer trick.

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/01/04 ... ent-173885

A perfect response on your part as well, John.

jimthepleb wrote:

BarnOwl wrote:Hey guise, I just found out that the water pressure regulator valve to my house has to be replaced, and an expansion tank has to be added to the water heater.

But I really want to buy a Garmin Forerunner GPS and an extra pair of New Balance running shoes too, so maybe y'all can help me out with some donations so I don't have to dip into my checking account. The running gear is really essential to the continued maintenance of my exceptional good health, so I know you'll all want to chip in.

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

:mrgreen:

u must getz pretendz cancer!
then you get special shoes dontcha know!

I thought the shoes gave you cancer. Ass cancer, when they were shoved up said bodily part for cheating gullible people (as if that is going to happen - I couldn't be bothered to go back to the JREF after some numbtool basically told me that people on the internet will disagree with me over her begging (well, to be fair, school got tougher at the end and I had no time to waste on trivial matters). I've avoided it even after it was discovered she had no cancer, and was going to keep the money - all but $100. Now, it's tempting to post her "poor me, I haz no money" to "look at me buy expensive and wasteful shoes with money I got when people thought I had cancer, foolish foolish people", but...it ain't worth it.)

I must be too tired from banking to go to reGreta's blog - has anybody called her on her antics? Well, anything that made it past moderation?