Periodic Table of Swearing

[Mykeru]

I did say “any venue where the victim has not given explicit permission”. Sasha Wiley-Shaw provided that in the context of the June incident and in the above video, but, as far as I know, not the September poster incident. Brownian provided his in the context of, I think, Atheist Nexus, but not in the one of posting on Pharyngula. The U of T protesters in, presumably, other locations, but not in that of the protest itself. And, finally, your own statement of your own name in the tweets I’ve referred to earlier, but not in the context of your tweets with Melody.

Groucho did it better:

[youtube]kpTJywtAqLc[/youtube]

[Eucliwood]

I did say “any venue where the victim has not given explicit permission”. Sasha Wiley-Shaw provided that in the context of the June incident and in the above video, but, as far as I know, not the September poster incident. Brownian provided his in the context of, I think, Atheist Nexus, but not in the one of posting on Pharyngula. The U of T protesters in, presumably, other locations, but not in that of the protest itself. And, finally, your own statement of your own name in the tweets I’ve referred to earlier, but not in the context of your tweets with Melody.

What the hell did you even say, Steersman? I only understood the first part. Anyway, a lot of times nothing is done by explicit permission. You are trying to ruin people's spicy sex lives.

[Mykeru]

And then point out how everyone else is doing it wrong.

Me practicing my general demonization (does not indicate that FtB does this brand): Mykeru, it is so insulting of you, in that last post, to switch into TALKING ABOUT STEERSMAN AS IF HES NOT THERE. EHMAGAWD. That's dehumanizing of you.

Reply: Aw, don't say he's an adversary... he's our little devil's advocate. If you can get him to retract a statement, you get a MovingtheStubborn medal from me.

Can I get my pick of a stuffed animal for the rhetorical equivalent of getting the rings around the bottle?

http://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp ... prizes.jpg

I'm totally going for the evil Stewie

[Rystefn]

Groucho did it better:

kpTJywtAqLc

In fairness, Groucho did pretty much everything better.

[JAB]

Oh god, are you serious? They seriously sit there in the thread moaning about "underprivilege" and "privilege" as if that means that they're wrong. How dare someone even consider that it's a split in half thing! THAT BOTH DRIVERS AND PEDESTRIANS ARE IRRESPONSIBLE ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT ON THE ROAD. HOLYSHIT. THAT'S VICTIM BLAMING! BLAMING PEDESTRIANS! NO ONE SHOULD EVER SAY THAT A PEDESTRIAN IS AT FAULT... BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO AREN'T IN A CAR! THEY'RE THE ONES WHO END UP MEATPILES!

Splitting responsibility in half is wrong. Car drivers carry a huge amount of the responsibility compared to pedestrians. And I can explain without invoking patriarchy or privilege. Only premise to accept: Everybody is responsible for the damage he causes.

In case of traffic accidents it's physical damage to objects. Physical objects are damaged by "throwing" energy at them. And here is the amount of energy (E) each traffic participant (good old Newtonian mechanics): E=1/2*m*v²

The mass (m) of the car is at least 10 times that of a pedestrian, and if the driver has only twice the speed (v) as the pedestrian, he'd already be driving very slowly by car standards. These very low example numbers mean, the car driver is in control of 40 times more energy than the pedestrian. And it is exactly THAT energy, that does the actual physical damage. Nothing else is able to cause the damage. You have to look at, who is in control of what amount of energy.

Moving speed is the key. Bumping into a standing pedestrian is exactly as avoidable as driving into a tree. Nobody would give fault to the tree. Moving pedestrians change the game, but only slightly. And physics still apply: Actual damage is caused by kinetic energy. And the kinetic energy of a walking pedestrian is really low in comparison to driving car.

Right. So if a car driver ignores the flashing lights and bells at a level crossing, s/h/it's not responsible because the train brought all the energy into the collision.

We have rules of the road etc that govern traffic and they do a very good job at keeping everyone safe, in that when a collision occurs, it's almost always because someone deviated from the rules. I think the resonsibility for the collision lies with the person who deviated. Sometimes more than one did and responsibility is shared. In addition, I believe there's an onus on others to respond to limit damage even when they have the right of way to the extent possible. If you think the rules unfairly favour one side, lobby for change. The laws of physics will not be changed for you just because you think you'd like to play in traffic.

[Steersman]

I did say “any venue where the victim has not given explicit permission”. Sasha Wiley-Shaw provided that in the context of the June incident and in the above video, but, as far as I know, not the September poster incident. Brownian provided his in the context of, I think, Atheist Nexus, but not in the one of posting on Pharyngula. The U of T protesters in, presumably, other locations, but not in that of the protest itself. And, finally, your own statement of your own name in the tweets I’ve referred to earlier, but not in the context of your tweets with Melody.

What the hell did you even say, Steersman? I only understood the first part. Anyway, a lot of times nothing is done by explicit permission. You are trying to ruin people's spicy sex lives.

Well, I thought I was trying for an analogy of sorts, but it seems to have been unsuccessful.

And while it is true that asking for permission is less successful than asking for forgivenness, it also seems that, in some cases at least, one person’s “spicy” is another person’s “rape”.

[Mykeru]

Groucho did it better:

kpTJywtAqLc

In fairness, Groucho did pretty much everything better.

So true,

http://www.latimes.com/includes/project ... o_marx.jpg

Even wore hipster glasses better.

[Mykeru]

And while it is true that asking for permission is less successful than asking for forgivenness, it also seems that, in some cases at least, one person’s “spicy” is another person’s “rape”.

Well, Art is Art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know.
--Groucho Marx

It's so cute when you try.

[AbsurdWalls]

Oh man! This is an awesome bit on how to counter "check your privilege":

Dc6SLxOPRrs

Thanks for that, Renee. Having been on the receiving end of the 'check your privilege brigade', I can hardly wait to use this technique the next time it pops up.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg10 ... e8fbd6.png

That is what will happen.

[Hemisphere]

I don't know if someone else has already brought this up, I'm too lazy to check. But I just noticed Ceepolk laying into some guy about his signature on atheismplus.

The offending signature: "You have a right to self determination. Nobody ever has a right to violate your boundaries unless you let them. I firmly support "no means no" and that you have a right to be free from discrimination based on gender, race, orientation, religion, etc."

Ceepolk decided that s/h/it has not met their daily offended quota and took umbrage: "...what?

also your sig is obnoxious beccause it's victim blamey. you need to change it so it doesn't have that "unles you let them" crap."

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3507

My question is: Is it possible for Ceepolk to lose another IQ point without dropping into single digits?

[justinvacula]

I'll just drop this off, here:

http://wcoa.info/gervaiscunt.jpg

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

He's asking to be witched :p

[Spence]

My question is: Is it possible for Ceepolk to lose another IQ point without dropping into single digits?

Question: How do you raise the average IQ of two communities?

Answer: Get ceepolk to quit atheismplus and start posting at Pharyngula

Ba-boom-tish

I'm here all night, folks

[Eucliwood]

And then point out how everyone else is doing it wrong.

Me practicing my general demonization (does not indicate that FtB does this brand): Mykeru, it is so insulting of you, in that last post, to switch into TALKING ABOUT STEERSMAN AS IF HES NOT THERE. EHMAGAWD. That's dehumanizing of you.

Reply: Aw, don't say he's an adversary... he's our little devil's advocate. If you can get him to retract a statement, you get a MovingtheStubborn medal from me.

Can I get my pick of a stuffed animal for the rhetorical equivalent of getting the rings around the bottle?
[spoiler]http://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp ... prizes.jpg[/spoiler]

I'm totally going for the evil Stewie

Aw, sure sweetie.

[Oneiros666]

My question is: Is it possible for Ceepolk to lose another IQ point without dropping into single digits?

Ugh. VAWA. I hate laws like that. Laws that single out certain demographics and ignore others are fucking offensive. As Bill Hicks said: Either you love all the people, or you shut the fuck up.

Men are far more, and in far more seriously violent ways, victims of violence than women. Do I advocate a 'VAMA' bill on the basis of this? No, of course not. We need better laws against violence inflicted upon people, not just women (or men).

FFS.

[Eucliwood]

Right. So if a car driver ignores the flashing lights and bells at a level crossing, s/h/it's not responsible because the train brought all the energy into the collision.

We have rules of the road etc that govern traffic and they do a very good job at keeping everyone safe, in that when a collision occurs, it's almost always because someone deviated from the rules. I think the resonsibility for the collision lies with the person who deviated. Sometimes more than one did and responsibility is shared. In addition, I believe there's an onus on others to respond to limit damage even when they have the right of way to the extent possible. If you think the rules unfairly favour one side, lobby for change. The laws of physics will not be changed for you just because you think you'd like to play in traffic.

Did lurktard seriously say some shit like that? That's just "it's never acceptable to blame the pedestrians because they're the weaker ones that aren't in a speeding steel cage!" rephrased. Lurktard, I will show you "brought the energy into a collision." I will get a sugardaddy to buy a hologram. A cool hologram that works in daylight. Then that hologram will jump in front of your car, suddenly. Then I will observe and see who you blame. Dumb ass.

[DownThunder]

[spoiler]

Vancouver Police Department: Pedestrian safety means pedestrians need to look out for themselves.

No, seriously:

An analysis shows the actions of the pedestrians as the primary causal factor in approximately 50% of the incidents and it is imperative that pedestrians realize their actions may be putting them at risk.

I don't drive and I want to give the VPD a massive fuck you for this. This is not the problem. We pedestrians know full well that we're not fucking protected at all. We aren't surrounded by 2-tonne steel cages with seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, crumple zones, etc. We know full well that we are at almost all times feet or even inches away from many of these cages moving at speeds in excess of 50 km/h and will be lucky if we survive an encounter outside of a parking lot. I have seen a pedestrian get hit by a car that was turning left from a full stop at a reasonable speed/acceleration -- the pedestrian flew up into the air and were lucky to have their fall somewhat cushioned by hitting the hood of the (undamaged) car. Anyone who doesn't realize this is fucking dense.

Or, perhaps, a privileged-as-hell (compared to us mere pedestrians) driver. See, in BC, we do have red light cameras, but they're only active 25% of the time*, because apparently having them active all the time would be bad because it's a "cash grab" or some bullshit. And yet, the amount of times where I've been cut off or almost hit by someone who ran a stop sign or red light is impossible to count.

But no, apparently we pedestrians just need to pay more attention. FSM forbid that we ask the people in the massive steel cages to do that.


This is to say nothing about how letters to the local papers regarding transit are usually from drivers who whine about not wanting to pay more to have to drive. Not driving has given me a massive insight into how privileged drivers tend to be -- most drivers seem to think it's perfectly fine to give me a sort of 'sorry!' look when they run a light/stop sign and almost hit me. Because, y'know, they can't be assed to take an extra second and STOP =/

Oh yes, of course, someone asserted that pedestrians might be as often responsible for accidents as the drivers. How dare they. The poor poor pedestrians don't deserve a share in blame for accident statistics, right?

Oh god, are you serious? They seriously sit there in the thread moaning about "underprivilege" and "privilege" as if that means that they're wrong. How dare someone even consider that it's a split in half thing! THAT BOTH DRIVERS AND PEDESTRIANS ARE IRRESPONSIBLE ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT ON THE ROAD. HOLYSHIT. THAT'S VICTIM BLAMING! BLAMING PEDESTRIANS! NO ONE SHOULD EVER SAY THAT A PEDESTRIAN IS AT FAULT... BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO AREN'T IN A CAR! THEY'RE THE ONES WHO END UP MEATPILES!

LET'S NOT EVEN MENTION THE FACT THAT THE PEDESTRIAN ISN'T THE ONLY ONE WHO GETS HURT WHEN SOMEONE MUST SWERVE OR ABRUPTLY STOP TO MISS SOMEONE. ONLY THE PEDESTRIAN GETS HURT. PILE UPS DONT HAPPEN! MULTIPLE COLLISIONS, BACK PROBLEMS, AND INJURIES DON'T HAPPEN. NO UNDERPRIVILEGED DRIVERS EITHER - NO OBESE PEOPLE IN THE SEAT WHO WOULD BE HURT EVEN MORE. NO SICK PEOPLE DUE TO POVERTY OR OTHER THINGS. NO ONE WITH ASTHMA.


I can't believe there are that many fuckers over there who seriously don't acknowledge that a pedestrian vs vehicle accident harms more than just the poor, weak pedestrian. Yes, poor them. But they can and do cause accidents too.

Nope, instead they act like someone in the driver's seat is SOOO DAMN SAFE in accidents. Are you fucking kidding me?! Oh yeah, the "steel cage" can't work against you in an accident! nope! anti-lock brakes come in SO HANDY all the time too. Even when you have to suddenly stop! GENIUS... those anti-lock brakes are to help prevent swerving from LOCKED BRAKES, especially on slippery surfaces. You are not supposed to have an attitude of reliance on them, or think they're just so great, or life savers, however.

Dude, I'm fucking glad this guy doesn't drive. It's for his own good too. He'd end up in an accident, and be all "omg, how did I get so hurt in this SAFE CAR OMG."

Someone that acts like they've hardly driven trying to judge everyone else generally.



Since Setar wants to use his little anecdotes, I'll give him some of my own: I myself stepped out in the road once and almost got hit because I didn't look left and right again after standing for 30 seconds on the curb (I had already looked left right left, but time had passed). I turned around and there the vehicle was, in my face. God, but I bet if they saw that on tape, and saw other people criticizing, me, an INNOCENT PEDEZTRIAN.. they'd be all "omg, privileged assholes! how dare you insinuate that it was the pedestrian's fault she almost got hit!"

God, he acts like he just knooows most drivers absolutely suck at driving and are mean, dangerous peoplez.[/spoiler]

Just throwing my 2c in. Particularly as a motorcyclist, we are a totes oppressed minority on the road (actually probably orders of magnitude more true than any trivial stuff on the A+ forum).

Firstly, there is no dichotomy between pedestrians and drivers. Pedestrians are most often just cagers not in their cage.

Secondly, it has been my experience that riding through areas of heavy foot traffic is like travelling through livestock. I without a system of rules and commands, some, perhaps many people are just dopey as fuck. Theyre more interested in looking at the ground, theyre more interested in listening to their phones or music players than staying alert for hazards. When you put those people in cars they have a system of rules to follow which barely gets them by, but its not good enough.

Setar is clueless. A child. Would love to put him on a motorcycle in rush hour. A motorcyclist with a victim mentality is a dead one.

[ShadowOfTheWickerman]

My question is: Is it possible for Ceepolk to lose another IQ point without dropping into single digits?

Drop- ing? As if he hasn't already?

Men are far more, and in far more seriously violent ways, victims of violence than women. Do I advocate a 'VAMA' bill on the basis of this? No, of course not. We need better laws against violence inflicted upon people, not just women (or men).

To be fair, the language in VAWA is technically gender-neutral.

[ShadowOfTheWickerman]

To be fair, the language in VAWA is technically gender-neutral.

To be fair, the legal language in VAWA is technically gender-neutral. (goddamn you, lack of an edit function)

[Steersman]

And while it is true that asking for permission is less successful than asking for forgivenness, it also seems that, in some cases at least, one person’s “spicy” is another person’s “rape”.

Well, Art is Art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know.
--Groucho Marx

It's so cute when you try.

Something I might recommend to you as you seem to be unfamiliar with the concept; things get kind of ugly when you don’t.

[ReneeHendricks]

To be fair, the language in VAWA is technically gender-neutral.

To be fair, the legal language in VAWA is technically gender-neutral. (goddamn you, lack of an edit function)

My question then becomes, if the legal language of VAWA is technically gender-neutral, why is it not called the Violence Against Humans Act? Going further, given the title "Violence Against Women Act", why do they make the legal language gender-neutral?

[Mykeru]

Something I might recommend to you as you seem to be unfamiliar with the concept; things get kind of ugly when you don’t.

You are just desperate for people for people to take you seriously, aren't you?

If you can suggest a way for me to ignore your well-established and ongoing asshattery, I'd be willing to give it a try short of ECT.

[ReneeHendricks]

It's Sunday. I've been a lazy, Internet surfing bitch all day, and I'm partaking of candy cane vodka. So, keeping that in mind, I've started "#AsshatSunday" on Twitter. Enjoy :D

[windy]

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

He's asking to be witched :p

He's quoting someone else- "KP" is probably Karl Pilkington, the idiot from An Idiot Abroad

[Eucliwood]

Windy, how old is the todd in the picture and are you the mom/dad? DId they really draw that?

[lurktard]

Bullshit. Pedestrian walks into the fucking street without looking, the pedestrian is responsible for the damage the car does, not the driver.

As well, the pedestrian is also responsible for the damage to the vehicle...

True. That damage is sometimes significant, too.

Unsubstianted claims. Nothing more.

I condensed my argument. Which of my 3 points is wrong and why?

Point 1: Chosen speed (v) is entirely the individuals responsibility, nobody elses. Nobody als has control over the car's speed, the driver does.
Point 2: Accidents involve typically kinetic energy E=1/2mv²
point 3: Any physical damage is typically caused by that energy (other variants are possible, but not typical: damage caused by burning gasoline etc.)

When it comes to physical damage there is no way around the question of who is in control of what amount of energy involved. There isn't. Everything else is basically a lame excuse based on arbitray man-made rules, which violates these simple principles. One of such rules could be "Streets are for cars, not pedestrians." Society/Government can put up such a rule (hopefully better worded than my example) and enforce it. But such rules ARE arbitrary and they DO shift the blame away from the actual damage dealer. You cannot legislate physics away or the simple concept that the driver alone is the only one in control of his car.

My point is, while I accept the traffic rules as generally beneficial, it's good to remember the actual realities behind them. Because morality is not based on the law. The opposite should be the case.

[Steersman]

...
I think what we are seeing is a war between those who think with their pineal gland and those of use who use the upper brain. One side is highly emotional and tend not to examine or even learn about the subject they are criticising. The other side draws in people who actually like to know a bit about what they are talking about before they criticise. ....

The gravity and depravity of privilege – sounds like it might make a catchy tune.

Certainly more than a little justification for relying on that dichotomy of reason and emotion (aka feelings), although it’s interesting to consider how they might overlap the dichotomy of consciousness and unconsciousness – for example, we might be conscious of feelings, but they seem not to be something we reach by reason – or, another dichotomy, logic and intuition. You may have noticed that Jerry Coyne, in the context of his battles with various theologians, has frequently discussed “ways of knowing” and Gould’s “non-overlapping magisteria”. A useful concept, even if it is still well short of a complete answer.

But you might be interested in Massimo Pigliucci’s observations on the last dichotomy:

Here, I am with Henri Poincaré (quoted by the Kuntz’s) when he wrote back in 1908 that “It is by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover.” Which is true also for formal logic and math. Substitute “empirical evidence’ for “logic” in the quote, and you get science.

[Rystefn]

Bullshit. Pedestrian walks into the fucking street without looking, the pedestrian is responsible for the damage the car does, not the driver.

As well, the pedestrian is also responsible for the damage to the vehicle...

True. That damage is sometimes significant, too.

Unsubstianted claims. Nothing more.

I condensed my argument. Which of my 3 points is wrong and why?

Point 1: Chosen speed (v) is entirely the individuals responsibility, nobody elses. Nobody als has control over the car's speed, the driver does.
Point 2: Accidents involve typically kinetic energy E=1/2mv²
point 3: Any physical damage is typically caused by that energy (other variants are possible, but not typical: damage caused by burning gasoline etc.)

When it comes to physical damage there is no way around the question of who is in control of what amount of energy involved. There isn't. Everything else is basically a lame excuse based on arbitray man-made rules, which violates these simple principles. One of such rules could be "Streets are for cars, not pedestrians." Society/Government can put up such a rule (hopefully better worded than my example) and enforce it. But such rules ARE arbitrary and they DO shift the blame away from the actual damage dealer. You cannot legislate physics away or the simple concept that the driver alone is the only one in control of his car.

My point is, while I accept the traffic rules as generally beneficial, it's good to remember the actual realities behind them. Because morality is not based on the law. The opposite should be the case.

You dramatically overstate how much control a driver has over their vehicle. This conversation has been had before. Sorry, but when some oblivious asshole steps into the road without looking, it is entirely the fault of said asshole if inertia fucks them in the ass before the driver of the car can do anything to overcome it. It is not the driver's responsibility to protect idiots from their own stupidity.

[windy]

Eucliwood: Nope, I don't know the history of satan-girl, it's been making the rounds on the internets for a while.

[Eucliwood]

\
When it comes to physical damage there is no way around the question of who is in control of what amount of energy involved. There isn't. Everything else is basically a lame excuse based on arbitray man-made rules, which violates these simple principles. One of such rules could be "Streets are for cars, not pedestrians." Society/Government can put up such a rule (hopefully better worded than my example) and enforce it. But such rules ARE arbitrary and they DO shift the blame away from the actual damage dealer. You cannot legislate physics away or the simple concept that the driver alone is the only one in control of his car.

My point is, while I accept the traffic rules as generally beneficial, it's good to remember the actual realities behind them. Because morality is not based on the law. The opposite should be the case.

Lurktard, please tell me you're fucking TROLLING. Otherwise this "it's always the driver's fault" attitude is absolutely deplorable. Yes, cars are in control of their speed... what does that have to do with a pedestrian, or an object even, fucking leaping out in the road? Are you saying cars must have been going faster than the speed limit for them to not be able to stop in time?

[justinvacula]

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

Interesting, interesting. The internet was the judge and jury for my 'doxxing' of Surly Amy (which wasn't).

Also, can we please have the police or courts to fill in on these claims of 'rape threats' and 'harassment' Melody and company raise?

[Rystefn]

\
When it comes to physical damage there is no way around the question of who is in control of what amount of energy involved. There isn't. Everything else is basically a lame excuse based on arbitray man-made rules, which violates these simple principles. One of such rules could be "Streets are for cars, not pedestrians." Society/Government can put up such a rule (hopefully better worded than my example) and enforce it. But such rules ARE arbitrary and they DO shift the blame away from the actual damage dealer. You cannot legislate physics away or the simple concept that the driver alone is the only one in control of his car.

My point is, while I accept the traffic rules as generally beneficial, it's good to remember the actual realities behind them. Because morality is not based on the law. The opposite should be the case.

Lurktard, please tell me you're fucking TROLLING. Otherwise this "it's always the driver's fault" attitude is absolutely deplorable. Yes, cars are in control of their speed... what does that have to do with a pedestrian, or an object even, fucking leaping out in the road? Are you saying cars must have been going faster than the speed limit for them to not be able to stop in time?

Nope. He's saying that speed limits are immaterial, you should always be driving so slow that an impact doesn't cause any damage (read: not moving) if there's a pedestrian within a mile and a half of you.

[Eucliwood]

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

Interesting, interesting. The internet was the judge and jury for my 'doxxing' of Surly Amy (which wasn't).

Also, can we please have the police or courts to fill in on these claims of 'rape threats' and 'harassment' Melody and company raise?

People who lie about rape threats ought to be absolutely disgusting in the ideology's eyes...

[ShadowOfTheWickerman]

I will kidnap you in the night and do terrible, terrible, things to you, Renee. There. Do you feel sufficiently threatened now?

Actually, kinda turned on (oooo - lurkers have fun with *that* one).[/quote]
Haha,yes! My control over you is now complete! You now have a sense of humor and a sex drive, something no woman would have without it being imposed on her by male privilege!
...PRIVILEGE POWERS ACTIVATE!

My question then becomes, if the legal language of VAWA is technically gender-neutral, why is it not called the Violence Against Humans Act? Going further, given the title "Violence Against Women Act", why do they make the legal language gender-neutral?

Well, yeah, there's the problem. Also, in many cases, police department have been recorded as acting in a discriminatory fashion, and prosecuting cases based on personal preference; witness the Duke lacrosse case, which police kept alive without evidence, or the Jeffery Dahlmer case, which police ignored as best they could. An anti-police discrimination bill (End Police Discrimination Act, perhaps) might have more effect, and wouldn't contain any/as much emotional baggage associated with the title.

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

Interesting, interesting. The internet was the judge and jury for my 'doxxing' of Surly Amy (which wasn't).

Also, can we please have the police or courts to fill in on these claims of 'rape threats' and 'harassment' Melody and company raise?

Oh noes! A LOLsuit! What will we ever do now?

The reason they don't fill out the claims is, of course that the events depicted never happened. Witness Rebecca Wattson being too drunk to recognize a guys face or any other identifying features about him, but still sober enough to realize that she was being sexually harassed, as well as recall what he said to her.

[skepCHUD]

Steerzoid; How could you possibly consider the naming of Sasha Wiley-Shaw in the CBG video doxxing? She has intentionally become a public figure, identified herself publicly while engaging in her brand of activism. She didn't wear a disguise to the poster tear down event and even if she had, as someone who had already not only publicly identified herself but repeatedly engaged in stunts to get attention would be fair game for her behavior in public.
You appear to me to be so busy picking nits you entirely miss the big picture.

[Eucliwood]

Steersman, doxxing can only be done to people whose information is not already publicly known.

[Altair]

Is Mykeru physically interacting with Melody, preventing her to enter a conference she wants to attend, spitting at her and calling her scum, rape apologist and making fun of the suicide of a friend of hers?
Has he damaged any of Melody's meat-space stuff?
Has he posted from twitter accounts that include his real name tweets saying he wants to kill all Melodies or saying that the fact that more Melodies kill themselves than non-Melodies is "good".

All or virtually all of those only qualify, in my book at least, as little more than harassment in both cases – freeze peach and all that. So the playing field is, I think, more or less level for both players. In which case, a “gambit” used by one player on one team can’t very well be condemned when it’s used by another player on the other team – at least not credibly and honestly.

In your book, yes, because in mine there's a huge difference between tweeting at someone and physically interacting with them and physically trying to prevent them from entering a place they want to enter. And even comparing tweets, there's a difference before things like posting a video of a dog humping a cow and calling it a sex tape and expressing joy at the suicide of people.

Given that we have different definitions of what constitutes "harassment", among other things, this is something on which I don't think we'll reach an agreement.

[welch]

To be fair, the language in VAWA is technically gender-neutral.

To be fair, the legal language in VAWA is technically gender-neutral. (goddamn you, lack of an edit function)

My question then becomes, if the legal language of VAWA is technically gender-neutral, why is it not called the Violence Against Humans Act? Going further, given the title "Violence Against Women Act", why do they make the legal language gender-neutral?

Because it's politics not logic. Why do you think "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" is so effective?

[papillon]

Point 1: Chosen speed (v) is entirely the individuals responsibility, nobody elses. Nobody als has control over the car's speed, the driver does.
Point 2: Accidents involve typically kinetic energy E=1/2mv²
point 3: Any physical damage is typically caused by that energy (other variants are possible, but not typical: damage caused by burning gasoline etc.)

Well, in this case, it looks like 80kg of meat moving at 5mph had a significant effect on 2000kgs of car, despite there being no physical contact between meat and car.
[youtube]3qt7vI6C4Wg[/youtube]

[Eucliwood]

Given that we have different definitions of what constitutes "harassment", among other things, this is something on which I don't think we'll reach an agreement.

Who cares? What matters is if the harassment was justified. If harassment must always be a thing someone should not have done, then I guess I don't condone harassment, ever. Harassment occurs when you continue to bother someone after you get the message that they want you to stop. Emailing someone over and over for something you need could be harassment, but it was needed. And "harassment" of FtBers depends as well... are you saying something justified, they want to say what they want, but are too wussy to read what you say back? (ex: the bans "citation needed/back yourself up" shit) I don't feel sorry for someone just because they're mad that someone told them something they needed to hear.

[Darren]

http://i.imgur.com/2AX8q.png
http://i.imgur.com/1BFEc.png

[mutleyeng]

Really? I have no difficulty in imagining that at all. Stalin was a colossal military screw up. His purges had virtually decapitated the Red Army. He was denying that the Nazis had any plans to attack the Soviet Union even after the invasion began. Army Group Centre got as near as 16Km from Moscow where Stalin - in his first moment of resolution - had opted to remain.

yes Stalin was a screw up, and there was plenty of absurd strategy going on...all the way to the gates of Moscow. But what happened then? Stalin had a panic attack, went awol, and his military got to start doing it right. Even if they lost Moscow, so what...they had plenty of land to fall back into.
The fundamental battleplan of the Wehrmacht absolutely relied on the red armys total collapse and capitulation, much as happened in western europe. They considered the Russians sub human and incapable of any kind of concerted resistance. They were wrong.
In order to come up with a Wehrmacht win, you have to assume first that Stalin would continue being a dick and not at some people realize he was out of his depth (which seems unlikely given what we know about his panic at Moscow) and that the Red Army would fail to learn from their strategic blunders - which history shows was not the case.

[Mykeru]

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

Interesting, interesting. The internet was the judge and jury for my 'doxxing' of Surly Amy (which wasn't).

Also, can we please have the police or courts to fill in on these claims of 'rape threats' and 'harassment' Melody and company raise?

Yes, well, I am prepared to inform my attorney, the Office of General Council and possibly the Washington Field Office regarding these:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8505/8356 ... 29f6_o.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8083/8356 ... e9ca_o.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8363/8355 ... db59_o.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8224/8351 ... 39ac_o.jpg

Clear pattern of doxing, slander, imputation of malice and harassment conducted in an organized fashion.

Didn't P.Z. Meyers just write something about the company one keeps?

[Mark Neil]

To be fair, the language in VAWA is technically gender-neutral.

To be fair, the legal language in VAWA is technically gender-neutral. (goddamn you, lack of an edit function)

My question then becomes, if the legal language of VAWA is technically gender-neutral, why is it not called the Violence Against Humans Act? Going further, given the title "Violence Against Women Act", why do they make the legal language gender-neutral?

Because it's politics not logic. Why do you think "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" is so effective?

If only "think of the children" was actually used for the benefit of children. But in some states, VAWA's STOP funding guideline insist women come first, children and men get the scraps:

[spoiler]Hawaii VAWA STOP funding guidlines.

Page 2-6
Section 2 Service Specifications
I. Introduction
G. Limitations on STOP Program Funding
"Children’s services supported by STOP Program funds must show an inextricable link and be the direct result of providing services to an adult victim of violence against women."
http://www.state.hi.us/spo2/health/rfp1 ... 074918.pdf
Louisiana STOP VAWA application instructions

Page VAWA-4
General Funding Information
Funding Priorities
Prohibited Activities or Uses of Funds
"Prohibited Activities or Uses of Funds
6: Supporting Services that focus exclusively on children"
http://www.cole.state.la.us/programs%5C ... 072010.pdf
Kentucky ARRA & VAWA STOP Formula Grant Guidelines

Page 13 of 30
Administrative Requirements
Applicant Eligibility
Additional Considerations
"Children’s services supported with the funds must be a direct result of providing services to an adult primary victim. VAWA grant funds may not be used to support services that focus exclusively on children …"
http://justice.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1970 ... ctions.pdf[/spoiler]

At least two of these have similar wording regarding services for men.

[ShadowOfTheWickerman]

If only "think of the children" was actually used for the benefit of children. But in some states, VAWA's STOP funding guideline insist women come first, children and men get the scraps:

[spoiler]Hawaii VAWA STOP funding guidlines.

Page 2-6
Section 2 Service Specifications
I. Introduction
G. Limitations on STOP Program Funding
"Children’s services supported by STOP Program funds must show an inextricable link and be the direct result of providing services to an adult victim of violence against women."
http://www.state.hi.us/spo2/health/rfp1 ... 074918.pdf
Louisiana STOP VAWA application instructions

Page VAWA-4
General Funding Information
Funding Priorities
Prohibited Activities or Uses of Funds
"Prohibited Activities or Uses of Funds
6: Supporting Services that focus exclusively on children"
http://www.cole.state.la.us/programs%5C ... 072010.pdf
Kentucky ARRA & VAWA STOP Formula Grant Guidelines

Page 13 of 30
Administrative Requirements
Applicant Eligibility
Additional Considerations
"Children’s services supported with the funds must be a direct result of providing services to an adult primary victim. VAWA grant funds may not be used to support services that focus exclusively on children …"
http://justice.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1970 ... ctions.pdf[/spoiler]

At least two of these have similar wording regarding services for men.

Is that state law or federal law?

[JAB]

Unsubstianted claims. Nothing more.

I condensed my argument. Which of my 3 points is wrong and why?

Point 1: Chosen speed (v) is entirely the individuals responsibility, nobody elses. Nobody als has control over the car's speed, the driver does.
Point 2: Accidents involve typically kinetic energy E=1/2mv²
point 3: Any physical damage is typically caused by that energy (other variants are possible, but not typical: damage caused by burning gasoline etc.)

When it comes to physical damage there is no way around the question of who is in control of what amount of energy involved. There isn't. Everything else is basically a lame excuse based on arbitray man-made rules, which violates these simple principles. One of such rules could be "Streets are for cars, not pedestrians." Society/Government can put up such a rule (hopefully better worded than my example) and enforce it. But such rules ARE arbitrary and they DO shift the blame away from the actual damage dealer. You cannot legislate physics away or the simple concept that the driver alone is the only one in control of his car.

My point is, while I accept the traffic rules as generally beneficial, it's good to remember the actual realities behind them. Because morality is not based on the law. The opposite should be the case.

point 1. Yes the driver is in control of the car, and if the car breaks the rules and causes a collision, they are at fault. The pedestrian is in control of their speed. If they jump in front of a moving car they are at fault if physics etc makes stopping impossible. To leave it otherwise is to make an infant out of the pedestrian, since they are responsible for jumping out.

Point 3. Damage isn't caused by energy, but by force. A lot of energy was applied to Chris Hadfield's body last month, but he's doing fine right now in orbit. And both sides in a collision exert the same force. You're just mad because you keep leaving your air bag at home.

The rules aren't arbitrary, they're sensible and arrived at and improved over a long time. Certain bits may be arbitrary, like deciding which side to drive on, but it's crucial that everyone agree. Like I said before... if you want a rule changed... lobby for it. If you still don't like it... move out into the woods somewhere.

[CommanderTuvok]

Didn't P.Z. Meyers just write something about the company one keeps?

It only applies to people they don't like.

BTW, I am not impressed or convinced by Steerboy's "Jean Kazaz" style attempt to show how sooooo independent he is, and sooooo much better than the Slyme Pit and the Baboons.

He ain't.

[Mark Neil]

If only "think of the children" was actually used for the benefit of children. But in some states, VAWA's STOP funding guideline insist women come first, children and men get the scraps:

[spoiler]Hawaii VAWA STOP funding guidlines.

Page 2-6
Section 2 Service Specifications
I. Introduction
G. Limitations on STOP Program Funding
"Children’s services supported by STOP Program funds must show an inextricable link and be the direct result of providing services to an adult victim of violence against women."
http://www.state.hi.us/spo2/health/rfp1 ... 074918.pdf
Louisiana STOP VAWA application instructions

Page VAWA-4
General Funding Information
Funding Priorities
Prohibited Activities or Uses of Funds
"Prohibited Activities or Uses of Funds
6: Supporting Services that focus exclusively on children"
http://www.cole.state.la.us/programs%5C ... 072010.pdf
Kentucky ARRA & VAWA STOP Formula Grant Guidelines

Page 13 of 30
Administrative Requirements
Applicant Eligibility
Additional Considerations
"Children’s services supported with the funds must be a direct result of providing services to an adult primary victim. VAWA grant funds may not be used to support services that focus exclusively on children …"
http://justice.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1970 ... ctions.pdf[/spoiler]

At least two of these have similar wording regarding services for men.

Is that state law or federal law?

Those particular examples are, to my understanding, State level guidelines for VAWA funding, thought to be completely honest, I don't fully understand the interaction between VAWA STOP funding guidelines at state level vs the federal VAWA itself.

[franc]

Well, maybe you should view another video from the same channel -

[spoiler][youtube]eLhg1wSKTBo[/youtube][/spoiler]

Amused-by-own-cleverness, hipster snarkiness. Where have you seen that before?

Doesn't convince me that they aren't joking. The punchline is that male feminists spend their time posting all caps comments about MISOGYNY while thinking they are real activists making a difference... Indeed, where have I seen that before?

Poe's law make shit hard

I didn't make a call either way. But the fact that they seem to find their videos more clever and funny than, I suspect, many in the audience do should trip an alarm.

[Gumby]

http://i.imgur.com/2AX8q.png
http://i.imgur.com/1BFEc.png

So that's the "leap forward" that Rorschach was talking about, heh.

I'm sure if you asked any FTBer about what a flop A+ is, as embodied by that dismal and grim forum, they'll pull a No True Scotsman. "I don't care what goes on there, what makes you think that forum is representative of A+?"

[lurktard]

You dramatically overstate how much control a driver has over their vehicle. This conversation has been had before. Sorry, but when some oblivious asshole steps into the road without looking, it is entirely the fault of said asshole if inertia fucks them in the ass before the driver of the car can do anything to overcome it. It is not the driver's responsibility to protect idiots from their own stupidity.

Your "argument" cannot even remotely begin to fly before traffic rules are established. Traffic rules which give you the right of way. My argument is not about such arbitrary rules but the underlying morality on which such rules should be based.

The driver is responsible for his car and his driving behaviour and the consequences. Why is it not the driver's fault for driving without looking appropiatly far enough given his speed? In your example the driver was too fast for the situation. He drove irresponsibly and caused a lot of damage. The pedestrian walked irresponsibly, too. But he didn't cause any damage worth mentioning.

Why is it so hard for you to either acknowledge, that the driver (via higher speed and mass) causes the damage or to actually argue against that? It's not rocket science.

Maybe get away from the road example and think about a pedestrian and a car driver on private property, owned by both of them together, both having the same right to do the fuck whatever they want there and haven't established any rules regarding traffic, and then make your case!

[somedumbguy]

My guess is that if Thunderf00t saw the simplicity and beauty of this conference diversity system, he would be in full throated agreement.

http://conferencequotas.com/

http://i.imgur.com/3IC0m.jpg

[Angry_Drunk]

[quote="lurktard”]A whole lot off idiotic bullshit.[/quote]

You’re using the wrong username. “Fucktard” would be more appropriate.

[franc]

Thread on "The dictionary atheist debate" begun today by hyperdeath at a+ forum: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3520

(So I guess "debate" isn't a ban-inducing word there...yet.)

Exi5tentialist says (bolding added by me):

I don't think dictionaries describe the meaning of words. They summarise the primary usages of words in a way that is traditionally limited by the amount of space available in a printed dictionary. Even then they cannot do justice to what a word means. The meaning of all words is flexible and subjective. If I agree any meaning, it is purely for the sake of argument. ...

Seems like this would render all attempts at communication pretty much moot. It makes easy work of the conference rules "debate" though, since the conference organizers can just write down whatever words they want, and then since the words are all flexible & subjective, each person can read in the rules whatever they want to. Problem "solved". :roll:

Which is why the complete Oxford English Dictionary is 20 volumes and 22,000+ pages I guess. They did their best to keep it "compact" just to fuck with SJW no doubt. Morons.

[ReneeHendricks]

Just saying....

My level of dislike of Ophelia Benson has gone from dislike to loathe. She's a fucking stupid asshole who clearly cannot read or realize what integrity or honesty actually is.

[Rystefn]

You dramatically overstate how much control a driver has over their vehicle. This conversation has been had before. Sorry, but when some oblivious asshole steps into the road without looking, it is entirely the fault of said asshole if inertia fucks them in the ass before the driver of the car can do anything to overcome it. It is not the driver's responsibility to protect idiots from their own stupidity.

Your "argument" cannot even remotely begin to fly before traffic rules are established. Traffic rules which give you the right of way. My argument is not about such arbitrary rules but the underlying morality on which such rules should be based.

The driver is responsible for his car and his driving behaviour and the consequences. Why is it not the driver's fault for driving without looking appropiatly far enough given his speed? In your example the driver was too fast for the situation. He drove irresponsibly and caused a lot of damage. The pedestrian walked irresponsibly, too. But he didn't cause any damage worth mentioning.

Why is it so hard for you to either acknowledge, that the driver (via higher speed and mass) causes the damage or to actually argue against that? It's not rocket science.

Maybe get away from the road example and think about a pedestrian and a car driver on private property, owned by both of them together, both having the same right to do the fuck whatever they want there and haven't established any rules regarding traffic, and then make your case!

Easy. Jackass on foot is standing still. Person in car drives appropriately to the situation. Who can change the situation faster? Asshole on feet. He steps in front of the car with a fraction of a second between the action and the potential impact. How is that on the driver not to be able to avoid the collision (which, because of the fucking laws of physics, it is NOT possible for the driver to avoid)? No. The pedestrian was an idiot, the impact is solely the fault of his idiocy, the driver is 0% responsible for what happened.

Again, stop pretending the driver has perfect control over the fucking vehicle, you disingenuous piece of shit. Inertia owns that fucking vehicle, the driver can influence things a bit, but is not ever actually in control. If the pedestrian chooses to act in a way that potentially puts him in the path of an oncoming vehicle closer than the drivers ability to influence the path of the vehicle out of the collision path, then the following impact is on the pedestrian, not the driver. If the paths intersect in a way where either person is equally able to avoid it, then any impact that happens after is equally the fault of both.

Let me guess: you or some dumbass you know stepped into a road without looking and got hit, and now you're desperate to put the blame on the driver for not protecting useless shitheads from their own stupidity? Fuck that. If you're stupid enough to step into the fucking road without looking, then the human race would be better if you didn't survive the impact and risk passing your idiot genes on to the next generation. Next you'll be claiming it's the crocodile's fault for snatching morons at the water's edge, not the morons for ignoring the crocodile, right?

[Steersman]

Steersman, doxxing can only be done to people whose information is not already publicly known.

So what do you think the following does to Mykeru’s apparent umbrage over, if not his "thinly veiled" charge of doxxing in response to, Melody using his name?

http://i48.tinypic.com/raouu0.jpg

[franc]

And if you hadn’t put your head in the sand – or some other place where the sun don’t shine – by putting me on ignore – you might have noticed that I’m a long way from wanting to be spoon fed. Conventional wisdom and group think – how do they work? Dickhead.

Roger that, Steerzo. Cunt.

Steersman attempts to look up a reference, without demanding someone else do it for him, no training wheels, safety harness or net, for the first time -

[spoiler][/spoiler]

[Cunning Punt]

Dictionary atheism is fine with me. All of the social issue stances I hold now (non-discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality etc) I held while I was a believer. If there turned out to be a god of some kind that revealed itself I wouldn't suddenly change my mind on whether we should allow all people in society equal rights.

As a dictionary atheist I feel I can tell someone what I am and they'll have a general idea that I don't buy into their god/gods. But if this Atheism+ shit redefines words to mean atheism has some built in dogma then the very idea of atheism becomes as pointless as feminism. I once called myself feminist because only backwards assholes believe in subjugation and oppression of women and I sincerely believed that anybody who believed women were equal to men were feminists by default. Once I actually started to pay attention to feminism, and specifically the feminists at the usual places mocked freely here, I began to realize that the word feminist was redefined from what I originally thought it was. I used to think feminism was simply equality and respect for women (perhaps at one time in history it was that), but when I read and listen to these modern feminist speakers and writers and am amazed at the nebulous social pseudo-science bullshit, the conspiracy theories, the professional victimhood for page hits and money and the desire to stamp out all opinions they don't like, I am reminded of the mindset I saw all too often in my religious days.

Not only from what you thought it was, but also from what most dictionaries give as their definition of "feminism". It's commonly given as:
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.

That's part of the minefield. PZ, for example, calls his detractors MRAs and "anti-feminists" (presumably with a straight face) when they disagree with how "feminism" is being used/understood/applied (differently than the dictionary definition), while claiming that his use of feminism is the same as the dictionary definition.

And then he'll say, "but feminism is just the radical idea that women are people too," as if to say, "don't you think women are people too?"

[somedumbguy]

Thread on "The dictionary atheist debate" begun today by hyperdeath at a+ forum: http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3520

(So I guess "debate" isn't a ban-inducing word there...yet.)

Exi5tentialist says (bolding added by me):

I don't think dictionaries describe the meaning of words. They summarise the primary usages of words in a way that is traditionally limited by the amount of space available in a printed dictionary. Even then they cannot do justice to what a word means. The meaning of all words is flexible and subjective. If I agree any meaning, it is purely for the sake of argument. ...

Seems like this would render all attempts at communication pretty much moot. It makes easy work of the conference rules "debate" though, since the conference organizers can just write down whatever words they want, and then since the words are all flexible & subjective, each person can read in the rules whatever they want to. Problem "solved". :roll:

Which is why the complete Oxford English Dictionary is 20 volumes and 22,000+ pages I guess. They did their best to keep it "compact" just to fuck with SJW no doubt. Morons.

After Flewellyn claimed the SPLC had declared AVFM and Mens Rights hate groups, SkepticalJay pointed out to them http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3501 that the SPLC had denied that quite literally and said they did not consider AVFM or mens rights to be hate groups. Atheism+ spent many posts explaining that was the wrong of their words and the SPLC really was calling them a hate group after all.

'The question is,' said SkepticalJay , 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'When A+ers use a word,' Setarflewellyn said ...in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what we choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

[ReneeHendricks]

Before it's deleted, what I said on Ophelia Bensons' shit blog:

If Greta had even given an inkling what the *months* worth of money was going to, I’d be much more accommodating. But she hasn’t. Not one single tweet or post about it. The next thing people hear is how she bought shoes that many of us middle income people wouldn’t even think about, much less if we had to worry about cancer.

My guy is being checked for lymphoma. Yeah, curable. But not as easily as Greta. First off, it would never occur to us to go online and e-beg. However, if we had to for some reason, you had better believe every single cent sent to us would be publicly accounted for. That’s my problem.

If you have an issue with this then I can only make one conclusion: you are unethical and not someone I want representing me to the public in as far as being an atheist or a skeptic. You’re on the same level as theist televangelists.

At http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-405232