Shall Mr Vacula Make a Misstep in the Capital of Eire?

[Wonderist]

Woops, messed that up, sorry. The long post was supposed to go here: viewtopic.php?p=107453#p107453

[welch]

"Dear sir. Just in case you missed my previous response, I include a link to my previous response which is the response immediately preceding this one."

[BarnOwl]

I think there is a fundamental problem regarding how academic feminism deals with borderline personality disorder.
Many feminists refuse to believe it is a real condition, mainly due to the fact that historically it was the basis of the diagnosis of 'hysteria' - in other words it sounds like it is a kind of partiarchal plot to deny a voice to 'difficult' women. It is also a condition that is frequently linked to female survivors of childhood sexual abuse and so can be viewed (by feminists) as a legitimate reaction to this abuse.
It is a pity because this is a topic that should be publicised more if we want to lower the levels of spousal abuse in society.
Although it is mainly associated with women (75-90% are female, and approximately 1 in 10 women have it) it does occur in males and therefore create a high risk of abuse for their partners too.
Is there a serious mens rights response to this subject?
If not, why not?

That seems like an awfully high proportion. I'd be surprised if 1 in 10 women had a Cluster B personality disorder of one type or the other. The estimate I've heard for narcissistic personality disorder is 1 in 100, for males and females in the context of academia, where there is selection for some of the characteristic traits. I doubt that the incidence of BPD is as high as that of NPD. I think what seems like NPD in students (for example) is often just a consequence of entitlement culture, immaturity, and shitty parenting.

[BarnOwl]

Mikelf, I've already been doing that for literally years (leading by example; see the Ask An Atheist podcast comment threads linked earlier; I've done this elsewhere several times since as well).

One person, alone, has little power to change things. But one person championing a *good idea* can share that good idea with another person, and those two can go on to share the idea with 4, etc, etc. So, by sharing good ideas with other people who have similar goals, we can have a much more powerful influence on things (the rifts, etc.) than if we were to just go out by ourselves and try to fight everything alone.

I'm just one guy. I can't do much by myself. But if, when I find some good ideas, I share them with others who are working towards the same or similar goals, I magnify my 'power' indirectly by helping others to succeed towards those goals.

See, here is the thing. You can't appoint yourself sensei. You must be accepted as such. It should be clear that the proles here are not ready to accept your teachings. Perhaps it is your place, like Caine in Kung Fu, to wander in the wilderness, keeping your wits sharp and your rhetorical swords sharper. The day will come that they seek will you out. But, they must travel their own path to that future.[/quote]

I travel my own path already. It's called Scrolling Past Tedious Bullshit that I Don't Want to Read. The future involves posts that I do want to read, and some pretty awesome 'shoops.

[karlaporter]

Has anyone else realized I am sitting squarely on top of one of Mykeru's antlers? It looks like I'm toast the way it's embedded in my jugular. Is this intentional? I'm not sure how to interpret it.

You're riding the horn. You love it and you know it. Stop being an exhibitionist.

Oh wow you finally figured me out =)

[BarnOwl]

Arse!

Quote tag fail. I blame my vegan breakfast.

[Dave2]

I've repeatedly asked people who object to my postings about these 'techniques' to engage in conversation and explain what they object to, rather than just continuing with flames. Some people have even done so, and I respond to them reasonably, not with long-boring-anti-drama. If people engage reasonably, I do as well. Even if they flame, I still respond reasonably, just at greater length and with more caution. But still reasonably.

I'm not sure that you can douse flames through verbiage because I don't think it really counts as clear communication - given that people here probably aren't devoted to reading every word or post on the forum, but try and keep up for the juicier and funnier stuff. If someone wants to wind you up they've only got to respond rudely to your efforts - they don't have to actually read your post.

People are here for the gossip really. I'm not sure analysis of systems of communication - at your level - is the conversation people want.

I thought people were joking about making it more difficult for you to actually post - boo to them if not - but maybe you could try being brief and seeing for yourself if it works better at reducing the negative reactions you don't want than your current tack.

And I do like that there are people here who take things at a more gentle and reasoned pace and avoid being rude - but you do milk it a bit.

[Dick Strawkins]

I think there is a fundamental problem regarding how academic feminism deals with borderline personality disorder.
Many feminists refuse to believe it is a real condition, mainly due to the fact that historically it was the basis of the diagnosis of 'hysteria' - in other words it sounds like it is a kind of partiarchal plot to deny a voice to 'difficult' women. It is also a condition that is frequently linked to female survivors of childhood sexual abuse and so can be viewed (by feminists) as a legitimate reaction to this abuse.
It is a pity because this is a topic that should be publicised more if we want to lower the levels of spousal abuse in society.
Although it is mainly associated with women (75-90% are female, and approximately 1 in 10 women have it) it does occur in males and therefore create a high risk of abuse for their partners too.
Is there a serious mens rights response to this subject?
If not, why not?

That seems like an awfully high proportion. I'd be surprised if 1 in 10 women had a Cluster B personality disorder of one type or the other. The estimate I've heard for narcissistic personality disorder is 1 in 100, for males and females in the context of academia, where there is selection for some of the characteristic traits. I doubt that the incidence of BPD is as high as that of NPD. I think what seems like NPD in students (for example) is often just a consequence of entitlement culture, immaturity, and shitty parenting.

I got the figure here:

http://bpdresourcecenter.org/factsStatistics.html

Facts and Statistics


Did you know that BPD affects….

Six to ten million Americans – or, about the population of New York City, twice that of both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder
2% to 6% of the general population
At least 10% of all mental health outpatients
At least 20% of psychiatric inpatients

In addition…

75-90% of those diagnosed with BPD are women. This may reflect that women seek treatment more often, and that men with these or similar symptoms may be entering the penal system after receiving a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder.
Several treatment modalities (insert hyperlink) have been shown to be helpful in treating people with BPD. When proper treatment is received and implemented, patients with BPD may have a good prognosis. Treatment may include, but may not be limited to, Psychoeducation, medication, support groups, and psychotherapy.
10%, or one in ten, people with BPD commit suicide. 33% of youth who commit suicide have features, or traits, of BPD. This number is 400 times higher than the general population, and young women with BPD have a suicide rate of 800 times higher than the general population. Early intervention and treatment is critical to obtaining a successful outcome.

With 2 - 6% of the general population, having BPD, 70-90% of whom are female, the figure will be somewhere between 5 to 10% of all women.

I do agree that it sounds rather high but I think there is a spectrum of severity in the condition such that not all sufferers will be the aggressive violent type.
The suicide rate quoted above also sounds very high.

I'll do a search to see what other BPD sites say about the rate.

[John Greg]

I am a bit late with this reply, but I only just got online -- it was wine and dine and movie night last night, so....

Mykeru said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 83#p107283):

... all this goes to show is that Loftus distanced himself from his origins without transcending them.

Precisely. Could not have said it better myself. Also, that entire post of yours that compelled Loftus to ban you -- I am assuming that is what he did -- is also right on target.

[Wonderist]

You misunderstand my point. We are all, after a fashion, on the same side of the great rift. You might be more effective using your powers to engage those on the other side, rather than trying to exhort the lunkheads to heights that are, frankly, beyond their grasp.

Consider it leadership by example.

Mikelf, I've already been doing that for literally years (leading by example; see the Ask An Atheist podcast comment threads linked earlier; I've done this elsewhere several times since as well).

One person, alone, has little power to change things. But one person championing a *good idea* can share that good idea with another person, and those two can go on to share the idea with 4, etc, etc. So, by sharing good ideas with other people who have similar goals, we can have a much more powerful influence on things (the rifts, etc.) than if we were to just go out by ourselves and try to fight everything alone.

I'm just one guy. I can't do much by myself. But if, when I find some good ideas, I share them with others who are working towards the same or similar goals, I magnify my 'power' indirectly by helping others to succeed towards those goals.

See, here is the thing. You can't appoint yourself sensei. You must be accepted as such. It should be clear that the proles here are not ready to accept your teachings. Perhaps it is your place, like Caine in Kung Fu, to wander in the wilderness, keeping your wits sharp and your rhetorical swords sharper. The day will come that they seek will you out. But, they must travel their own path to that future.

But where have I actually *done* that, Mikelf? I talk about what works *for me*. I don't say, "you do this, and you do that," I say, "I did this, here's how I do. If you're interested, great, if you're not, just skip or ignore me. If it works for you, great, if not, oh well." And I've said repeatedly that I would be interested in learning from others here too.

[BarnOwl]

I got the figure here:

http://bpdresourcecenter.org/factsStatistics.html

Facts and Statistics


Did you know that BPD affects….

Six to ten million Americans – or, about the population of New York City, twice that of both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder
2% to 6% of the general population
At least 10% of all mental health outpatients
At least 20% of psychiatric inpatients

In addition…

75-90% of those diagnosed with BPD are women. This may reflect that women seek treatment more often, and that men with these or similar symptoms may be entering the penal system after receiving a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder.
Several treatment modalities (insert hyperlink) have been shown to be helpful in treating people with BPD. When proper treatment is received and implemented, patients with BPD may have a good prognosis. Treatment may include, but may not be limited to, Psychoeducation, medication, support groups, and psychotherapy.
10%, or one in ten, people with BPD commit suicide. 33% of youth who commit suicide have features, or traits, of BPD. This number is 400 times higher than the general population, and young women with BPD have a suicide rate of 800 times higher than the general population. Early intervention and treatment is critical to obtaining a successful outcome.

With 2 - 6% of the general population, having BPD, 70-90% of whom are female, the figure will be somewhere between 5 to 10% of all women.

I do agree that it sounds rather high but I think there is a spectrum of severity in the condition such that not all sufferers will be the aggressive violent type.
The suicide rate quoted above also sounds very high.

I'll do a search to see what other BPD sites say about the rate.

Perhaps it's like adult attention deficit disorder: having that diagnosis "excuses" one from bad behavior. I hear the ADD self-diagnosis from students and colleagues all the time. If students have an official diagnosis of ADD, they get extra time on exams, a separate quiet room for exam-taking, etc. Faculty with ADD have been relieved of teaching duties, allowed to "work" from home most of the time, etc.

[John Greg]

Sacha, my love, I hate disagreeing with you as you are and will always be one of my favourite 'net peoples, but as for many partners leading to being good in bed, I have to say that I am one of those folks that thinks that is not true.

I've had partners who have had very, very active sex lives with lots and lots of partners, and they were lousy in bed. And as for myself, I too have had lots and lots of partners -- ex-pro musician that I am -- but with the exception of cunning cunilingual skills, I am a pretty darned lousy lay.

So there.

:P

[Wonderist]

"Dear sir. Just in case you missed my previous response, I include a link to my previous response which is the response immediately preceding this one."

I accidentally posted the long one here. If I had done it correctly, it would only have been the short link. Will try to get it right in the future.

[BarnOwl]

http://covers.openlibrary.org/b/id/2198122-M.jpg

Greta?

:shock:

[Dick Strawkins]

I got the figure here:

http://bpdresourcecenter.org/factsStatistics.html

Facts and Statistics


Did you know that BPD affects….

Six to ten million Americans – or, about the population of New York City, twice that of both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder
2% to 6% of the general population
At least 10% of all mental health outpatients
At least 20% of psychiatric inpatients

In addition…

75-90% of those diagnosed with BPD are women. This may reflect that women seek treatment more often, and that men with these or similar symptoms may be entering the penal system after receiving a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder.
Several treatment modalities (insert hyperlink) have been shown to be helpful in treating people with BPD. When proper treatment is received and implemented, patients with BPD may have a good prognosis. Treatment may include, but may not be limited to, Psychoeducation, medication, support groups, and psychotherapy.
10%, or one in ten, people with BPD commit suicide. 33% of youth who commit suicide have features, or traits, of BPD. This number is 400 times higher than the general population, and young women with BPD have a suicide rate of 800 times higher than the general population. Early intervention and treatment is critical to obtaining a successful outcome.

With 2 - 6% of the general population, having BPD, 70-90% of whom are female, the figure will be somewhere between 5 to 10% of all women.

I do agree that it sounds rather high but I think there is a spectrum of severity in the condition such that not all sufferers will be the aggressive violent type.
The suicide rate quoted above also sounds very high.

I'll do a search to see what other BPD sites say about the rate.

Perhaps it's like adult attention deficit disorder: having that diagnosis "excuses" one from bad behavior. I hear the ADD self-diagnosis from students and colleagues all the time. If students have an official diagnosis of ADD, they get extra time on exams, a separate quiet room for exam-taking, etc. Faculty with ADD have been relieved of teaching duties, allowed to "work" from home most of the time, etc.

I tend to doubt that is the explanation.
It is certainly true that ADD is overdiagnosed. Speaking to a psychiatrist friend, she was of the opinion that depression and anxiety attacks can cause a loss of the ability to concentrate, leading to people thinking they suffer from ADD. Genuine ADD is much more severe and doesn't suddenly develop during a short period within adulthood.

I've found another set of statistics for BPD rate in the general popularion (and in the prison population).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790397/

These figures (between 2 to 6% in teh general population, with higher numbers amongst women) are similar to that quoted in the other site.

Interestingly the rate of BPD in the prison population is very high, perhaps ten times higher than the corresponding general population.

[Lsuoma]

I thought people were joking about making it more difficult for you to actually post - boo to them if not - but maybe you could try being brief and seeing for yourself if it works better at reducing the negative reactions you don't want than your current tack.

It was certainly a bit of a dick move on my part to threaten to move Worderist to his own thread and confine him there.

I still may do this if he pisses me off enough, but the interesting thing is that NOBODY has called me on the dick move, and that says a lot. Compare him to Eucliwoo for example - when I threatened to slow down her posting by setting a board-wide maximum posting rate and then exempting everyone but her from it, people complained. Also, he now has more that three times the number of people ignoring him than Eucliwoo ever had.

I think that says a lot.

[Dick Strawkins]

I thought people were joking about making it more difficult for you to actually post - boo to them if not - but maybe you could try being brief and seeing for yourself if it works better at reducing the negative reactions you don't want than your current tack.

It was certainly a bit of a dick move on my part to threaten to move Worderist to his own thread and confine him there.

I still may do this if he pisses me off enough, but the interesting thing is that NOBODY has called me on the dick move, and that says a lot. Compare him to Eucliwoo for example - when I threatened to slow down her posting by setting a board-wide maximum posting rate and then exempting everyone but her from it, people complained. Also, he now has more that three times the number of people ignoring him than Eucliwoo ever had.

I think that says a lot.

I presumed you were joking!

The simplest solution for people complaining about him is for them to put him on ignore so they won't see his twenty posts per page.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

High fives, peeps! I just got banned by John W. Lofty-Ass for disagreeing with him. For framing arguments as logical proofs. For being silly. For making a typo. (It's all one in the same in Lofty-Land.)

http://www.skepticink.com/debunkingchri ... imination/

[Za-zen]

I thought people were joking about making it more difficult for you to actually post - boo to them if not - but maybe you could try being brief and seeing for yourself if it works better at reducing the negative reactions you don't want than your current tack.

It was certainly a bit of a dick move on my part to threaten to move Worderist to his own thread and confine him there.

I still may do this if he pisses me off enough, but the interesting thing is that NOBODY has called me on the dick move, and that says a lot. Compare him to Eucliwoo for example - when I threatened to slow down her posting by setting a board-wide maximum posting rate and then exempting everyone but her from it, people complained. Also, he now has more that three times the number of people ignoring him than Eucliwoo ever had.

I think that says a lot.

Don't read too much into not being called, perhaps, as in my instance, nobody saw it as they are skipping any exchange. That's my story anyway.

[Parody Accountant]

http://covers.openlibrary.org/b/id/2198122-M.jpg

Greta?

:shock:

at first i thought you were doing that red coat rhyme slang thing.

[Lsuoma]

It was certainly a bit of a dick move on my part to threaten to move Worderist to his own thread and confine him there.

I still may do this if he pisses me off enough, but the interesting thing is that NOBODY has called me on the dick move, and that says a lot. Compare him to Eucliwoo for example - when I threatened to slow down her posting by setting a board-wide maximum posting rate and then exempting everyone but her from it, people complained. Also, he now has more that three times the number of people ignoring him than Eucliwoo ever had.

I think that says a lot.

I presumed you were joking!

The simplest solution for people complaining about him is for them to put him on ignore so they won't see his twenty posts per page.

Yeah, I was, but don't tell the wordy cunt that.

[Parody Accountant]

Loftus was a poor choice as leader. He's an excellent 'flagship blog', and I quite enjoy his books. His personality is very narcissistic, and he craves praise for his intellect. He's also unstable and impulsive. I can overlook all of that, as I do when I think about the plethora of excellent musicians with the same issues.

In other words, I'd generally take the "smooth with the rough"

The problem is, he's in a leadership position at SIN. His antics are fine for a blog, disastrous for a leader.

[Badger3k]

High fives, peeps! I just got banned by John W. Lofty-Ass for disagreeing with him. For framing arguments as logical proofs. For being silly. For making a typo. (It's all one in the same in Lofty-Land.)

http://www.skepticink.com/debunkingchri ... imination/

I get a database error when trying to load that, but just looking at the title, I gather this is a PZ-esque attempt at claiming that atheism naturally leads to being "anti-discrimination"? I'll try to look at my feed and see if it's there, but I am going to take a guess that he makes the same errors that PZ and others have in conflating various reasons to be an atheist with being an atheist itself?

[John Greg]

JackSkeptic said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 66#p107366):

Just to clarify, atheism is a belief. The belief that a particular god claim or claims are not true.

No, no, no.

I do not hold the belief that there are no gods. I simply do not believe in gods, and never have. Ahteism is not a belief system; it is a lack of belief in a belief system.

The distinction might be subtle, but it is important.

[welch]

Mikelf, I've already been doing that for literally years (leading by example; see the Ask An Atheist podcast comment threads linked earlier; I've done this elsewhere several times since as well).

One person, alone, has little power to change things. But one person championing a *good idea* can share that good idea with another person, and those two can go on to share the idea with 4, etc, etc. So, by sharing good ideas with other people who have similar goals, we can have a much more powerful influence on things (the rifts, etc.) than if we were to just go out by ourselves and try to fight everything alone.

I'm just one guy. I can't do much by myself. But if, when I find some good ideas, I share them with others who are working towards the same or similar goals, I magnify my 'power' indirectly by helping others to succeed towards those goals.

See, here is the thing. You can't appoint yourself sensei. You must be accepted as such. It should be clear that the proles here are not ready to accept your teachings. Perhaps it is your place, like Caine in Kung Fu, to wander in the wilderness, keeping your wits sharp and your rhetorical swords sharper. The day will come that they seek will you out. But, they must travel their own path to that future.

But where have I actually *done* that, Mikelf? I talk about what works *for me*. I don't say, "you do this, and you do that," I say, "I did this, here's how I do. If you're interested, great, if you're not, just skip or ignore me. If it works for you, great, if not, oh well." And I've said repeatedly that I would be interested in learning from others here too.

yes dear, we can tell. Your response to people telling you things you don't wish to hear shows how eager you are to learn, dear.

[Badger3k]

Damn edit button made this another post! From looking at my feed, yeah, he confuses the two: "Atheism is based on evidence and reasoning that it's probable no supernatural beings exist."

No, no it doesn't. It can, but it doesn't have to be that way. How the hell can people get so confused when all you have to do is look around and see the huge variety of reasons people are atheists? Is it deliberate blindness or some type of cognitive dissonance?

[mikelf]

See, here is the thing. You can't appoint yourself sensei. You must be accepted as such. It should be clear that the proles here are not ready to accept your teachings. Perhaps it is your place, like Caine in Kung Fu, to wander in the wilderness, keeping your wits sharp and your rhetorical swords sharper. The day will come that they seek will you out. But, they must travel their own path to that future.

But where have I actually *done* that, Mikelf? I talk about what works *for me*. I don't say, "you do this, and you do that," I say, "I did this, here's how I do. If you're interested, great, if you're not, just skip or ignore me. If it works for you, great, if not, oh well." And I've said repeatedly that I would be interested in learning from others here too.

You cannot force a seed to grow, Grasshopper. You can only continue your life's journey and hope that someday, when you return, that it has borne fruit.

[ReneeHendricks]

Does anyone else have the overwhelming urge to kick someone squarely in the crotch when they call you "dear"?

[welch]

Perhaps it's like adult attention deficit disorder: having that diagnosis "excuses" one from bad behavior. I hear the ADD self-diagnosis from students and colleagues all the time. If students have an official diagnosis of ADD, they get extra time on exams, a separate quiet room for exam-taking, etc. Faculty with ADD have been relieved of teaching duties, allowed to "work" from home most of the time, etc.

Oh that shit makes me crazy. My son and I are both ADD posterkids. I happened to grow up before most people had ever heard about it, so the only benefit to me was that there was an actual thing there, not just i'm absent-minded. Made it much easier to manage when you know you're managing a specific thing. THat, and massive amounts of caffeine as self-medication.

My son started on ritalin, but his metabolism burned through that too fast to be of use during the day, so he went to concerta. It helped a lot, but as i told him repeatedly, usually on days when we'd forget to give him the concerta:

"ADD is not an excuse. It may be a cause, but it never excuses poor behavior. You are still 100% responsible for the things you do, and the way you behave, and any time you try to blame it on something or someone else, I'm not going to have any of it. we'll work to help you figure out ways to manage things better, but I will never put up with you behaving poorly in school because of ADD or what have you."

He asked if he could go off the concerta in high school, and his doc agreed that it was not a bad time to try that. We worked to come up with ways to manage things, (started it over a summer so he had some time to work on things on his own) and it seems to have worked out decently well.

The twats who demand the world bend over to accomodate fucking ADD make me want to scream. Yes, it's a pain in the fucking ass, but this "boo-hoo, i have ADD I need all these accommodations" shit needs to end.

[welch]

It was certainly a bit of a dick move on my part to threaten to move Worderist to his own thread and confine him there.

I still may do this if he pisses me off enough, but the interesting thing is that NOBODY has called me on the dick move, and that says a lot. Compare him to Eucliwoo for example - when I threatened to slow down her posting by setting a board-wide maximum posting rate and then exempting everyone but her from it, people complained. Also, he now has more that three times the number of people ignoring him than Eucliwoo ever had.

I think that says a lot.

I presumed you were joking!

The simplest solution for people complaining about him is for them to put him on ignore so they won't see his twenty posts per page.

Yeah, I was, but don't tell the wordy cunt that.

No worries, there's only one person he listens to, and it's none of us.

[BarnOwl]

http://covers.openlibrary.org/b/id/2198122-M.jpg

Greta?

:shock:

at first i thought you were doing that red coat rhyme slang thing.

Dairy unicorn --> porn

"I got fired for downloading dairy unicorn on my computer."

Naaahhh, I think you have to be raised with it. Brief immersion isn't enough.

[Bill the Cat]

Have a great 4th
http://assets.amuniversal.com/1315dcf0c ... 1dd8b71c47

[Aneris]

Does anyone else have the overwhelming urge to kick someone squarely in the crotch when they call you "dear"?

No, my dear.

[Wonderist]

I'm not sure that you can douse flames through verbiage because I don't think it really counts as clear communication - given that people here probably aren't devoted to reading every word or post on the forum, but try and keep up for the juicier and funnier stuff. If someone wants to wind you up they've only got to respond rudely to your efforts - they don't have to actually read your post.
--snip--

Hey Dave2, I replied to your comment here: viewtopic.php?p=107488#p107488

[bhoytony]

at first i thought you were doing that red coat rhyme slang thing.

Dairy unicorn --> porn

"I got fired for downloading dairy unicorn on my computer."

Naaahhh, I think you have to be raised with it. Brief immersion isn't enough.

You haven't got a Scooby Doo.

[Parody Accountant]

Does anyone else have the overwhelming urge to kick someone squarely in the crotch when they call you "dear"?

Dear Renee,

Yes.

Sincerely,
Parody Accountant

[Metalogic42]

JackSkeptic said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 66#p107366):

Just to clarify, atheism is a belief. The belief that a particular god claim or claims are not true.

No, no, no.

I do not hold the belief that there are no gods. I simply do not believe in gods, and never have. Ahteism is not a belief system; it is a lack of belief in a belief system.

The distinction might be subtle, but it is important.

Given that there's some pretty strong arguments that no gods exist, you should believe there are no gods. And if belief in no gods isn't atheism, then what is it?

This "I merely lack belief" statement I see over and over again reeks of intellectual cowardice.

[Tribble]

High fives, peeps! I just got banned by John W. Lofty-Ass for disagreeing with him. For framing arguments as logical proofs. For being silly. For making a typo. (It's all one in the same in Lofty-Land.)

http://www.skepticink.com/debunkingchri ... imination/

I get a database error when trying to load that, but just looking at the title, I gather this is a PZ-esque attempt at claiming that atheism naturally leads to being "anti-discrimination"? I'll try to look at my feed and see if it's there, but I am going to take a guess that he makes the same errors that PZ and others have in conflating various reasons to be an atheist with being an atheist itself?

You got it in one.

[Badger3k]

JackSkeptic said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 66#p107366):

Just to clarify, atheism is a belief. The belief that a particular god claim or claims are not true.

No, no, no.

I do not hold the belief that there are no gods. I simply do not believe in gods, and never have. Ahteism is not a belief system; it is a lack of belief in a belief system.

The distinction might be subtle, but it is important.

Given that there's some pretty strong arguments that no gods exist, you should believe there are no gods. And if belief in no gods isn't atheism, then what is it?

This "I merely lack belief" statement I see over and over again reeks of intellectual cowardice.

Normally that is the difference between "strong" and "weak" atheism. One is a positive statement that there are no gods at all, the other is the lack of belief. Given that there is strong evidence for certain gods or kind of gods, the first is not completely unreasonable, but the problem is when you get to some of the deistic gods, the first cause that leaves no evidence. Some don't see it as intellectually honest to say that such a god doesn't exist since there is no evidence (and really, can be no evidence) either way. If you want to base your beliefs on evidence, it's a bit hard to be honest and suddenly base one belief on absolutely no evidence (and no lack of expected evidence either).

I think that's as concise a summary as I can give - I'm sure others can fix or add to it if I missed something.

[ReneeHendricks]

Does anyone else have the overwhelming urge to kick someone squarely in the crotch when they call you "dear"?

No, my dear.

:D Must be just me. I've had more than a few use "dear" in the most condescending way when talking to me. I've actually said "if you insist on calling me 'dear', I must insist on calling you 'douchebag'".

[ReneeHendricks]

Does anyone else have the overwhelming urge to kick someone squarely in the crotch when they call you "dear"?

Dear Renee,

Yes.

Sincerely,
Parody Accountant

:D

[Parody Accountant]

I feel like I can interpret the obvious stuff.

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos ... 00-407.jpg

Please explain the radio rentals picture thing. Immediately afterwards, Lsuoma deciphered meaning and simply asked who it was referring to. My guess: 'Radio rental' translates to calling somebody 'mental'?

[Tribble]

Damn edit button made this another post! From looking at my feed, yeah, he confuses the two: "Atheism is based on evidence and reasoning that it's probable no supernatural beings exist."

No, no it doesn't. It can, but it doesn't have to be that way. How the hell can people get so confused when all you have to do is look around and see the huge variety of reasons people are atheists? Is it deliberate blindness or some type of cognitive dissonance?

There are lots of people who are atheists because there is no cultural conditioning to become a god-botherer. When they were children, they weren't taught to be religious. The whole subject or religion, gods, etc., never came up at all.

Take VietNam. About 80% percent of the population is atheist, non-religious or agnostic. Religion, for the vast majority of them, is just a cultural practice, like Weasel Stomping Day or some such...

[youtube]k76IGLi6jWI[/youtube]

[Badger3k]

Loftus was a poor choice as leader. He's an excellent 'flagship blog', and I quite enjoy his books. His personality is very narcissistic, and he craves praise for his intellect. He's also unstable and impulsive. I can overlook all of that, as I do when I think about the plethora of excellent musicians with the same issues.

In other words, I'd generally take the "smooth with the rough"

The problem is, he's in a leadership position at SIN. His antics are fine for a blog, disastrous for a leader.

He's also got a huge blindspot when it comes to Craig as well - he basically refuses to see the cowardice and lack of integrity that Craig routinely displays (his dishonest arguments, etc). Chris Hallquist did a series of posts (IIRC) on Craig and his dishonesty, yet Loftus doesn't believe any of that - I think, but could be wrong, that his arguments tended to be from the personal experience of having him as a teacher and how he can't believe some things. He may have changed his mind - haven't paid attention in a while - but this could be part of his "Craig won't debate me" schtick - if the person you say won't debate you isn't worth debating for being a lying moron, well, that doesn't mean much, does it?

[Wonderist]

I got the figure here:

http://bpdresourcecenter.org/factsStatistics.html

Facts and Statistics


Did you know that BPD affects….

Six to ten million Americans – or, about the population of New York City, twice that of both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder
2% to 6% of the general population
At least 10% of all mental health outpatients
At least 20% of psychiatric inpatients

In addition…

75-90% of those diagnosed with BPD are women. This may reflect that women seek treatment more often, and that men with these or similar symptoms may be entering the penal system after receiving a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder.
Several treatment modalities (insert hyperlink) have been shown to be helpful in treating people with BPD. When proper treatment is received and implemented, patients with BPD may have a good prognosis. Treatment may include, but may not be limited to, Psychoeducation, medication, support groups, and psychotherapy.
10%, or one in ten, people with BPD commit suicide. 33% of youth who commit suicide have features, or traits, of BPD. This number is 400 times higher than the general population, and young women with BPD have a suicide rate of 800 times higher than the general population. Early intervention and treatment is critical to obtaining a successful outcome.

With 2 - 6% of the general population, having BPD, 70-90% of whom are female, the figure will be somewhere between 5 to 10% of all women.

I do agree that it sounds rather high but I think there is a spectrum of severity in the condition such that not all sufferers will be the aggressive violent type.
The suicide rate quoted above also sounds very high.

I'll do a search to see what other BPD sites say about the rate.

Perhaps it's like adult attention deficit disorder: having that diagnosis "excuses" one from bad behavior. I hear the ADD self-diagnosis from students and colleagues all the time. If students have an official diagnosis of ADD, they get extra time on exams, a separate quiet room for exam-taking, etc. Faculty with ADD have been relieved of teaching duties, allowed to "work" from home most of the time, etc.

Well, I think there's a difference between making school/workplace accommodations (which is only supposed to provide equal access) and somebody using their diagnosis as an excuse from some kind of illegal, unethical, anti-social, or pathological behaviour.

That is a problem though. The way I put it for myself is, ADHD might be a reason, but it's not an excuse. If my ADHD is causing some problematic behaviour, it's my responsibility as an adult to put things in place to correct or reduce the risk of that behaviour. For example, if I'm late frequently, to set up a routine for setting my alarm clock; or if I forget things (like tasks, to do lists, etc.), then I need to write things down and carry a schedule or notebook with me. No one should use a diagnosis to dodge responsibility for their own actions, IMHO. When I messed up in the Nugent dialogue stuff, I take the responsibility for that, even if ADHD was part of the reason. If I were to do things again, I would put more checks and balances in place so my tendencies wouldn't be so disruptive; or, refrain from participating.

If women with mental health issues, BPD, Borderline, etc. are at high risk of violence or whatever, there should be some effort to treat that and/or prevent it. And the diagnosis should not be used as an excuse to get off lightly, if that's what's happening.

[Sulaco]

So we're having slymeblogs are we? Please sign me up.

Has Justin reacted publicly yet? Has he indicated his desire for us to stop mentioning it to (honor the 'deal')?

Just a hunch, but I have an uncomfortable suspicion that Justin is showing undue deference in agreeing to put it all behind him. If the reasons behind his booting are as suspected then I think that Loftus and Clint are behaving like colossal turds and they are the ones who benefit from the secrecy.

Justin's very mild mannered and calm, though. I feel like he'd probably react like that to most annoyances. Fuck knows how he does it. Yoga?

[youtube]Ow_9MglZrhs[/youtube]

[Metalogic42]

Badger3k:

Those kinds of deities are just "weaker" conceptions designed to circumvent premises in pro-atheism arguments (simple example: If god exists, then evil does not exist). If you allow this, you're admitting such premises are false, and you might as well be a theist.

Yeah, maybe there is some sort of being that doesn't give a shit and leaves absolutely no evidence, be it physical, logical, or otherwise. But not only do I reject such beings on the basis of their complete ad-hocness, they wouldn't be deities anyway.

[welch]

JackSkeptic said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 66#p107366):

Just to clarify, atheism is a belief. The belief that a particular god claim or claims are not true.

No, no, no.

I do not hold the belief that there are no gods. I simply do not believe in gods, and never have. Ahteism is not a belief system; it is a lack of belief in a belief system.

The distinction might be subtle, but it is important.

Pretty much that. If it were the belief there are no gods, then theists would have a point when they called atheism just another belief system.

[deLurch]

Sacha, my love, I hate disagreeing with you as you are and will always be one of my favourite 'net peoples, but as for many partners leading to being good in bed, I have to say that I am one of those folks that thinks that is not true.

I've had partners who have had very, very active sex lives with lots and lots of partners, and they were lousy in bed. And as for myself, I too have had lots and lots of partners -- ex-pro musician that I am -- but with the exception of cunning cunilingual skills, I am a pretty darned lousy lay.

So there.
:P

This is clearly leading to a fuck off.

[another lurker]

Does anyone else have the overwhelming urge to kick someone squarely in the crotch when they call you "dear"?

No, my dear.

:D Must be just me. I've had more than a few use "dear" in the most condescending way when talking to me. I've actually said "if you insist on calling me 'dear', I must insist on calling you 'douchebag'".

In my experience, whenever people use the terms 'dear' or 'honey' or 'sweetie' when debating, the entire point is to be condescending. Just last week, someone referred to me as 'dear' when lecturing me on why a zygote is a person, and on how I should learn that science and embryology have proven that zygotes = 'little kids'.

[Badger3k]

Does anyone else have the overwhelming urge to kick someone squarely in the crotch when they call you "dear"?

No, my dear.

:D Must be just me. I've had more than a few use "dear" in the most condescending way when talking to me. I've actually said "if you insist on calling me 'dear', I must insist on calling you 'douchebag'".

I think it's a bit cultural too. Here in Texas, especially in the bars I've been to, people use terms like "hon" or "darling" all the time - I've done the second myself, with no deeper meaning than just being the way people talk. Outside of the bars, I've had women call me "hon" or "honey" and I've never met them before - it's just the way they talk and no insult or deeper meaning is intended. The way it's been used in the posts is more in line with an insult, though, belittling the speaker through it's use. For me, it would depend on the term and it's use rather than a first reaction to the words.

[welch]

Does anyone else have the overwhelming urge to kick someone squarely in the crotch when they call you "dear"?

Which would be why I'd never do it to you or anyone else I actually respect.

[Metalogic42]

JackSkeptic said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 66#p107366):

Just to clarify, atheism is a belief. The belief that a particular god claim or claims are not true.

No, no, no.

I do not hold the belief that there are no gods. I simply do not believe in gods, and never have. Ahteism is not a belief system; it is a lack of belief in a belief system.

The distinction might be subtle, but it is important.

Pretty much that. If it were the belief there are no gods, then theists would have a point when they called atheism just another belief system.

I don't know what a "belief system" is supposed to be, but why is it so bad that atheism might be a belief? It's not a dirty word. We all have all kinds of beliefs.

[welch]

JackSkeptic said (http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 66#p107366):

Just to clarify, atheism is a belief. The belief that a particular god claim or claims are not true.

No, no, no.

I do not hold the belief that there are no gods. I simply do not believe in gods, and never have. Ahteism is not a belief system; it is a lack of belief in a belief system.

The distinction might be subtle, but it is important.

Given that there's some pretty strong arguments that no gods exist, you should believe there are no gods. And if belief in no gods isn't atheism, then what is it?

This "I merely lack belief" statement I see over and over again reeks of intellectual cowardice.

Why? I don't believe in the tooth fairy. This isn't active, as "I believe there is no tooth fairy" implies. It's the most inactive thing ever. I don't believe there is such a thing as the tooth fairy. It's like being an only child. I have no siblings. It's not that I wanted them and lost them or had them and they disappeared. I've always lacked siblings. requires no active anything on my part. Same thing with lacking belief in gods. It's not intellectual cowardice, it's a lack of a particular philosophy.

[ReneeHendricks]

Does anyone else have the overwhelming urge to kick someone squarely in the crotch when they call you "dear"?

Which would be why I'd never do it to you or anyone else I actually respect.

Oh, I'm sure. I just saw it being used and had that urge :D

At least I'm an equal opportunity crotch kicker. I don't pander to any gender 'cuz it hurts no matter what :D

[BarnOwl]

Dairy unicorn --> porn

"I got fired for downloading dairy unicorn on my computer."

Naaahhh, I think you have to be raised with it. Brief immersion isn't enough.

You haven't got a Scooby Doo.

As I pointed out.

I thought the Greta/unicorn thing was pretty self-explanatory. Rhyming slang never crossed my mind, until Parody CPA mentioned it.

[welch]

Loftus was a poor choice as leader. He's an excellent 'flagship blog', and I quite enjoy his books. His personality is very narcissistic, and he craves praise for his intellect. He's also unstable and impulsive. I can overlook all of that, as I do when I think about the plethora of excellent musicians with the same issues.

In other words, I'd generally take the "smooth with the rough"

The problem is, he's in a leadership position at SIN. His antics are fine for a blog, disastrous for a leader.

He's also got a huge blindspot when it comes to Craig as well - he basically refuses to see the cowardice and lack of integrity that Craig routinely displays (his dishonest arguments, etc). Chris Hallquist did a series of posts (IIRC) on Craig and his dishonesty, yet Loftus doesn't believe any of that - I think, but could be wrong, that his arguments tended to be from the personal experience of having him as a teacher and how he can't believe some things. He may have changed his mind - haven't paid attention in a while - but this could be part of his "Craig won't debate me" schtick - if the person you say won't debate you isn't worth debating for being a lying moron, well, that doesn't mean much, does it?

if you read the article, it also has to do with a statement Craig made as to how the only people he would 'fear' to debate would be former students of his. I guess he gives them all kryptonite or something?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

How the hell can people get so confused when all you have to do is look around and see the huge variety of reasons people are atheists? Is it deliberate blindness or some type of cognitive dissonance?

A bit of both. Lofts is a bombast. Others here have mentioned his fundie mindset. He just traded one unthinking dogma for another.

Also, lofts can't stand being questioned. His blog is his new pulpit. Calls you silly, tells you to think (read: agree) next time. (I'd copy our exchange, but I'm on my phone.). Seems the only person he's willing to debate is WL Craig.

Fuck John Loftus.

[Metalogic42]

Why? I don't believe in the tooth fairy. This isn't active, as "I believe there is no tooth fairy" implies. It's the most inactive thing ever. I don't believe there is such a thing as the tooth fairy. It's like being an only child. I have no siblings. It's not that I wanted them and lost them or had them and they disappeared. I've always lacked siblings. requires no active anything on my part. Same thing with lacking belief in gods. It's not intellectual cowardice, it's a lack of a particular philosophy.

I believe there is no tooth fairy. Don't you? No way in hell I'm gonna be agnostic about tooth fairies. Same goes for gods.

[John Greg]

OK, so, I'm a weak atheist. Big shmoo. I have never believed in god or gods, so I have never felt the need to approach my atheism from some point of research requiring a belief that there are no gods. If that's intellectual cowardice, so be it.

I think what I am trying to say is that because I have never believed in god or gods, I have never thought very much about my atheism, neither from an intellectual perspective, nor from a rhetorical perspective, nor from a "Do I beleive or do I not believe" perspective. It just isn't that important to me, so I tend to not think about it very much all, and I certainly do not work on it or analyze it through research or whatnot ... why would I? I am not a proselytizing atheist. I am simply a quiet, introspective, died-in-the-wool life-long atheist who rarely even thinks about it.

So, perhaps it actually boils down to a system of belief and I do believe that there are no gods, but I do not look at it as a point of belief because I hardly ever think about it in the first place (don't systems of belief require some kind of constant tending to maintain? Maybe not. I don't know). And if that's the case, then I am just exhibiting some degree of lack of self awareness, or something like that. And I do not see that as anything particularly important, in this specific instance, either.

Weak atheist; intellectual coward; whatever floats your boat. It makes no difference to me how you percieve my beliefs or lack thereof. As I say, it is not something I even think about very much, except perhaps when I get into discussions about it with believers, which is in itself something I tend to a avoid as much as possible anyway.