bhoytony wrote:It is where I come from, but that doesn't make it definitive, maybe we should ask an Italian. Who knows?bovarchist wrote:
ps Yeah, that's pretty much the way I've heard it pronounced too. Why, is it rhymes-with-otto?
paging decius
bhoytony wrote:It is where I come from, but that doesn't make it definitive, maybe we should ask an Italian. Who knows?bovarchist wrote:
ps Yeah, that's pretty much the way I've heard it pronounced too. Why, is it rhymes-with-otto?
I would have dropped the course. I couldn't listen to more than 5 seconds. The "Valley Girl ending everything in a question inflection" was too much in that brief time.BarnOwl wrote:Imagine listening to that for a 30-min scientific presentation, minus the (very) marginal entertainment value of the swear words.another lurker wrote:OH GOD.Percentage wrote:Good god, Physioprof sounds like the biggest douchebag in the universe.
MAKE IT STOP!
:sleeping-yellow:
OH GOD.Percentage wrote:Good god, Physioprof sounds like the biggest douchebag in the universe.
The cesspit of lies indicates that the first "o" is pronounced like that in "not" and the second "o" like the aw in British-English "law." Though I get annoyed when students challenge scientific information (supported by multiple peer-reviewed research papers or by clinical experience/knowledge from my colleague) with Wikipedia articles, so it's hypocritical for me to turn around and rely on Wikipedia for Italian language, about which I know very little.sacha wrote:bhoytony wrote:It is where I come from, but that doesn't make it definitive, maybe we should ask an Italian. Who knows?bovarchist wrote:
ps Yeah, that's pretty much the way I've heard it pronounced too. Why, is it rhymes-with-otto?
paging decius
Not a course but a talk at a conference, where you're often stuck listening to boring presentations. At least you only have to put up with a particular boring/annoying speaker just once (and then you know to avoid them in the future).Sulaco wrote: I would have dropped the course. I couldn't listen to more than 5 seconds. The "Valley Girl ending everything in a question inflection" was too much in that brief time.
Well if empathy is understanding another person's feelings from their perspective, you would need that to be a truly effective torturer. If you don't identify with their fears etc. then you are missing a lot of opportunities.sacha wrote:I'm not sure I'd call that empathybhoytony wrote:I heard something interesting recently, but can't recall where. It was a discussion about empathy and somebody was saying how it is a good thing. The other person responded that to be a good torturer requires empathy too. I'd never considered that before.
bhoytony wrote:Well if empathy is understanding another person's feelings from their perspective, you would need that to be a truly effective torturer. If you don't identify with their fears etc. then you are missing a lot of opportunities.sacha wrote:I'm not sure I'd call that empathybhoytony wrote:I heard something interesting recently, but can't recall where. It was a discussion about empathy and somebody was saying how it is a good thing. The other person responded that to be a good torturer requires empathy too. I'd never considered that before.
I'm beginning to sound like a bit of a psycho to myself now.
You called, M'lady?sacha wrote:I took years of Italian, but I will wait and defer to an expert
That truly was torture.another lurker wrote: All of the people who spent the last few days arguing over GZ/TM must have bucketloads of empathy.
Hey, I speak it like a native.decius wrote: Here you can hear a native saying "risotto".
bhoytony wrote:Well if empathy is understanding another person's feelings from their perspective, you would need that to be a truly effective torturer. If you don't identify with their fears etc. then you are missing a lot of opportunities.sacha wrote:I'm not sure I'd call that empathybhoytony wrote:I heard something interesting recently, but can't recall where. It was a discussion about empathy and somebody was saying how it is a good thing. The other person responded that to be a good torturer requires empathy too. I'd never considered that before.
I'm beginning to sound like a bit of a psycho to myself now.
I think this explains it much better than I did.John Greg wrote:There is often some confusion between "empathy" and "compassion".
Yes, to be a good torturer you indeed must have empathy with your victim; you must be able to understand, explicitly, what they are undergoing, both in terms of physical pain and response, and the emotional and psychological effect.
If you have real compassion, you probably cannot be a torturer at all, even if you do not have empathy. If you are a compassionate and empathetic individual, there is no way on Earth you could ever be a torturer, let alone cause another person serious undeserved* pain -- of course, exceptions do exist when it comes to things like revenge, rage, and so on.
*There is probably a world of debate that could be taken over the phrase undeserved/deserved pain.
It seems that Dick Handbag has also written a scientific, as well as a philosophical, tour de force. Here, from the same post:Cunning Punt wrote:BarnOwl wrote:Speaking of bloviating arsewads at FtB:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4192/
Moglievsky's eyeballs seem to move in tandem just fine (e.g. when she looks up and to the left), but she does appear to have a droopy eyelid (ptosis) on one side.Isn't he versatile! What a philosopher!Dick the C wrote:I often philosophize about the excellence of ScotchWell fuck me sideways with a sandpaper condom! The things you learn on FtB. I never realized that. He is a font of wisdom on all things.Dick the C wrote:Anytime you spend the night drinking heavily, chug a tall glass of water before going to bed.
BTW, isn't single malt being your favorite tipple a little, you know, privileged? Some of us only have beer and the dregs of a bottle of Sauv Blanc to polish off.
1) Why brain cells "especially"? "Regular damage" to any organ will kill.No, silly, alcohol doesn’t kill brain cells. That’s pseudoscience. If you thought about it (and have learned anything about chemistry and physiology) you’d realize that’s impossible (it makes no more sense than power lines causing brain cancer). A drink that regularly killed cells of any kind (especially brain cells) would be an actual poison.
Or one could have compassion for members of their 'tribe' and have absolutely no problems torturing and dehumanizing outsiders!John Greg wrote:There is often some confusion between "empathy" and "compassion".
Yes, to be a good torturer you indeed must have empathy with your victim; you must be able to understand, explicitly, what they are undergoing, both in terms of physical pain and response, and the emotional and psychological effect.
If you have real compassion, you probably cannot be a torturer at all, even if you do not have empathy. If you are a compassionate and empathetic individual, there is no way on Earth you could ever be a torturer, let alone cause another person serious undeserved* pain -- of course, exceptions do exist when it comes to things like revenge, rage, and so on.
*There is probably a world of debate that could be taken over the phrase undeserved/deserved pain.
yes but that's meaningless when compared to the first real visible male firebrand atheist activists like Madalyn Murray O'Hairdebaser71 wrote:Despite all this talk about male atheists being thew leaders (from the FTB crowd) Susan Jacoby was one of the first atheists I knew about in the media. She'd have articles and such in the NYTimes. Her plus Ellen Johnson (of AA) and Annie Laurie Gaylor (FFRF)...it was almost an all woman show...at least who was going on tv and talking about atheism. So when the FTB crowd talks about male atheist leaders only...it sound very stupid...as if where were they 10-15 years ago? In grade school? Too young to notice atheism in the media?justinvacula wrote:Live episode with Susan Jacoby begins at 11AM Eastern! Join the live show, chat, call in!
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bravehero/ ... san-jacoby
and Karla is back from vacation :)
doucchebaggePercentage wrote:Good god, Physioprof sounds like the biggest douchebag in the universe.
And Toiletbowl responds:I think the premise for this hangout is very misguided. Reality is full of highly successful special interest groups that don’t have any plans to broaden their agenda.
My emphasis.The “invalid premise†was actually well argued from a number of our panelists as perfectly parsimonious with reality, so I’m not sure how much of the panel you actually watched.
Yes, you're right; I hadn't thought about that.Or one could have compassion for members of their 'tribe' and have absolutely no problems torturing and dehumanizing outsiders!
Indeed – curious, that. Privilege maybe? I seem to recollect pointing out that disparity in prison populations – about 10:1 in “favour†of men – several times on several different blogs in the last while, largely in support of either Pinker’s The Blank Slate or Shermer’s “… it’s more of a guy thingâ€. And the responses have been, in turns, amusing or rather astounding, a case of the latter being this comment by Giliell:Skep tickle wrote:From that article:One of the commenters to the other link you posted pointed out that men are more represented at both ends of the curve in a number of areas (e.g. remedial math classes as well as high/early math achievement), however addressing the preponderance of men with low academic achievement, like addressing the preponderance of men in prison, doesn't seem to be on the radar screen of those eager, in the name of "equality", to raise the achievement & recognition of girls & women.The unbiased look at the data shows that females do as well as males in math for the first time in history, a terrific achievement. Women get more Ph.D.'s than men and not only are women hired for faculty positions as often as male counterparts, they are hired more. ...
As if thinking that making an observation about the greater number of guys in prison is entirely equivalent to asserting that, both inside and outside of prison, all of the guys are more violent than all of the gals. Apropos of which, something from Pinker’s The Blank Slate:Giliell wrote:That’s called sarcasm. It was a stab at people who constantly claim that feminists “just hate men†when I’d think that somebody who goes around telling that “criminal behaviour is more of a guy thing is biological†has a far worse concept of men than any feminist ever came up with.Steersman wrote: And, out of curiosity, how in the hell do you manage to infer that I hate men because I suggest that that disparity [in prison population] – “it’s more of a guy thing†– “is a result of biologyâ€.
Haven’t checked to see whether the stats are exclusive of wars – I assume so – but I think it a bit of a stretch to argue that all of that is due entirely to culture and the environment.Pinker wrote:There can be little doubt that some individuals are constitutionally more prone to violence than others. Take men, for starters: across cultures, men kill men twenty to fourty times more often than women kill women. And the lion’s share of the killers are young men, between the ages of fifteen and thirty. Some young men, moreover, are more violent than others. According to one estimate, 7 percent of young men commit 79 percent of repeated violent offenses. [pg 315]
There is, maybe, some justification for at least thinking that that is a possibility. I remember someone - in a book review, I think - throwing some stones at some of the religious for "thinking that God put them on Earth to help the poor" but being at a loss to understand why "God" put them here in the first place. Apart from the questionable "logic" intrinsic to a religious outlook, I think it highlights the fact that there can be at least a self-serving element in the most altruistic actions we all engage in. The problems start to manifest themselves when the former vitiates the latter, when the tail starts wagging the dog.katamari Damassi wrote:Just looked in on a Shakesville open thread. One commentor says she's bothered by something her rabi said. He's doing a habitat for humanity like thing in India and said he thought the experience of going would be "fullfilling". Other shakers have jumped in to validate her feelings. They accuse the rabi of othering those people, and almost of getting off on other people's poverty and pain. They really do seem to hold disdain for people who actually do something to try and help. I know McEwen considers her blog and tweets to be great activism, and what luck! She doesn't even have to get off the sofa. It's like they've reversed the concept of deeds over words.
Pretty much. "Hey, thank you for this. God told you to do it? Sounds awesome to me, let's get building."sacha wrote:If I was living in a dirt hut without enough food, or clean water, I would not give a toss as to why someone was helping to build me a house.
Wait, comments on news sites are stupid? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?Hunt wrote:For any fellow Merkins who think they live in a country of dawning enlightenment, I've got a bucket of ice water to throw in your face (the comments):
http://omg.yahoo.com/news/jesse-tyler-f ... eekly.html
Hmm.. Just realized I misspelled rabbi twice. Odd that spell check didn't catch that.katamari Damassi wrote:Just looked in on a Shakesville open thread. One commentor says she's bothered by something her rabi said. He's doing a habitat for humanity like thing in India and said he thought the experience of going would be "fullfilling". Other shakers have jumped in to validate her feelings. They accuse the rabi of othering those people, and almost of getting off on other people's poverty and pain. They really do seem to hold disdain for people who actually do something to try and help. I know McEwen considers her blog and tweets to be great activism, and what luck! She doesn't even have to get off the sofa. It's like they've reversed the concept of deeds over words.
Interesting. I would assume that he was familiar with the adage of the "does makes the poison" - just about anything can be toxic at high levels. It did make me look up what the effects are, and found a few interesting things I wasn't aware of.ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote: 1) Why brain cells "especially"? "Regular damage" to any organ will kill.
2) You don't understand the word "poison". Table salt is essential for life. Its lack can kill in hours. It is also a poison; its usual timescale of effect just happen to be different from arsenic, cyanide, or whichever other Sherlockian compound you have in your little noggin. I think most of us can deal with the reality that acetaminophen (paracetamol) can turn from being a bringer of relief (a few hundred miligrams mitigating pain) to becoming a poison (several grams knocked back in an hour or two during a dark night of the soul).
I knew that brain cells regrew (or new ones were grown, to be specific), but not that alcohol inhibits this. If I remember correctly, it is partly a lack of oxygen due to the alcohol that can damage cells (that seems to be the case according to this.For decades scientists believed that the number of nerve cells in the adult brain was fixed early in life. If brain damage occurred, then, the best way to treat it was by strengthening the existing neurons, as new ones could not be added. In the 1960s, however, researchers found that new neurons are indeed generated in adulthood—a process called neurogenesis (29). These new cells originate from stem cells, which are cells that can divide indefinitely, renew themselves, and give rise to a variety of cell types. The discovery of brain stem cells and adult neurogenesis provides a new way of approaching the problem of alcohol–related changes in the brain and may lead to a clearer understanding of how best to treat and cure alcoholism (30).
For example, studies with animals show that high doses of alcohol lead to a disruption in the growth of new brain cells; scientists believe it may be this lack of new growth that results in the long–term deficits found in key areas of the brain (such as hippocampal structure and function) (31,32). Understanding how alcohol interacts with brain stem cells and what happens to these cells in alcoholics is the first step in establishing whether the use of stem cell therapies is an option for treatment (33).
andThe brain is the organ that is most affected by alcohol, and proves that it is being damaged through the drinker's behavior changes and emotional distress. Three noticeable effects of alcohol injury to the brain: memory loss, confusion, and augmentation. (Augmentation is a physiological response to alcohol which results in hyper-alertness to normal situations, perceiving light as brighter or sounds as louder than usual, or the drinker’s becoming extremely sad or angry for no apparent reason.) The drinker's rapid mood swings and emotional and behavioral instability can be brought under control by stopping drinking.
Blackouts, or loss of memory for a period during drinking, are a physical effect of alcohol on the brain. They occur as alcohol cuts off the supply of oxygen to the brain. Lack of oxygen supply to the brain can kill tens of thousands of brain cells every time a person becomes intoxicated.
Maybe I don't have a doctorate in history, and I'm not an intellectual tour-de-force, but that seems to me to say that alcohol does lead to cell death. Am I missing something?One effect of drinking alcohol is "blood-sludging" where the red blood cells clump together causing the small blood vessels to plug up, starve the tissues of oxygen, and cause cell death. This cell death is most serious, and often unrecognized, in the brain. With this increased pressure, capillaries break, create red eyes in the morning, or the red, blotchy skin seen on the heavy drinker's face. Blood vessels can also break in the stomach and esophagus leading to hemorrhage, even death.
Other effects of alcohol on the blood include: anemia; sedation of the bone marrow (which reduces the red and white blood count, and weakens the bone structure); lowered resistance to infection; and a decrease in the ability to fight off infections.
I'm sure the sofa doesn't feel like it's good luck...katamari Damassi wrote:I know McEwen considers her blog and tweets to be great activism, and what luck! She doesn't even have to get off the sofa. It's like they've reversed the concept of deeds over words.
I do. I'll make a sound-clip later today.bhoytony wrote:It is where I come from, but that doesn't make it definitive, maybe we should ask an Italian. Who knows?bovarchist wrote:
ps Yeah, that's pretty much the way I've heard it pronounced too. Why, is it rhymes-with-otto?
You're in for a great ride. Enjoy!AndrewV69 wrote:Just checking in. I managed to score Season One of Breaking Bad.
The opening scene for the start of the series had me going WTF is going on? Anyway, so far so good.
Laters.
Really? My first thought was "I thought that only happened to me."AndrewV69 wrote:Just checking in. I managed to score Season One of Breaking Bad.
The opening scene for the start of the series had me going WTF is going on? Anyway, so far so good.
Laters.
According to unnerving new reports, posters advocating for the rights of men have been turning up on streets in Saskatoon only one week after similar posters stirred up a controversy in Edmonton.
There have always been anti-feminists. Phyllis Schlafly for one. She's been at it for over 40 years.DownThunder wrote:Ive been curious about the phrase "anti-feminist" and its first appearances. Perhaps Andrew, who is most likely old, can help out.
Its a very all-or-nothing, us-vs-them idea. At most the posters put up by MRAs are targeting a specific claim that is made by feminists.
At least terms like "anti-vaxxer" makes sense in that vaccinations are a single topic and set of claims, but "anti-feminist" is starting to sound a lot like encouraging yoga classes is "anti-christian"....in short I get the impression that anti-feminists are a concept more likely to be an invention of feminists themselves.
Greta Christina wrote:"Have you considered the possibility that you’re treated the way you are because not being a feminist is reprehensible?"
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/ ... ent-206743
You look Chaotic Sexy in that coat.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Of note: I've always played Chaotic Evil.
Not having seen that series (yet), I'm at a bit of a loss here. :think:Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:And since we were watching Six Feet Under tonight, with the swinger party episode in season two: Yeah, have to agree. Fucking tanks, they rock!Eskarina wrote:That was an excellent show, only partly because I was lusting after McQueen. :DPhil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Other good show (although it takes the pilot + few episodes to get hooked) is the defunct Space: Above And Beyond. I can't recommend it enough to sci-fy fans.
Around the time it was aired over here, I got my first internet connection and made my first acquaintance with fanfic because of the show.
James Morrison (McQueen) Plays a swinger in that episode: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0702026/Eskarina wrote:
Not having seen that series (yet), I'm at a bit of a loss here. :think:
Maybe it's time for a change. :lol:Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:James Morrison (McQueen) Plays a swinger in that episode: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0702026/Eskarina wrote:
Not having seen that series (yet), I'm at a bit of a loss here. :think:
Metalogic: considering your avatar, I feel Chaotic Shit-scared right now. Might be just me, though...
Madalyn Murray O'Hair was male? That's news to me!Guest wrote: yes but that's meaningless when compared to the first real visible male firebrand atheist activists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair
I watched part of their "environmental activism" session, and it was much less annoying than the risowtow video. I get the impression that Chris Clarke fancies himself quite the independent field scientist though, without any need to use the methodology that other ecologists and field biologists consider SOP. He presents a lot of information and observations as facts, but it's difficult to know what is simply his observation, and what has been documented by actual field research.Badger3k wrote:Only guests right now? Crap, well, here's two posts in a row, I guess. Chris Clarke, despite the cloning of his posting and writing style, is not really a clone of PZ (unless we put on tinfoil hats and say PZ hired somebody to play him for the video...lol). His post is here.
Is it ok to do a PZ and say at first glance my first thought was "old hippie", my second was "unabomber"?
I've been rewatching Scrubs on Netflix. It's impressive when people make a surrealist slapstick comedy that is also dramatic and emotionally engaging. Amusing when they acknowledge other medical shows - "Oh, I do love Grey's Anatomy. It's like they've been watching our lives and then just put it on TV," and "Oh Perry, you are so edgy and cantankerous; like House without the limp."Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:[Scrubs], has anybody mentioned [Scrubs] yet? This show (until season 6 at least) helped me go through a period of great depression where I was considering ending my life. I still re-watch it all regularily. The Janitor is probably my favorite character, closely followed by Perry Cox.
Overall, Scrubs was excellent, and I've seen every episode courtesy Netflix. The final season, though, was an abomination and never should have happened.Apples wrote:I've been rewatching Scrubs on Netflix. It's impressive when people make a surrealist slapstick comedy that is also dramatic and emotionally engaging. Amusing when they acknowledge other medical shows - "Oh, I do love Grey's Anatomy. It's like they've been watching our lives and then just put it on TV," and "Oh Perry, you are so edgy and cantankerous; like House without the limp."Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:[Scrubs], has anybody mentioned [Scrubs] yet? This show (until season 6 at least) helped me go through a period of great depression where I was considering ending my life. I still re-watch it all regularily. The Janitor is probably my favorite character, closely followed by Perry Cox.
Sometimes when I read a welch rant I imagine it is Dr. Cox.
My contribution to the comments there:Badger3k wrote:A few good posts on people related to FfTB and SJWs by Emil Karlsson (Debunking Denialism):
The Anechoic Chamber of Greta Christina, looking at her post dealing with the Zimmerman case. He makes the same points others have made between moral and legal issues.
A good article, although I think you got a bit too speculative with regards to possible reasons for her selective application of reason, such as the death of her father.
I am a former fan who became very disappointed with the core group of FtB bloggers for many of the same reasons you are disappointed with Greta Christina. Between their willingness to brush aside skepticism whenever it is convenient for them to do so, their (including their almost cult-like following of rabid commenters) vicious treatment of anyone who – no matter how reasonably and calmly – disagrees with the proclaimed status quo, and their religiously fervent belief that they are 100% absolutely in the right when it comes to their ideas on social justice, the very name “FreethoughtBlogs†has become a stunning example of Orwellian doublespeak.
Myers, Benson, Thibeault, Zvan and Christina have completely dumped skepticism and reason in favor of emotionally charged social justice dogma, yet continue to associate their irrational tactics and behavior with the concepts of skepticism and reason because of the atheo-skeptic community they’re trying to influence. I don’t know what’s worse – the fact that these people do what they do, or the fact so many people in the community eagerly dump their own skepticism and reason in order to follow these ideologues.
Looking at what is going on at FreethoughtBlogs, some lessons can be learned. First, it can be seen that it doesn’t take religion for people to act in dogmatic and cultish ways. Second, it’s clear that being an atheist does not make you any smarter or less susceptible to B.S. than theists. And third, the FtB debacle has shown that many self-described “skeptics†have very little idea what skepticism actually is – which you so effectively demonstrated with your above post. Skepticism is hard, because you can’t just be skeptical about easy targets like Bigfoot and homeopathy – you have to weigh the evidence and come to logical conclusions about everything, including things that are near and dear to your heart. The core group of FtB bloggers has completely lost that ability, and it’s distressing to me that they have as much influence as they do. The final lesson learned? The atheist and skeptic communities have a long way to go. We’re not as mature as we thought we were.
Well, my previous post yesterday was taking the assumption that there was a gender gap in terms of new hiring. Which there obviously isn't according to that article. So I guess I should have mentioned that :p That said, I do think that threat narratives hurt more than they help.Skep tickle wrote:From that article:One of the commenters to the other link you posted pointed out that men are more represented at both ends of the curve in a number of areas (e.g. remedial math classes as well as high/early math achievement), however addressing the preponderance of men with low academic achievement, like addressing the preponderance of men in prison, doesn't seem to be on the radar screen of those eager, in the name of "equality", to raise the achievement & recognition of girls & women.The unbiased look at the data shows that females do as well as males in math for the first time in history, a terrific achievement. Women get more Ph.D.'s than men and not only are women hired for faculty positions as often as male counterparts, they are hired more.
Yet because the gross numbers are still less, it must still be a problem and the BBC once again spares no effort in being cultural busybodies and try to make the case with no real data at all. Hannah Richardson, BBC News education reporter, even invokes a James Bond movie with a female scientist in it from 1979 so you get the message properly framed for you...
Also like the new avatar pic. You look like you just left a series of clues in that museum to whatever nefarious scheme you're hatching.Metalogic42 wrote:You look Chaotic Sexy in that coat.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Of note: I've always played Chaotic Evil.
Interesting point. That aside though, I have a dislike of these monuments any way. Excuse me while I go all SJW for a minute, but it seems like so many large American cities have one of these(Boston's is terrific BTW). It's a monument about a European event that effected not that many Americans. Baltimore even has a Katyn Forrest massacre memorial, probably because the polish-americans said "You've got a holocaust memorial why can't we have one of our own?" Yet how many American cities have American Indian genocide memorials, or slavery memorials?GangstaDan wrote:So, did anyone see the articles about FFRF protesting a holocaust memorial with a star of david on it? That's pretty fucking retarded, given that if anything the star of david is an ethnic symbol, and moreover, jews were forced to wear it during their extermination to distinguish them on ethnic grounds. The jewish star in the context of the holocaust has nothing to do with the jewish religion and everything to do with the jewish people who were murdered by the Nazis