Periodic Table of Swearing

Old subthreads
Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15061

Post by Tigzy »

bhoytony wrote:
cunt wrote:Looks like her campaign based on nothing more substantial than chinese whispers hasn't been the great success vinegar-tits was hoping for. Obviously then, twitter people (rightly) thinking that she's an idiot will prove something.

Some good, pretty spot-on messages in there.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... -petition/
I can't believe she thinks those messages show her in a good light. They really have a twisted view of things over there...
I thought the same. Amazing lack of self-awareness on Stefunny's part. And I'm not talking about the part that juices up when Laden's in town, either.

Sorry. Guess that should have come with a trigger warning.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15062

Post by Tigzy »

Baron wrote:Sca pick "anti-woman leader" to PA - rebecca watson

http://skepchick.org/2012/10/secular-co ... nsylvania/

"Intense hatred of amy"

"Mens rights activist jv"

"Participated in gleeful bullying of jen"

"Posted addy on hate site"

"Says she brings harassment on herself"

"History of being agrresively antiwoman"

"I would never want to get involved in any way with justin vacula"

"Vacula actively driving women away"

"Utter dismissal of the concerns of feminists"

"Why does the sca dislike feminist secular activists in pa"

"Behavior that will actively drive progressive women away from the secular cause"
Interestingly, there appear to be more screencaps of JV's various doings on that page than I've ever seen delivered by Becky-Boos regarding all the 'rape-threats' and harassmentz she purports to receive.

Munkhaus
.
.
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:14 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15063

Post by Munkhaus »

Lord Lucan above!
I've avoided reading skepchick, Zvanatee and Pinocchio Thieubbult for so long... are they more insane and culty or is it just my time away?
What weirdos! And the conspiracy stuff on Watson's rag! So much strangeness.. must run away before head explodes.

bhoytony
.
.
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:56 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15064

Post by bhoytony »

Munkhaus wrote:Lord Lucan above!
I've avoided reading skepchick, Zvanatee and Pinocchio Thieubbult for so long...
Oh fuck now I've got a picture of that creature in my head. I wish my shooping skills were up to creating that image.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15065

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Pay no attention to what he says, Phil's a fucking ROCK STAR! I for one would be very interested to hear what he has to say, though to be honest he is probably the most UN-angry atheist I've come across.
Bwa! Bwabwa!! Bwabwabwa!!! Bwabwabwabwaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Thsi was today's podcast as far as I'm concerned. Still interested?

And I don't have much to say about the UN...

bhoytony
.
.
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:56 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15066

Post by bhoytony »

Can anybody come up with a picture of terrifying Zvanatee, A mythical creature with the body of a manatee and the head of an outraged, apeshit, feminist blogger?

cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15067

Post by cunt »

Got a decent source image?

bhoytony
.
.
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:56 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15068

Post by bhoytony »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: Bwa! Bwabwa!! Bwabwabwa!!! Bwabwabwabwaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Thsi was today's podcast as far as I'm concerned. Still interested?

And I don't have much to say about the UN...
You should go on the podcast. I've read enough of your stuff on here to think you'd be an interesting guest (maybe not as interesting as Bree Olsen though, she was pretty good on it and she looks better). Why not give it a go?

bhoytony
.
.
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:56 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15069

Post by bhoytony »

cunt wrote:Got a decent source image?
It's OK somebody already made the picture. Here it is, you can hardly tell it's a shoop.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5121/536 ... d060b5.jpg

bhoytony
.
.
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:56 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15070

Post by bhoytony »

Hi there guests, run along now and report back.

Struth
.
.
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:09 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15071

Post by Struth »

bhoytony wrote:
cunt wrote:Got a decent source image?
It's OK somebody already made the picture. Here it is, you can hardly tell it's a shoop.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5121/536 ... d060b5.jpg

Who's holding the mic, is that Stefunny? Shes a fatty, lol! She ate all the pies. I take it that's "masala skeptic"

John Greg
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 2669
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:05 pm
Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15072

Post by John Greg »

Stefunny's hateful petition sure has a lot of signatures.

Struth
.
.
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:09 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15073

Post by Struth »

real horrorshow wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote:
cunt wrote:I'd be really curious to know what type of person travels to these conferences and is still unable to spot blatant appeals to emotion and guilt by association fallacies.
Silent ones. Maybe they find themselves at a conference that is infested with femtheists, and they don't want to be bullied or publicly piled on. They shut up and/or leave early, I suspect.

How did the Florida conference allow themselves to be talked into bringing in so many of them? Did they actually ask the self-promoting-for-speaker-roles Secular Woman? SW offers speaker recommendations to conference organizers. Hmmm, very intere$$$ting.
Attending a conference proves only that you have the time and money to do it. It says nothing about your critical thinking skills. I'm increasingly thinking that Thunderf00t had a point when he said that conferences were irrelevant. I'll go further, I'm beginning to think they're a problem.

Look at the people who dominate the speaker lists at these things. Is it really worth anyone donating their money (or time and effort) to an organisation which is going to spend a big chunk of that cash on inviting Rebecca "I fly a lot, so I often get free upgrades" Watson to show up; deliver a presentation of re-cycled thoughts; abuse the platform to pursue her personal vendettas; and then get shit-faced in the bar?
Valid points. Very valid points. I salute you.

Struth
.
.
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:09 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15074

Post by Struth »

I live in England. Keep seeing reference to Southern Poverty Law centre w.r.t voice4men. What is it? Is it the equivalent of a searchlight magazine?

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15075

Post by Tigzy »

John Greg wrote:Stefunny's hateful petition sure has a lot of signatures.
Not bloody surprising since the whole thing has pretty much been taken up en-masse by Steffy's cohorts and blogged by them, too.

I suspect few of those signatures come from outside the FfTB/Skepchick/A+ sphere, however.

Tristan
.
.
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:29 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15076

Post by Tristan »

cunt wrote:Looks like her campaign based on nothing more substantial than chinese whispers hasn't been the great success vinegar-tits was hoping for. Obviously then, twitter people (rightly) thinking that she's an idiot will prove something.

Some good, pretty spot-on messages in there.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... -petition/
The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one:
The time and energy they put into hating is impressive. It’s a full time hobby for some, as far as I can tell.
<--- Thinks of the time and energy it takes to compose a few 140-character tweets. Then thinks of inSvanity sitting alone at her computer, carefully screencapping, cropping and meticulously arranging 45 tweets (including a few where she had to trawl through their past tweets to find something she considered suitable). Laughs.

I agree that most of what she managed to dredge up falls under spirited disagreement rather than hate. Interestingly, one of the few that would qualify as the latter is a petition entry that uses the name "Rebitcha Twatson" - a particular variant of Watson's name that I've only ever seen used by the baboons (because "Twatson" as direct analogy to "dear Dick" didn't fit their narrative, I guess). A baboon sockpuppeting because the rest of the disagreement was looking a little too reasonable, perhaps?

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15077

Post by Za-zen »

The vacula petition is a joke, apart from the numerous people signing it with piss take comments of the crazies, people like laden are muti signing it, take a look at his profile activity, how many times has he signed it now, 10? And fuckwits like staffy swan accuse pitters of obsessive behaviour?! Lol

Swan is one of the most obsessed, spiteful, projectors of her own failure to amount to anything, idiots currently declaring themselves as part of the A/S movement. Completely self absorbed in a delusional sense of importance to compensate for never actually being, important.

The A/S movement are quietly closing the door, with as little drama as they can avoid.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Not a baboon, but still.....

#15078

Post by Lsuoma »


cunt
.
.
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:06 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15079

Post by cunt »

bhoytony wrote:
cunt wrote:Got a decent source image?
It's OK somebody already made the picture. Here it is, you can hardly tell it's a shoop.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5121/536 ... d060b5.jpg
That is professional quality work.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15080

Post by Dick Strawkins »

cunt wrote:
bhoytony wrote:
cunt wrote:Got a decent source image?
It's OK somebody already made the picture. Here it is, you can hardly tell it's a shoop.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5121/536 ... d060b5.jpg
That is professional quality work.
Here's the original

http://i.imgur.com/Pm9Kc.jpg?1

ERV
Arnie Loves Me!
Arnie Loves Me!
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:57 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15081

Post by ERV »

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

http://skepticink.com/justinvacula/2012 ... -a-member/

Sulaco
.
.
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:54 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15082

Post by Sulaco »

Dick Strawkins wrote: Here's the original

http://i.imgur.com/Pm9Kc.jpg?1
Oh the Huge Svanity!

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15083

Post by Lsuoma »

Dick Strawkins wrote: http://i.imgur.com/Pm9Kc.jpg?1
Oh, the Huge Zvanity!

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15084

Post by Lsuoma »

Unexpected LULZdupe...

Mr Danksworth
.
.
Posts: 398
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:30 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15085

Post by Mr Danksworth »

ERV wrote:HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

http://skepticink.com/justinvacula/2012 ... -a-member/
[youtube]VN29X2HCKpU[/youtube]

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15086

Post by KiwiInOz »

Fucken hell. I just fucking love that motherfucker Samuel fucking L fucking Jackson.

http://www.fastcocreate.com/1681675/the ... ion-2012#1

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Zvan’s Anti-Vacula Petition

#15087

Post by Steersman »

FWIW, the following is a comment that I’ve posted (#13) over at Lousy Canuck’s place on that petition of Zvan’s since Jason, for some strange reason, seems to think that open discourse is verboten and has put me into permanent moderation.

Some of the first part is somewhat secondary, but the last half addresses one of the claims of Zvan that Justin accused Jason Thibeault of being homophobic. While I think Justin erred in his understanding that Thibeault’s statement “seemed homophobic” as I don’t think it qualifies as such, I figure that Justin’s “seems” is still a long ways from an outright accusation of homophobia:
Steersman wrote: Jason Thibeault (#7),
You think “vacuous” and “needlessly expansive” means “long.” Noted. Blatantly incorrect.
Literary attributes, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder ....
And I think most MRAs on the internet don’t give a damn about those things. The proof is in their priorities.
I can go as far as conceding that many MRAs might not be aware of those things much less give a damn about them. But “most”? That would seem to require a substantial random sample survey of a fairly large and heterogeneous population. You have one of those at your fingertips?

But I note that according to a search on the key phrase “prison rape” at the A Voice for Men site they apparently have about 8 posts on the topic and which includes one by Paul Elam:
Prison rape, due to the overwhelmingly male prison populations in western nations, also targets predominantly men and results in roughly twice as many men raped in prison each year than women raped outside of America’s prisons[9][10]. After decades of public activism by prisoner’s rights advocates, this was finally addressed this month by the Obama administration’s new guidelines aimed at reducing prison rape.
A second article here.
I am not unaware of this “retraction” which says that they aren’t unilaterally declaring MRAs universally as bigots.
You might want to let PZ know that [he has me dungeonized – as has, in effect, B&W, Almost Diamonds and now, apparently, Lousy Canuck] as he seems not to have received that memo – the perils of shooting the messenger.
You noted earlier that you don’t read Natalie Reed because she’s verbose. Well, you didn’t note it, but that coupled with this tells me as much.
Actually she writes quite well, but she could use a TL;DNR / Executive Summary section for those of us who don’t feel that the sun never sets on the FTB empire – there are, in fact, other sources of information out there – certainly much less biased ones ....
If you don’t see it, come up from the Slyme Pit once in a while for air.
Generally I find the air over there, for the above suggested reasons, to give fewer indications of mephitic mendacity .... virtually no moderation or banning and the language generally tends to be far less acrimonious than anything on FTB ... you might try it yourself ....
You might like to know Stephanie posted a link to the specific slurs by Vacula over at Ophelia’s for your edification.
Thanks – again, I didn’t otherwise know because of Benson’s and Zvan’s bans. But I took a look at Justin’s site from the link she provided and he does use the word “homophobic”. However in each case (4) it is prefixed with a “seems” or postfixed with a question mark. Doesn’t seem anything close to an outright accusation of homophobia even if his comments might be suggestive of that.

However, in passing and FWIW, I don’t recollect being at all offended – not that that would mean diddly in any case – by your “women’s vaginas” comment, although I think it was a bit of a non sequitur and find the whole argument surrounding “douchebags” to be ridiculous in the extreme. Why not, for example, call some supposed misogynist an AK47 as that too could probably be construed as “dangerous to a woman’s health” – depending, of course, on which way it was pointed and by whom.

But I certainly didn’t get any impression from that statement – a simple one of fact – that you or anyone else was arguing that gay males were going to be any more or less sympathetic to women’s or feminist arguments or positions much less have a mad-on for women as a class for that reason: maybe some do and some don’t but to argue that either response is intrinsic to homosexuality itself would seem to be a ridiculous stretch and hardly worth thinking about. Besides, everyone knows that gender is entirely a social construct in any case so nothing can be intrinsic to it. Right, Stephanie?

So I’ll concede that Justin might have belaboured the point more than was warranted, although he did ask for clarification. But I note his post was June 6 while yours was June 4 so unless he continued to keep the pot boiling long past that point I don’t see that your “troll running around telling everyone I’m a homophobe” is at all accurate or justified. In addition, while the context is not clear, I would say that Russell Blackford’s “anyone who mocks someone they’re arguing with for being gay” is very wide of the mark as I would say your comment certainly doesn’t qualify as that. Far too much hyper-sensitivity these days, methinks ....
You’re ever so skeptical, hunting for all the ... best evidence about assertions about your enemies.
As indicated I checked your two posts and didn’t see anything to justify that one point in Stephanie’s petition so figured your post was a target of opportunity to raise that question – particularly since Stephanie has her head in the sand where I’m concerned. Real classy, that; I guess asking for evidence qualifies as “saying shit about anyone on someone else’s property”. But, in passing, you might want to add a link to that site of Justin’s to those posts of yours to forestall similar queries in the future.
For mistaking free thought .... and trying to rehash a decidedly off-topic manufactroversy intended to smear me as homophobic, you’re in moderation here too.<
Start at shadows much? As indicated, you brought up the topic of Stephanie’s petition and that petition was predicated on a number of claims, one of which you seemed to be the essential author of. In which case asking for evidence at the presumed source hardly seems to qualify as a “rehash” or saying “Tell us you don’t fuck pigs”. But maybe my understanding of skepticism is overly idiosyncratic and rules for evidence only apply to the other guys ....

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15088

Post by Michael K Gray »

real horrorshow wrote:Untimely skirmishers even.
(Rolf Harris needs no apologies)

Untimely skirmishers down, sport
Untimely skirmishers down.

Keep me blogging rants cool, Curl,
Keep me blogging rants cool.
Don't go acting the fool, Curl,
Keep me blogging rants cool.
All together now!

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15089

Post by decius »

Thanks Reap, it's a good podcast judging from the two episodes I've listened to.

I would also like to see Phil and Abbie on the show.

real horrorshow
.
.
Posts: 1505
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:59 am
Location: In a band of brigands.

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15090

Post by real horrorshow »

Michael K Gray wrote:
real horrorshow wrote:Untimely skirmishers even.
(Rolf Harris needs no apologies)

Untimely skirmishers down, sport
Untimely skirmishers down.

Keep me blogging rants cool, Curl,
Keep me blogging rants cool.
Don't go acting the fool, Curl,
Keep me blogging rants cool.
All together now!
(Indeed not, I was glad when my alma mater student's union rejected the notion of naming their main hall after some po-faced politico and called it 'Rolf's')

Re-using a rejected verse:

Let me baboons go loose, Lew
Let me baboons go loose
They're of no further use, Lew
So let me baboons go loose
Altogether now!

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15091

Post by AndrewV69 »

Something for everyone here. Some quotes I think we can all benefit from are below. I think they speak for themselves, I certainly have nothing to add (at the moment).

http://therawness.com/on-awareness/
You can’t swindle and manipulate someone whose honest and who’s unattached to things and willing to lose big. The better you are at knowing your strengths and flaws, your surpluses and deficits, the better you are at recognizing when someone is trying to use them to your disadvantage.
While being brutally aware of yourself leads to becoming becoming aware about others, being able to recognize narcissistic and codependent behaviors in others doesn’t necessarily lead to awareness of one’s own narcissism and codependence. Other-awareness also doesn’t necessarily mean one will navigate social waters in a good way.

For example, some people are great at spotting narcissism and codependency in others but suck at spotting it in themselves, so they still end up getting sucked into games, having their buttons pushed, manipulating and getting manipulated, etc. They just focus on countermanipulating twice as hard and outdominating others. If they were more self-aware, they’d learn to opt out of playing the games altogether and have more respect for their time, sanity and emotional health. Narcissists for example can be great at reading others but utterly clueless about their own issues, so they still end up causing grief to themselves and everyone close to them as a result. This is because not only are they other-focused rather than self-focused, but they primarily are focused on the flaws of others rather than their strengths,
The dangers exist not only for therapists, exorcists, and healers but for anyone who becomes preoccupied with the subject of evil. There is always the risk of contamination, one way or another. The more closely we rub shoulders with or against evil, the more likely it is that we may become evil ourselves. All scientists – even those whose work is restricted to the library or sterile laboratory – would be well advised to begin their research by reading Aldous Huxley’s The Devils of Loudon…Until we learn more through the development of a psychology of evil, there is no better work on the subject of evil contamination than this historical analysis of evil events in a seventeenth-century French town.
http://samvak.tripod.com/faq42.html
Some people adopt the role of a professional victim. In doing so, they become self-centred, devoid of empathy, abusive, and exploitative. In other words, they become narcissists. The role of “professional victims” – people whose existence and very identity rests solely and entirely on their victimhood – is well researched in victimology. It doesn’t make for a nice reading.

These victim “pros” are often more cruel, vengeful, vitriolic, lacking in compassion and violent than their abusers. They make a career of it. They identify with this role to the exclusion of all else. It is a danger to be avoided. And this is precisely what I call “Narcissistic Contagion” or “Narcissism by Proxy”.

The affected entertain the (false) notion that they can compartmentalize their narcissistic behavior and direct it only at the narcissist. In other words, they trust in their ability to segregate their conduct and to be verbally abusive towards the narcissist while civil and compassionate with others, to act with malice where the narcissist is concerned and with Christian charity towards all others.

They cling to the “faucet theory”. They believe that they can turn on and off their negative feelings, their abusive outbursts, their vindictiveness and vengefulness, their blind rage, their non-discriminating judgment. This, of course, is untrue. These behaviors spill over into daily transactions with innocent neighbors, colleagues, family members, co-workers, or customers.

One cannot be partly or temporarily vindictive and judgmental any more than one can be partly or temporarily pregnant. To their horror, these victims discover that they have been transmuted and transformed into their worst nightmare: into a narcissist.

They find out the hard way that narcissism is contagious and many victims tend to become narcissists themselves: malevolent, vicious, lacking empathy, egotistical, exploitative, violent and abusive.
Tor MRAs and their ilk like myself he has this to say:
You see this all the time with blogs that fight against radical feminism. They self-identify as victims, and get the narcissistic contagion dynamic that Vaknin describes of. Then they dedicate all their time to studying the evils of radical feminism and end up behaving like the exact radical people they decry. For example, I notice on any blog that obsesses over female shaming language and deconstructing how it works, the writers and readers of those blogs engage in the most egregious of shaming language themselves: calling people they disagree with feminine, beta, manginas, losers, bitter, fatties, or whatever other ad hominem attack they can muster. The websites are full of shrillness, emotional reasoning over intellectual reasoning, witch hunts, cliquishness, shouting down disagreement rather than intellectually engaging it, and looking for ways to “beat” the other side.

They’re focused too much on spotting and deconstructing the evil in radical feminists and finding enemies to beat in order to feel good and project their shame and not enough on studying and deconstructing good. Even when they try to find what’s good, they do it in a zero-sum way that still ends up indirectly pointing out the evil in others. For example they’ll say, “Here’s what’s good about men, and since women can’t do that, they suck and are useless.” Racists online often do the same thing, pointing out what’s good about being white primarily as a way to shame nonwhites for supposed inferiority.

This goes for anything: if you focus on just evils and flaws of others, you will end up “catching” the same evil. Emotions and mindsets are contagious.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15092

Post by Michael K Gray »

Richard Dawkins spoke at the recent pommy National Secular Society meeting, in which he explained why ridicule should be used to further the atheist "cause".
He has several "goes" at Pope P Plait, and
there are some websites which we are all familiar with, that I wouldn't touch with a barge-pole now:- because of their really horrible language. Its not satirical ridicule. Its not witty. Its just plain obscenity.
Now, what can he be referring to?!?

Pod Delusion recorded it here.
Dawkins' speech starts at the 26:11 mark 'till the 33:25 mark.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15093

Post by KiwiInOz »

decius wrote:Thanks Reap, it's a good podcast judging from the two episodes I've listened to.

I would also like to see Phil and Abbie on the show.
Hear, hear.

And Press Ganging is an option if they don't come willingly.

http://janeaustensworld.files.wordpress ... s-gang.jpg

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Zvan’s Anti-Vacula Petition

#15094

Post by AndrewV69 »

Steersman wrote:
Steersman wrote: Jason Thibeault (#7),
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Lousy Canuk considers himself a MRA, though I do not recall the exact context.

Just saying.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15095

Post by Michael K Gray »

AndrewV69 wrote:Something for everyone here. Some quotes I think we can all benefit from are below. I think they speak for themselves, I certainly have nothing to add (at the moment).
http://therawness.com/on-awareness/
The dangers exist not only for therapists, exorcists, and healers but for anyone who becomes preoccupied with the subject of evil. There is always the risk of contamination, one way or another...
Magical thinking!! That "evil" is an independent thing, like a bacterium!
If they "think" in such a superstitious way, and publicise it, I consider their opinions on any subject as being bogus.
AndrewV69 wrote:
http://samvak.tripod.com/faq42.html
...
This goes for anything: if you focus on just evils and flaws of others, you will end up “catching” the same evil. Emotions and mindsets are contagious.
How bloody ironic!
He just spent the last 5 paragraphs doing exactly what he advises others not to do!
Was this written by Matt Dillahunty?

Badger3k
.
.
Posts: 3466
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15096

Post by Badger3k »

ERV wrote:HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

http://skepticink.com/justinvacula/2012 ... -a-member/

Well, you know that Secular Woman is for the chill girls and gender traitors. He'll fit right in.

As an aside, I did hear the rep from then on the A-news podcast Justin was on, and it made me feel better about their aims. I also added that podcast to my list (as well as the Ardent Atheist and Angry Atheist), from recommendations here.

Steve Gibson

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15097

Post by Steve Gibson »

http://www.change.org/petitions/atheist ... -minnesota

THE COMMUNITY HAS TO ACT TO REMOVE THESE BULLIES...

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15098

Post by rayshul »

AndrewV69 wrote:Tor MRAs and their ilk like myself he has this to say:
You see this all the time with blogs that fight against radical feminism. They self-identify as victims, and get the narcissistic contagion dynamic that Vaknin describes of. Then they dedicate all their time to studying the evils of radical feminism and end up behaving like the exact radical people they decry. For example, I notice on any blog that obsesses over female shaming language and deconstructing how it works, the writers and readers of those blogs engage in the most egregious of shaming language themselves: calling people they disagree with feminine, beta, manginas, losers, bitter, fatties, or whatever other ad hominem attack they can muster. The websites are full of shrillness, emotional reasoning over intellectual reasoning, witch hunts, cliquishness, shouting down disagreement rather than intellectually engaging it, and looking for ways to “beat” the other side.

They’re focused too much on spotting and deconstructing the evil in radical feminists and finding enemies to beat in order to feel good and project their shame and not enough on studying and deconstructing good. Even when they try to find what’s good, they do it in a zero-sum way that still ends up indirectly pointing out the evil in others. For example they’ll say, “Here’s what’s good about men, and since women can’t do that, they suck and are useless.” Racists online often do the same thing, pointing out what’s good about being white primarily as a way to shame nonwhites for supposed inferiority.

This goes for anything: if you focus on just evils and flaws of others, you will end up “catching” the same evil. Emotions and mindsets are contagious.
Quite like that quote. Applies to everything, really. I assume the reason that the Slimepit doesn't wind up an actual slime pit is because none of us are on the same side. (Feminists mingling with MRAs, who'd've thought it.) Lots of problems trying to goad the slimepit into action or "take a stand".

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15099

Post by rayshul »

Steve Gibson wrote:http://www.change.org/petitions/atheist ... -minnesota

THE COMMUNITY HAS TO ACT TO REMOVE THESE BULLIES...
I feel like if there are enough wild-ass petitions out there, change.org may rethink its policy of letting any old ninny with an axe to grind to set up a petition.

CommanderTuvok
.
.
Posts: 3744
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15100

Post by CommanderTuvok »

Isn't it funny how it went quiet really quickly on the issue of the "Skeptics In The Pub' sexist.

I still think the Baboon Narrative Department put out a immediate D-Notice (ie ban on the press from reporting it) to all followers because it is somebody seen as a close ally of Watson, Skepchick and the Baboons.

When it is an enemy of the Baboons, the "rumours" have a habit of persisting for some reason.

CommanderTuvok
.
.
Posts: 3744
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15101

Post by CommanderTuvok »

Michael K Gray wrote:Richard Dawkins spoke at the recent pommy National Secular Society meeting, in which he explained why ridicule should be used to further the atheist "cause".
He has several "goes" at Pope P Plait, and
there are some websites which we are all familiar with, that I wouldn't touch with a barge-pole now:- because of their really horrible language. Its not satirical ridicule. Its not witty. Its just plain obscenity.
Now, what can he be referring to?!?

Pod Delusion recorded it here.
Dawkins' speech starts at the 26:11 mark 'till the 33:25 mark.
Lolz. I'm amazed none of the Baboons have launched a huge blog post detailing how snarky and awful this is from Dawkins. I mean, actually rebutting one of the Baboons with reasoned argument and a bit of light wit. These are the same folk who write up blog posts on the basis that something Dawkins tweets something that is vaguely construed as a dig at them.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15102

Post by Steersman »

rayshul wrote:
Steve Gibson wrote:http://www.change.org/petitions/atheist ... -minnesota

THE COMMUNITY HAS TO ACT TO REMOVE THESE BULLIES...
I feel like if there are enough wild-ass petitions out there, change.org may rethink its policy of letting any old ninny with an axe to grind to set up a petition.
Agreed. Really not impressed with the fact that Zvan’s petition seems to be based on very questionable claims, to say the least.

Although maybe assessing the credibility of the various claims is not their role which is maybe only to “express the will of the people” …. So to speak, although “mobs” might be more accurate …

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Zvan’s Anti-Vacula Petition

#15103

Post by Steersman »

AndrewV69 wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Steersman wrote: Jason Thibeault (#7),
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Lousy Canuk considers himself a MRA, though I do not recall the exact context.

Just saying.
It was a post of his in that same thread – most recently anyway:
I think personally that it’s slightly more nuanced than that — you might recall on the CONvergence “Don’t Feed the Trolls” panel that I pointed out that there are real MRAs, who actually give a damn about mens’ rights. I’m one of them. It’s possible to care about men’s rights and realize that the disadvantages come from the same damn rigid gender roles and patriarchy and shitty rape laws.
However the article he linked to in it gives some indication that his support for men’s rights might be somewhat compromised by his somewhat uncritical acceptance of feminism. Though he also in a later comment references some of the discussions on the more problematic dimensions of the latter. Haven’t read them all yet, but shooting from the hip, my impression of Zinnia Jones’ post is that feminist ideology is much like communism and psychology: lots of pseudoscience and just-so stories with some very questionable correlations with actual reality – probably a large part of the reason why there are so many different “sects” in all three ….

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15104

Post by AndrewV69 »

Michael K Gray wrote:How bloody ironic!
He just spent the last 5 paragraphs doing exactly what he advises others not to do!
Was this written by Matt Dillahunty?
Oh dear no sir! This chap is a member of the [cue scary music] "manosphere".

I suggest you read the whole thing. But if you are put off by his concept of "evil" perhaps you could substitute your own.

(I have an internal translate table which substitutes the christian concept of evil into a different symbol from the one they nominally use, or at least my concept(s) of it.)

Badger3k
.
.
Posts: 3466
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15105

Post by Badger3k »

rayshul wrote:
Steve Gibson wrote:http://www.change.org/petitions/atheist ... -minnesota

THE COMMUNITY HAS TO ACT TO REMOVE THESE BULLIES...
I feel like if there are enough wild-ass petitions out there, change.org may rethink its policy of letting any old ninny with an axe to grind to set up a petition.
We could set up a petition to get them to change the policy. :D

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15106

Post by AndrewV69 »

rayshul wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote: This goes for anything: if you focus on just evils and flaws of others, you will end up “catching” the same evil. Emotions and mindsets are contagious.
Aye, I took that as a reminder to not become what you fight. PeeZuss and the baboons are a particularly pathetic example.
rayshul wrote: Quite like that quote. Applies to everything, really. I assume the reason that the Slimepit doesn't wind up an actual slime pit is because none of us are on the same side. (Feminists mingling with MRAs, who'd've thought it.) Lots of problems trying to goad the slimepit into action or "take a stand".
I generally do not have issues with the "equity" feminists myself. I have no use for the RadFems, Femtheists and their parrots. I strongly suspect that within the next 200 years, future generations of women are going to bitterly curse them, instead of just being generally unhappy.

I recommend you read this for the entertainment value of seeing for yourself the amazing amout of tap dancing on display:
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/P ... ine%29.pdf

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Zvan’s Anti-Vacula Petition

#15107

Post by AndrewV69 »

Steersman wrote: However the article he linked to in it gives some indication that his support for men’s rights might be somewhat compromised by his somewhat uncritical acceptance of feminism.
Haha! I am going to leave it to you to discover for yourself just how bright our laddie is.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15108

Post by Steersman »

sacha wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2012 6:55 pm
Scented Nectar wrote: Bingo! You've hit the nail on the head. It's to the point where they try to convince themselves and others that they are still sexually attractive by making up come-on stories...

Aging is a fact of life. The older you get, the less sexually attractive you are in general (yeah, I know there's exceptions). My goal in life has always been to get to a happy but very old age. That means seeing my sexual attractiveness lessen until at some wrinkley point it will just be gone for good. People who fight aging are fighting a battle you can't win unless you die early.
.....
So at least until they are over 30, women have it so easy they do not need to make the slightest effort, they do not need to be the one who has the courage to approach a person that interests them, they do not need to think of something interesting to say, in order to have the person bother to listen, they do not need to be able to make the person laugh (see Hitch's Why Women Aren't Funny) to get their attention and focus (and smile). They do not need to go through being rejected rudely or being ignored over and over again to the point their self-esteem is nil. They do not exert an enormous amount of effort trying to please them, and feel the attraction is reciprocated when they are able to get their full attention for hours, only to be told at the end of the night they just want to be friends. They do not have to worry about how to go from mutual flirting to sex without offending them... I could go on and on...
Apart from a bit of a quibble that you’re generalizing there, that you’re ascribing a set of attributes of some women to all women, I think that is quite a sympathetic portrait of the experiences of many men.

However, there is another dimension to that second side of the coin which is just a shade more problematic. For instance, I happened to run across this YouTube video on The Effects of Emasculation – possibly through a post by AVfM or by WBB – which amplified or was at least consistent with your argument. However, the following point suggests that there might be a fly or two in that ointment:

http://i48.tinypic.com/1zcpa9e.jpg

Apart from suggesting a rather twisted definition of masculinity it sure seems to me that that is tantamount to some sort of an antediluvian attitude that a woman’s destiny is the proverbial “barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen”. Really can’t see that getting very much traction with many women, particularly any feminists nor with any “gender traitors” unless I’m very much mistaken about their perspectives and values.

Further evidence, I think, that there are some serious crazies on both sides of the related questions and that a case-by-case analysis is generally preferable to any categorical condemnation or statement of allegiance ….

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15109

Post by AndrewV69 »

Steersman wrote: Apart from suggesting a rather twisted definition of masculinity it sure seems to me that that is tantamount to some sort of an antediluvian attitude that a woman’s destiny is the proverbial “barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen”. Really can’t see that getting very much traction with many women, particularly any feminists nor with any “gender traitors” unless I’m very much mistaken about their perspectives and values.
That was the norm not too long ago. Amazing social changes can happen in a relatively short period of time. It would also be an error to think that the current social mores will remain static. I for one see some pretty radical ones ahead even as we ease into the current ones.
Steersman wrote: Further evidence, I think, that there are some serious crazies on both sides of the related questions and that a case-by-case analysis is generally preferable to any categorical condemnation or statement of allegiance ….
If what I suspect is coming, our current crop of crazies are going to look sane by comparison.

[youtube]pwNKyTktDIE[/youtube]

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15110

Post by Steersman »

AndrewV69 wrote:
Steersman wrote: ....
Further evidence, I think, that there are some serious crazies on both sides of the related questions and that a case-by-case analysis is generally preferable to any categorical condemnation or statement of allegiance ….
If what I suspect is coming, our current crop of crazies are going to look sane by comparison.
An echo or foreshadowing of that ancient Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times? ….

But I have to admit that the shenanigans of “Lord Setar” and Richard Carrier and even Jason Thibeault, among others, betray a problematic level of intolerance and sympathy for “the end justifies the means” type of philosophies that does not bode well …

Reap
.
.
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:27 pm
Location: Reno Nevada
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15111

Post by Reap »

Here's the result of my conversation with SPACklick.

http://angryatheist.info/?p=921

I added Phil to my skype so he will probably be next up and I had already invited ERV in a PM ....no reply yet.

masakari2012
.
.
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15112

Post by masakari2012 »

As for that Steffy Zvan petition, the word "his" needs to be changed to "her", and perhaps it could include how Steffy sent Ryan Grant Long a fb friend's request, while at the time he was unaware of who she was. During that time, Greta blogged about RGL, and people were accusing RGL via PMs of wanting to kick women in the cunt (a false assertion which was started by Ophelia). RGL wrote a sarcastic response on his fb wall, and Steffy Zvan screen capped it, then blogged about it out of context.

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15113

Post by AndrewV69 »

This is what the current situation is in North America, and this is what happened to Queeen Bee:
http://www.theuniversityofman.com/stora ... 6320480948

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15114

Post by Steersman »

AndrewV69 wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2012 12:18 pm
Steersman wrote: Cannibalism might well have a “heritable genetic basis” too. The question, I think, is whether any particular behaviour pattern, with or without a genetic basis, leads to an accurate and truthful handle on what is real. And unless you can prove that religion does that then I think you’re going to have a tough sale.
The Catholics still openly practise ritual cannibalism, albeit in symbolic form and I have never noticed anyone objecting. Possibly because they have subsumed it into a socially acceptable manner. My viewpoint is merely that the expression of that trait has been subsumed into a ritual unremarked by all and sundry in the main.
My point wasn’t specifically related to cannibalism itself, only that there are probably a great many behaviour patterns that have a genetic basis without that necessarily meaning that any one of them is or is not particularly beneficial for the survival of either the individual or the species. And a tendency to believe in things for which there is not the smallest shred of tangible evidence – and in spite of a great amount of circumstantial evidence against them – really doesn’t seem to qualify as “beneficial”.

Apropos of which, I picked up a copy of Michael Shermer’s The Believing Brain at the library the other day and while I don’t have many “money quotes” at my fingertips yet, it seems the whole thrust of his argument is that our genetics and neuroscience and evolutionary history have all contributed to our tendency to hold irrational beliefs of one sort or another. And not knowing something of “what’s under the hood” tends to make it rather difficult to counteract some of those pathologies of thinking and believing.
In any event, my attitude is such that generally I do not sell. What I do is present my case (and this is the peculiar part) with relative indifference as to the outcome. My attitude is generally you have made an informed decision, and it is your problem not mine if you reject my findings.
Apart from wondering just what it is that is the essence of your case, what it is that you’re trying to sell, particularly as I think you mentioned you were atheist in our discussions about Islamic Awakening, it seems to me that that problem is such for me only if what you say is in fact true. But it seems to me that the crux of your argument is the “heritability of religion” which I think is too vague and unsupported to properly assess. Generally, it would appear that you’re conflating the mechanisms by which we come to believe what we do believe with precisely what, in itself, it is that we do believe. The former I’ll readily concede is very much a function of biological evolutionary processes including inheritance, at least for the sake of argument, but I’ll argue that the truth and value of the latter is very much of an open question: two entirely different kettles of fish.
The theory about homosexuality is my own supposition and my view about the heritability of religion I consider a "no-brainier".
As indicated I’ll agree that the machinery of our “believing brains” is definitely a question of at least biological inheritance, in large measure in any case. And I expect that homosexuality is probably undergirded with a very large component of “genetic determininism”.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15115

Post by rayshul »

AndrewV69 wrote:I generally do not have issues with the "equity" feminists myself. I have no use for the RadFems, Femtheists and their parrots. I strongly suspect that within the next 200 years, future generations of women are going to bitterly curse them, instead of just being generally unhappy.
I think feminism as a concept peaked with equity feminists. It has a lot of crossover with the MRM as far as I can see.
Steersman wrote:Further evidence, I think, that there are some serious crazies on both sides of the related questions and that a case-by-case analysis is generally preferable to any categorical condemnation or statement of allegiance ….
Happy to live by that.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15116

Post by rayshul »

AndrewV69 wrote:This is what the current situation is in North America, and this is what happened to Queeen Bee:
http://www.theuniversityofman.com/stora ... 6320480948
Hahaha. That's hilariously true. Not as old as Queen Bee, though (just). Shit though, my husband is about to enter the player zone...

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15117

Post by rayshul »

CommanderTuvok wrote:Isn't it funny how it went quiet really quickly on the issue of the "Skeptics In The Pub' sexist.

I still think the Baboon Narrative Department put out a immediate D-Notice (ie ban on the press from reporting it) to all followers because it is somebody seen as a close ally of Watson, Skepchick and the Baboons.

When it is an enemy of the Baboons, the "rumours" have a habit of persisting for some reason.
That *is* interesting. Has anyone got any updates on that? I didn't notice it was quashed quickly but... it really was. And commentary seems to be almost entirely outside FtB and Skepchick. (Ophelia did pick it up I think... but I don't visit her blog/safespace so I'm not going to read it beyond the blurb via Google.)
Badger3k wrote:
rayshul wrote:
Steve Gibson wrote:http://www.change.org/petitions/atheist ... -minnesota

THE COMMUNITY HAS TO ACT TO REMOVE THESE BULLIES...
I feel like if there are enough wild-ass petitions out there, change.org may rethink its policy of letting any old ninny with an axe to grind to set up a petition.
We could set up a petition to get them to change the policy. :D
Set it up and I'll sign it. I wonder if a lot of shitty FtBers would be signing too. Fuck petitions in the atheism community, whether they're fucking RW or PZ or JV. It oculd bring the community TOGETHER for once. Hahahah.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Phonyringtonelala $$--??

#15118

Post by Michael K Gray »

Oh dear!
Another revenue stream for Myers dries up.
'''<- crocodile tears.
http://www.michaelgray.com.au/Resources/Revenue--.png

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: summary of events

#15119

Post by sacha »

Scented Nectar wrote:
AKAHorace wrote:Wait, Jason is claiming that Justin Vacula gave out Surly Amy's home address ? Is this true ?
Background: Justin got DMCA'd by Amy for showing a pic of her necklace in an article about her (considered Fair Use as far as copyrights go). He appealed it, and that process requires him giving out his own real name/address. The next step would have been for her to file legal papers where her name/address would get revealed.

So, they accused Justin, saying that he was appealing just to find out Amy's address. He said no, that wouldn't be necessary since Amy has already made her own address public on a business listings website. To prove it, he showed the listing that Amy herself had made public. When he copied it here to the Slimepit, they suddenly accused him of docdropping, said Amy has to move now, and then they proceeded to docdrop Justin, who's info was NOT listed publicly the way Amy's was.

They know the real story and that Justin never docdropped Amy, but they are cherry picking just his copying of it to the Slimepit, to make it look like he did.
That was an excellent summary, SN.

I think we need to begin to bookmark explanations and background of specific "events" that have been discussed here at length.

When the conversation about the situation is finally at rest, and we have moved on, someone new, or someone who was not reading here at the time of the incident, brings it up and either comments without any knowledge, or more commonly asks about it.
It would be nice to have a list of links we could access that explain all of the incidents that have been spoken about at length, and instead of repeating, and perhaps forgetting something, or responding quickly without all the background, because it is just more repetition for us, we could just give them a few links to read, which will at least get them up to date with what was said about it here.

I really can't be arsed to explain (or correct) the details to anyone any longer, even though I would like them to know. I would need to go back and research to make sure I did not remember something incorrectly, and that I am including all of the relevant information, which is far too much work to do for someone else.

The information is all here or in the ERV archives, but I do understand that it is a lot to wade through in order to find what one is looking for, even when one has read every comment since the beginning. The way around this, is to have a summary like SN wrote here, for every incident we can think of, and put them all in one place, and they can look up more detail if they choose to, or the other option is to begin to make a list of a few detailed comments for each topic from the time it was first discussed here, that are self-explanatory, and enough to get an clear idea of what transpired. I wish someone had thought of that way back in the beginning at ERV, but I don't think any of us expected this many people to join in on the Slime Pit conversation back then. At least I did not consider that.

The person who seems to have the most patience for going back, finding the relevant information, quoting what was said, documenting the link to each relevant comment, and then explaining the history clearly and rather thoroughly, even though this is the second or third, or fourth time he has had to explain it, is Justi.

and since I would not hold my breath for his return, nor would I expect he would want to be responsible for an essay or video on every bloody incident, perhaps those that have the time and patience would be willing to choose just one topic each. I think many of us would be willing to help find links, or help to write the summary.

There have been many times that a debate, or heated argument has ensued, and quite often we do not agree on numerous things like intent, or appropriate action, or reaction. For fuck sake CK is STILL being argued over here on occasion, and back at the original Slime Pit something which will not be named, (please, I beg you. Let it lie. If someone just HAS to know, they can ask someone, not me, who was there at the time in a private message, then do a search, and then keep it to themselves) caused a similar endless argument that went on for what seemed to be an eternity, and it would never have been put to rest without an enormous amount of effort from numerous people to just move on.

The best way around that is to just relay the facts with the equivalent of an online poker face. No spin, no propaganda, no opinions, no emotions. Just a summary of events to access when needed.
A derail the discussion here in order to get someone up to date is annoying enough, but then to have them respond with their opinions, feelings on the matter, if they approve, and expect a complete dissection of every facet to be discussed and debated here for the second, or third time is a bloody tedious bore.
They can go back and read all of our comments on the subject and they can have their fucking repeat, broken record conversation with themselves, or with whomever they choose, as long as it is away from here.
Please go talk about it until everyone involved is annoyed and exhausted, go ahead, enjoy yourselves, but do not assume everyone wants to participate or be a spectator. (Hi Spectator! You are always a pleasure)
It is the very worst type of derail. Expecting everyone to be patient and quiet, while they discuss every little thing in detail, and have the same disagreements and arguments, because they missed the conversation the first time.
It is self-absorbed behaviour.

It is only going to get more difficult, as we are already 15110 comments just since July, and more new commenters regularly.
Let me make it clear. I welcome new people, I do not mind at all if a question is asked about something they missed. If there was a list of links that summerised some drama, I would be more than happy to look at the list until I found the relevant links, and respond politely with the linked information. It is not inquires that are the problem. Questions are more than welcome, and I see the majority of those that missed something, doing just that..

If you were home sick that day, or just moved to the neighbourhood, you will be given everything you need in order to catch up with the rest of the class. Think of it as homework. If you want time to discuss it with the teacher, you need to wait until after school. If another classmate is willing to take the time to help you, it has to be done elsewhere, so the other children are able to move forward.

and for the new people that don't know me, yes, I am a cunt...

but I can also take it as well as give it.

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#15120

Post by AndrewV69 »

Steersman wrote:Apart from wondering just what it is that is the essence of your case, what it is that you’re trying to sell, particularly as I think you mentioned you were atheist in our discussions about Islamic Awakening, it seems to me that that problem is such for me only if what you say is in fact true. But it seems to me that the crux of your argument is the “heritability of religion” which I think is too vague and unsupported to properly assess.
The proper term is Heritability of religiosity my apologies for any confusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity
Religiosity, in its broadest sense, is a comprehensive sociological term used to refer to the numerous aspects of religious activity, dedication, and belief (religious doctrine). Another term that would work equally well, though is less often used, is religiousness. In its narrowest sense, religiosity deals more with how religious a person is, and less with how a person is religious (in practicing certain rituals, retelling certain stories, revering certain symbols, or accepting certain doctrines about deities and afterlife).
I would have thought this was non-controversial but apparently not. Some light reading for you:

Genes contribute to religious inclination
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7147
Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person's socialisation - or "nurture". But more recent studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggest genes contribute about 40% of the variability in a person's religiousness.
Twins Study Finds Adult Religiosity Heritable
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002666.html
A study published in the current issue of Journal of Personality studied adult male monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins to find that difference in religiousness are influenced by both genes and environment. But during the transition from adolescence to adulthood, genetic factors increase in importance while shared environmental factors decrease. Environmental factors (i.e. parenting and family life) influence a child’s religiousness, but their effects decline with the transition into adulthood. An analysis of self-reported religiousness showed that MZ twins maintained their religious similarity over time, while the DZ twins became more dissimilar. “These correlations suggest low genetic and high environmental influences when the twins were young but a larger genetic influence as the twins age” the authors state
.

Razib has a few comments here, including at least one method of selection for religiosity.

Heritability of religiosity
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... ligiosity/
In Bouchard’s “twins raised apart” studies he found about a 0.5 heritability. In any case, remember what heritability is: The proportion of population level variance attributable to genetic variance. Why does environmental variance become so much less important once you leave adolescence? Take a guess….
Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
I am going a bit off the beaten track but I thought some might be interested. The article he mentions as "below" is here:

You’re either with us, or against us….
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... gainst-us/
How has your post-T-day been if you are a citizen of the Greatest Nation in the World?TM Wow, I woke up this morning to a flare up in the Ed vs. PZ battle here on SB and elsewhere. Bora has the most most thorough round up of links, which can be reduced to theistic-evolutionists-are-sell-outs vs. theistic-evolutionists-are-OK-by-me.
... the above quote is in reference to our very own PeeZuss and this was back in 2006. See this link below which links to what started this. However, before you go down there, you should know in advance that there are a gazillion billion trillion words involved. Just saying.

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/11/24/i-like-mms/
Ed Brayton starts out here and responds to criticisms here.
Finally, last but not least you may want to consider this:

Beware Heritable Beliefs
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/11/b ... itabl.html
Genetic differences explained most of differences in attitudes to life and equality (66% and 55% of the variance respectively), but none (0%) of the attitudes to intellect and punishment.

Thus your differing attitudes on abortion, birth control, immigrants, gender roles, and race are mostly due to your genes, while your attitudes toward education, capitalism and punishment are due to your life experiences.
Unfortunately the link to the paper he references has moved also. I wanted to read it because he omitted the part about religion in his summary. So it looks as if both APA and Wileys have reorganized and I can not be arsed to see if the papers have been recataloged right now.

Anyway, do a search on Heritability of religiosity and see for yourself. As far as I am concerned the general consensus is that the sky is blue, and that is good enough for me. It may not be for you, but that is your look out.

And of course, YMMV.

Locked