Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

Old subthreads
Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12961

Post by Mykeru »

Ah, shit:
That's really the end of an era. I remember BartCop back in the day when he was a lone voice railing against the Clinton Impeachment and then the Unimpeached Bush administration.

Guy had a no bullshit, take-no-prisoners, civility-is-for-people-with-something-to-spin style that influenced a generation of assholes like me.

zenbabe
.
.
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 6:51 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12962

Post by zenbabe »

Mykeru wrote:
zenbabe wrote:Fuck you Mykeru I am not clicking that I am not!
You will. And you will thank me.
I clicked and feel all soft now.
Thanks Cnut.

TedDahlberg
.
.
Posts: 1111
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 1:08 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12963

Post by TedDahlberg »

piginthecity wrote:We don't want to fight ... but By Jingo ! if we do ..
We've got the men*, we've got the ships**, we've got the money too !
We've fought the Bear before, and while Britons*** still are true ..
The Russians Shall Not Have Constantinople !


( *American Men, **American Ships, *** please insert 'and Americans')
"When dragons belch and hippos flee
My thoughts, Ankh-Morpork, are of thee
Let others boast of martial dash
For we have boldly fought with cash
We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes
We own all your generals - touch us and you'll lose.

Morporkia! Morporkia!
Morporkia owns the day!
We can rule you wholesale
Touch us and you'll pay.

We bankrupt all invaders, we sell them souvenirs
We ner ner ner ner ner, hner ner hner by the ears
Er hner we ner ner ner ner ner
Ner ner her ner ner ner hner the ner
Er ner ner hner ner, nher hner ner ner (etc.)
Ner hner ner, your gleaming swords
We mortgaged to the hilt

Morporkia! Morporkia!
Hner ner ner ner ner ner
We can rule you wholesale
Credit where it's due."

John D
.
.
Posts: 5966
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12964

Post by John D »

PZ, Ophie, Watson, etc., are really burning every atheist and secualist who does not subscribe to their super-liberal, fembot kind of mad political philosophy. Everyone at AA, or the Secular Coalition, or Randi Foundation, or Skeptics Magazine, etc. must really despise the PZ and company bunch of drama whores.

Y'all do remember when PZ was maned as "Humanist of the Year" by the American Humanist Assoc. Haha. PZ is even getting to be too rad-liberal for AHA.... I hope AHA gives him and the rest of the rad-fems the boot. I will be the first one to give them a good kick out of the door. Please...please....please....

http://imgur.com/05oL4eA.jpg

John D
.
.
Posts: 5966
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12965

Post by John D »

Haha. And just as I wax on about Humanism and PZ and conservatism, the Humanist publishes this. Yes.... there will be more open conservatives claiming to be atheists once religion loses its grip on the Republican party. I feel it happening now.... and just wait till a Libertarian comes right out and says they are an atheist. It will happen... all the Libertarians I know personally are atheists.
http://thehumanist.com/commentary/wait- ... nservative

katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5429
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12966

Post by katamari Damassi »

SkepticalCat wrote:
JackSkeptic wrote:Has anyone got PTSD from posting here?
Not from posting, but from viewing - when I run across photos of tarantula-filled toilets and so forth. Guys, don't do that! :naughty:
While I don't have PTSD myself, I can totally sympathize with people who do, like melody Hensley, as I was once disappointed in a Xmas present I received.

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

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12967

Post by AndrewV69 »

Good news everyone!

California To Consider Standard of Affirmative Sexual Consent
A bill has just been introduced in the California legislature that would establish statewide standards for colleges and universities in dealing with complaints of sexual assault.
...
Highlighting the need for a culture change, Senator Kevin de Leόn and Legislative Women’s Caucus Chair and Vice Chair, Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal and Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson announced Senate Bill 967 which will require California colleges and universities to address campus sexual violence by requiring them to adopt consistent victim-centered sexual assault response policies and protocols that follow best practices and professional standards.
Apparently it is known as SB 967. I was thinking to myself that this is some kind of joke. Apparently I was wrong. They are not joking.
This is a forthright step toward establishing clear standards of how colleges deal with the issue of rape and sexual assault. This applies to college administrative disciplinary proceedings. These are not criminal trails and are separate and distinct from criminal investigations and prosecutions. They are not legally required to follow the same standards of procedure and rules of evidence that apply to criminal trials. The proposed standard of a preponderance of evidence is the same as used in civil trials and is stipulated for colleges in title IX proceedings.

Whether or not this bill becomes law in its present form, it's introduction in the nation's largest state indicates that there is mounting political pressure to do something about changing the rape culture that causes a majority of victims to despair of even filing a complaint.
I am prepared to be sympathetic to those caught up in this but as far as I am concerned if you go to a University in California after this bill passes it is all on your head.

I really hope they pass this law. I am stocking up on the popcorn right now because this is not going to end well for quite a few people.

feralandproud
.
.
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:49 pm
Location: sunny motherfuckin' florida

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12968

Post by feralandproud »

Adria Richards, brave hero. Has anyone managed to get a copy of the manual these fucking martyrs are using?

katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5429
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12969

Post by katamari Damassi »

Mykeru wrote:Ah, shit:
That's really the end of an era. I remember BartCop back in the day when he was a lone voice railing against the Clinton Impeachment and then the Unimpeached Bush administration.

Guy had a no bullshit, take-no-prisoners, civility-is-for-people-with-something-to-spin style that influenced a generation of assholes like me.
Aw man... Bartcop and Media Whores Online were my first internet addictions. May 72 Shirley Mansons be awaiting him in paradise.

Sunder
.
.
Posts: 3858
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:12 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12970

Post by Sunder »

PZ is having problems with this because he has redefined atheist to mean someone for whom a lack of belief in a deity necessitates the adoption of broadly liberal values. It baffles PZ and his Horde that anyone could be an atheist and hold different values, but it doesn't baffle anyone who spends half a fucking second thinking about the problem.

PZ could try to make the case that his liberal atheism is better, but instead he's trying to argue that his atheism is the only atheism that makes sense and other people are stupid because he is smart and he says so.

What a fuckhead.

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

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12971

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Sunder wrote:PZ is having problems with this because he has redefined atheist to mean someone for whom a lack of belief in a deity necessitates the adoption of broadly liberal values. It baffles PZ and his Horde that anyone could be an atheist and hold different values, but it doesn't baffle anyone who spends half a fucking second thinking about the problem.

PZ could try to make the case that his liberal atheism is better, but instead he's trying to argue that his atheism is the only atheism that makes sense and other people are stupid because he is smart and he says so.

What a fuckhead.

I have 'broadly liberal values' - if we can take that to mean somewhat left of center views. I suspect most people on this site are in a similar quadrant of the political landscape.
I don't have "progressive" liberal values, which I take as meaning subscribing to a leftist authoritarian viewpoint that dispenses with nuance and seems ready at any moment to excommunicate anyone from the fold for holding a view that isn't explicitly approved by those in authority (those in authority meaning Peezus and his friends.)

The way that Peezus tries to argue his case is telling.
I don't think he is stupid and so the technique he uses must be intentional.
What he does is describe an aspiration of his own group - for example being in favor of ending sexual discrimination or racism - and then ties that to his political stance by labeling this view as feminist or progressive. He then describes an opposition group that has a problem with radical feminism or progressive politics and concludes that because that other group is not calling themselves feminist or progressive, they must therefore be in favor of sexist discrimination and racism.
It is a patently silly argument based on creating a strawman of his opponents views and yet he always falls back into some variation of it whenever someone opposes him.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12972

Post by another lurker »

Sunder wrote:PZ is having problems with this because he has redefined atheist to mean someone for whom a lack of belief in a deity necessitates the adoption of broadly liberal values. It baffles PZ and his Horde that anyone could be an atheist and hold different values, but it doesn't baffle anyone who spends half a fucking second thinking about the problem.

PZ could try to make the case that his liberal atheism is better, but instead he's trying to argue that his atheism is the only atheism that makes sense and other people are stupid because he is smart and he says so.

What a fuckhead.
Karl Rove is an atheist. Atheism does not make one any less superstitious, selfish or greedy. Atheists believe in bigfoot, aliens and ghosts. In fact, I don't even really believe that religion is as evil as it is made out to be. I am oversimplifying here, but religion is just a label that is slapped on groups of people (or that they slap on themselves, gives their viewpoints legitimacy) in order to try to force others to conform to their beliefs. Abolish all religion tomorrow and groups of people will be forming their own cults and then deciding that 'this is the one true way to live' and resultantly work to force the rest of society to believe the same way. I mean, just look at PZ and the horde:P

Anyways, I would rather be friends with a good Christian than an asshole atheist.

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

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12973

Post by Dick Strawkins »

I see that PZ has finally found his level.
He's accepted a challenge to debate Kent Hovind on evolution when Hovind gets out of prison.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments

:lol: :lol:

Casual Nemesis
.
.
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:14 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12974

Post by Casual Nemesis »

Dick Strawkins wrote:I see that PZ has finally found his level.
He's accepted a challenge to debate Kent Hovind on evolution when Hovind gets out of prison.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments

:lol: :lol:

Hovind has been put away for so long that he thinks PZ is still relevant? He can debate PZ right after he catches up on his favorite Scott Baio shows on VHS.

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12975

Post by Karmakin »

Mykeru wrote:Ah, shit:
That's really the end of an era. I remember BartCop back in the day when he was a lone voice railing against the Clinton Impeachment and then the Unimpeached Bush administration.

Guy had a no bullshit, take-no-prisoners, civility-is-for-people-with-something-to-spin style that influenced a generation of assholes like me.
RIP. The old cranky grandfather of the political blogosphere, and really the guy who started it all.

I was heavily into that community way back then. I helped run the chat room for it which was pretty popular. There were a few surreal nights there, the 2000 election with the follow-up recount drama and 9/11 were insane. Helped keep me sane during those times.

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

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12976

Post by bhoytony »

Parody Accountant wrote:
No joke... I've got PTSD (and Major Depressive Disorder, and Anxiety disorder, and alcoholism... and other shit like ADD) I'm going to be intentionally vague here as to the circumstances causing it. I'm in the middle of being forced out of my career because of it. My 'trauma' stems from a subject encountered rather frequently in this forum.
Thumb over neck?

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12977

Post by Gumby »

Casual Nemesis wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:I see that PZ has finally found his level.
He's accepted a challenge to debate Kent Hovind on evolution when Hovind gets out of prison.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments

:lol: :lol:

Hovind has been put away for so long that he thinks PZ is still relevant? He can debate PZ right after he catches up on his favorite Scott Baio shows on VHS.
I knew he was desperate for any kind of publicity, but I didn't know he'd sink so low as to debate that dishonest contemptible fraud.

By "he", I mean Hovind, of course.

Mykeru
.
.
Posts: 4758
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:52 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12978

Post by Mykeru »

Dick Strawkins wrote: I don't have "progressive" liberal values, which I take as meaning subscribing to a leftist authoritarian viewpoint that dispenses with nuance and seems ready at any moment to excommunicate anyone from the fold for holding a view that isn't explicitly approved by those in authority (those in authority meaning Peezus and his friends.)
I think you may be confusing "progressive" politics, another term for Social Liberalism, which emphasizes economic parity, progressive taxation, trade unions and protection of the rights of workers, health care and the like with the bullshit promoted adopted and promoted by Myers.

Myers is simply a late convert to identity politics, a dumb-assed single-case, single solution ideology that places one's self-identified membership is some (argued to be oppressed) racial or gender group in the center of all things. Which creates a kind of twisted perversion of The Euthyphro, in that nothing one does is right or wrong in itself without references to the, say the mixed race gender fluidity of the person doing it.

Also, there's bucks and speaking gigs in that bullshit. You also get to call people racists who notice.

Myers likes this sort of thing because it's a great outlet for narcissists and hypocrites. Look at Myers' rousing defense of his own "spotless record" in light of being falsely accused. Whereas the accusation made against him would be no different than the one he made against Shermer, the fact that he is P.Z. Myers makes all the difference. If he does something, then by definition it's the right thing. He can rail against economic inequity in while blogging on an airplane spending money to go hang with 20-something chicks without batting an eye.

That's not progressive. That's just Left Authoritarianism where you do what the Peez says and not what he does which, no surprise, is indistinguishable from its counterpart in "gay bathroom sex while on the way to a conference promoting the Biblical view of marriage" on the right wing.

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12979

Post by Jan Steen »

BillHamp wrote:You may be right about the pub and brew, but I'm inclined to think that Jan is simply angry that I chose to criticize how evolution is explained and referred to by biologists. Rather than argue a concept, Jan simply introduces new terms. Each time I explain why the first term does not, in fact, mean what Jan thinks it does, then another concept is introduced that does not, in fact, contradict the original point, but rather supports it. I've grown tired of rebuffing ad hominems and chasing goal posts, so I have give up on Jan. I'd rather discuss a point in detail and settle the matter than react to the flailings of someone who is simply looking to "one-up" me because of injured pride. I'd happily concede if I were wrong, as E.O. Wilson did regarding kin selection (not group selection), but so far I haven't been wrong. It happens to me often enough that I know what it looks like to be wrong, I simply am not when it comes to my discussion (which devolved into an argument) with Jan.
I leave it to the readers of our little exchange to decide if the above is a fair representation of my arguments (and yours). By all means, keep on believing that evolution is defined as "a phenotypic change at the population level." Nothing wrong with that. No sirree.

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

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12980

Post by bhoytony »

zenbabe wrote:
Mykeru wrote:
zenbabe wrote:Fuck you Mykeru I am not clicking that I am not!
You will. And you will thank me.
I clicked and feel all soft now.
Thanks Cnut.
I clicked and I feel all hard now.

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12981

Post by deLurch »

Gumby wrote:
Casual Nemesis wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:I see that PZ has finally found his level.
He's accepted a challenge to debate Kent Hovind on evolution when Hovind gets out of prison.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments

:lol: :lol:

Hovind has been put away for so long that he thinks PZ is still relevant? He can debate PZ right after he catches up on his favorite Scott Baio shows on VHS.
I knew he was desperate for any kind of publicity, but I didn't know he'd sink so low as to debate that dishonest contemptible fraud.

By "he", I mean Hovind, of course.
pz myers wants to be Bill Nye. How sad. He is going to debate someone still in prison. Of all the arguments that debating creationists only benefit the creationists, this has to be a prime example of lending Kent Hovind any ounce of legitimacy. After 7 years in the klink this guy needs any help he can get to grasp at reigniting his ministry.

And of course pz myers wants to split the profits with this loon.

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

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12982

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Gumby wrote:
Casual Nemesis wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:I see that PZ has finally found his level.
He's accepted a challenge to debate Kent Hovind on evolution when Hovind gets out of prison.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... /#comments

:lol: :lol:

Hovind has been put away for so long that he thinks PZ is still relevant? He can debate PZ right after he catches up on his favorite Scott Baio shows on VHS.
I knew he was desperate for any kind of publicity, but I didn't know he'd sink so low as to debate that dishonest contemptible fraud.

By "he", I mean Hovind, of course.
:D
It almost be worth the ban to post that on Pharyngula.

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12983

Post by Git »

Gumby wrote:
another lurker wrote:fapping to deLurch's new avatar

@Gumby

Love the new pic of your spaz, she is smokin' cute here.
Yeah, she's at her kyootist when she's in my laundry basket. That load had just come out of the dryer so she was in heaven.
Many blessings of RoboKitty be upon her!

Please give her appropriate fuss from me.


windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12985

Post by windy »

BillHamp wrote:I'd happily concede if I were wrong, as E.O. Wilson did regarding kin selection (not group selection), but so far I haven't been wrong. It happens to me often enough that I know what it looks like to be wrong, I simply am not when it comes to my discussion (which devolved into an argument) with Jan.
You're wrong.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12986

Post by James Caruthers »

BillHamp wrote: You are quite right that presentation is a big part of it. There are likely a number of undiagnosed minor chromosomal issues out there that never present to a healthcare professional simply because they don't cause enough of a difference. You are also right to point out things like mosacism, etc. X-inactivation in woman can create an extremely complicated genetic environment, but usually works out to an advantage for women who do have a chromosomal abnormality. It is an inordinately complex science and one that is subject to change. HJ, however, is putting the cart before the horse when saying that sex is a social construct. Sex is a physicial distinction and though social constructs have arisen around that distinction, they are nonetheless grounded in actual biology. To argue otherwise is to not only dismiss the science, but to dismiss the fact that the biology influences the society.

If we follow HJ's theory, then creationists are fully justified in saying that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. We would have to conclude that homosexual individuals simply decided, one day, to change their sexual orientation. Of course, anyone with any knowledge of biology knows that those people have as much choice regarding their sexual orientation as they do over their height or eye color. So, HJ's theory completely undoes the work of thousands upon thousands of individuals who have fought to have their biology recognized and accepted. Arguing that sex is biological in no way is an argument that because we predominantly differentiate male/female in this speices that EVERYONE does. Quite the contrary. It is an argument that traits (which are phenotypes and not DNA squences as Jan would like to argue - http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ ... gy%29.html, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62426/) are controlled by genes and their interactions with the environment and are not anything we can think or wish away. It is, in fact, and argument that allows for a very broad range of differences if one understands biology well. Those differences, however, are physical and not social. Our social constructs are layered on top of our biology and they don't always do an adequate job of dealing with science. HJ's has a very poor understanding of biology.
[youtube]IUZEtVbJT5c[/youtube]
I think what it is, is he doesn't have an understanding based on biology, but gender studies. Which is really more a humanity, if not completely worthless propaganda. I have no problem if he wants to argue that sex is biological and gender is defined by the individual. That's the argument Judith Butler used. But even a lot of the genderqueer otherkin lesbians don't go as far as HJ. HJ, A+, Skepchick and FTB are the only social justice warrior groups I'm aware of that genuinely believe sexuality, human biological sex, is a social construct. :doh: You might find more like HJ on Tumblr I suppose, but most feminists I know IRL believe in a strict line in the sand between biological sex and gender identity.

I don't know much about biology, so I leave my understanding of biology up to the experts. By very definition, the human animal species (and we are an animal, not some special snowflake with a soul and special rules of sexuality) reproduces sexually. So that's the asexual issue done with, humans reproduce sexually. How can we be a single sex if it requires two of us in particular genital arrangements (one "male" and one "female") to reproduce? So, do we have two genders, or more than two? Well, does a five-legged cow invalidate our belief that almost 100% of cows have four legs? There are always some exceptions to the rule, but it is the rule for a reason. Even the commenters on FTB mentioned that the vast majority of individuals (97-98%) conform to a typical male or female sexuality, if not also to a male or female gender identity. And this isn't right-wing traditionalism-I'm still phrasing my words in very SJW way and differentiating sexuality from gender identity like the good SJW I am. :P

Maybe HJ believes that holding the viewpoint that a trans woman is biologically a man (rather than believing whatever ze says unconditionally) will lead to bigotry against the trans community. And it might... If you're a feminist. :dance: But that would be a shitty reason to hold a belief so plainly inaccurate, I think.

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12987

Post by Ape+lust »

Mykeru wrote:Ah, shit:
That's really the end of an era. I remember BartCop back in the day when he was a lone voice railing against the Clinton Impeachment and then the Unimpeached Bush administration.

Guy had a no bullshit, take-no-prisoners, civility-is-for-people-with-something-to-spin style that influenced a generation of assholes like me.
Aw man, I'm so sorry to hear that. Bartcop showed me 2 things: that there were more than just a few of us who were aghast at the country's ever-rightward lurch, and there were liberals who weren't weak-kneed squishes terrified of the label. I was so happy to find him.

I'll miss him. He had everything.

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

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12988

Post by AndrewV69 »

windy wrote:
BillHamp wrote:I'd happily concede if I were wrong, as E.O. Wilson did regarding kin selection (not group selection), but so far I haven't been wrong. It happens to me often enough that I know what it looks like to be wrong, I simply am not when it comes to my discussion (which devolved into an argument) with Jan.
You're wrong.
Cite?


Full disclosure:I loathe and despise Gould with every fibre of my being, but I am only somewhat dubious about some of what Wilson has to say.

Guestus Aurelius
.
.
Posts: 2118
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12989

Post by Guestus Aurelius »

James Caruthers wrote: ... I have no problem if he wants to argue that sex is biological and gender is defined by the individual. That's the argument Judith Butler used.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that Butler's written about "biological sex" being a "cultural construct." Not sure if HJ cited her, but yeah, she's out there.


Guestus Aurelius
.
.
Posts: 2118
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12991

Post by Guestus Aurelius »

The funny thing is, in a roundabout sense Butler is hitting on some truth about nature/nurture being a false dichotomy. But her conclusion that everything is nurture (culture) is exactly wrong. Culture is itself part of the biological story of our species. To the degree that environment influences our development, our value systems, our aesthetic preferences, etc.—a significant degree, to be sure—it does so within the constraints of our physiology.

Of course, that doesn't mean that culture isn't worthy studying in its own right, and it certainly doesn't mean that a reductionist approach is the best way to study it. What it does mean is that science illiteracy can lead scholars of culture astray.

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12992

Post by windy »

AndrewV69 wrote:
windy wrote:
BillHamp wrote:I'd happily concede if I were wrong, as E.O. Wilson did regarding kin selection (not group selection), but so far I haven't been wrong. It happens to me often enough that I know what it looks like to be wrong, I simply am not when it comes to my discussion (which devolved into an argument) with Jan.
You're wrong.
Cite?


Full disclosure:I loathe and despise Gould with every fibre of my being, but I am only somewhat dubious about some of what Wilson has to say.
The responses to Nowak, Tarnita and Wilson's anti-kin-selection paper are one place to start:

http://www.uky.edu/~cfox/Pubs/Papers/20 ... itness.pdf

TL;DR version: Nowak et al. have a shitty understanding of evolution. :lol:

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

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12993

Post by AndrewV69 »

In other news:

Apparently no one over at Shia Chat or Islamic Awakening has brought up the news that Saudi Arabia declares Muslim Brotherhood 'terrorist group'

I suppose I could bring it up on Shia Chat myself and I am tempted to, but right now I want to wait and see how long no one mentions it. (My ban at IA expires 28th April)


Perhaps one of our Farsi speaking members has an opinion?

BillHamp
.
.
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:47 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12994

Post by BillHamp »

windy wrote:
BillHamp wrote:I'd happily concede if I were wrong, as E.O. Wilson did regarding kin selection (not group selection), but so far I haven't been wrong. It happens to me often enough that I know what it looks like to be wrong, I simply am not when it comes to my discussion (which devolved into an argument) with Jan.
You're wrong.
Did you want to elaborate on that or is this the "assertions without support or evidence stand as facts in and of themselves" argument?

BillHamp
.
.
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:47 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12995

Post by BillHamp »

AndrewV69 wrote:
windy wrote:
BillHamp wrote:I'd happily concede if I were wrong, as E.O. Wilson did regarding kin selection (not group selection), but so far I haven't been wrong. It happens to me often enough that I know what it looks like to be wrong, I simply am not when it comes to my discussion (which devolved into an argument) with Jan.
You're wrong.
Cite?


Full disclosure:I loathe and despise Gould with every fibre of my being, but I am only somewhat dubious about some of what Wilson has to say.
Who do you want a citation from and on what topic? Further, what is your beef with Gould and Wilson? I'd be interested to hear both.

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

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12996

Post by AndrewV69 »

windy wrote:
The responses to Nowak, Tarnita and Wilson's anti-kin-selection paper are one place to start:

http://www.uky.edu/~cfox/Pubs/Papers/20 ... itness.pdf

TL;DR version: Nowak et al. have a shitty understanding of evolution. :lol:
Thanks ... going to read it now.


BTW for those who may be interested ... one criticism of Wilson apparently is that he was "shitty" about math so he had to get others to do math for him resulting apparently in some models that were less than robust (as someone who is shitty at math myself ...)

Also, if anyone is interested The Atlantic did a profile on Wilson some time ago. See E. O. Wilson’s Theory of Everything.

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12997

Post by Ape+lust »

Gumby wrote:I knew he was desperate for any kind of publicity, but I didn't know he'd sink so low as to debate that dishonest contemptible fraud.

By "he", I mean Hovind, of course.
Hah! :lol: :D

Hovind has my all-time favorite explanation for the missing dinosaurs. It goes something like this:

1. Reptiles grow for as long as they live.
2. Back in the day, everything lived much longer.
3. If a lizard lived as long as Methuselah, it'd be the size of a city bus.
4. That horned toad your kid brought home is actually a triceratops.

PZ, a 1-hit wonder whose gigs now include car dealerships. Give up PZ, you ain't metal no more.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12998

Post by free thoughtpolice »

AndrewV69 wrote:In other news:

Apparently no one over at Shia Chat or Islamic Awakening has brought up the news that Saudi Arabia declares Muslim Brotherhood 'terrorist group'

I suppose I could bring it up on Shia Chat myself and I am tempted to, but right now I want to wait and see how long no one mentions it. (My ban at IA expires 28th April)


Perhaps one of our Farsi speaking members has an opinion?
You should ask Kaveh Mousavi (new blogger at FTB, blogging from Iran). He seems quite willing to answer that sort of question and has answered comments with blog posts.
He seems to be a reasonable fellow, so far at least showing no signs of FTB disorder so far.
IA has been boring reading of late, probably because so many of their members have been going to jail, getting visits from security services, and getting placed on no-fly lists. They have been actively avoiding topics they previously would have discussed and have been careful about others like the war in Syria.

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

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#12999

Post by AndrewV69 »

BillHamp wrote:Who do you want a citation from and on what topic? Further, what is your beef with Gould and Wilson? I'd be interested to hear both.
I got my cite and about to read it (see above). I do not have a beef with Wilson just dubious (probably related to a lack of comprehension on my part) but Gould was a scumbag because from what I could see he was knowingly spreading bullshit.

Beautifully written bullshit even in the service of a "nobel" cause is still bullshit.

I do not have much of a problem if someone gets it wrong (with the usual caveats) but to deliberately try and bend science to some ideology (even if it is one I may be sympathetic) is WRONG. Full stop. Period. It is the main reason I have nothing but contempt for the likes of PeeZuss Christ.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13000

Post by another lurker »

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... ys/283897/
A new study of a national sample of adolescent boys, published in the January issue of JAMA Pediatrics, reveals that nearly 18 percent of boys are highly concerned about their weight and physique. They are also at increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes: Boys in the study who were extremely concerned about weight were more likely to be depressed, and more likely to engage in high-risk behaviors such as binge drinking and drug use
But while the media pressure on women hasn’t abated, the playing field has nevertheless leveled in the last 15 years, as movies and magazines increasingly display bare-chested men with impossibly chiseled physiques and six-pack abs. “The media has become more of an equal opportunity discriminator,” says Lemberg. “Men’s bodies are not good enough anymore either.”
I know Andrew is kicking himself because he doesn't have the physique of a Night Elf male:P

[youtube]TMgQyTNhTms[/youtube]

BillHamp
.
.
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:47 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13001

Post by BillHamp »

AndrewV69 wrote:
BillHamp wrote:Who do you want a citation from and on what topic? Further, what is your beef with Gould and Wilson? I'd be interested to hear both.
I got my cite and about to read it (see above). I do not have a beef with Wilson just dubious (probably related to a lack of comprehension on my part) but Gould was a scumbag because from what I could see he was knowingly spreading bullshit.

Beautifully written bullshit even in the service of a "nobel" cause is still bullshit.

I do not have much of a problem if someone gets it wrong (with the usual caveats) but to deliberately try and bend science to some ideology (even if it is one I may be sympathetic) is WRONG. Full stop. Period. It is the main reason I have nothing but contempt for the likes of PeeZuss Christ.
Let me know what you think of that article/citation. I found it less than compelling, not because I necessarily disgree with the point, but because I think Nowak et. al. are making a subtly different point than the author in that citation. That said, I would need to read a bit more into all of it to really see what their complaint is.

Care to elaborate on the BS that Gould spread? There were things he said that were flat wrong, but I never paid a whole lot of attention to the guy, so I wasn't aware that he was intentionally spreading lies. If you had the time, I'd be interested to hear more about that. One this is for certain, Gould was very pompous, which can be a major asset and a major liability in science (most often it is a liability, though it will usually help you get grant money).

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13002

Post by Brive1987 »


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13003

Post by Brive1987 »

You are only allowed to sue rich people.

http://i.imgur.com/ctl3mj5.jpg

Guest

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13004

Post by Guest »


deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13005

Post by deLurch »

Brive1987 wrote:Suck shit PZ - your tears can start now.

http://i.imgur.com/hAV0kSf.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ult-one-2/
PZ Myers wrote:(I’m facing a dilemma here. Ben Radford is suing Karen Stollznow, and one of the things he is doing is flailing about and demanding that posts critical of him be taken down; he’s using the legal pressure he’s applying to Stollznow as leverage to extort me into deleting posts that he doesn’t like.
I take from this that Karen Stollznow is caving to the lawsuit & is either seeking to make the lawsuit go away by opting to attempt to get defamatory articles that she instigated removed, or she is attempting to reduce they broad swaths of defamation in order to shore up a single defensible position.

I think the writing is on the wall. The only defense from these witch hunts is to sue in a court of law.

The major players in these witch hunts, such as pz myers, seemed to have not taken into account that if the cost to an individual being defamed is high enough, it becomes financial worth while to sue.

Southern
.
.
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:28 pm
Location: Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13006

Post by Southern »

Brive1987 wrote:Suck shit PZ - your tears can start now.

http://i.imgur.com/hAV0kSf.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ult-one-2/
I wonder if Shermer's laywer could find this useful for something. Not that I wish PZ Myers gets bankrupt and goes to jail, is just that it would make my laugh for a month or two.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13007

Post by Brive1987 »

I would say the former, "please make it go away"

But PZ, really. Choosing to cave rather than fight it out to financial ruin is what Dunning did.

So I guess this is PROOF that what PZ wrote was beyond the pale, unacceptable?
Or does it only count (again) when "they" do it?

In any case leaving comments open is just more chum in the water.

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13008

Post by windy »

BillHamp wrote:
windy wrote:
BillHamp wrote:I'd happily concede if I were wrong, as E.O. Wilson did regarding kin selection (not group selection), but so far I haven't been wrong. It happens to me often enough that I know what it looks like to be wrong, I simply am not when it comes to my discussion (which devolved into an argument) with Jan.
You're wrong.
Did you want to elaborate on that or is this the "assertions without support or evidence stand as facts in and of themselves" argument?
If you insist:

viewtopic.php?p=166370#p166370
BillHamp wrote:Argument from authority. Coyne argues that group selection isn't a great way of accounting for altruism, which I would tend to agree with, if Coyne understood the difference between kin selection and group selection. Kin selection, which Wilson has rejected, says that organisms protect kin because they know that at least some of their genes will be passed on. That is preposterous at first glance, so why it was ever thought viable is unclear.
Wrong: the organisms don't need to "know" anything. Kin selection theory says that since organisms that help their kin will help pass on copies of their genes in those kin, helping kin is favored by selection in situations where the genetic benefits outweigh the costs.
BillHamp wrote:Group selection says that cooperative groups can out-compete non-cooperative groups in certain situations. In those situations, altruism genes will be favored because the more coherent groups (by virtue of the altruism they express) will survive. This is only applicable to certain situations, mind you, but it is a very powerful hypothesis which Coyne is a fool to reject outright.

Perhaps the biggest problem with group selection is its ties with kin selection. It still carries a number of vestigages from kin selection that prevent it from being taken seriously.
But your summary of "group selection" above is identical to inclusive fitness/kin selection arguments, you've just framed it in terms of groups instead of kin.
BillHamp wrote:1. First of all, the dandelions have not changed in the sense that they are a new species, they have adapted to their new environment through physiologic means. Their phenotypes remain intact..
Wrong, if they have changed in their observable traits, the phenotype has changed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype
BillHamp wrote:
2. "Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms."
Note the population level distinction there, which is what I was really driving at when I said "population." You were suggesting that a simple mutation in one organism was evolution.
A mutation in one organism is evolution (if it's a heritable and not a somatic mutation): it changes the allele frequencies in a population.
BillHamp wrote:You are quite correct about the "founder effect" and yet also quite wrong. The error is in thinking that the founder effect makes it possible for negative mutations to become predominant. It does no such thing.
Wrong:
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Reinhard.B ... uerger.pdf
...deleterious mutations in a large population are kept at a low frequency within a balance between the forces of selection and those of mutation. A population with relatively fewer individuals, however, will have lower fitness on average, not only because fewer beneficial mutations arise, but also because deleterious mutations are more likely to reach high frequencies through random genetic drift.
(a founder effect is a special case of drift due to small population size)

see also:
http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb348/lect ... node3.html

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13009

Post by deLurch »

Southern wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:Suck shit PZ - your tears can start now.

http://i.imgur.com/hAV0kSf.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ult-one-2/
I wonder if Shermer's laywer could find this useful for something. Not that I wish PZ Myers gets bankrupt and goes to jail, is just that it would make my laugh for a month or two.
They probably would find it worth while.

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13010

Post by Really? »

windy wrote:
Ape+lust wrote:He wasted $1000 and a gushing endorsement on a wannabe GOPer just for whupping on Justin Vacula.

His delusional mewling since he learned Silverman tried to set up a booth at CPAC is farging hilarious.
So Silverman attended a convention despite the fact that many people there were uncomfortable with his presence? Not only is he failing to whup on Vacula, he IS Vacula.

(Of course the difference is that the conservative fears are just silly, unlike those of the genteel ladies who reasonably feared ravishment at the hands of Vacula's pornstache.)
Silverman's in the shit. He really needs to get out of the shit. He does a lot of good things and has a ton of potential, but he'll never achieve his goals of he keeps miring himself in the shit.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13011

Post by Brive1987 »

Here is PZ's page (the "Oh no it couldn't happen to her" one) naming Radford.

Can't place my finger on it, but there is something different there .....

http://i.imgur.com/UlODiG0.jpg

Parody Accountant
.
.
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:16 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13012

Post by Parody Accountant »

bhoytony wrote:
Parody Accountant wrote:
No joke... I've got PTSD (and Major Depressive Disorder, and Anxiety disorder, and alcoholism... and other shit like ADD) I'm going to be intentionally vague here as to the circumstances causing it. I'm in the middle of being forced out of my career because of it. My 'trauma' stems from a subject encountered rather frequently in this forum.
Thumb over neck?
What does this phrase mean?

Guestus Aurelius
.
.
Posts: 2118
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13013

Post by Guestus Aurelius »

It's almost hard to believe how terrible a person PZ Myers is. He is rotten to the core, and I hope it bites him in the ass in a major way some day. I think I'd feel some serious schadenfreude if someone successfully sued him for all he's worth.

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13014

Post by Really? »

Brive1987 wrote:Here is PZ's page (the "Oh no it couldn't happen to her" one) naming Radford.

Can't place my finger on it, but there is something different there .....

http://i.imgur.com/UlODiG0.jpg
Silly PZ. How can a man who has a doctorate have so little understanding of the Internet. Good job trying to get the pee out of the pool, Peezus.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13015

Post by Brive1987 »

404 valuable comments lost to the memory hole. Interesting number ..

Oh the "freeze peach". If only Shermer had known it was this ea$y.

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13016

Post by deLurch »

Hmm... Karen's original post is now gone too.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/min ... arassment/

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

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13017

Post by Tigzy »

Really? wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:Here is PZ's page (the "Oh no it couldn't happen to her" one) naming Radford.

Can't place my finger on it, but there is something different there .....

http://i.imgur.com/UlODiG0.jpg
Silly PZ. How can a man who has a doctorate have so little understanding of the Internet. Good job trying to get the pee out of the pool, Peezus.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us
Figured I'd freezpage it, as I'm not sure how long Google would keep it cached for: http://www.freezepage.com/1394485005NMLLVWCDBA

Search tags: PZ Myers, accuses, Ben Radford , LOLOL

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13018

Post by Ape+lust »

deLurch wrote:Hmm... Karen's original post is now gone too.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/min ... arassment/
SA took it down shortly after they published it. The baboons were hopping mad about it for about 5 minutes before PZ dropped his Shermer bomb, then everyone forgot about Stollznow.

Guestus Aurelius
.
.
Posts: 2118
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13019

Post by Guestus Aurelius »

I'd like to see some of these lawsuits do more than result in the offending posts being taken down. The damage is already done, and the likes of Freezepage make these public accusations permanent.

So I'd like to see the witch-hunting libelers and defamers suffer some serious consequences. Right now they seem to think they're invincible. That's the problem. Unless they understand that the potential for consequences that hurt is real, they'll keep on doing what they do.

Fuck that.

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

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13020

Post by Tigzy »

deLurch wrote:Hmm... Karen's original post is now gone too.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/min ... arassment/
There's a PDF of it here: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files ... etwork.pdf

For some reason, it appears as part of Greg Laden's Sciblog thing, so dunno what that's all about.

Locked