Periodic Table of Swearing

Old subthreads

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36362

Post by CommanderTuvok »

Great cartoon, although it has to be noted that Rebecca's hair is now blue.

She can't change the fact that she is a rapist, though.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36363

Post by sacha »

It's just a word right now, Renee
Try to keep a clear head, and don't panic over the unknown.
welch wrote: So while (s)he may not talk about it a lot, it may not be a show of strength. (S)he may just genuinely not want to talk about it constantly, and get rather annoyed if it's all (s)he gets to talk about for the next few months... if (s)he doesn't want to talk about it, let him (her) not talk about it.
can someone please explain this to my mum?


can someone else explain to me why so many women are unable to comprehend this?

ReneeHendricks
.
.
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:48 am
Location: Kent, WA
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36364

Post by ReneeHendricks »

sacha wrote:It's just a word right now, Renee
Try to keep a clear head, and don't panic over the unknown.
welch wrote: So while (s)he may not talk about it a lot, it may not be a show of strength. (S)he may just genuinely not want to talk about it constantly, and get rather annoyed if it's all (s)he gets to talk about for the next few months... if (s)he doesn't want to talk about it, let him (her) not talk about it.
can someone please explain this to my mum?


can someone else explain to me why so many women are unable to comprehend this?
Trying very hard to do so, Sacha. And the very reason why I mentioned it here and nowhere else (meaning where my family frequent) is because I have a few relatives who do not understand that we *don't* want it to be a topic of discussion on a daily basis (the way my family members handle these things). Constantly asking every day how you're feeling, what's going on, what have the doctors said, have you done this, have you done that, on and on. So, we opting to keep this very, very local - me, him, my kids and that's it.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36365

Post by sacha »

lost control wrote:looks like my gal will finally be able to leave the hospital after the upcoming weekend.
great news!
lost control wrote:I hope the upcoming weekend will be the last one I'll spend mostly at a hospital bed for some time.
I hope so too.

I'll mention your well wishes to MKG.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36366

Post by Lsuoma »


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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36367

Post by sacha »

JackRayner wrote:
Pitchguest wrote:Who needs feminism?

Not this man.
Good 'ol paternity fraud.

That's why I am an advocate for DNA tests. A woman asking "Don't you trust me?", or getting all "offended" is just a fucking red herring. I put much more stock on people's capacity to act like the animals that we are and to then to lie about it forever. You don't? Then, by all means, carry on being a chump and believing that people are all that they say they are...
the court knew he was not the father:
For 13 years, Hatley made payments to the state until learning, in 2000, that the boy might not be his biological son. A DNA test that year confirmed that there was no chance he was the father, according to court documents.

Hatley returned to court and was relieved of any future child support reimbursement but was ordered to pay more than $16,000 that he had owed the state before the ruling.

Latesha Bradley, an attorney who represented Hatley in that hearing, told CNN the argument for keeping Hatley liable for the back payments was that he had signed a consent agreement with the office of child support services. The court agreed that Hatley had to comply with the consent agreement for the period that he believed the boy was his son.

Court documents show that Hatley for the most part continued to make payments. He was jailed for six months in 2006 for falling behind on payments during a period of unemployment, but afterward he resumed making payments and continued to do so even after he lost another job in 2008 and became homeless, court records state.

Last year, he again became unable to maintain the payments and was once again jailed.

JackRayner
.
.
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36368

Post by JackRayner »

Steersman wrote: Sorry, should have provided a link and a quote earlier:
The homicide rate for female prostitutes was estimated to be 204 per 100,000,[2] which is considerably higher than that for the next riskiest occupations in the United States during a similar period (4 per 100,000 for female liquor store workers and 29 per 100,000 for male taxicab drivers).

As for who is doing the killing and what their motivations are, that seems to be quite a bit more difficult to determine than just the number of them. But the article indicates that they seem to be “favoured” by serial murderers, one of whom – Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer – said in a documentary I remember seeing that he figured he was doing society a favour by killing them. Raises some interesting questions – some sticky wickets, actually – as to how much society is culpable in those crimes.
I’m reminded of, although I don’t have the details handy at the moment, that just after the end of the second world war a whole bunch of the townspeople in places like Belsen and Auschwitz were marched through the concentration camps to show them what they had been part of or had in effect condoned.
I don't condone crap, and I reject the idea that I have any responsibility for prostitution being kept illegal, or for some serial killer going after them because they've internalized whatever value system, or even just some automatic reaction, that causes them to see prostitutes as worthy of death. There are LOTS of laws in the books that I think are bullshit. How exactly am I supposed to show that I don't condone them? Break them? Shoot a lawmaker/law enforcer in the face, maybe? (It's easier to do with societal norms, but I'm not exactly always winning friends when I speak out against woo, homophobia, feminism, theism, "true love", PETA, the green movement, "bro code", many kinds of moral outrages sold as objective morality,and all sorts of other shit that I think is just straight up retarded. [lol, ableism.])

I do what I can. I spread awareness among the people that I know on things that I think are problematic and vote against shitty laws. Unless it is cause by my order or by my own hand, no one's death is on me.

Ms. Ogynist

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36369

Post by Ms. Ogynist »

All these years presenting SGU and globetrotting - turns out Rebecca Watson is a rapist.

Full marks for honesty, and all that - but from now on I have no other option than to refer her as Self Confessed Rapist, Rebecca Watson.

JackRayner
.
.
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36370

Post by JackRayner »

sacha wrote:
JackRayner wrote:
Pitchguest wrote:Who needs feminism?

Not this man.
Good 'ol paternity fraud.

That's why I am an advocate for DNA tests. A woman asking "Don't you trust me?", or getting all "offended" is just a fucking red herring. I put much more stock on people's capacity to act like the animals that we are and to then to lie about it forever. You don't? Then, by all means, carry on being a chump and believing that people are all that they say they are...
the court knew he was not the father:
For 13 years, Hatley made payments to the state until learning, in 2000, that the boy might not be his biological son. A DNA test that year confirmed that there was no chance he was the father, according to court documents.

Hatley returned to court and was relieved of any future child support reimbursement but was ordered to pay more than $16,000 that he had owed the state before the ruling.

Latesha Bradley, an attorney who represented Hatley in that hearing, told CNN the argument for keeping Hatley liable for the back payments was that he had signed a consent agreement with the office of child support services. The court agreed that Hatley had to comply with the consent agreement for the period that he believed the boy was his son.

Court documents show that Hatley for the most part continued to make payments. He was jailed for six months in 2006 for falling behind on payments during a period of unemployment, but afterward he resumed making payments and continued to do so even after he lost another job in 2008 and became homeless, court records state.

Last year, he again became unable to maintain the payments and was once again jailed.
I know. Call it retroactive parental fraud in this instance, then. :D
Hatley had to comply with the consent agreement for the period that he believed the boy was his son.
He could have never agreed to anything had he know it wasn't his son from the start, though I fully understand that DNA testing wasn't exactly widely available back then....

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36371

Post by sacha »

Wild Zontargs wrote:
JackRayner wrote:
Steersman wrote:
But, for instance, it seems to be some “Slyme Pit dogma”, an article of faith, that, as Phil is fond of quoting Hitchens on, “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” But while that certainly seems like it generally holds quite a bit of water, it also seems that one can quite reasonably argue that we all accept many things without proof that no level of proof is apparently sufficient to dismiss – free will and that “mind” is something more than just “brain”, for examples.
Just so that I don't jump in before verifying: Did you just say that we all accept "free will" and that the "mind" is something more than just the brain?
I'm prepared to serve as a counter-example if necessary.
[youtube]9CqbO_5FKRc[/youtube]

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36372

Post by sacha »

KiwiInOz wrote:
sacha wrote:
decius wrote: Yeah, because as everyone knows, death is the most likely outcome of drunken sex.
hahaha!
La Petite Mort?
death by overdose from mainlining oxytocin due to orgasm is not the worst way to go.

JackRayner
.
.
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36373

Post by JackRayner »

JackRayner wrote:
Hatley had to comply with the consent agreement for the period that he believed the boy was his son.
He could would have never agreed to anything had he know known it wasn't his son from the start, though I fully understand that DNA testing wasn't exactly widely available back then....
I blame my quickly deteriorating grammar on my tiredness. Been up since 7 this morning after only a few hours of rest. [20 minutes to midnight here on the East Coast of the U.S.] Like, imagine staying in character for that many hours of the day. Now, replace "character" with "second language", and that's what we've got going on here.

I'm just stating that because I noticed some fuck ups in my response to Steersman, too, and I don't like them. Carry on. :cry:

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36374

Post by Reap »

If no one has done so already I would like to show my respect to Justin Vacula for the work he did today. It is a great example of someone who not only pecks away at his keyboard but actually steps away from that keyboard to engage in activism that has an effect on his community, all the people in it, (whether they have internet access or not) and reality. Despite being labeled by people who have no real knowledge of his character as a bad example of atheism and a generally unlikable fellow he did let it get him down. Justin proved today that those people can babble all they wish and claim petty hollow victories to their little black-hearted desire, it does not intimidate him. Justin Vacula will not allow those simplistic socially retarded miscreants lessen his ability to be effective while not being a bitch. When he sees a battle that needs to be fought he gladly rides to the frontline ready to do battle and win! Let those pathetic lurkers stay safe and sound in their homes as if nestled to their mothers bosom feeding on her teat. Children have no place in a real fight anyway. Leave that fight to people like Justin Vacula and screw you Stephanie Zvan.
Great work Justin

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36375

Post by sacha »

JackRayner wrote:
He could have never agreed to anything had he know it wasn't his son from the start
precisely. contract null and void, all payments should be reimbursed.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36376

Post by sacha »

JackRayner wrote:
JackRayner wrote:
Hatley had to comply with the consent agreement for the period that he believed the boy was his son.
He could would have never agreed to anything had he know known it wasn't his son from the start, though I fully understand that DNA testing wasn't exactly widely available back then....
I blame my quickly deteriorating grammar on my tiredness. Been up since 7 this morning after only a few hours of rest. [20 minutes to midnight here on the East Coast of the U.S.] Like, imagine staying in character for that many hours of the day. Now, replace "character" with "second language", and that's what we've got going on here.
not to worry, I understood

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36377

Post by Steersman »

Rystefn wrote:
Steersman wrote:But while that certainly seems like it generally holds quite a bit of water, it also seems that one can quite reasonably argue that we all accept many things without proof that no level of proof is apparently sufficient to dismiss – free will and that “mind” is something more than just “brain”, for examples.
I see no evidence whatsoever that "we all" accept anything of the sort. I'd wager a great deal of money that you'll find many people who reject the idea of mind-brain duality outright, and more than a few that reject the idea of free will as well. Try again.
Would you believe …?

Sorry – I should have been clearer; I wasn’t arguing that we all accept without proof, for example, the free-will hypothesis, only that we all accept different things without proof, more or less by necessity. However, somewhat in the nature of the beast, it seems that even the contrary hypothesis – that there is no free-will – is still something that many other people accept as an article of faith which still has no conclusive proof.

As for more prosaic examples, those might be a little harder to come by, although the fact that some 60% of Americans supposedly believe that “angels and demons are active in the world” might be a good start. However, my impression is still that many of our day-to-day beliefs could qualify as, in Einstein’s words, little more than “stubbornly persistent illusions” that we cling to with some tenacity yet without conclusive proof.

Rystefn
.
.
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36378

Post by Rystefn »

Steersman wrote:
Rystefn wrote:
Steersman wrote:But while that certainly seems like it generally holds quite a bit of water, it also seems that one can quite reasonably argue that we all accept many things without proof that no level of proof is apparently sufficient to dismiss – free will and that “mind” is something more than just “brain”, for examples.
I see no evidence whatsoever that "we all" accept anything of the sort. I'd wager a great deal of money that you'll find many people who reject the idea of mind-brain duality outright, and more than a few that reject the idea of free will as well. Try again.
Would you believe …?

Sorry – I should have been clearer; I wasn’t arguing that we all accept without proof, for example, the free-will hypothesis, only that we all accept different things without proof, more or less by necessity. However, somewhat in the nature of the beast, it seems that even the contrary hypothesis – that there is no free-will – is still something that many other people accept as an article of faith which still has no conclusive proof.

As for more prosaic examples, those might be a little harder to come by, although the fact that some 60% of Americans supposedly believe that “angels and demons are active in the world” might be a good start. However, my impression is still that many of our day-to-day beliefs could qualify as, in Einstein’s words, little more than “stubbornly persistent illusions” that we cling to with some tenacity yet without conclusive proof.
You're still wrong. Some of us look into those things and try to figure out if they're true, and some of us shrug our shoulders and say, "fuck it." Except for the angels thing. Pretty sure no one here buys into that nonsense. We dismissed it for lack of evidence, generally.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36379

Post by KiwiInOz »

Reap wrote:If no one has done so already I would like to show my respect to Justin Vacula for the work he did today. It is a great example of someone who not only pecks away at his keyboard but actually steps away from that keyboard to engage in activism that has an effect on his community, all the people in it, (whether they have internet access or not) and reality. Despite being labeled by people who have no real knowledge of his character as a bad example of atheism and a generally unlikable fellow he did let it get him down. Justin proved today that those people can babble all they wish and claim petty hollow victories to their little black-hearted desire, it does not intimidate him. Justin Vacula will not allow those simplistic socially retarded miscreants lessen his ability to be effective while not being a bitch. When he sees a battle that needs to be fought he gladly rides to the frontline ready to do battle and win! Let those pathetic lurkers stay safe and sound in their homes as if nestled to their mothers bosom feeding on her teat. Children have no place in a real fight anyway. Leave that fight to people like Justin Vacula and screw you Stephanie Zvan.
Great work Justin
Hear. Hear.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36380

Post by KiwiInOz »

Yay. Two weeks of summer solstice holidays. Starting now.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36381

Post by Steersman »

JackRayner wrote:
Steersman wrote: Sorry, should have provided a link and a quote earlier:
The homicide rate for female prostitutes was estimated to be 204 per 100,000,[2] which is considerably higher than that for the next riskiest occupations in the United States during a similar period (4 per 100,000 for female liquor store workers and 29 per 100,000 for male taxicab drivers).

As for who is doing the killing and what their motivations are, that seems to be quite a bit more difficult to determine than just the number of them. But the article indicates that they seem to be “favoured” by serial murderers, one of whom – Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer – said in a documentary I remember seeing that he figured he was doing society a favour by killing them. Raises some interesting questions – some sticky wickets, actually – as to how much society is culpable in those crimes.
I’m reminded of, although I don’t have the details handy at the moment, that just after the end of the second world war a whole bunch of the townspeople in places like Belsen and Auschwitz were marched through the concentration camps to show them what they had been part of or had in effect condoned.
I don't condone crap, and I reject the idea that I have any responsibility for prostitution being kept illegal, or for some serial killer going after them because they've internalized whatever value system, or even just some automatic reaction, that causes them to see prostitutes as worthy of death. ….

I do what I can. I spread awareness among the people that I know on things that I think are problematic and vote against shitty laws. Unless it is cause by my order or by my own hand, no one's death is on me.



Sorry if you got the impression that I was holding you personally and solely responsible for those deaths as your rather draconian linked video would suggest. What I was trying to suggest with my somewhat rhetorical question “as to how much society is culpable in those crimes” was that we are all of us guilty or responsible to some extent for them – the same way we are all guilty for those deaths in Newtown and Aurora and Montreal. And for global warming and, apparently, for the deaths of some ten to twenty thousand kids every day.

How much any of us can do in any case is moot, but it seems that none of those problems can be solved until more of us take some responsibility for them which is, of course, easier said than done. But, as you suggest, raising people’s consciousness, their awareness, of the problems is a good start, although an important next step is to understand their nature and ramifications – riding madly off in all directions tends to be counterproductive. Along which line you might be interested in this video which suggests a broader shouldering of the blame and imposition of responsibility.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36382

Post by sacha »

Reap wrote:
sacha wrote: It is the only definition.
The modern view of karma, devoid of any spiritual exigencies, obviates the need for an acceptance of reincarnation in Judeochristian societies and attempts to portray karma as a universal psychological phenomenon which behaves predictably, like other physical forces such as gravity.
it is about cause and effect of morality, as if it is a law of the universe.
It seems to me you are not quite correct despite your declaration- Falun Gong differs from Buddhism in its definition of the term "karma," in that it is taken not as a process of award and punishment, but as an exclusively negative term.

I'll tell them you won't allow a differing definition, that always works. If it doesn't I'll try the "If I say so it must be true" approach. I would prefer not to squabble over something that is at least debatable unless you insist.

Falun Gong:
"A person has done bad things over his many lifetimes, and for people this results in misfortune, or for cultivators it's karmic obstacles, so there's birth, aging, sickness, and death. This is ordinary karma"
It's still cause and effect of morality as if it's a Newtonian law, the fact that they do not acknowledge "good" as being a part of it, is irrelevant.
Reap wrote:I'll tell them you won't allow a differing definition, that always works... I would prefer not to squabble over something that is at least debatable unless you insist.
You mean like the word atheism? One can declare that it means anything they want it to mean, which does not change the fact that it is simply an absence of belief in gods.

I'm not arguing just to argue. It is an ancient Indian religious concept that I find to be insidious, because it blames the innocent (if not in this life, than in a past life).

Karma = cause and effect of morality as universal law.

I still have not seen any evidence to the contrary, although there are some who are changing the core concept to fit their definition.

I don't understand why a sceptic would want to associate something based in reality with an ancient concept of woo.
It simply gives the word credibility, even if the incorrect "western" translation was an accepted definition.

KarlVonMox
.
.
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:44 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36383

Post by KarlVonMox »

Good to see Justin Vacula get a mention at the friendly atheist for you know, actually engaging in some secular activism. That makes two pitters recently mentioned there, Abbie being the first. And no idiot comments from the FTB crowd this time either! Good job guys.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36384

Post by sacha »

Reap wrote:
It seems to me you are not quite correct despite your declaration- Falun Gong differs from Buddhism in its definition of the term "karma," in that it is taken not as a process of award and punishment, but as an exclusively negative term.
one final Falun Gong description of the word, since that is what you chose to prove me incorrect:
This is a negative, black substance that accumulates in other dimensions lifetime after lifetime, by doing bad deeds and thinking bad thoughts. Falun Gong states that karma is the reason for suffering,

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36385

Post by Steersman »

Rystefn wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Rystefn wrote: Steersman said: But while that certainly seems like it generally holds quite a bit of water, it also seems that one can quite reasonably argue that we all accept many things without proof that no level of proof is apparently sufficient to dismiss – free will and that “mind” is something more than just “brain”, for examples.

I see no evidence whatsoever that "we all" accept anything of the sort. I'd wager a great deal of money that you'll find many people who reject the idea of mind-brain duality outright, and more than a few that reject the idea of free will as well. Try again.
Would you believe …?

Sorry – I should have been clearer; I wasn’t arguing that we all accept without proof, for example, the free-will hypothesis, only that we all accept different things without proof, more or less by necessity. However, somewhat in the nature of the beast, it seems that even the contrary hypothesis – that there is no free-will – is still something that many other people accept as an article of faith which still has no conclusive proof.

As for more prosaic examples, those might be a little harder to come by, although the fact that some 60% of Americans supposedly believe that “angels and demons are active in the world” might be a good start. However, my impression is still that many of our day-to-day beliefs could qualify as, in Einstein’s words, little more than “stubbornly persistent illusions” that we cling to with some tenacity yet without conclusive proof.
You're still wrong. Some of us look into those things and try to figure out if they're true, and some of us shrug our shoulders and say, "fuck it." Except for the angels thing. Pretty sure no one here buys into that nonsense. We dismissed it for lack of evidence, generally.
Ok, you alone of all the people in the world have absolutely no beliefs whatsoever that you hold without proof. But you might want to consider this quote from Norbert Wiener, one of the progenitors of the science of cybernetics:
I have said that science is impossible without faith. By this I do not mean that the faith on which science depends is religious in nature or involves the acceptance of any of the dogmas of the ordinary religious creeds, yet without faith that nature is subject to law there can be no science. No amount of demonstration can ever prove that nature is subject to law. [The Human Use of Human Beings; pg 193]
Seems that one has to start from some assumptions, even in science, and assumptions are, by definition (4), those claims that one accepts without proof, i.e., on faith. And if in fact that argument is true then it makes any philosophies or systems of belief or action based on science equally suspect.

Further, you might want to take a look at the article on conventional wisdom which argues this:
Conventional wisdom is the body of ideas or explanations generally accepted as true by the public or by experts in a field. Such ideas or explanations, though widely held, are unexamined. Unqualified societal discourse preserves the status quo.

Rystefn
.
.
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36386

Post by Rystefn »

Steersman wrote:Ok, you alone of all the people in the world have absolutely no beliefs whatsoever that you hold without proof. But you might want to consider this quote from Norbert Wiener, one of the progenitors of the science of cybernetics:
I have said that science is impossible without faith. By this I do not mean that the faith on which science depends is religious in nature or involves the acceptance of any of the dogmas of the ordinary religious creeds, yet without faith that nature is subject to law there can be no science. No amount of demonstration can ever prove that nature is subject to law. [The Human Use of Human Beings; pg 193]
Seems that one has to start from some assumptions, even in science, and assumptions are, by definition (4), those claims that one accepts without proof, i.e., on faith. And if in fact that argument is true then it makes any philosophies or systems of belief or action based on science equally suspect.
A functional assumption is not the same as a belief. More to the point, we aren't talking about proof, we're talking about evidence, and the fact that science works is pretty strong evidence that it's founding assumption are, if not true, close e-fucking-nough.
Steersman wrote:Further, you might want to take a look at the article on conventional wisdom which argues this:
Conventional wisdom is the body of ideas or explanations generally accepted as true by the public or by experts in a field. Such ideas or explanations, though widely held, are unexamined. Unqualified societal discourse preserves the status quo.
That's nice. Do "we all" lean on conventional wisdom? No. We don't. Feel free to give it another try, though.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36387

Post by Dick Strawkins »

I see Greta has turned up on Svans thread to add a contribution to the pyre.

Was there an earlier version of Welsh's blog post because I can't find the second, and most damaging quote that she seems to have found.

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

It can't be that she simply made it up herself and is lying through her teeth about Welsh saying that Watson is a "slut" who deserves "to be raped to death"?
Can it? :think:

John Brown
.
.
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:17 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36388

Post by John Brown »

sacha wrote:
You mean like the word atheism? One can declare that it means anything they want it to mean, which does not change the fact that it is simply an absence of belief in gods.

I'm not arguing just to argue. It is an ancient Indian religious concept that I find to be insidious, because it blames the innocent (if not in this life, than in a past life).

Karma = cause and effect of morality as universal law.

I still have not seen any evidence to the contrary, although there are some who are changing the core concept to fit their definition.

I don't understand why a sceptic would want to associate something based in reality with an ancient concept of woo.
It simply gives the word credibility, even if the incorrect "western" translation was an accepted definition.
Because language can be fluid and sometimes it's easier to fit a word in which everyone will understand to represent a rather clunky concept?

Is there any other word or phrase you can think of that gets across the idea that what you do in life and how you treat people has a way of affecting how you are treated? What goes around, comes around?

It's like using the word purgatory to describe some event in your life where you had to wait a ridiculous amount of time to get or do something.

-"Hey, John, how's that proposal coming?"
-"It's in purgatory, you know, because Hell is other people."
-"Ah. That sucks, dude."

It's just a symbol to efficiently get a point across.

You could extricate the dictionary of any words that have anything to do with woo or religion, but the English language would be much poorer for it.

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36389

Post by Pitchguest »

Guess who still insists the Slymepit "doxxed" him?

Our good old pal, Brownian (or Anthony K as he's called now)
I’m so glad to read that Jay, because I feel the same way. Slymepit fuckers have lied about and doxxed me.

As far as I’m concerned, you ass-sucking fuckers get everything coming your way.
In response to this from Jay,
You may dislike what welch does, but his attack is logical: it’s called, disagreeing with your assumptions and refusing to play your game.

Whether it’s dems/repubs, evolution/creationist, atheist/religious, or now Atheism+/Atheists, it’s been shown over and over the two sides cannot have fair intellectual arguments on the net.

The instant one of you disemvowel, moderate, delete, alter, ban what others have to say, well, you deserve all the heap of shit people can heap on you.

And you make it worse, with the encouragement of your commenters to pile on.

And that’s long after you folks couldn’t even argue with intellectual honesty or acknowledge truthfully what others have to say or what their positions are.

So, your cries of victimhood are like what? What’s the metaphor Stephanie? Oh something like tears I drink from.
Brownian, Anthony, whatever, let me make this absolutely clear: NOBODY "DOXXED" YOU. Nobody! If someone should have that "honour" (and we know someone needs to be responsible), it would be yourself, you fucking dumb shit, for broadcasting your real name on EVERY SINGLE SOCIAL NETWORK YOU SUBSCRIBED TO!

You used the name "Brownian" on multiple occasions, so anyone would able to find it in seconds! Seconds! You literally would just have to make a Google search for "Brownian" and "Pharyngula". We have PROOF, you fucking idiot! Facebook, Twitter, ATHEIST FUCKING NEXUS! Linking back to Pharyngula, mentioning Pharyngula by name several times. You would have to be retarded to NOT make the connection.

Wait, I'm sorry. "Retarded" is one of the bad words you don't like. Let me rephrase: you would have to be RETARDED to not make the connection.

Same thing when Surly broadcasted her FULL ADRESS applied to her BUSINESS. Who does that? To prevent stalkers and unsavory types from finding me, I'll just paint a nice shining sponsored by Surlyramics TARGET on my back. That'll keep them at bay! Pardon if I won't hide the atomic facepalm I'm now exhibiting. Not such a good idea to channel the queen of hurt fee fees, now is it, Brownian, old buddy, old pal?

John Brown
.
.
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:17 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36390

Post by John Brown »

Pitchguest wrote:Guess who still insists the Slymepit "doxxed" him?

Our good old pal, Brownian (or Anthony K as he's called now)
I’m so glad to read that Jay, because I feel the same way. Slymepit fuckers have lied about and doxxed me.

As far as I’m concerned, you ass-sucking fuckers get everything coming your way.
That kid doesn't have the sense evolution gave a sack of hammers.

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

#36391

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

No end of the world in sight right now.

I'll report back after 11:21 GMT.

Hopefully...

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36392

Post by Skep tickle »

Renee, have just caught up over the last 6 pages, sorry to hear about this lymphoma scare, hopefully it's just a false alarm, indeed a needle biopsy typically does not provide enough info for diagnosis (the pathologists like to see the "architecture" of the lymph node, though these days flow cytometry can also provide useful info). There's a very wide range of behavior of lymphomas. The aggressive ones (high-grade) are scary & dangerous but can respond very well to treatment. The slow-growing ones (low-grade) can mosey along for years or even decades but (typically) can't be cured. I hope you can get more information soon, though the holiday may put a bit of a wrench into that.

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36393

Post by Pitchguest »

Going to bed now, insomnia sucks. Hopefully the world won't end until I've had a good six hours sleep, at least. Ta.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36394

Post by Skep tickle »

sacha wrote:
Wild Zontargs wrote:
JackRayner wrote:Just so that I don't jump in before verifying: Did you just say that we all accept "free will" and that the "mind" is something more than just the brain?
I'm prepared to serve as a counter-example if necessary.
9CqbO_5FKRc
Yeah, but free will and mind-body dualism are pretty convincing illusions. YMMV, of course.

comslave
.
.
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:30 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36395

Post by comslave »

BarnOwl wrote:Quite relieved that the Mayan Apocalypse failed, according to Australia and New Zealand. I just joined a running club two weeks ago, and I'd hate to think that all those brutal workouts went to waste.
OH CRAP! IS there a way to delete emails AFTER you've sent them?

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36396

Post by rayshul »

I just googled brownian and pharyngula. His full name does come up as the first result but he seems to have deleted it... if he's reading the 'pit and wants to avoid it coming up, you could try to ask google to reindex that page? Hope that helps...

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36397

Post by rayshul »

If you're wondering, the world still hasn't ended.

aweraw
.
.
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:15 am
Contact:

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36398

Post by aweraw »

Roughly T - 3 hours as of this posting until 9:11 pm Australian EST. So far, no apocalyptic happenings to report. Slightly disappointed that I won't get to go all mad max and wander the wastes.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36399

Post by Steersman »

Skep tickle wrote:
sacha wrote:
Wild Zontargs wrote: JackRayner said: Just so that I don't jump in before verifying: Did you just say that we all accept "free will" and that the "mind" is something more than just the brain?

I'm prepared to serve as a counter-example if necessary.
9CqbO_5FKRc
Yeah, but free will and mind-body dualism are pretty convincing illusions. YMMV, of course.
Quite right – even “stubbornly persistent ones”.

Taking due cognizance of sacha’s recent reposting of an amusing video on the question, one can’t help but think that the phenomenon of emergence tends to support the argument for dualism. Although, as with other related discussions, the waters tend to get muddied by questions as to what is meant by various terms.

SPACKlick
.
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:45 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36400

Post by SPACKlick »

Steersman wrote: it seems to be some “Slyme Pit dogma”, an article of faith, that, as Phil is fond of quoting Hitchens on, “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”
Not an article of faith, a reasoned position justifiable by argumentation if requested.
But while that certainly seems like it generally holds quite a bit of water, it also seems that one can quite reasonably argue that we all accept many things without proof that no level of proof is apparently sufficient to dismiss – free will and that “mind” is something more than just “brain”, for examples.
Free will is an illusion caused by consciousness emerging from concious processing.
Mind is just a name for the process the brain does, like bending is a name for the process that knees do. No duality just names of different aspects.

Please do try again.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36401

Post by Skep tickle »

Just got the book "Assholes: A Theory" by Aaron James (avaiable from Amazon, see Lsuoma's link at the bottom of the page). It looked interesting and perhaps relevant to the "skeptic schism", & besides who can resist a title like that. On initial skim of a couple of sections I'm seeing some things I don't agree with (coincidentally, one is his claims about free will, however he may be using "free will" simply to mean control over some aspect of one's behavior).

This caught my eye, in Chapter 1:
Our theory thus has 3 main parts. In interpersonal or cooperative relations, the asshole:
  • allow himself to enjoy special advantages and does so systematically;
  • does this out of an entrenched sense of entitlement; and
  • is immunized by his sense of entitlement against the complaints of other people.
He claims most assholes are men (with women more often playing "bitch", see below) and he discusses this further in Chapter 4, "Gender, Nature, and Blame". I didn't expect to see in this book the term "intersectionality" and the claim that "deep" cultural gender roles >> biological factors, but there they are. But for our purposes, here's a couple lines from that chapter that caught my eye, on the difference between "bitch" and "asshole" as he's using the terms (neither is specific to one gender):
The bitch betrays you behind your back. The asshole fails to recognize you to your face.

One advantage to the asshole is that his ugly conduct takes place out in the open. This makes him easier to avoid. The bitch presents uncertainty, because hidden motives are harder to discern.

SPACKlick
.
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:45 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36402

Post by SPACKlick »

Steersman wrote:Sorry – I should have been clearer; I wasn’t arguing that we all accept without proof, for example, the free-will hypothesis, only that we all accept different things without proof, more or less by necessity. However, somewhat in the nature of the beast, it seems that even the contrary hypothesis – that there is no free-will – is still something that many other people accept as an article of faith which still has no conclusive proof.
Apologies, I'd read you as talking about "on faith" not "without proof". Ofcourse we accept things without proof, outside of logic and mathematics there is no proof. Only evidence and argument, and the difference between accepting on that basis and faith, is that you accept tentatively only to the degree that the arguments and evidence support the position.

SPACKlick
.
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:45 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36403

Post by SPACKlick »

Steersman wrote:Seems that one has to start from some assumptions, even in science, and assumptions are, by definition (4), those claims that one accepts without proof, i.e., on faith.
No, Assumptions are claims which are taken to be true for the sake of argument and later tested. The assumptions I make as a basis are:
1) There is a reality outside of my experience
2) That reality in some form causes my experience
Once you have those two, the rest of my beliefs are based on evidence and argument from there and my experience. As it turns out, those assumptions seem to be holding good, they have yet to cause a contradiction, but it also turns out that holding the contrary to either of those assumptions is undetectably different in terms of experience, but practically useless. They are functional assumptions.
And if in fact that argument is true then it makes any philosophies or systems of belief or action based on science equally suspect.
It is impossible to hold tentative beliefs or acquire knowledge without some base assumption, it's not suspect to assume something exists nor to assume it causes your experience.
Conventional wisdom is the body of ideas or explanations generally accepted as true by the public or by experts in a field. Such ideas or explanations, though widely held, are unexamined. Unqualified societal discourse preserves the status quo.
Except that people challenge the conventional wisdom all the time, it's encouraged.

You're digging a hole here steers.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36404

Post by Skep tickle »

So far, in "Assholes", the author has given Ann Coulter and Richard Dawkins as examples of assholes, also basically the entire Bush administration and much of France. :lol: (okay, really just a couple of French politicians.)

The index is full of names, many of whom seem to be included as examples of assholery. (Jesus and God have multiple pages listed in the index but on checking the first couple, it doesn't look like he's even thinking about calling them assholes. Missed opportunity, I'd say.)

Odd thing, I don't see any of the FtB/Skepchick/A+ crowd listed. Presumably simply an oversight that James can correct in his 2nd edition.

Nor, in his chapter on "Newer Asshole Styles", does he mention "New Media Douchebags". Seems like that would be a useful addition.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36405

Post by rayshul »

Today I had the realisation that men talk to me all the time in the street and lifts.

I talk back to them.

Weird.

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

#36406

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Skep tickle wrote:and much of France. :lol: (okay, really just a couple of French politicians.)
How surprising...

SPACKlick
.
.
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:45 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36407

Post by SPACKlick »

Have to say, I'm getting a lot less strangers starting hostile conversations now that I've switched from a book to a kindle. It feels sort of like my new technology terrifies their tiny little minds. MUAHAHAHAHAHA!

Also, most of them, if you go "sorry buddy, I'm kinda busy right now" or "I don't mean to be rude but I need some space right now ok?" will just shut the fuck up and leave you alone. Those fainting couch resident professional victims try and make all of them out to be the ranting raving dicks that just plough on despite being told to stop. Which exist, but not the majority.

I'd love to live in their heads for a day or two, to see what the crazy feels like.

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

#36408

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

SPACKlick wrote:Have to say, I'm getting a lot less strangers starting hostile conversations now that I've switched from a book to a kindle. It feels sort of like my new technology terrifies their tiny little minds. MUAHAHAHAHAHA!

Also, most of them, if you go "sorry buddy, I'm kinda busy right now" or "I don't mean to be rude but I need some space right now ok?" will just shut the fuck up and leave you alone. Those fainting couch resident professional victims try and make all of them out to be the ranting raving dicks that just plough on despite being told to stop. Which exist, but not the majority.

I'd love to live in their heads for a day or two, to see what the crazy feels like.
[youtube]BwkdGr9JYmE[/youtube]

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

Rape is never funny

#36409

Post by rayshul »

[youtube]yh1RkRxnAOs[/youtube]

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: Rape is never funny

#36410

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

rayshul wrote:[youtube]yh1RkRxnAOs[/youtube]
10:15 AM GMT+1

No end of the world.

Needs a new screen, though. Coffee stains look nasty.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36411

Post by TedDahlberg »

In the spirit of the day…

[youtube]FIY41LrvMFQ[/youtube]

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

#36412

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

TedDahlberg wrote:In the spirit of the day…

FIY41LrvMFQ
Bullshit, they always forget Ronnie Soak.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36413

Post by Steersman »

SPACKlick wrote:
Steersman wrote:But while that certainly seems like it generally holds quite a bit of water, it also seems that one can quite reasonably argue that we all accept many things without proof that no level of proof is apparently sufficient to dismiss – free will and that “mind” is something more than just “brain”, for examples.
Free will is an illusion caused by consciousness emerging from concious processing.
Mind is just a name for the process the brain does, like bending is a name for the process that knees do. No duality just names of different aspects.

Please do try again.
Ok, how about the following: :-)

I’m more or less stumbling about in the dark on the question, but it seems to me that the whole argument about emergence is that, in simplest terms, the whole – “mind” – can be quite a bit more than the sum of the parts – “brain”. It would appear certain that the mind is a process in the brain, but the argument seems to be that the mind is something over and above the process itself.

Supposedly a very good example of that is the phonon; you might be interested in this article (the following link seems a little erratic, doesn't always work) on the topic which argues:
For example, when a large number of atoms condense into a crystal, the phonon, the elementary quantum of sound, becomes a perfectly legitimate particle at low energy scales. It propagates freely, does not decay, interacts by simple rules that can be verified experimentally, carries momentum and energy relative to wavelength and frequency, and mediates the attractive interaction responsible for conventional superconductivity.
That article is referenced and discussed in some detail in a discussion that the biologist/philosopher Massimo Pigliucci was part of recently.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36414

Post by welch »

Dick Strawkins wrote:I see Greta has turned up on Svans thread to add a contribution to the pyre.

Was there an earlier version of Welsh's blog post because I can't find the second, and most damaging quote that she seems to have found.

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

It can't be that she simply made it up herself and is lying through her teeth about Welsh saying that Watson is a "slut" who deserves "to be raped to death"?
Can it? :think:
BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh Greta, bless your heart. There is no faster way to make an NMD cry than point out how they lov to create nontroversies to get hit counts.

She's so precious. I wonder of she ever pulls a muscle patting herself on the back.

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

#36415

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

kumbaya my Steers, kumbaya...

I also have nice crystals to sell.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36416

Post by welch »

John Brown wrote:
Pitchguest wrote:Guess who still insists the Slymepit "doxxed" him?

Our good old pal, Brownian (or Anthony K as he's called now)
I’m so glad to read that Jay, because I feel the same way. Slymepit fuckers have lied about and doxxed me.

As far as I’m concerned, you ass-sucking fuckers get everything coming your way.
That kid doesn't have the sense evolution gave a sack of hammers.

How to make NMDs flip the fuck out:

1) point out how they manufacture bullshit to get attention.
2) see 1)

And as my AMB cohort and I have discussed, damn but atheists/skeptics are some thin-skinned motherfuckers.

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36417

Post by Steersman »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:kumbaya my Steers, kumbaya...

I also have nice crystals to sell.
Those crystals actually have some real physics and philosophy behind them – you might want to consider following a link or two before making up your mind – unless it’s totally closed off ….

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

#36418

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Steersman wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:kumbaya my Steers, kumbaya...

I also have nice crystals to sell.
Those crystals actually have some real physics and philosophy behind them – you might want to consider following a link or two before making up your mind – unless it’s totally closed off ….
GO HOME STEERS! YOU'RE DRUNK!

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

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing

#36419

Post by Steersman »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:
Steersman wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:kumbaya my Steers, kumbaya...

I also have nice crystals to sell.
Those crystals actually have some real physics and philosophy behind them – you might want to consider following a link or two before making up your mind – unless it’s totally closed off ….
GO HOME STEERS! YOU'RE DRUNK!
Certainly not on alcohol ....

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

#36420

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Steersman wrote:
Certainly not on alcohol ....
Probably on crystals, then.

Locked