Anne Robinson has no soul, and is history, thank fuck!

[Gumby]

Nope, it's never about equality.

Before I became aware of this virulent feminism, I always thought of this dichotomy in terms is race. For example, if white people were to look at the BET cable channel ("Black Entertainment Television") and say "Hey, that's a good idea... let's start a WET cable channel!" Nope, no hysterical protests there. Jesse Jackson would just stay at home and be quiet, right? Right?

I'm really not liking that analogy. It reminds me of back in my college days when occasionally a white student would bitch and moan about there being a black student union. "Why can't we have a white student union?" they'd whine. "Because we don't need one." I'd reply. "We have a student union that's majority white already." Minorities(oppressed or not)who share a common culture have needs not entirely fulfilled by mainstream institutions, hence a black student union, or BET. No one is preventing white people from watching BET, and students of other ethnicities are not banned from black student unions, you can watch or join if that's where your interests lie.

I do see what you mean; it was simply a hypothetical I have thought of in the past.

[Gumby]

WTF? I clicked Preview and then I clicked Submint. I did not hit it 3 times.

That's because you clicked the Submint button, not the Submit button. There's a difference.

:)

[Gumby]

Well, here's something you don't see every day:

The Amazing Atheist on CNN debating atheism ... with William Lane fucking Craig.

:confusion-confused:

I thought TJ did fairly well. He wasn't as polished as WLC, but then again, TJ hasn't used as much snake oil.

Here's my problem with TJ. At first he (correctly) says that just because someone does not identify with any religion, that doesn't mean they are necessarily atheists. Then a couple minutes later he goes back and seemingly argues the exact opposite. It was a WTF moment for me.

I don't think that was the exact thrust of his second statement.

It was more along the lines of : Some of the people who reject religion and do not self identify as an atheist, are technically atheists because of their beliefs, they just reject the baggage that the word atheist carries. I did it myself for over 20 years. I self identified as an agnostic.

After a bit of thought I had thought along those lines as well, but the average Joe sitting at home wasn't going to discern any difference. 4 minutes isn't nearly enough time for 3 panelists and a moderator to get into nuance.

[katamari Damassi]

WTF? I clicked Preview and then I clicked Submint. I did not hit it 3 times.

That's because you clicked the Submint button, not the Submit button. There's a difference.

:)

Damn that Submint button! Why is that even there?

[Tigzy]

I think WLC, like the bible, is one of the best adverts for non-religion going - it amazes me that this incredibly oily, smirking sophist, with bobbleheaded mannerisms so affected that at times his movements seem to mirror those of Virgil Tracy, is actually taken seriously, by some, as a credible debater.

Really, don't argue with the guy, just let him speak. Then hose down the podium when he's done.

[Lsuoma]

I think WLC, like the bible, is one of the best adverts for non-religion going - it amazes me that this incredibly oily, smirking sophist, with bobbleheaded mannerisms so affected that at times his movements seem to mirror those of Virgil Tracy, is actually taken seriously, by some, as a credible debater.

Really, don't argue with the guy, just let him speak. Then hose down the podium when he's done.

Me likee this post.

[Zenspace]

Re: the Carnival Triumph (aka The Good Ship Lollipoop) - I'd forgotten about David Foster Wallace's essay "Shipping Out" (or A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again), about his experiences on a seven-day luxury cruise. Definitely worth downloading from Harper's and reading in its entirety, if you enjoy DFW's brand of wry humor and intelligent observation.

There's something about a mass-market Luxury Cruise that's unbearably sad. Like most unbearably sad things, it seems incredibly elusive and complex in its causes yet simple in its effect: on board the Nadir (especially at night, when all the ship's structured fun and reassurances and gaiety ceased) I felt despair. The word "despair" is overused and banalized now, but it's a serious word, and I'm using it seriously. It's close to what people call dread or angst, but it's not these things, quite. It's more like wanting to die in order to escape the unbearable sadness of knowing I'm small and weak and selfish and going, without doubt, to die. It's wanting to jump overboard.

The Nadir is DFW's name for the cruise ship Zenith.

I'll have to look for the article which sounds ... interesting. That type of "Ship of Fools" forced jollity has always seemed to me to have an uncomfortable edge to it ...

I have a couple of older colleagues, husband and wife, who love going on cruises - not just in the Caribbean, but also to Alaska. Sometimes they take (a subset of) their grandchildren, other times it's just the two of them. Both of them have disabilities that impair their mobility, and both are becoming increasingly obese. They love to eat. They love to take photos. They love to just sit around and relax and read magazines. Cruises are perfect for them, and they always have a great time. They don't seem to worry about things, and take everything in their stride.

I'm afraid that I would almost certainly succumb to Wallacian despair and want to jump overboard.

http://www.essentiallightphotography.co ... -lounge/19

[free thoughtpolice]

What fucking harassment?!?

I will be here all day if needed!

Questioning the existence of harassment is in itself harassment, so by your harassment of Rebecca, you have proved that harassment exists. QED.

Not only that but when Phil stepped on her foot and took her spoons he physically harassed her, albeit metaphorically.

[Submariner]

What fucking harassment?!?

I will be here all day if needed!

Questioning the existence of harassment is in itself harassment, so by your harassment of Rebecca, you have proved that harassment exists. QED.

Not only that but when Phil stepped on her foot and took her spoons he physically harassed her, albeit metaphorically.

Metaphorically and physically?? Is that metaphysically?

[Pitchguest]

That man, A Rat in a Cage, is frothing at the mouth of his post being put in moderation (same as mine) over at Dan's blog:

*sigh*
Dan Fincke has not allowed my response to appear yet to Pitchguest/PG/Batboy and his lies. I hope it does go through, though, because I was involved in the conversation with Ophelia Benson that he is wildly and deliberately misrepresenting (how civil of him).

The reason I cannot sign on to any civility pledge is that there are far too many situations where civility would be a mistake. The Stonewall riots, for instance, would never have happened under some misguided civility pledge.

The poor dear. By the way, Dan's civility pledge does not rule out passionate disagreements. It just makes the suggestion you don't have to be an asshole all the time, Aratina. Maybe you should try it. (And since I now know you're a man, even though you're trying very hard to portray yourself as a woman, I can safely say that you are a dick.)

Oh, and Batboy? Wrong again. This is what my avatar looks like.

http://sv.gravatar.com/pitchguest

[Apples]

Excerpts from Sun Countess's analysis of Dan Fincke's civility pledge (over several comments):

From where I sit, there's not much difference between someone saying straight up, "bitches ain't shit" and someone saying, "no, dear, I can't engage in a rational discussion with you unless you promise not to have a hysterical reaction to my civilly -worded debate points" except that the first person owns their bigotry, and the second provides cover for themselves and others to promote their bigotry and continue silencing those they want oppressed. ...

Dan Fincke can have his privileged philosophical discussions about exactly how hysterical bitches can get and why it's so unseemly and irrational with the likes of the very civil noelplum and Damien, and fight the privileged fight to reclaim the term "slut" to present as a lovely gift for all those lovely cunts and bitches who can now use it for good. Isn't that what all those sluts were aiming for with all their slutwalks anyway? How awfully hysterical and hypocritical of them to not appreciate these polite, brave dudes for rescuing perfectly good terms like slut and bitch from the dustbin of history.

I won't be engaging in any debates with the likes of slymepitters or camels with hammers, no matter how politely they call me a slut and a bitch for being a woman with opinions and a lived experience that differs substantially from theirs. ...

I have no interest in engaging in "civil discourse" with the likes of Noelplum. It is frankly impossible to do so, because he considers women to be inferior to men. ...

I am not now and never will be in a community where I am considered lesser simply because of my gender, and where people are so gleeful about silencing women's voices with threats of violence and gender-based slurs. I'm a lot pickier about the company I keep. ...

Who among that lot is willing to apologize, or disassociate themselves from the horrible things that have been done to real women in this movement? I'm guessing we'll have to wait around a long time for that, but in the meantime, the pitters and haters have yet another internet space where women no longer feel welcome to participate. Congratulations, guys. ...

He does feel that it's more important to have his space available for the haters and slymepitters who will pretend to be civil by speaking politely when they're there, and if he loses a whole lot of women along the way, well....they should have just taken the civility pledge, and then they could see how awesome it is to have a dialogue with people (like pitchguest, noelplum, and tigzy, among others *cough cough*) who talk so nicely when they tell you what a hysterical irrational bitch you are.

Fincke doesn't see the harm that's being done, because it's not being directed to him. He's more personally harmed by hearing people say things in crude terms or less than 1000 words, and isn't harmed at all any underlying feelings of hatred some of his commenters have toward certain other commenters, because they were born of an inferior gender, and don't see the world with the same eyes as the superior white cis-men who have all the right answers to any question because they have the only experience or intellectual understanding of what really happens in the spaces we all share. ...

Dress it up in polite language all you want, but it's still saying, "Shut up, bitch. Men are trying to talk here."

And please let's not try to pretend to erase the history of very very hateful things that have been said about specific women in the atheist blogosphere. How many rape threats do you think it's reasonable or civil to direct towards women bloggers like Jen McCreight, Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan, or the grand she-devil of them all, Rebecca Watson? That doesn't get magically erased because a few assholes decide to take a civility pledge. Maybe Dan Fincke can ignore the things that his commenters are saying elsewhere, but it's really disingenuous of him to think that women commenters should do the same.

Thank you for sharing, Sun Countess! :D

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3974

[AbsurdWalls]

Well, here's something you don't see every day:

The Amazing Atheist on CNN debating atheism ... with William Lane fucking Craig.

:confusion-confused:

Ah, the hated Amazing Atheist, despised and scorned by PZ and his cult followers...

Well, I know little about TAA but doing a search on him reveals he is at the very best a "strange" character.

By that I mean "I'm pretty sure googling him just brought up pictures involving a banana and an orifice into which bananas do not usually enter".

I mean, I could also spot a dedicated campaign to smear him as being the world's greatest living monster, but from the evidence I saw he hardly seems like a laudable human being.

[Tigzy]

BTW - anyone who is bored enough can now follow me on Twitter, like sheep. Baa. @Tigzy_J

[Submariner]

Excerpts from Sun Countess's analysis of Dan Fincke's civility pledge (over several comments):

From where I sit, there's not much difference between someone saying straight up, "bitches ain't shit" and someone saying, "no, dear, I can't engage in a rational discussion with you unless you promise not to have a hysterical reaction to my civilly -worded debate points" except that the first person owns their bigotry, and the second provides cover for themselves and others to promote their bigotry and continue silencing those they want oppressed. ...

Snip.

I have no interest in engaging in "civil discourse" with the likes of Noelplum. It is frankly impossible to do so, because he considers women to be inferior to men. ...

Thank you for sharing, Sun Countess! :D

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3974

Has anyone actually used the word hysterical? I think the gist of the civility pledge was to both limit gender slurs and the (seemingly overuse of) calls of misogyny/ist.

Also, Noelplum thinks women are inferior to men???
Where has he ever said anything even remotely close to that sentiment?

[katamari Damassi]

Well, I know little about TAA but doing a search on him reveals he is at the very best a "strange" character.

By that I mean "I'm pretty sure googling him just brought up pictures involving a banana and an orifice into which bananas do not usually enter".

I mean, I could also spot a dedicated campaign to smear him as being the world's greatest living monster, but from the evidence I saw he hardly seems like a laudable human being.

In the few vids of him that I've watched, I found him to be shouty, obnoxious, and kind of embarrassing.

[AndrewV69]

Ugh is right! He's not just bad at science, he's actively anti-science to make such a weaselly excuse for incorrect stats. Simplifying the conclusions is one thing, but in this case the core numbers are NOT being accurately presented. That's the whole point. But Slippery PZ tries to shift the argument over to whether simplification itself is ok or not, which is not what was being argued. What a piece of weasel snot he is.

This reminds me of how StatsCan appears to be trying to make it hard to do an apples to apples comparison on Family Violence, not to mention the whole business of sexual and physical abuse that the men of Kanukistan are noted for.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/2 ... m1-eng.htm

This is the thirteenth annual Family Violence in Canada report produced by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics under the Federal Family Violence Initiative. This report provides the most current data on the nature and extent of family violence in Canada, as well as trends over time, as part of the ongoing initiative to inform policy makers and the public about family violence issues.

Each year the report has a different focus. This year, the focus of the report is on self-reported incidents of spousal victimization from the 2009 General Social Survey on Victimization.

In addition, using police-reported data, the report also presents information on family violence against children and youth, family violence against seniors (aged 65 years and older), and family-related homicides.

I believe I once opined there were too many people cooking the books for me to believe anything, unless I had access to the data and could examine the collection methods and methodology of the "study" including the survey questions and how the answers are scored.

StatsCan 2005 (From the 2004 General Social Survey (GSS)):
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidie ... 4a-eng.htm

An estimated 7% of women and 6% of men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive new report on family violence.

I selected some items from the Women's Support Network of York Region because they referenced StatsCan or the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women which also gets their data from StatsCan. This is a pretty short list after I omitted all items with other sources.

http://www.womenssupportnetwork.ca/pgs/ ... s.htm.html

• 51% of Canadian Women have experienced at least one incident of violence since the age of 16. (Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Sexual Assault Fact Sheet. Ottawa: C.A.C.S.W., 1985)

• 89% of Sexual Assault victims/survivors have no visible physical injuries. (Statistics Canada, Violence Against Women Survey, 1993)

• Only 1 in 10 Sexual Assaults is reported to the police. Of those that are acquaintance rapes, only 1 in 100 is reported to the police. (Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Sexual Assault Fact Sheet. C.A.C.S.W., 1985)

• 1 in 2 women has experienced some form of sexual violence (Statistics Canada Survey 1993)

• Between 1979 and 1998, 1468 women were killed by their husbands, compared with 433 men killed by their wives. (Statistics Canada, 2000, p.6)

• In 2000, 40% of women who reported sexual assault were assaulted by a friend or casual acquaintance, 23% by a stranger, and 23% by a family member. (Status of Women Canada)

• 51% of Canadian Women have experienced at least one incident of violence since the age of 16. (Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Sexual Assault Fact Sheet. Ottawa: C.A.C.S.W., 1985)

• 89% of Sexual Assault victims/survivors have no visible physical injuries. (Statistics Canada, Violence Against Women Survey, 1993)

• Only 1 in 10 Sexual Assaults is reported to the police. Of those that are acquaintance rapes, only 1 in 100 is reported to the police. (Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Sexual Assault Fact Sheet. C.A.C.S.W., 1985)

• 1 in 2 women has experienced some form of sexual violence (Statistics Canada Survey 1993)

• Between 1979 and 1998, 1468 women were killed by their husbands, compared with 433 men killed by their wives. (Statistics Canada, 2000, p.6)

• Of all incidents of reported sexual assaults, 24% took place in the person’s home, 20% took place in the perpetrator’s home, 10% in someone else’s home, 25% in a car, and 21% in a public place. (Johnson, 1996)

• In 2000, 40% of women who reported sexual assault were assaulted by a friend or casual acquaintance, 23% by a stranger, and 23% by a family member. (Status of Women Canada)

Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel ... formatdisp

Each year the report has a different focus. This year, the focus of the report is on self-reported incidents of spousal victimization from the 2009 General Social Survey on Victimization.

In addition, using police-reported data, the report also presents information on family violence against children and youth, family violence against seniors, and family-related homicides.

Of course, the fact that the focus is different each year has got nothing to do with anything other than to provide fodder for interested parties.

The 1998 issue of the Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile report is general in focus. The focus of the 1999 issue is justice system responses to family violence. The focus of the 2000 issue is the incidence of spousal violence, reported by both women and men in the 1999 General Social Survey. The focus of the 2001 issue is child abuse. The focuses of the 2002 issue are impacts and consequences of family violence.

Women in Kanukistan get raped at the rate of one every 17 minutes. Day and Night the men of Kanukistan men are having a grand old time. There can not be too many virgins up here because we men just keep raapeing and raaaapeing like it was our natural right to rape a woman any time we feel like it.

http://www.huroniatransitionhomes.ca/information/stats/
1 in 4 Canadian women will be sexually assaulted during her lifetime. (2)

http://aasas.ca/index.php/main/page/fac ... 1-11-10-40
58% of Alberta women have experienced at least one incident of sexual or physical assault since the age of 16 (Statistics Canada, 1993).


- Every 17 minutes, a woman is raped.
(Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, 1985.)

If there is only one link you click on, this is the one you should do so:
http://www.canadianwomen.org/facts-about-violence

Because a whole lot of people are running around saying that :

1 in 2 Canadian women will be sexually or physically abused in her lifetime. That’s 50% of all girls and women.

And you really really really need to see what the background is for videos like this one:

[youtube]nT5Q9ipH52I[/youtube]

If you visit Kanukistan make sure to leave your women at home, because up here in the True North Strong And Free we are not going ask, or wait for you to offer like the Innuit of old. Nope. We just going to rape your woman without so much as a hidey high ho. Take off eh? What is your problem hoser? Lots of women around, here *grabs a woman* rape this one and STFU eh?

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark all right, except it is not actually in Denmark, and the something rotting might just well be fish.

[AbsurdWalls]

Well, I know little about TAA but doing a search on him reveals he is at the very best a "strange" character.

By that I mean "I'm pretty sure googling him just brought up pictures involving a banana and an orifice into which bananas do not usually enter".

I mean, I could also spot a dedicated campaign to smear him as being the world's greatest living monster, but from the evidence I saw he hardly seems like a laudable human being.

In the few vids of him that I've watched, I found him to be shouty, obnoxious, and kind of embarrassing.

He seems to have earned the ire of both the FtB/Skepchik/A+ guys and the 4chan/ED trolls. His RationalWiki article is a real hatchet-job. From what I saw, it looks like he sort-of fits into the mould of a "super-edgy stand-up comic". His behaviour wouldn't be out of place in a comedy club (worse things than even the banana incident have happened in live performance art), but I've noticed that people (men and women) who I have seen pushing the limits like that in a live show tone things down a fair bit for material that is recorded for wider broadcast. It makes a difference when people have come into a space to see you and have entered into a sort-of contract of "Here is a place where I will do things that make you uncomfortable." His mistake (and I do think it is one because he has apparently ended up with an awful reputation) was to try to do that to strangers online.

I am quite surprised CNN managed to put him on with nobody doing a little web search and thinking "Hey, maybe we can find a less controversial atheist?". Perhaps they did, and he's on a satellite link from elsewhere to prevent him from raping WLC. The downside of it is that any undecided person who watches that clip and then thinks "Hey, I will look more into this atheism thing" is not going to find positive things if they search for TAA. That is a shame. I mean, it's not like he has any particularly impressive qualifications to talk about this stuff (that I can see).

[Apples]

D4m10n just got kicked from the A+ Fincke thread for questioning Sun Countess's pagan wisdom.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 4&start=25

[AbsurdWalls]

D4m10n just got kicked from the A+ Fincke thread for questioning Sun Countess's pagan wisdom.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 4&start=25

Something odd going on there, ceepolk has edited one of Flew's posts.

[ReneeHendricks]

The latest Chill Girls in Pink Corvettes podcast, for those interested (with AmbrosiaX, Jim, and me):

[youtube]PQ_tHqjqIrM[/youtube]

[Tigzy]

D4m10n just got kicked from the A+ Fincke thread for questioning Sun Countess's pagan wisdom.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 4&start=25

Something odd going on there, ceepolk has edited one of Flew's posts.

All I seem to be be getting is that internal server error page...

[16bitheretic]

D4m10n just got kicked from the A+ Fincke thread for questioning Sun Countess's pagan wisdom.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 4&start=25

Aaaannnnndddd...500 error, A+ forums are not used to having a higher number of visitors than moderators on site it seems. :lol:


As for Amazing Atheist on CNN, I think the reason they chose him was because CNN seems to have this fixation on being more in tune with social media outlets than Fox or MSNBC, and in terms of atheist figures who are famous because of social media internet sites, Amazing Atheist is the largest profile out there. His YouTube channel is the largest known atheist channel (although he seems to do alot of other topics ranging from politics to movies and whatnot too) with the most subscribers and views.

[16bitheretic]

Oh, and by the way, based on the A+ forum quotes above this post and what I saw the night they jumped all over Justin Vacula when he signed up there, what is it with them always having someone post the phrase "bitches ain't shit"?

Seriously, I've seen that enough times on A+, usually under the guise of them being sarcastic and snarky, but it's almost like when the right situation arises they just have to post "bitches ain't shit", which would normally I think get them banned on a site where certain words have magical offense powers. Do they do it just because they can in a few select situations and get away with it? Tasting the forbidden fruit A+'ers? Does getting to post "bitches ain't shit" in an accusatory manner (claiming that anyone not on board with A+ views thinks "bitches ain't shit" is a valid philosophical view) give you all the psychological satisfaction of getting to say a forbidden naughty phrase without punsihment?

Well A+'ers, I'm no psychologist or mind reader, but I suspect your self repression is starting to show itself.. :naughty:

[mordacious1]

A while back I questioned whether Novella had drunk the Watson kool-aid and Decius responded with:
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... lla#p49899

Decius: Do you still stand by that? Or has Steve changed your mind?

Cheers!

[mordacious1]

Damn, meant to bold decius so he could find that comment when he returns, trigger happy today.

[Scented Nectar]

Well, here's something you don't see every day:

The Amazing Atheist on CNN debating atheism ... with William Lane fucking Craig.

:confusion-confused:

Ah, the hated Amazing Atheist, despised and scorned by PZ and his cult followers...

Well, I know little about TAA but doing a search on him reveals he is at the very best a "strange" character.

By that I mean "I'm pretty sure googling him just brought up pictures involving a banana and an orifice into which bananas do not usually enter".

I mean, I could also spot a dedicated campaign to smear him as being the world's greatest living monster, but from the evidence I saw he hardly seems like a laudable human being.

He handled the unintended public banana episode extremely well. Someone he was sexting with (or whatever that's called these days), made it more public than it was meant to be. He responded with something like, yeah, so what? you guys already knew I was a bit weird. And then he carried on. It ended up being fairly low on the scandal scale as far as having any bad affect on him.

[nippletwister]

Well, I know little about TAA but doing a search on him reveals he is at the very best a "strange" character.

By that I mean "I'm pretty sure googling him just brought up pictures involving a banana and an orifice into which bananas do not usually enter".

I mean, I could also spot a dedicated campaign to smear him as being the world's greatest living monster, but from the evidence I saw he hardly seems like a laudable human being.

In the few vids of him that I've watched, I found him to be shouty, obnoxious, and kind of embarrassing.

He seems to have earned the ire of both the FtB/Skepchik/A+ guys and the 4chan/ED trolls. His RationalWiki article is a real hatchet-job. From what I saw, it looks like he sort-of fits into the mould of a "super-edgy stand-up comic". His behaviour wouldn't be out of place in a comedy club (worse things than even the banana incident have happened in live performance art), but I've noticed that people (men and women) who I have seen pushing the limits like that in a live show tone things down a fair bit for material that is recorded for wider broadcast. It makes a difference when people have come into a space to see you and have entered into a sort-of contract of "Here is a place where I will do things that make you uncomfortable." His mistake (and I do think it is one because he has apparently ended up with an awful reputation) was to try to do that to strangers online.

I am quite surprised CNN managed to put him on with nobody doing a little web search and thinking "Hey, maybe we can find a less controversial atheist?". Perhaps they did, and he's on a satellite link from elsewhere to prevent him from raping WLC. The downside of it is that any undecided person who watches that clip and then thinks "Hey, I will look more into this atheism thing" is not going to find positive things if they search for TAA. That is a shame. I mean, it's not like he has any particularly impressive qualifications to talk about this stuff (that I can see).

I am sure that many if not most people would find The Amazing Atheist to be boorish and ranty, mainly because that's what he does. He's going for a Sam Kinnison "why are you all so stupid" type of style, I think.
Personally I find him entertaining, and my SO likes him even more than I do. But we are open-minded people who enjoy a good rant without expecting any kind of deep intellectual involvement. He mainly pokes fun (or expresses mock outrage) at the really stupid aspects of religion which are unfortunately popular in America and elsewhere, along with other media trends and political posturing.

He also has taken a few swipes at SJW type feminism, which is where he got a lot of pushback and the campaign to paint him as some kind of monster. I missed the whole banana fiasco, but read up on it later. No big deal to me, but I'm sure that people who obsess over sex, body functions, and sexual stereotypes will have a different perspective. For me, being willing to stuff a banana up your ass on video doesn't say anything about a person's beliefs or worthiness as a human being or commentator. Of course, I have discovered that most people, including atheists and supposedly rational people, freak out big time when it comes to sex, body functions, buttholes, private parts, sexual kinks, etc. I find it incredibly disappointing, but whatever. It's part of the puritanical prudishness that still infects society everywhere, keeps the christian sex-fear going, and I believe contributes to the excessive victimization fantasies of some feminists as well. Great Christina used to be a somewhat decent writer on sexual subjects before she realized that professional victimization and demonization of men was more popular and profitable. As for me, I'm just a straight white male who has also been good friends with strippers, gay porn actors, fetishists, and other West Hollywood regulars. Good people, and mostly non-religious. TJ's antics are pretty mild to me.

I find it hilarious and awesome that he was chosen for a CNN debate with Craig. I think it's a wonderful sign that the atheist they chose is some ranty youtuber with no academic credentials and no professional career whatsoever. It may be a cheap attempt to equate atheism with weird ranty fat dudes, but that will only fool those who have already fooled themselves. I see it as a sign of strength if anything. Atheists aren't going to be any more tarred than they were already. Atheist intellectuals won't generally touch shitty TV debates with apologists. We can have a bad-tempered, foul mouthed court jester engage with a leading light of christian intellectuals and suffer no harm. All it will do is get TJ more views and more people to disagree with him. That's fucking awesome.

[mordacious1]

What's with WLC on CNN? For a polished debater, he seems to have had the shakes and trembly voice on that show. Note: The last time I pointed that out about someone, they had mild Parkinson's (if Parkinson's can be mild, maybe early onset). So if that's the case, I apologize ahead of time. Usually his delivery is canned, off-topic, but smooth. Maybe he's never been that close to a woman before.

[bhoytony]

What's with WLC on CNN? For a polished debater, he seems to have had the shakes and trembly voice on that show. Note: The last time I pointed that out about someone, they had mild Parkinson's (if Parkinson's can be mild, maybe early onset). So if that's the case, I apologize ahead of time. Usually his delivery is canned, off-topic, but smooth. Maybe he's never been that close to a woman before.

Perhaps he was picturing the banana scene in his mind.

[Tigzy]

What's with WLC on CNN? For a polished debater, he seems to have had the shakes and trembly voice on that show. Note: The last time I pointed that out about someone, they had mild Parkinson's (if Parkinson's can be mild, maybe early onset). So if that's the case, I apologize ahead of time. Usually his delivery is canned, off-topic, but smooth. Maybe he's never been that close to a woman before.

He's only ever come across to me as an unctuous, oily twerp. I dunno, maybe Merkins are more likely to be persuaded by that sort of delivery; personally, I'm pretty sure his actual voice could leave a stain on the carpet.

[AbsurdWalls]

What's with WLC on CNN? For a polished debater, he seems to have had the shakes and trembly voice on that show. Note: The last time I pointed that out about someone, they had mild Parkinson's (if Parkinson's can be mild, maybe early onset). So if that's the case, I apologize ahead of time. Usually his delivery is canned, off-topic, but smooth. Maybe he's never been that close to a woman before.

Maybe he was really hungover?

[AndrewV69]

The slimy thing is that this has been known for a long time, and mostly the violence is done by other men. But this is either ignored or omitted when statistics of rape is being discussed in certain feminist circles, even though it provides a great contrast.

The statistics are that the risk is greater for men to be victims of violence, like murder, and mostly by other men (strangers), on the street, however usually it happens from someone you know and usually in the comforts of your own home. Rape statistics are the same; there is a greater risk to be raped by someone you know, an acquaintance, a friend, a family member, than by a stranger, and at home rather than on the street (like in an alleyway). (Incidentally that's also why concepts like Schrödinger's Rapist are stupid and dead in the water.)

Oh I dunno about that. If you have a fear, reasonable or not, it is still a fear and thus real. That you may be looking in the wrong direction is neither here nor there.

Let me see what the Judgy Bitch has to say about this ... oh wait not really related, but perhaps on a parallell track she brings up the subject of ... wait for it ...

Schrodinger’s Slut! and also Schrodinger’s Clusterfuck!

Man, this Schrodinger fellow, he sure gets around because he has all kinds of things named after him.

All men are rapists and all women are sluts and the only way to tell one from the other is to check out what people are wearing and how they are acting.

Then she goes on to say:

You know, I think I’ve changed my mind about what I’m going to wear to my exam. I think I’ll go with this:

http://judgybitch.files.wordpress.com/2 ... .jpg?w=490

Come on now! It’s just a piece of clothing. And if people react negatively to my sense of fashion and appropriateness, well, that’s their problem, right?

Read the whole thing here:
http://judgybitch.com/2013/02/16/schrod ... -you-wear/

I would mansplain it to her but I think Greg bin Laden might be the better man for the job.

[AndrewV69]

D4m10n just got kicked from the A+ Fincke thread for questioning Sun Countess's pagan wisdom.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 4&start=25

Something odd going on there, ceepolk has edited one of Flew's posts.

I looked, possiby not hard enough but I do not see it. All I see is ceepolk flying up xir own arsehole repeatedly.

Someone else go check? I have to lie down for a little. My eyes are bleeding from reading and trying to make sense out of all the verbiage in that thread.

[Scented Nectar]

Ugh is right! He's not just bad at science, he's actively anti-science to make such a weaselly excuse for incorrect stats. Simplifying the conclusions is one thing, but in this case the core numbers are NOT being accurately presented. That's the whole point. But Slippery PZ tries to shift the argument over to whether simplification itself is ok or not, which is not what was being argued. What a piece of weasel snot he is.

This reminds me of how StatsCan appears to be trying to make it hard to do an apples to apples comparison on Family Violence, not to mention the whole business of sexual and physical abuse that the men of Kanukistan are noted for.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/2 ... m1-eng.htm

This is the thirteenth annual Family Violence in Canada report produced by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics under the Federal Family Violence Initiative. This report provides the most current data on the nature and extent of family violence in Canada, as well as trends over time, as part of the ongoing initiative to inform policy makers and the public about family violence issues.

Each year the report has a different focus. This year, the focus of the report is on self-reported incidents of spousal victimization from the 2009 General Social Survey on Victimization.

In addition, using police-reported data, the report also presents information on family violence against children and youth, family violence against seniors (aged 65 years and older), and family-related homicides.

I believe I once opined there were too many people cooking the books for me to believe anything, unless I had access to the data and could examine the collection methods and methodology of the "study" including the survey questions and how the answers are scored.

StatsCan 2005 (From the 2004 General Social Survey (GSS)):
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidie ... 4a-eng.htm

An estimated 7% of women and 6% of men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive new report on family violence.

I selected some items from the Women's Support Network of York Region because they referenced StatsCan or the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women which also gets their data from StatsCan. This is a pretty short list after I omitted all items with other sources.

http://www.womenssupportnetwork.ca/pgs/ ... s.htm.html

• 51% of Canadian Women have experienced at least one incident of violence since the age of 16. (Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Sexual Assault Fact Sheet. Ottawa: C.A.C.S.W., 1985)

• 89% of Sexual Assault victims/survivors have no visible physical injuries. (Statistics Canada, Violence Against Women Survey, 1993)

• Only 1 in 10 Sexual Assaults is reported to the police. Of those that are acquaintance rapes, only 1 in 100 is reported to the police. (Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Sexual Assault Fact Sheet. C.A.C.S.W., 1985)

• 1 in 2 women has experienced some form of sexual violence (Statistics Canada Survey 1993)

• Between 1979 and 1998, 1468 women were killed by their husbands, compared with 433 men killed by their wives. (Statistics Canada, 2000, p.6)

• In 2000, 40% of women who reported sexual assault were assaulted by a friend or casual acquaintance, 23% by a stranger, and 23% by a family member. (Status of Women Canada)

• 51% of Canadian Women have experienced at least one incident of violence since the age of 16. (Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Sexual Assault Fact Sheet. Ottawa: C.A.C.S.W., 1985)

• 89% of Sexual Assault victims/survivors have no visible physical injuries. (Statistics Canada, Violence Against Women Survey, 1993)

• Only 1 in 10 Sexual Assaults is reported to the police. Of those that are acquaintance rapes, only 1 in 100 is reported to the police. (Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Sexual Assault Fact Sheet. C.A.C.S.W., 1985)

• 1 in 2 women has experienced some form of sexual violence (Statistics Canada Survey 1993)

• Between 1979 and 1998, 1468 women were killed by their husbands, compared with 433 men killed by their wives. (Statistics Canada, 2000, p.6)

• Of all incidents of reported sexual assaults, 24% took place in the person’s home, 20% took place in the perpetrator’s home, 10% in someone else’s home, 25% in a car, and 21% in a public place. (Johnson, 1996)

• In 2000, 40% of women who reported sexual assault were assaulted by a friend or casual acquaintance, 23% by a stranger, and 23% by a family member. (Status of Women Canada)

Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel ... formatdisp

Each year the report has a different focus. This year, the focus of the report is on self-reported incidents of spousal victimization from the 2009 General Social Survey on Victimization.

In addition, using police-reported data, the report also presents information on family violence against children and youth, family violence against seniors, and family-related homicides.

Of course, the fact that the focus is different each year has got nothing to do with anything other than to provide fodder for interested parties.

The 1998 issue of the Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile report is general in focus. The focus of the 1999 issue is justice system responses to family violence. The focus of the 2000 issue is the incidence of spousal violence, reported by both women and men in the 1999 General Social Survey. The focus of the 2001 issue is child abuse. The focuses of the 2002 issue are impacts and consequences of family violence.

Women in Kanukistan get raped at the rate of one every 17 minutes. Day and Night the men of Kanukistan men are having a grand old time. There can not be too many virgins up here because we men just keep raapeing and raaaapeing like it was our natural right to rape a woman any time we feel like it.

http://www.huroniatransitionhomes.ca/information/stats/
1 in 4 Canadian women will be sexually assaulted during her lifetime. (2)

http://aasas.ca/index.php/main/page/fac ... 1-11-10-40
58% of Alberta women have experienced at least one incident of sexual or physical assault since the age of 16 (Statistics Canada, 1993).


- Every 17 minutes, a woman is raped.
(Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, 1985.)

If there is only one link you click on, this is the one you should do so:
http://www.canadianwomen.org/facts-about-violence

Because a whole lot of people are running around saying that :

1 in 2 Canadian women will be sexually or physically abused in her lifetime. That’s 50% of all girls and women.

And you really really really need to see what the background is for videos like this one:

nT5Q9ipH52I

If you visit Kanukistan make sure to leave your women at home, because up here in the True North Strong And Free we are not going ask, or wait for you to offer like the Innuit of old. Nope. We just going to rape your woman without so much as a hidey high ho. Take off eh? What is your problem hoser? Lots of women around, here *grabs a woman* rape this one and STFU eh?

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark all right, except it is not actually in Denmark, and the something rotting might just well be fish.

StatsCan is not a trustworthy source in my opinion. I've been fighting with them over the census for a long time. It appears by the questions that everyone must legally answer, that if you have had sex with anyone you live with, you must tell them, including the person's name and whether it was gay or straight sex. I asked StatsCan if that was the definition of their questions, and their responses were as evasive as any radfem or politician would be. My case number was never resolved, and I shared it with anyone else who wants to let their local census worker know the reference number of why they've not yet been able to send in their forms. StatsCan stopped replying to me. My interactions with them, and articles ranting about the sexual activity and ancestry questions, are at http://scentednectar.blogspot.ca/search ... sus%202011 It reads from bottom to top, if you read them chronologically.

[Tigzy]

Ha-haaa - Pruney's seething, because - of all things - she wanted to counter what Pitchguest and Tuvok said about her on Finke's Civility Pledge post, and is pissed off because her post has been left in moderation.

Fincke’s “civility” has resulted in mildew people posting lies about me in his comments, which are still sitting there uncontradicted because Fincke has wandered off somewhere, and new comments are held in moderation. I posted a correction yesterday morning – some 30 hours ago – and it still hasn’t appeared. Civil? Not so much.

Doesn't she just hate it when other people play her by her own rules? :lol:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... g-opinion/
http://www.freezepage.com/1361051856GQYLZLTMNW

[decius]

Hi Mordy.

What I've told him today reflects precisely what I think, including that he is setting himself up for a hard awakening.

[katamari Damassi]

Oh, and by the way, based on the A+ forum quotes above this post and what I saw the night they jumped all over Justin Vacula when he signed up there, what is it with them always having someone post the phrase "bitches ain't shit"?

Seriously, I've seen that enough times on A+, usually under the guise of them being sarcastic and snarky, but it's almost like when the right situation arises they just have to post "bitches ain't shit", which would normally I think get them banned on a site where certain words have magical offense powers. Do they do it just because they can in a few select situations and get away with it? Tasting the forbidden fruit A+'ers? Does getting to post "bitches ain't shit" in an accusatory manner (claiming that anyone not on board with A+ views thinks "bitches ain't shit" is a valid philosophical view) give you all the psychological satisfaction of getting to say a forbidden naughty phrase without punsihment?

Well A+'ers, I'm no psychologist or mind reader, but I suspect your self repression is starting to show itself.. :naughty:

Marcotte introduced me to that phrase years ago. It's one of the magical incantations of feminism.

[decius]

I also told him that he is being either gullible with Twatson's claims or unfair to others.

[DeepInsideYourMind]

Apparently it is being held in the same hotel as the famous elevatorgate incident!

Following our successful sell-out World Atheist Convention in the same venue in June 2011, you can register now for Atheist Ireland’s international Conference on Empowering Women Through Secularism, in the O’Callaghan Alexander Hotel in Dublin, Ireland, on the weekend of 29-30 June 2013.

They have a set of pictures of the invited speakers.

Wait a second...
Second row, on the left....

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

It's Justin Vacula! :shock:

Have to grow the moustache back!

And head back to 1973

[Pitchguest]

Ha-haaa - Pruney's seething, because - of all things - she wanted to counter what Pitchguest and Tuvok said about her on Finke's Civility Pledge post, and is pissed off because her post has been left in moderation.

Fincke’s “civility” has resulted in mildew people posting lies about me in his comments, which are still sitting there uncontradicted because Fincke has wandered off somewhere, and new comments are held in moderation. I posted a correction yesterday morning – some 30 hours ago – and it still hasn’t appeared. Civil? Not so much.

Doesn't she just hate it when other people play her by her own rules? :lol:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... g-opinion/
http://www.freezepage.com/1361051856GQYLZLTMNW

Hahahahaha

What's next, calling his blog a slum? Oh ha ha ha, that Benson. Someone out there who wants to replace the jingle for "that's Quagmire!" with "that's Ophelia!"?

[katamari Damassi]

Oh, and by the way, based on the A+ forum quotes above this post and what I saw the night they jumped all over Justin Vacula when he signed up there, what is it with them always having someone post the phrase "bitches ain't shit"?

Seriously, I've seen that enough times on A+, usually under the guise of them being sarcastic and snarky, but it's almost like when the right situation arises they just have to post "bitches ain't shit", which would normally I think get them banned on a site where certain words have magical offense powers. Do they do it just because they can in a few select situations and get away with it? Tasting the forbidden fruit A+'ers? Does getting to post "bitches ain't shit" in an accusatory manner (claiming that anyone not on board with A+ views thinks "bitches ain't shit" is a valid philosophical view) give you all the psychological satisfaction of getting to say a forbidden naughty phrase without punsihment?

Well A+'ers, I'm no psychologist or mind reader, but I suspect your self repression is starting to show itself.. :naughty:

Marcotte introduced me to that phrase years ago. It's one of the magical incantations of feminism.

I think "bitchez be crazy" was another one.
Frequently in the comments sections, someone would inevitably conclude a pretty insipid post with something sarcastic like: "but what do I know? I have a lady brain." or "I'm just a dumb girl."
Whenever they did that I always wondered what value they thought that added to their comment that they felt compelled to include it? To me it always expressed that they had nothing of interest to offer but here's some empty snark so they could feel like they contributed something to the conversation.

[AndrewV69]

StatsCan is not a trustworthy source in my opinion. I've been fighting with them over the census for a long time. It appears by the questions that everyone must legally answer, that if you have had sex with anyone you live with, you must tell them, including the person's name and whether it was gay or straight sex. I asked StatsCan if that was the definition of their questions, and their responses were as evasive as any radfem or politician would be. My case number was never resolved, and I shared it with anyone else who wants to let their local census worker know the reference number of why they've not yet been able to send in their forms. StatsCan stopped replying to me. My interactions with them, and articles ranting about the sexual activity and ancestry questions, are at http://scentednectar.blogspot.ca/search ... sus%202011 It reads from bottom to top, if you read them chronologically.

Remember when Harper scrapped the long form and all kinds of people had an aneurysm?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/27 ... cellation/

The agency released its final tranche of the 2011 census last week, focusing on languages, but it included a big warning that cautions data users about comparing key facts against censuses of the past.

“Data users are advised to exercise caution when evaluating trends related to mother tongue and home language that compare 2011 census data to those of previous censuses,” Statistics Canada states bluntly in a box included in its census material.

Languages? Really? Do you really really really believe, cross your heart and hope to die that was the only issue? Languages? Really? Do you fucking think everyone is as stupid as you think they are?

You fucking liers and your fucking cooking of the fucking books made all the fucking data completely fucking suspect. You and your ideological fucks have so fogged up and confused the fucking picture of what the fuck is really going on, that it would have been less effort and more productive, to take all the fucking money spent on this shit, make a big fucking pile of it and set it on fucking fire for all the good it did us. Fuck you! Fuck you in all directions and the fucking goats you buggered since 1995. Fuck you very much and fuck off.

/rant

[TheMudbrooker]

Apparently it is being held in the same hotel as the famous elevatorgate incident!

Following our successful sell-out World Atheist Convention in the same venue in June 2011, you can register now for Atheist Ireland’s international Conference on Empowering Women Through Secularism, in the O’Callaghan Alexander Hotel in Dublin, Ireland, on the weekend of 29-30 June 2013.

They have a set of pictures of the invited speakers.

Wait a second...
Second row, on the left....

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

It's Justin Vacula! :shock:

Have to grow the moustache back!

And head back to 1973

A little advice...
[youtube]IkO5VyY78xQ[/youtube]

[mordacious1]

decius Well, I know he likes to be the calm, introspective type who doesn't jump on the first bandwagon to go by, but at some point you have to smell the Cappuccino (and the whole internet is reeking of coffee right now...sorry Phillip). The longer he keeps this up, the more I'm convinced he's pounding down those kool-aid mixers. If, as you say, he's going to have a "hard awakening", it better be soon (this has, after all been going on for awhile).

[DeepInsideYourMind]

Good grief the comments on Dan's Civility Pledge are fun ...


p.s. can we stop knocking people for using the word slut ... I know many girls who proudly describe themselves as sluts ... they have overcome their moral upbringing around sex and just enjoy it.

[decius]

decius Well, I know he likes to be the calm, introspective type who doesn't jump on the first bandwagon to go by, but at some point you have to smell the Cappuccino (and the whole internet is reeking of coffee right now...sorry Phillip). The longer he keeps this up, the more I'm convinced he's pounding down those kool-aid mixers. If, as you say, he's going to have a "hard awakening", it better be soon (this has, after all been going on for awhile).

Today's conversation has convinced me that your original position was more correct than mine, at least with regard to the pseudo-threats and misogyny on line.

[Pitchguest]

Oh, and by the way, based on the A+ forum quotes above this post and what I saw the night they jumped all over Justin Vacula when he signed up there, what is it with them always having someone post the phrase "bitches ain't shit"?

Seriously, I've seen that enough times on A+, usually under the guise of them being sarcastic and snarky, but it's almost like when the right situation arises they just have to post "bitches ain't shit", which would normally I think get them banned on a site where certain words have magical offense powers. Do they do it just because they can in a few select situations and get away with it? Tasting the forbidden fruit A+'ers? Does getting to post "bitches ain't shit" in an accusatory manner (claiming that anyone not on board with A+ views thinks "bitches ain't shit" is a valid philosophical view) give you all the psychological satisfaction of getting to say a forbidden naughty phrase without punsihment?

Well A+'ers, I'm no psychologist or mind reader, but I suspect your self repression is starting to show itself.. :naughty:

How many times have members here actually used the phrase "bitches ain't shit"? And if so, did they use it in a serious manner or simply referring to it? Seriously. I don't think I've ever seen the phrase "bitches ain't shit" or any variant thereof posted here on the 'Pit, by anyone. So by my counts they're actually perpetuating their own cardinal sin by uttering the phrase themselves, over and over. It's like with "cunt" - it doesn't get much mileage here, does it? But when it does, it's to disparage them based on their arguments and not based on their gender, which is what's being accused.

By the way, didn't Ophelia Benson acknowledge that "cunt" has a different meaning in different cultures? I'm surprised they didn't boil her in oil for that.

[Submariner]

Oh, and by the way, based on the A+ forum quotes above this post and what I saw the night they jumped all over Justin Vacula when he signed up there, what is it with them always having someone post the phrase "bitches ain't shit"?

Seriously, I've seen that enough times on A+, usually under the guise of them being sarcastic and snarky, but it's almost like when the right situation arises they just have to post "bitches ain't shit", which would normally I think get them banned on a site where certain words have magical offense powers. Do they do it just because they can in a few select situations and get away with it? Tasting the forbidden fruit A+'ers? Does getting to post "bitches ain't shit" in an accusatory manner (claiming that anyone not on board with A+ views thinks "bitches ain't shit" is a valid philosophical view) give you all the psychological satisfaction of getting to say a forbidden naughty phrase without punsihment?

Well A+'ers, I'm no psychologist or mind reader, but I suspect your self repression is starting to show itself.. :naughty:

Marcotte introduced me to that phrase years ago. It's one of the magical incantations of feminism.

I think "bitchez be crazy" was another one.
Frequently in the comments sections, someone would inevitably conclude a pretty insipid post with something sarcastic like: "but what do I know? I have a lady brain." or "I'm just a dumb girl."
Whenever they did that I always wondered what value they thought that added to their comment that they felt compelled to include it? To me it always expressed that they had nothing of interest to offer but here's some empty snark so they could feel like they contributed something to the conversation.

Sounds like something a bad WWE performer would use as a tagline.

"Pimpin' ain't easy, and bitches be crazy."

[mordacious1]

Does Pruney ever comment anywhere where she isn't claiming someone is telling lies about her? In my several years posting on the internet, I don't think I've ever said that someone is posting lies about me. People say nasty things to me all the time (just last night I got into it with some bozo because he wanted to nuke Iran and he was very unpleasant, but I didn't say he was lying about me). That's just weird. One of my son's issues is severe paranoia and she sounds like him on his worst days. Saying "you're lying about me" is not a good argument (saying you are lying about facts on a subject is different...although I guess, in her case, the subject has to always be "OPHELIA").

[metalogic42_mobile]

What's with WLC on CNN? For a polished debater, he seems to have had the shakes and trembly voice on that show. Note: The last time I pointed that out about someone, they had mild Parkinson's (if Parkinson's can be mild, maybe early onset). So if that's the case, I apologize ahead of time. Usually his delivery is canned, off-topic, but smooth. Maybe he's never been that close to a woman before.

He actually does have muscular dystrophy, i think. Might be something else though, but i know for sure hes got some sort of medical condition.

[Apples]

Gregory Greenwood pokes a fork in his eye over at PZ's post about Radford's calling out Eve Ensler's stats abuse:

It takes a particularly repugnant sort of empathy-free, ragingly misogynistic arsehole to mansplain to women that their experience of rape, sexual abuse, gendered violence or other suffering because of their gender brought about by toxic patriarchy just isn’t serious enough to qualify as ‘legitimate rape’ according to the arbitrary metric of an oblivious, sexist hyperskeptic.

Radford and his ilk are a poison within atheo-skepticism. Not only are they driving people away from the movement in droves and making it ridiculously easy for our opponents to demonise us by tarring us all with the same brush, but far more seriously they are directly contributing to the maintenance of rape culture by their incessent attempts to minimise the severity and wisepread character of the scourge of rape and gendered violence across the globe.

Fucking cretin. People like this are beyond help.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... over-rape/
http://www.freezepage.com/1361054197KQEFXYVJUU

[mordacious1]

He actually does have muscular dystrophy, i think. Might be something else though, but i know for sure hes got some sort of medical condition.

Oh, great! I'm 2 for 2.

[Al Stefanelli]

http://www.alstefanelli.com/threedicks.jpg

[mordacious1]

http://www.alstefanelli.com/threedicks.jpg

Laßt uns niemals der Pflicht [spittle] vergessen, welche wir auf uns genommen haben [more spittle].

[Skep tickle]

What's with WLC on CNN? For a polished debater, he seems to have had the shakes and trembly voice on that show. Note: The last time I pointed that out about someone, they had mild Parkinson's (if Parkinson's can be mild, maybe early onset). So if that's the case, I apologize ahead of time. Usually his delivery is canned, off-topic, but smooth. Maybe he's never been that close to a woman before.

He actually does have muscular dystrophy, i think. Might be something else though, but i know for sure hes got some sort of medical condition.

Not muscular dystrophy. This version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drrll ... Lane_Craig says he has Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease:

Craig suffers from a neuromuscular disorder called Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease, a hereditary disorder, which is autosomal dominant and* X chromosome linked which means that his mother* was a carrier of the mutant allele and passed it to him, that involves the slow disintegration of the myelin sheaths around the nerves in the forearms and legs, resulting in progressive muscular atrophy.[4]

*Uh, no. A genetic trait can be either autosomal or sex-linked, but not (in a given line) both. The most common forms of CMT are autosomal dominant in inheritance pattern, but there are less common forms which are either autosomal recessive or X-linked.

Ref 4 is the page linked above isWLC's website http://www.reasonablefaith.org/maintain ... al-stamina: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/maintain ... al-stamina, where he says (in part):

I, like my mom and brother, have Charcot-Marie-Tooth Syndrome, a hereditary disorder that involves the slow disintegration of the myelin sheaths around the nerves in the forearms and legs, resulting in progressive muscular atrophy. Some people afflicted with this condition are terribly disabled, but my case is quite light, affecting mainly my hands and in recent years my calves. It principally means that I can’t go bowling or type—big deal, Jan says! But I could see what was coming (though, I must say, my mom is currently 87 years old and still going strong), and this has spurred me to try to stay in shape and tone my muscles to stave off as much as I reasonably can the effects of the inevitable atrophy.

Apparently (according to info found in a quick search) CMT can affect the voice, but I'd imagine that's a late, or unusual, manifestation. Apparently (same source) CMT can be associated with a tremor, though it looks like it's a bit unclear whether CMT causes tremor or can be coincidentally present with "benign essential tremor" (which is common).

[Pitchguest]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... g-opinion/

So this is the blog post where Ophelia claims LIES, LIES, PANTS ON FLIES but for some reason she neglects to mention the user I was addressing, namely Ulysses, who brings up that old canard about Justin Vacula (the doxxing) - who proceeded to make unduly accusations about him and blah blah blah, the usual. But the only thing that stuck was the part where I added Ophelia as exposition, where she quite clearly called Girl Writes What a 'stupid bitch' (even though she later took it back and said she called *herself* a 'stupid bitch' - yeah, nice try. [Or was it 'just a joke'? *gigglesnort*]) And even if she weren't, she still used the word 'bitch' - an epithet she says she doesn't use. Oops.

She is also still whining about being put in moderation on other people's blogs. I would laugh if it weren't so incredibly sad.

To finish, she literally quotes four long paragraphs from John Stuart Mill at the end. FOUR. (Well, technically three since she cuts one off.) By which she adds after a paragraph, "Yes. Skipping ahead a little." What a lazy bum. Good Gordon, if there ever was a time when Ophelia should be added to the rank of crazy cat ladies (not to mention paranoid schizoids), this would be the time to do it.

[Apples]

http://i.imgur.com/YiPOann.png
.... and Barack Obama is a white supremacist space alien.
.

[Tigzy]

http://www.alstefanelli.com/threedicks.jpg

Nah. She's just flossing a eustachian tube.

[katamari Damassi]

Ugh is right! He's not just bad at science, he's actively anti-science to make such a weaselly excuse for incorrect stats. Simplifying the conclusions is one thing, but in this case the core numbers are NOT being accurately presented. That's the whole point. But Slippery PZ tries to shift the argument over to whether simplification itself is ok or not, which is not what was being argued. What a piece of weasel snot he is.

This reminds me of how StatsCan appears to be trying to make it hard to do an apples to apples comparison on Family Violence, not to mention the whole business of sexual and physical abuse that the men of Kanukistan are noted for.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/2 ... m1-eng.htm

This is the thirteenth annual Family Violence in Canada report produced by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics under the Federal Family Violence Initiative. This report provides the most current data on the nature and extent of family violence in Canada, as well as trends over time, as part of the ongoing initiative to inform policy makers and the public about family violence issues.

Each year the report has a different focus. This year, the focus of the report is on self-reported incidents of spousal victimization from the 2009 General Social Survey on Victimization.

In addition, using police-reported data, the report also presents information on family violence against children and youth, family violence against seniors (aged 65 years and older), and family-related homicides.

I believe I once opined there were too many people cooking the books for me to believe anything, unless I had access to the data and could examine the collection methods and methodology of the "study" including the survey questions and how the answers are scored.

StatsCan 2005 (From the 2004 General Social Survey (GSS)):
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidie ... 4a-eng.htm

An estimated 7% of women and 6% of men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive new report on family violence.

I selected some items from the Women's Support Network of York Region because they referenced StatsCan or the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women which also gets their data from StatsCan. This is a pretty short list after I omitted all items with other sources.

http://www.womenssupportnetwork.ca/pgs/ ... s.htm.html

• 51% of Canadian Women have experienced at least one incident of violence since the age of 16. (Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Sexual Assault Fact Sheet. Ottawa: C.A.C.S.W., 1985)

• 89% of Sexual Assault victims/survivors have no visible physical injuries. (Statistics Canada, Violence Against Women Survey, 1993)

• Only 1 in 10 Sexual Assaults is reported to the police. Of those that are acquaintance rapes, only 1 in 100 is reported to the police. (Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Sexual Assault Fact Sheet. C.A.C.S.W., 1985)

• 1 in 2 women has experienced some form of sexual violence (Statistics Canada Survey 1993)

• Between 1979 and 1998, 1468 women were killed by their husbands, compared with 433 men killed by their wives. (Statistics Canada, 2000, p.6)

• In 2000, 40% of women who reported sexual assault were assaulted by a friend or casual acquaintance, 23% by a stranger, and 23% by a family member. (Status of Women Canada)

• 51% of Canadian Women have experienced at least one incident of violence since the age of 16. (Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Sexual Assault Fact Sheet. Ottawa: C.A.C.S.W., 1985)

• 89% of Sexual Assault victims/survivors have no visible physical injuries. (Statistics Canada, Violence Against Women Survey, 1993)

• Only 1 in 10 Sexual Assaults is reported to the police. Of those that are acquaintance rapes, only 1 in 100 is reported to the police. (Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Sexual Assault Fact Sheet. C.A.C.S.W., 1985)

• 1 in 2 women has experienced some form of sexual violence (Statistics Canada Survey 1993)

• Between 1979 and 1998, 1468 women were killed by their husbands, compared with 433 men killed by their wives. (Statistics Canada, 2000, p.6)

• Of all incidents of reported sexual assaults, 24% took place in the person’s home, 20% took place in the perpetrator’s home, 10% in someone else’s home, 25% in a car, and 21% in a public place. (Johnson, 1996)

• In 2000, 40% of women who reported sexual assault were assaulted by a friend or casual acquaintance, 23% by a stranger, and 23% by a family member. (Status of Women Canada)

Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel ... formatdisp

Each year the report has a different focus. This year, the focus of the report is on self-reported incidents of spousal victimization from the 2009 General Social Survey on Victimization.

In addition, using police-reported data, the report also presents information on family violence against children and youth, family violence against seniors, and family-related homicides.

Of course, the fact that the focus is different each year has got nothing to do with anything other than to provide fodder for interested parties.

The 1998 issue of the Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile report is general in focus. The focus of the 1999 issue is justice system responses to family violence. The focus of the 2000 issue is the incidence of spousal violence, reported by both women and men in the 1999 General Social Survey. The focus of the 2001 issue is child abuse. The focuses of the 2002 issue are impacts and consequences of family violence.

Women in Kanukistan get raped at the rate of one every 17 minutes. Day and Night the men of Kanukistan men are having a grand old time. There can not be too many virgins up here because we men just keep raapeing and raaaapeing like it was our natural right to rape a woman any time we feel like it.

http://www.huroniatransitionhomes.ca/information/stats/
1 in 4 Canadian women will be sexually assaulted during her lifetime. (2)

http://aasas.ca/index.php/main/page/fac ... 1-11-10-40
58% of Alberta women have experienced at least one incident of sexual or physical assault since the age of 16 (Statistics Canada, 1993).


- Every 17 minutes, a woman is raped.
(Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, 1985.)

If there is only one link you click on, this is the one you should do so:
http://www.canadianwomen.org/facts-about-violence

Because a whole lot of people are running around saying that :

1 in 2 Canadian women will be sexually or physically abused in her lifetime. That’s 50% of all girls and women.

And you really really really need to see what the background is for videos like this one:

nT5Q9ipH52I

If you visit Kanukistan make sure to leave your women at home, because up here in the True North Strong And Free we are not going ask, or wait for you to offer like the Innuit of old. Nope. We just going to rape your woman without so much as a hidey high ho. Take off eh? What is your problem hoser? Lots of women around, here *grabs a woman* rape this one and STFU eh?

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark all right, except it is not actually in Denmark, and the something rotting might just well be fish.

StatsCan is not a trustworthy source in my opinion. I've been fighting with them over the census for a long time. It appears by the questions that everyone must legally answer, that if you have had sex with anyone you live with, you must tell them, including the person's name and whether it was gay or straight sex. I asked StatsCan if that was the definition of their questions, and their responses were as evasive as any radfem or politician would be. My case number was never resolved, and I shared it with anyone else who wants to let their local census worker know the reference number of why they've not yet been able to send in their forms. StatsCan stopped replying to me. My interactions with them, and articles ranting about the sexual activity and ancestry questions, are at http://scentednectar.blogspot.ca/search ... sus%202011 It reads from bottom to top, if you read them chronologically.

Whenever these ever inconsistent statistics are brought out I always have to wonder what criteria was used to determine rape or sexual assault. Some feminists consider junior highschool bra snapping to be sexual assault. I remember one woman describing as a sexual assault an incident wherein a stranger put his hand on her knee at a cinema. Now any unwelcome touch can be considered battery, is unpleasant, and shouldn't happen, but it's an insult to people who have suffered through actual attacks, and inflating the number of incidences by so broadening the definition as to render the term practically meaningless is deceptive.

[Tigzy]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... g-opinion/

So this is the blog post where Ophelia claims LIES, LIES, PANTS ON FLIES but for some reason she neglects to mention the user I was addressing, namely Ulysses, who brings up that old canard about Justin Vacula (the doxxing) - who proceeded to make unduly accusations about him and blah blah blah, the usual. But the only thing that stuck was the part where I added Ophelia as exposition, where she quite clearly called Girl Writes What a 'stupid bitch' (even though she later took it back and said she called *herself* a 'stupid bitch' - yeah, nice try. [Or was it 'just a joke'? *gigglesnort*]) And even if she weren't, she still used the word 'bitch' - an epithet she says she doesn't use. Oops.

I do not honestly believe Benson has spent so much time on FTB without reading that beloved phrase of theirs, 'intent isn't magic'.