:o :shock: :lol:feathers wrote:Uhm, up where should I put my thumb?Aneris wrote:Favourite YouTube philospher Gary Edwards addresses Richard Carriers' "90% of EvoPsych is false" claim. If you like it, be so kind and head over and thumb it up
Here: :obscene-buttsway: ?
I love that she describes her penis as "a long-standing birth defect to my urinary tract." And while I take no joy in the post-operative pain she experienced, I do note the irony in the fact that the bleeding she mentions may have been her first taste of genital womanhood.Ape+lust wrote:I'm betting s/he did. And the millionaire brat funded some, if not all of it, through e-begging.Scented Nectar wrote:Wu had SRS surgery? I just assumed he was one of the majority who have no intention of changing their sex organs because of it being a fetish rather than actual dysmorphia. It's a surprise these days when they actually change their parts.Spike13 wrote:I normally don't like to comment on folks appearances, glass houses, blah, blah, blah...
But wu should have kept her girl cock and spent the cash on facial surgery...
Talk about falling out of the ugly tree and hitting every branch on the way down.
That is one frightening mug.
http://imgur.com/MfFNHHU.png
http://imgur.com/Ld3l4T2.png
Look on the bright side (of life: queue Monty Python). Apropos:Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:No, really, Alan Rickman now.
2016: WTF?!?
Largely, though, I think that the problem is their shitty personalities. Lots of people were not prom king/queen, and they turned out just fine.Spike13 wrote:another lurker wrote:
This is a rather limited 'observation' but...
Most of the male feminists that I have seen in SJW circles either look like Ed Brayton/PZ Meyers or some version of Dicky Carrier
The women are all variations on Oafie and/or Svan
And they spend all of their time hating on people.
I guess it lends meaning to their empty lives? (provided it's not for money-making purposes)
But yeah, some of the most vile SJWs that I have seen, the ones who comment on Patheos/FTB and tumblr, are mostly variations on the above themes.
True, your observations mirror mine.
Most of these folks don't exactly look like they won prom king/ queen.
Maybe that's where the bile comes from. Powerless ignored nobodies who finally get a bit of attention and now it's payback time.
The echo chambers only serve to increase their delusions.
The latter part of the study concerning dehumanisation seems to contradict the earlier part that we attribute mind to anything suffering abuse.another lurker wrote:Sorta related, regarding views on victimhood:
http://www.livescience.com/37493-victim ... minds.html
Done. Interesting to note that there's a transcript there as well - something that more vloggers should be doing. I frequently find it's not worth my time to watch a video if there isn't a transcript available to at least decide if watching is likely to add anything.Aneris wrote:Favourite YouTube philospher Gary Edwards addresses Richard Carriers' "90% of EvoPsych is false" claim. If you like it, be so kind and head over and thumb it up.
[.youtube]v3NySjwlJ6c[/youtube]
"The foregoing has been a paid political announcement. We now return you to our regular schedeuled programming ...."Evolutionary psychology thereby threatens the dream of political perfection via social reform. Public denouncement of “evo-psych” has thus become something of a shibboleth amongst the anti-science left. An ‘in-group’ identifier, amongst those whose appetite for social justice overpowers their respect for truth. Rather than complements it.
While he might have a point that it is invalid to leap to the "1 in 9 chance", it does suggest taking more of the field with a grain or two more of salt.And because in both psychology, and psychology as evolution alike, only about 1 in 3 results are trustworthy. The statistical conjunction of these probabilities meaning that evolutionary psychology itself has only about a 1 in 9 chance of being accurate.
Still have an orgasm, don't produce anything.Spike13 wrote:Stupid question,
If someone undergoes SRS are they still capable of having orgasms?
I would think all that meat shuffling would result in at least some nerve damage.
Wouldn't they remove the prostate for a m to f reassignment?
Oh ok, that would be one hell of a price to pay.comhcinc wrote:Still have an orgasm, don't produce anything.Spike13 wrote:Stupid question,
If someone undergoes SRS are they still capable of having orgasms?
I would think all that meat shuffling would result in at least some nerve damage.
Wouldn't they remove the prostate for a m to f reassignment?
Even the prom kings/queens can easily support feelings of victimhood and special snowflakeness.another lurker wrote:
Largely, though, I think that the problem is their shitty personalities. Lots of people were not prom king/queen, and they turned out just fine.
The SJWs have shitty personalities for whatever reason, and voila, victimhood = instant attention/feelings of superiority/special snowflake
etc etc
Re "shitty personalities" (but do they have hot bods?):another lurker wrote:Largely, though, I think that the problem is their shitty personalities. Lots of people were not prom king/queen, and they turned out just fine.Spike13 wrote:True, your observations mirror mine. ....another lurker wrote: This is a rather limited 'observation' but...
Most of the male feminists that I have seen in SJW circles either look like Ed Brayton/PZ Meyers or some version of Dicky Carrier ....
But yeah, some of the most vile SJWs that I have seen, the ones who comment on Patheos/FTB and tumblr, are mostly variations on the above themes.
Maybe that's where the bile comes from. Powerless ignored nobodies who finally get a bit of attention and now it's payback time.
The echo chambers only serve to increase their delusions.
The SJWs have shitty personalities for whatever reason, and voila, victimhood = instant attention/feelings of superiority/special snowflake. etc etc
Did we ever find out how many reviewers SP used? Their website talks in the singular and here he says that there were no SPP revisions required. It must have been a busy day for Robert M Price.Jan Steen wrote:The incredibly morphing paragraph: How Dr. Richard Carrier PhD is rewriting history
Carrier is getting more and more entrapped in his own web of lies, like a particularly inept kind of spider.
First he wrote:
When he was questioned on Twitter about the dodgy state of these alleged peer reviews, he went back to his two-and-a-half year old blog post, and modified this paragraph as follows:My new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (UK). I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well.
But adding this one twist did nothing to erase the other lie, namely that Sheffield Phoenix (not Sheffield-Phoenix, as Carrier consistently misspells it) is "the publishing house of the University of Sheffield." More retconning was needed. The final (?) revision now reads:My new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (UK). I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have also approved the text and their revision requests have been satisfied. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well. [changed bits in red+bold, JS]
In my opinion, it is still somewhat misleading to call the independent company Sheffield Phoenix "a publishing house at the University of Sheffield". But I'll let this pass (for now). More interesting is the change in wording from this:My new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, a publishing house at the University of Sheffield (UK). I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. And Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have approved the text. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well.
to this:Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have also approved the text and their revision requests have been satisfied.
What happened to their "revision requests"?And Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have approved the text.
In a comment added at the same time as the latest revision, Carrier explains:
It's getting curiouser and curiouser. We are now to believe that Sheffield's "own" peer reviewers did not ask for revisions, because one of them happened to be one of the professors whom Carrier had already asked on his own initiative to do a peer review of his Jesus book. This "major professor" presumably told Sheffield Phoenix that he had already reviewed the bloody tome and that he wouldn't do it again. Which is reasonable, isn't it? Except that it is strange that Sheffield Phoenix would have approached this professor in the first place, because they would have seen his review, presented to them by the pro-active Dr. Carrier himself. He knew who this professor was and would proudly have conveyed the famous scholar's identity to Sheffield Phoenix. This whole tale stinks. To me it looks as if Sheffield Phoenix have asked Carrier to cut out his BS, as they will also have asked him to stop misrepresenting their company as being a branch of Sheffield University.Update: I have revised “Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have also approved the text and their revision requests have been satisfied” to simply “And Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have approved the text” because checking my records I realize the only peer reviewer they had been working with whom I know by name (others remain anonymous) also happened by chance to be one of the professors I had chosen myself (as I discovered later); and though all reviewer revision requests I received were satisfied, not all peer reviewers sent revision requests.
What about the other peer reviewer, who found nothing to revise in a 700+ page manuscript written by Richard Carrier? That too beggars belief. Anybody who has read even one blog post ejaculated by Carrier will know that such a lack of revision requests is just impossible. Unless, that is, the poor reviewer simply collapsed under the thankless task and was admitted to a mental hospital for recuperation.
In any case, it was rather irresponsible of Sheffield Phoenix not to find a reviewer who would have come up with something, anything at all, to revise. But probably they never really tried in the first place. This cock-and-bull story about Sheffield Phoenix's own peer reviewers who ended up not reviewing anything looks like yet another lie by the desperate Dr. Carrier.
Poor little spider, trapped in his own web of deception. Waiting to be sucked up by a vacuum cleaner.
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Carrier now characterizes the attention he receives from the Slymepit as "harassment". It's what SJWs do when their lies are exposed.
What a tool. What a stupid, lying tool.Richard Carrier says
January 12, 2016 at 5:35 pm
I’m aware. And yes, this is part of continuing Slymepit harassment. To head off any chance of their continued confusion, I have revised all my references to being published “by” Sheffield University to being published “at” Sheffield University, since the matter concerns the triviality of bylaws and administrative control. Sheffield-Phoenix Press is located in Sheffield University campus facilities and run by members of the Sheffield University faculty. And is of course a fully peer reviewed academic press. It just isn’t under the control of the non-faculty administration. All of which is obvious. And of course has no bearing on anything of relevance.
Let me compile a list of resources (historicist, mythicist & neutral) and post that in a bit -- but I've got a hawt date this weekend.WaxNapoleon wrote:You seem to know your shit. Could a recommend a few books on this subject?Matt Cavanaugh wrote:If, as Bob Price asserts, Mark is nothing but a late 1st century midrash on Isaiah, Daniel & Amos, then it truly is a strange coincidence that Jesus' doings on the Mount of Olives and in the Temple are so closely paralleled by "The Egyptian" (c. AD 52) and Menahem (AD 66-70), both of whom claimed to be messianic Joshuas (a.k.a. "Jesuses") and kings of the jews.
And, of course, the mythicists' favorite maneuver is to declare anything contradictory to their thesis an interpolation.
There's something blatantly Lysenkoist about the SJW attitude to science. From wiki: "The term Lysenkoism is also used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives."Steersman wrote: [.youtube]v3NySjwlJ6c[/youtube]
In any case, an interesting twist of the knife:"The foregoing has been a paid political announcement. We now return you to our regular schedeuled programming ...."Evolutionary psychology thereby threatens the dream of political perfection via social reform. Public denouncement of “evo-psych” has thus become something of a shibboleth amongst the anti-science left. An ‘in-group’ identifier, amongst those whose appetite for social justice overpowers their respect for truth. Rather than complements it.
She's still a major dick.Ape+lust wrote:I'm betting s/he did. And the millionaire brat funded some, if not all of it, through e-begging.Scented Nectar wrote:Wu had SRS surgery? I just assumed he was one of the majority who have no intention of changing their sex organs because of it being a fetish rather than actual dysmorphia. It's a surprise these days when they actually change their parts.Spike13 wrote:I normally don't like to comment on folks appearances, glass houses, blah, blah, blah...
But wu should have kept her girl cock and spent the cash on facial surgery...
Talk about falling out of the ugly tree and hitting every branch on the way down.
That is one frightening mug.
http://imgur.com/MfFNHHU.png
http://imgur.com/Ld3l4T2.png
If you watch it, you'll see he's stoked. 5 episodes before the boring cis-es showing up was a little taste of progressive heaven to him.ADAM: It is an amazing show on so, so many levels and I know, we should probably do an actual Spoilercast at some point, but I wanna say... first off, it is the most diverse show you've ever seen. In fact, it's episode 5 before you see a cis-gendered relationship.
OTHER: Wow.
ADAM: Um, (laughs) seriously, everything is normalized in this and none of it is ever commented on, and it's so goddamn refreshing.
You can get a ref here if it makes you feel better.Lsuoma wrote:In all the tributes I've seen to the Rickster, not one has mentioned Galaxy Quest. :-(
Ape+lust wrote:I don't watch TV, so I haven't seen a lot of Adam Savage. Has he always been a social justice numpty? I had a random episode of his YouTube show playing and heard them discussing the Jessica Jones TV series:
If you watch it, you'll see he's stoked. 5 episodes before the boring cis-es showing up was a little taste of progressive heaven to him.ADAM: It is an amazing show on so, so many levels and I know, we should probably do an actual Spoilercast at some point, but I wanna say... first off, it is the most diverse show you've ever seen. In fact, it's episode 5 before you see a cis-gendered relationship.
OTHER: Wow.
ADAM: Um, (laughs) seriously, everything is normalized in this and none of it is ever commented on, and it's so goddamn refreshing.
Ape+lust wrote:Boodles got shellacked by YouTube trolls during her visit to Adam Savage's show.
http://imgur.com/sjSrYtb.png
Recent shows for comparison. Notice the last guy didn't do too bad.
http://imgur.com/I1YOunu.png
I'm sure Rebecca is massively relieved. She can reprise her one monetizable asset -- pitiable victim badass -- for the 1000th time without unseemly contrivances. Patreon is trending down and needs goosing.
.http://imgur.com/6ZnlT3U.png
This is the thing that baffles me about SJWs -- how can those three words, or more specifically the first two with the third, make sense together?Ape+lust wrote: -- pitiable victim badass --
Believing Carrier is so goddamn frustrating because he made his statements a zillion times and never clarifies where he may have edited.Brive1987 wrote:Was that update to "accepted" made in the last 2 hours - because here Carrier is still saying SPP changes were adopted. The guy is down the rabbit hole, his posts are a story that is growing in the telling.
http://i.imgur.com/zPs8y5E.jpg
From the archive captured on August 29, 2013:My new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (UK). I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have also approved the text and their revision requests have been satisfied. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well.
Read more: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... z3xFhav9RK
https://archive.is/65BOVMy new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield (UK). I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well.
https://archive.is/FsGIrMy new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, a publishing house at the University of Sheffield (UK). I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. And Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have approved the text. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well.
Brive1987 wrote:
Ha, a savage specific gamergate moment for his show. Was this makeup for caning her quiz-a-thing with a no show? If not I wonder if she forced AdamI to write contra provisions into his contract?
I love that she describes her penis as "a long-standing birth defect to my urinary tract."[/quote]Really? wrote:http://imgur.com/Ld3l4T2.png
It all makes sense when you think of SJW's as being complete cunts.Dave wrote:This is the thing that baffles me about SJWs -- how can those three words, or more specifically the first two with the third, make sense together?Ape+lust wrote: -- pitiable victim badass --
Im not criticizing you Ape, that term perfectly encapsulates the image Rebecca tries to project, but its an inherently incoherent image. And its not just Beckyboo -- See Elyse "Mofo", or "Surly" Amy -- you can be surly or you can cry at the sight of a t-shirt, but not both. See also Brianna who tries to project the image of a successful entrepreneur while also being a helpless victim of all this horrible discrimination. But it just doesnt make sense: You can kick ass and take names or you can be a passive victim, but not both. A Mofo who kicks down the barriers in his or her way can get beaten, but when they do, they get back up, dust themselves off and get back to work, not whine about it to anyone who will listen.
That's definitely a stupid question, shitlord. Whatever made you think that orgasms have anything to do the body?Spike13 wrote:Stupid question,
If someone undergoes SRS are they still capable of having orgasms?
Indeed. One kind of expects that type of thing from the religious defending their dogma, but it is disconcerting to say the least to see it in the ostensibly rational and secular. Clearly, "dogma" is no particular respecter of religious boundaries. Somewhat apropos, part of a Twitter discussion where I raised that issue in response to a Tweet that had been favorited by Melby:RebeccaB wrote:There's something blatantly Lysenkoist about the SJW attitude to science. From wiki: "The term Lysenkoism is also used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives."Steersman wrote: [.youtube]v3NySjwlJ6c[/youtube]
In any case, an interesting twist of the knife:"The foregoing has been a paid political announcement. We now return you to our regular schedeuled programming ...."Evolutionary psychology thereby threatens the dream of political perfection via social reform. Public denouncement of “evo-psych” has thus become something of a shibboleth amongst the anti-science left. An ‘in-group’ identifier, amongst those whose appetite for social justice overpowers their respect for truth. Rather than complements it.
What the fuck version of Jessica Jones did he watch? Because the version I saw had Jones and Luke Cage boning before the end of the first episode.Ape+lust wrote:I don't watch TV, so I haven't seen a lot of Adam Savage. Has he always been a social justice numpty? I had a random episode of his YouTube show playing and heard them discussing the Jessica Jones TV series:
If you watch it, you'll see he's stoked. 5 episodes before the boring cis-es showing up was a little taste of progressive heaven to him.ADAM: It is an amazing show on so, so many levels and I know, we should probably do an actual Spoilercast at some point, but I wanna say... first off, it is the most diverse show you've ever seen. In fact, it's episode 5 before you see a cis-gendered relationship.
OTHER: Wow.
ADAM: Um, (laughs) seriously, everything is normalized in this and none of it is ever commented on, and it's so goddamn refreshing.
[youtube]O4OOum4Vm-M[/youtube]Dave wrote:This is the thing that baffles me about SJWs -- how can those three words, or more specifically the first two with the third, make sense together?Ape+lust wrote: -- pitiable victim badass --
Im not criticizing you Ape, that term perfectly encapsulates the image Rebecca tries to project, but its an inherently incoherent image. And its not just Beckyboo -- See Elyse "Mofo", or "Surly" Amy -- you can be surly or you can cry at the sight of a t-shirt, but not both. See also Brianna who tries to project the image of a successful entrepreneur while also being a helpless victim of all this horrible discrimination. But it just doesnt make sense: You can kick ass and take names or you can be a passive victim, but not both. A Mofo who kicks down the barriers in his or her way can get beaten, but when they do, they get back up, dust themselves off and get back to work, not whine about it to anyone who will listen.
Yep.Kirbmarc wrote:Even the prom kings/queens can easily support feelings of victimhood and special snowflakeness.another lurker wrote:
Largely, though, I think that the problem is their shitty personalities. Lots of people were not prom king/queen, and they turned out just fine.
The SJWs have shitty personalities for whatever reason, and voila, victimhood = instant attention/feelings of superiority/special snowflake
etc etc
Also many years of indulging into unhealthy behavior can change one's looks for the worse.
Evidence: Elyse.
If it was a consolation prize she made out alright:Brive1987 wrote:Ape+lust wrote:Boodles got shellacked by YouTube trolls during her visit to Adam Savage's show.
http://imgur.com/sjSrYtb.png
Recent shows for comparison. Notice the last guy didn't do too bad.
http://imgur.com/I1YOunu.png
I'm sure Rebecca is massively relieved. She can reprise her one monetizable asset -- pitiable victim badass -- for the 1000th time without unseemly contrivances. Patreon is trending down and needs goosing.
http://imgur.com/6ZnlT3U.png
Ha, a savage specific gamergate moment for his show. Was this makeup for caning her quiz-a-thing with a no show? If not I wonder if she forced AdamI to write contra provisions into his contract?
This is one place where he's still being cagey, even if he's now committed to a lot more on Twitter than before. Some of what he wrote suggests that SPP only got one reviewer. But Carrier has previous made the clear claim that he had at least two reviewers (when he said that was standard). And he's come around to the fact that any set of comments that he solicited himself doesn't qualify as "peer-review." So he's a bit trapped. Either he needs to claim that SPP actually got at least two reviews of their own or he needs to "update" his claim about it being reviewed by two.Brive1987 wrote:Did we ever find out how many reviewers SP used? Their website talks in the singular and here he says that there were no SPP revisions required. It must have been a busy day for Robert M Price.
another lurker wrote: I was thinking about this a bit more as I was out shoveling snow.
I am a great supporter of personal hygiene, including hand washing.another lurker wrote:I try to be inclusive.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:That's one happy Clarence on the way...
You might say that I am a Slymepit Justice Warrior
However, this random gfycat URL generator said FU to inclusivity, and nymmed itself for that anteater guy:
nsfw, naturally
Yeah, it's freaking weird. They're all strutting badasses ("badass" is their favorite hackneyed description for each other), but they made oppression coin of the realm. So they've been smooshing the two together and acting schizo for at least a half decade, and no one but their detractors seem to notice.Dave wrote:This is the thing that baffles me about SJWs -- how can those three words, or more specifically the first two with the third, make sense together?Ape+lust wrote: -- pitiable victim badass --
Im not criticizing you Ape, that term perfectly encapsulates the image Rebecca tries to project, but its an inherently incoherent image. And its not just Beckyboo -- See Elyse "Mofo", or "Surly" Amy -- you can be surly or you can cry at the sight of a t-shirt, but not both. See also Brianna who tries to project the image of a successful entrepreneur while also being a helpless victim of all this horrible discrimination. But it just doesnt make sense: You can kick ass and take names or you can be a passive victim, but not both. A Mofo who kicks down the barriers in his or her way can get beaten, but when they do, they get back up, dust themselves off and get back to work, not whine about it to anyone who will listen.
Probably all that whiteness.another lurker wrote: I was thinking about this a bit more as I was out shoveling snow.
Yes, I think about SJWs when I shovel snow.
Exactly. Even that "new capture" clearly implies that Carrier, himself, recruited these four reviewers, so they would not qualify as "peer-reviewers" for any reputable publication. To be clear: you can suggest reviewers to an editor (of a book, chapter, or article), but the editor contacts them and receives the reviews, partly in case the reviewers wish to remain anonymous. So, nothing in that "new capture" has anything to do with what is meant by "peer review."Really? wrote:New capture:
https://archive.is/FsGIrMy new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, a publishing house at the University of Sheffield (UK). I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. And Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have approved the text. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well.
So in this account, Sticky sought out four of his own peer reviewers and received two. (No mention of the review going through the Press. And certainly no blind review in the process.)
Allow me to reiterate my earlier point. How in the hell are we to trust Carrier's interpretation of 2000-year-old texts written in dead languages if he won't be straightforward about clear statements made by a living human at his publisher in his native language?
https://archive.is/5KXtLOverall, I actually think this is a great idea, and wish more philosophers (and universities and foundations) would put prize money like this up to drive productive philosophical progress. Because real progress begins with well-judged crowdsourced debating just like this, to find the best case pro or con any x. Because progress is not possible until you have the best case to examine (and accept or refute) for any position. Academic peer review (for books and journals in philosophy) simply does not look for, nor even rewards, best cases. They just publish any rubbish that meets their minimal standards (and those standards are not very high, relatively to where they could be).
This doesn’t mean peer reviewed philosophy isn’t better than other philosophy. It generally is, at least in some respect worth the bother. But peer review standards in philosophy are also twisted and bizarre, excluding a lot of what actually is good philosophy simply because it doesn’t match some current fashion or irrelevant requirement. Whereas it is not as rigorous as it should be in policing fallacious, illogical, unscientific, or muddled argumentation. (And I am speaking as someone who has published academically peer reviewed papers in philosophy.)
https://archive.is/9wBzT[Carrier] merely assumes that religious people make things up all the time with their heroes (without providing a positive case for this assumption let alone clear undisputed examples pertaining to the Jewish or Christian scriptures or verified motivations if such was the case).
This most pegs Ramos as a Christian fundamentalist. He had also just insisted Daniel and Moses were real people, and that Daniel is a genuine treatise by Daniel, and complains that I don’t agree, even though I am merely granting established mainstream consensus in the field–in other words, I am meeting the requirements of peer review. In fact (contrary to his deception here) I actually extensively support the point that “religious people make things up all the time” by extensively citing examples and extensively citing, even multiply quoting, abundant mainstream peer reviewed scholarship (this is, in fact, Element 44, OHJ, pp. 214-22; I even elaborate on an infamous example, pp. 387-89; and amusingly Ramos unwittingly admitted to another example in his agreeing that Christians forged the Ascension of Isaiah).
It is pretty typical for a Christian apologist to be faced with an extensive and vast positive case, backed by the citation of dozens and dozens of peer reviewed monographs and articles, and then declare that the claim was made “without providing a positive case.” Seriously. (He later even says this is an “assumption” of mine; again as if I did not in fact extensively document it as the mainstream view.) It is likewise telltale of a Christian fundamentalist to covertly dismiss that entire case by implying the mere fact that Christian fundamentalists “dispute” the findings of mainstream scholarship means that those findings should be dismissed. “Teach the Controversy” really means “please replace all the facts with our dogma instead.” This is not sound or sane argumentation. This is delusional fundamentalist argumentation. Ramos’s opinions in this matter are thus extremely unreliable.
Casey also alleges there is something telling about the fact that my dissertation hasn’t been published yet (1-427)–in fact it has been in peer review at UC Press for years for want of qualified reviewers–but Casey himself opens the book by apologizing for how long some of his books took to get to press because “peer review behind the scenes…lead to massive delay in publication” (1-185). In fact he implies ten to twenty years delay, far longer than I’ve endured, although I couldn’t tell for certain from his timeline. But which is it? The egregiously long wait time peer review sometimes causes proves your work sucks (wait for that one to bite you, Dr. Casey), or it’s totally normal for that to happen even for top quality work? (Incidentally, getting past a Dissertation Committee entails passing vastly more peer review than an academic publisher ever provides, of better quality and more numerous reviewers, which is one thing seriously defective about modern academic presses: they haven’t figured out how to be efficient.)
From comments:Casey also complains constantly about how (certain–although he generally implies all) mythicists don’t pay attention to the latest peer reviewed scholarship…and then proceeds (frequently) to not pay attention to the latest peer reviewed scholarship. For example, in the one instance where he actually mentions the evidence in Josephus (even though he never in his rambling gets around to using this evidence in any way, so it can’t even be said whether he considers it evidence for historicity or not), he doesn’t even cite any peer reviewed scholarship in defense of his opinion. Yet he does this specifically when attacking mythicists for not doing it! And most embarrassingly, the latest peer reviewed scholarship on the subject supports the mythicists. I document this travesty below, because it is a very good example of what Casey does many other times in this book: pompously declare himself right, because the mythicists can only lean on bloggers and antiquated scholarship, when in fact, had he checked (oops!), he would have known that in fact what the mythicists are saying is said in contemporary, mainstream scholarship. So, he attacks mythicists for being wrong because they didn’t check the facts, then doesn’t check the facts and ends up being wrong. Yep. That.
Pants on fire. He knows damn well I have publicly stated and published criticisms of the same mythicists for years. He dares to suggest that I am somehow “distancing myself from” them now? And he knows damn the fuck well I have offered my own case, and that it passed peer review at a major academic press, and will soon be released.
But to the point, Casey failed to make distinctions among high and low quality scholars and thus made false statements about what “mythicists” believe. That’s a fact. My review catches him at it. McGrath has no defense to offer.
https://archive.is/cWY6z(BTW, the funnier thing is that I was becoming a historicity agnostic in 2002; I continued assuming historicity for the sake of argument in my subsequent work, as I considered the alternative still unproven–including my work on the resurrection you refer to, which was published in 2005; even in Not the Impossible Faith, the last edition of which I published in 2009, I didn’t challenge historicity. That’s how responsible scholars behave: they assume the consensus paradigm until they are sure they can disprove or challenge it. As now I can, having researched and written two peer reviewed books on it. Yet you seem to think acting like a responsible scholar is a defect. That is one more reason to consider you a fraud.)
Notice the presence of generic adjectives. "Major" and "respected" can apply to any press!Most notably, this article takes no notice of, nor responds in any way, to my book On the Historicity of Jesus. Even though that was published by a major respected peer reviewed biblical studies press nearly a year before Mykytiuk’s article was published.
https://archive.is/wxmpqOnly in respect to peer review (by definition, all peer reviewed monographs meet peer reviewer requirements as to wording and content…otherwise peer review would be meaningless). But nothing I objected to (good peer review improves a book, and I had good reviewers).
https://archive.is/r0mh5Part of Brown’s bias may be because he can’t believe I can conclude Jesus might not have existed. Yet it is important to note that Proving History nowhere argues that Jesus didn’t exist. It is, rather, a book about how one would test a question like that. Brown is aware that I will only actually argue for that thesis in my next book, On the Historicity of Jesus Christ (which is completing peer review now and will soon enter the production pipeline at an academic press).
Original version from Google cache:Yes. In a case of fabulously bizarre irony, a man named Pervo confessed to trafficking in child pornography (it was never disclosed whether that meant children or teens, but a felony in any case, for which he did time). That has nothing to do with the quality of his knowledge and research in his field (his work continues to be published under peer review and well respected). But it is good reason not to invite him round for dinner.
Edited version:What will prove my book worthy of support is not whether I answer some random hack web rant, but the fact that my mythicist book passed formal peer review and will be published by a major respected biblical studies press (Sheffield-Phoenix, the publishing house of the University of Sheffield). Proving History likewise underwent, and passed, a formal academic peer review. Unlike the blog links you mention. So please consult real scholarship before asking questions about this.
What will prove my book worthy of support is not whether I answer some random hack web rant, but the fact that my mythicist book passed formal peer review and will be published by a major respected biblical studies press (Sheffield-Phoenix, a publishing house at the University of Sheffield). Proving History likewise underwent, and passed, a formal academic peer review. Unlike the blog links you mention. So please consult real scholarship before asking questions about this.
Wait. Did that just happen? Did I just see William Lane Craig diss the whole peer review process of all philosophy journals? William Lane Craig, a guy widely published in philosophy journals and proudly citing his articles in them whenever he can? Who even goes out of his way to emphasize that these philosophy journals he’s published in are peer reviewed? Is that what just happened here? Why, yes. Yes, it is.
I eagerly await Craig’s announcement that all his articles published in philosophy journals “would never have made it past the peer-review process for a journal of New Testament or historical studies” (or cosmological science, the subject of many of his articles in the very same journal: Faith & Philosophy) and should therefore be dismissed as unreliable garbage. Wouldn’t that be the day.
Let’s pretend Craig didn’t just declare the peer review quality of philosophy journals (and thus half his own life’s work) to be worthless (even the journal he himself has published a dozen articles in). Law’s argument is an argument in inductive logic and epistemology, within the general umbrella of philosophy of history. It barely even belongs in “a journal of New Testament or historical studies” and most would likely tell him it’s on a subject they don’t cover. By contrast, Law’s article certainly belongs in a journal dealing with “faith and philosophy.”
Apart from all this being funny, I mention it because for Craig to actually eat his own foot with this inane argument is evincing a sad decline in his ability to argue well. We’re eleven paragraphs into his rebuttal of Law, and we have yet to encounter a single relevant argument against Law’s article.
I also don't remember any trans characters in the show, so technically all relationship are cisgendered, even though not all of them are heterosexual.Shatterface wrote:Jessica Jones' neighbours appear to be in a cis-gendered heterosexual relationship too. Even if they are brother and sister.
The only lesbian relationship appears to be only slightly less abusive than that between Jones and Kilgrave.
No.comhcinc wrote:another lurker wrote: I was thinking about this a bit more as I was out shoveling snow.
shoveling snow?
They are literally erasing Like Cage because he's black.Kirbmarc wrote:I also don't remember any trans characters in the show, so technically all relationship are cisgendered, even though not all of them are heterosexual.Shatterface wrote:Jessica Jones' neighbours appear to be in a cis-gendered heterosexual relationship too. Even if they are brother and sister.
The only lesbian relationship appears to be only slightly less abusive than that between Jones and Kilgrave.
Unless Savage is using cisgendered to mean "non-heterosexual".
You're also right, Jessica hooks up with Luke Cage in the first episode.
https://archive.is/YUEndFanboy says
October 10, 2015 at 3:39 pm
Dear Dr. Carrier, PhD
i was fortunate enough to have the honor of being a contemporary witness of history-in-the-making by being able to read your remarkable chapter “‘Moral Facts Naturally Exist (And Science Could Find Them)”.
It is a game-changer, it is unique in its unparalleled brilliance, philosophical rigor and analytical sharpness.
It must have, at least, taken four professors to peer-review it, a lesser number would be inadequate and, quite frankly, an insult.
I will say that, indeed, if resurrections were possible, Plato and Aristotle should have been among those fortunate individuals to first get a hold of it.
But, then again, we know resurrections aren’t possible; after all; we belong to the intellectual elite.
It is a curious instance of an improbable event that a PhD historian should be able to prove to the point of absolute certainty, that naturalistic moral realism is true, but, nevertheless, it happened.
Thousands of years of philosophical inquiry couldn’t do it, thousands of philosophers failed and caved in to their delusions, but then, Richard Carrier, PhD, appeared on the stage and the rest is history….
I guess the story of an unknown patent clerk, if he even existed, initiating a revolution in the world of physics has now been reduced to a mere footnote in the history of intellectual inquiry; a candle in the sun, as they say.
It can be, and therefor is, no coincidence that this glorious chapter, proving the truth of naturalistic moral realism, appeared in a book that will soon eclipse every effort made by those who devote their life to the deification of their beloved sky-fairies.
A book edited by none other than the intellectual giant known to the world by the name of John W. Loftus, titled “The end of Christianity”
The idea that a PhD historian who begs to sleep on random people’s couches and a guy with several theology degrees who makes a living by cleaning carpets should be the end of a 2000 year old world religion seems improbable, but hey, improbable events happen all the time.
After all, you, PhD, have now succeeded in proving naturalistic moral realism, refuting the teleological argument for all time to come, kicking the C.H.U.D.S. back into the sewer, proving Jesus didn’t exist, proving the concept of ‘nothingness’ logically entails universes popping into existence, toe-fucking various women while getting blown, refuting the argument from reason once and for all and participating in a scientific experiment to determine whether or not it is possible to not spill your drink while getting penetrated. Breath-taking.
Oh yeah, not to forget, combining Relativity and Quantum Theory. It’s just that, no physicist wanted to look over your proposed solution, but dont worry, they will once your genius shines through (in the next couple of months)
So then, whats the next step?
Riemann-Hypothesis? Too trivial, i guess
Warp-drive? Who cares?
Cancer cure ? Maybe…
Everlasting peace on earth ?? Just spread your moral theory, that will do the trick…
And dont worry about the dissidents who occasionally criticize you like Jeff Lowder, Luke Barnes (kook), Thom Stark (probably kook), Tim McGrew (sky-fairy Gestapo), Massimo Pigliucci (obviously kook), Bart Ehrman (kook, stupid, probably sky-fairy Gestapo) or Victor Reppert (sky-fairy Gestapo).
These people are, as it can be seen above, either worldview-fascists or no true Stalinists… i mean atheists….
And those detractors from the atheist-community?
I admire you for the way you stood up to these rapists at whatever conference that was, disowning them and preaching the virtues of respect for women and honesty which you completely embodied in your role as former husband.
And the way you talk to these people on your blog makes me suggest you pursue maybe an acting-career…
Let me tell you this, as soon somebody is searching an actor for the role in a movie portraying the wonderful Roland Freisler i will let you know…
Richard Carrier says
October 14, 2015 at 12:29 pm
I guess some people dislike accomplishment.
And sex with girls.
And consent.
https://archive.is/7NRFhYesterday I finished the principal draft of On the Historicity of Jesus Christ. Today I’m taking a trip to the library to double check some essentials, and that will continue for some weeks. But this book is twice as long as Proving History, so to jump start it in the pipeline, I’ll begin the peer review, submission, and production process next week. The book could go to press even in its current state (it’s a polished and complete manuscript). I just want to make sure every i is dotted and every t is crossed, so now I begin clearing through my “check this to be sure” pile of books and articles.
Interesting comments on his two "science" books and the peer review they were undergoing:(2) I have sent an email today to all the donors to my historicity project. If you are an official donor to that project and did not receive that email, please email me right away so I can update my contact information for you. Then I can also send you that same email, which offers an advance look at the current draft of On the Historicity of Jesus Christ (which will differ from the published text, since it will likely be revised on advice from peer reviewers and editors before publication, but it will likely not differ in any radical way).
To everyone else who may be interested, note that OHJC has now entered the stage of peer review and contract negotiation, after which will be the publisher’s official editing and production phase (which can itself take many months). I am hoping peer review can be completed by July, which will likely mean an October or November publication–depending on how much revision needs to be done; if very little, it’s possible the book will be out even sooner. My ultimate target is to have copies for sale at this year’s Skepticon. Donors of course will eventually receive free copies by post just as with Proving History (except any who opt out of that benefit).
https://archive.is/JEo8BRichard Carrier says
March 26, 2013 at 9:51 am
(a) My two science books have been languishing in peer review for ages. I will check back in on that as soon as I’ve got OHJC off my desk (since I wouldn’t have time to do revisions or anything on the other books until then anyway).
(b) There is supposed to be a video of that debate. If Marshall is doing a transcript, he must have video. Can anyone find that video online?
Richard Carrier says
March 26, 2013 at 2:58 pm
Someone asked separately from this thread if “my two science books have been languishing in peer review for ages” means they were being rejected. No. They were submitted to peer review ages ago by a major academic publisher who had high hopes for them, and I just haven’t heard anything since. Usually a rejection comes with a rejection letter. And these should be good enough not to be rejected but at worst receive a revision requirements list instead, which is typical. I just don’t have time to work up such revisions right now–nor to resubmit the manuscript elsewhere if for some reason either book is rejected for some odd reason–so I won’t bother looking into what’s going on with them until I have the time to deal with whatever the answer is; which means, after I’ve done all the principal editing, proofing and revising on OHJC.
https://archive.is/hBgapWhich is usually where atheist critics pounce: Habermas doesn’t release his data (still to this day; even after repeated requests, as some of those requesting it have told me), so his result can’t be evaluated. That makes his claim uncheckable. Which is a perversion of the peer review process. That basically makes this bogus number propaganda, not the outcome of any genuine research methodology. The closest I have ever seen him come to exposing how he gets this result was in his article “Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What Are the Critical Scholars Saying?” in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (June 2005): 135-53
another lurker wrote:No.comhcinc wrote:another lurker wrote: I was thinking about this a bit more as I was out shoveling snow.
shoveling snow?
More like this.
The snow in my front yard:
RebeccaB wrote:There's something blatantly Lysenkoist about the SJW attitude to science. From wiki: "The term Lysenkoism is also used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives."Steersman wrote: [.youtube]v3NySjwlJ6c[/youtube]
In any case, an interesting twist of the knife:"The foregoing has been a paid political announcement. We now return you to our regular schedeuled programming ...."Evolutionary psychology thereby threatens the dream of political perfection via social reform. Public denouncement of “evo-psych” has thus become something of a shibboleth amongst the anti-science left. An ‘in-group’ identifier, amongst those whose appetite for social justice overpowers their respect for truth. Rather than complements it.
I blame all of the white men who won't stop raping 1 in 5 womyn at American universities.SM12 wrote:Christmas is cancelled.
Because of the attacks in Cologne, Rheinberg has cancelled the biggest celebration of the year, Rosenmontag.
This is pretty much like cancelling Christmas.
Most probable is that SPP sent it to one reader (per their website) who had already done their edits during Carrier's drafting process - a reader who promptly told Carrier of this amusing mix up. They probably signed off to SPP on the basis on this merry-go-round.Billie from Ockham wrote:Exactly. Even that "new capture" clearly implies that Carrier, himself, recruited these four reviewers, so they would not qualify as "peer-reviewers" for any reputable publication. To be clear: you can suggest reviewers to an editor (of a book, chapter, or article), but the editor contacts them and receives the reviews, partly in case the reviewers wish to remain anonymous. So, nothing in that "new capture" has anything to do with what is meant by "peer review."Really? wrote:New capture:
https://archive.is/FsGIrMy new book, On the Historicity of Jesus, has passed peer review and is now under contract to be published by a major academic press specializing in biblical studies: Sheffield-Phoenix, a publishing house at the University of Sheffield (UK). I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. And Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have approved the text. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well.
So in this account, Sticky sought out four of his own peer reviewers and received two. (No mention of the review going through the Press. And certainly no blind review in the process.)
Allow me to reiterate my earlier point. How in the hell are we to trust Carrier's interpretation of 2000-year-old texts written in dead languages if he won't be straightforward about clear statements made by a living human at his publisher in his native language?
When called on this, suddenly we hear about reviewers that were recruited by SPP ... i.e., reviews that would actual qualify as "peer reviews." OK, that's possible. But, seriously, if you had actual peer reviews in your pocket, why the fuck would you not talk about them in all versions of what you posted? Why would you talk about getting comments on your own if you had actual peer reviews available? Why would you wait until people had been questioning you for several days or more before you say: "oh, yeah, but the book was also peer-reviewed by the strict definition ... sorry I never mentioned that before."
Possible, sure. Likely, nope.
How dare you gender them like that. Just because they are a penis-having person doesnt mean they arent women!another lurker wrote:I blame all of the white men who won't stop raping 1 in 5 womyn at American universities.SM12 wrote:Christmas is cancelled.
Because of the attacks in Cologne, Rheinberg has cancelled the biggest celebration of the year, Rosenmontag.
This is pretty much like cancelling Christmas.
If you want to see scary, there was a brief footube clip posted not so long ago of s/h/it stalking round a table at a con or something, looking like a fucking raptor. If s/h/it had a crest, it would have been raised. Does anyone have the link?feathers wrote:Is she post-op? One would like to know from, say, Wikipedia, but that article doesn't even mention her transsexual status with a single word.Spike13 wrote:I normally don't like to comment on folks appearances, glass houses, blah, blah, blah...
But wu should have kept her girl cock and spent the cash on facial surgery...
But Carrier has had peer-reviewed papers printed in academic journals.Brive1987 wrote: Most probable is that SPP sent it to one reader (per their website) who had already done their edits during Carrier's drafting process - a reader who promptly told Carrier of this amusing mix up. They probably signed off to SPP on the basis on this merry-go-round.
Or SPP sent it to more than this one reader and the others either had nothing to contribute, declined without prejudice or said "yeah whatever nothing jumps out at me". And thus became invisible in all accounts.
I reckon, given the zero feedback from SPP's process, Carrier previously thought the value lay in his own more engaged mates. Now he is not so sure.
From the very useful disquis link above :clap: this dude is worth reading in his entirity. Archive link to his disquis posts here.
He is apparently part if the academic hiring team at a University and sounds appropriately knowledgable. Some of his knowledge and arguments on Carrier seem quite well informed. :think:
https://disqus.com/by/Thiudareiks/
http://i.imgur.com/RPco6vi.jpg
But also a major cunt. And a major asshole.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: She's still a major dick.
[youtube]2xjIWxj9uCI[/youtube]Lsuoma wrote:If you want to see scary, there was a brief footube clip posted not so long ago of s/h/it stalking round a table at a con or something, looking like a fucking raptor. If s/h/it had a crest, it would have been raised. Does anyone have the link?feathers wrote:Is she post-op? One would like to know from, say, Wikipedia, but that article doesn't even mention her transsexual status with a single word.Spike13 wrote:I normally don't like to comment on folks appearances, glass houses, blah, blah, blah...
But wu should have kept her girl cock and spent the cash on facial surgery...
I can't understand this. Sydney has for decades held a large new years celebration. For a few years in the early years it got a bit rough. Having police in force, especially mounted police cleaned it up pretty quickly.SM12 wrote:Christmas is cancelled.
Because of the attacks in Cologne, Rheinberg has cancelled the biggest celebration of the year, Rosenmontag.
This is pretty much like cancelling Christmas.
