This video should explain it:Guest wrote:I'm having a look at Ben Radford's latest comment thread.
Can someone explain to me why his detractors keep saying that the "all men are rapists" trope isn't proselyted by modern feminists when "schrodingers rapist" and "rape culture" are trotted out so frequently?
EllenBeth is disappointed you haven't included any of the stupid stuff she's said in your readings. This reads as a typical plea for attention.rocko2466 wrote:Found this gem in the last link:
Well ... in the same way that satire is outrageous reactionary nonsense, yes.EllenBeth Wachs wrote:Rocko? your “Dramatic Readings†aren’t outrageous reactionary nonsense, are they?
WAIT. EllenBeth! Are you saying that your comments are satire?
Ohmegods! I get you now!
Yep, she's losing out on valuable victim points. Shame on you. Shame.free thoughtpolice wrote:EllenBeth is disappointed you haven't included any of the stupid stuff she's said in your readings. This reads as a typical plea for attention.rocko2466 wrote:Found this gem in the last link:
Well ... in the same way that satire is outrageous reactionary nonsense, yes.EllenBeth Wachs wrote:Rocko? your “Dramatic Readings†aren’t outrageous reactionary nonsense, are they?
WAIT. EllenBeth! Are you saying that your comments are satire?
Ohmegods! I get you now!
Of course. It was all a joke. No one's EVER used that dodge.AndrewV69 wrote:Ahahahahah!welch wrote:AndrewV69 wrote:I have no problem with that actually. I see it as your issue and not mine. Feel free to disagree though.
I'm not the one pimping that bilious idiocy of a blog post as some kind of serious commentary on women. That's all you sparky. You're the one down with the statement about how the best thing a woman can do for society is have male babies.
I'm just the asshole who pointed it out. How terribly rude of me.
I see now what your problem is. That is pretty funny. You have no sense of humor that is clear.
rocko2466 wrote:SHUT THAT DOWN TOO, FIDALGO! SHUT THAT DOWN TOO!
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/e ... r_it/P150/
Whoa!!!I was still working on my review of Darkness when I received emails from five prominent scholars: Richard Dawkins, Edward Wilson, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett and Marc Hauser. Although each wrote separately, the emails were obviously coordinated. All had learned (none said exactly how, although I suspected via a friend of mine with whom I discussed my review) that I was reviewing Darkness for the Times. Warning that a positive review might ruin my career, the group urged me either to denounce Darkness or to withdraw as a reviewer.
Unless you are a Biologist (and I am not),I suggest you do yourself a favour and throw everything that Gould ever had to say into the recycling bin. You might be safe with things like "Punctuated equilibrium" but if you are not a Biologist, how the fuck are you going to be able to tell when Gould was lying his ass off or not?Chagnon reiterated this view when I interviewed him for “The New Social Darwinists,†a critique of evolutionary psychology published in Scientific American in October 1995. He said he was disturbed at the degree to which some sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists downplayed the role of culture in human behavior. I said he sounded like Stephen Jay Gould, a vehement critic of genetic explanations of human behavior. I meant to goad Chagnon with the comparison, but he embraced it. “Steve Gould and I probably agree on a lot of things,†Chagnon said.
Yeah, why not?Submariner wrote:Can I haz a Pit Glyph too plz??
Oh FFS! Nope. I’m not. Sheesh! Looks like I have confused the fuck out of ya!welch wrote: Of course. It was all a joke. No one's EVER used that dodge.
You can read that as a joke, but on the other hand what she says is not controversial to me. Also, I am sorry if I hurt your feeling by laughing at you. But I have to confess, your response was pretty funny (to me anyway) and yes I do see why you think I was saying it was a joke.Women of enormous intelligence can do one thing that benefits everybody: pass it on. Have children. Preferably male children.
Of course, this did not go down well in certain quarters. From the same article:There were twice as many men with IQ scores of 125, for example, a level said to correspond with people getting first-class degrees.
At scores of 155, associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.
Talk about "double down" and "stop digging when you are already in a hole" Bwahahaha! His ass was grass among the PC crowd.Earlier this year, the president of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers, sparked controversy when he suggested at a seminar that one reason men outperformed women in maths and science was genetics.
Several guests walked out of the conference after hearing the comments.
Dr Summers, who has apologised repeatedly for his remarks, said later that the shortage of senior female academics was partly caused by child-minding duties, which restricted working hours.
(and lots of them also because "regression to the mean", implies that most of her kids will be of average IQ male or female)Women of enormous intelligence can do one thing that benefits everybody: pass it on. Have children. Preferably male children.
Hence the statement that women are more "conservative" than men, not only in IQ but also in being religious (but we can do that one another day)Published on January 18, 2009 by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist
The answer is: They aren’t.
The orthodoxy in intelligence research for the second half of the 20th century had been that men and women had the same average intelligence, but men had greater variance in their distribution than women. Most geniuses were men, and most imbeciles were men, they said, while most women were in the normal range. This conclusion, however, was manufactured out of political expediency. Not wanting to discover, or a priori denying, any sex differences in intelligence, psychometricians simply deleted from the standardized IQ tests any item on which the performance of men and women differed.
So between 2009 and 2011 perhaps he changed his mind? I dunno about that guy.Available online 7 May 201
This paper presents the results of a longitudinal study of sex differences in intelligence as a test of
Lynn’s (1994) hypothesis that from the age of 16 years males develop higher average intelligence than females.
The results show that at the ages of 7 and 11 years girls have an IQ advantage of approximately 1 IQ point,
but at the age of 16 years this changes in the same boys and girls to an IQ advantage of 1.8 IQ points for
boys
German:
Achtung, gentlemen! Be seated. We must have a halt on our war memoirs and go to war! Our scientists have just invented a liquid that will win ze war. This chemical, when applied to the tail of a miltary [presumably including Air Force Colonel's shirts] soldier shirt, is tasteless, colourless, and odourless.
Second German (Eccles?):
What good is that on the tail of a shirt, hein?
German:
The moment the wearer sits down, the heat from his body causes the chemical to hexplode. This way, the soldier will be neutralized.
Second German:
He'll be worse than that.
Third German:
Is einer wonderschon, Gerhimmeler!
German:
Speak English, you fool. There are no sub-titles in this scene. Now zen, this is my plan of attack.
Second German:
It looks like a nail.
German:
No, it's a tack. Ho ho ho ho. Thank you. Who said we Germans haven't a sense of humour?
Second German:
Just about everybody, I tink.
German:
Oberlieutenant Schatz!
Second German:
Wha?
German:
You will take ten men, each one carrying a spray-gun full of the exploding shirt-tail fluid. You will be dropped near Leicester and there you will gain entrance to the Great British Military Shirt Factory. The rest is up to you. We shall call the plan "Operation Burnbaum".
Orchestra:
[German chords]
Greenslade:
The effect of this deadly plan was soon felt.
FX:
[Explosion]
Bloodnok:
Ohooooohooooo!
If there were more than one fanny print, that would make him the Fanny Prince. (Prints? Oh well, please yourself.)Tigzy wrote:Will, with the fanny print of Rebecca Watson all over him.CommanderTuvok wrote: Yes, it was Will, but it has the fanny print of Queen Bee all over it.
No...not going there...
Atheism isn't a Country or a Nation and has no assets. We aren't forced to read their blogs or go to their conferences. These guys will get defeated merely by their audiences moving on.Maximus wrote:What would be your response to the old quote that 'all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing'?Michael J wrote:I think that they are better out of it. I think that the majority of skeptics and atheists don't really care about or are bored by the whole mess. A few years ago I heard that SGU gets 50k downloads for each episode. They may get a lot of emails at the moment from people wanting him to dump RW but I am sure that they would get a load more if they started to buy into this stuff.Maximus wrote:I don't mind her voice, it's her repugnant dismissive attitude that puts me off. I really stopped listening 6 months ago when I found out about all the crazy going on, and it not being addressed on the show (lie of omission?). It's like ignoring that your priests are molesting kids because they don't do it "in" the church. (Yes, yes an exageration, but hopefully people get the point) I mean how can you have one of your co-hosts causing all sorts of crazy drama, and not address it?Lapsang Souchong wrote:Gwod, wouldn't it be nice if she gets pissed with Novella and flounces from SGU? I'd love to be able to listen to that podcast without being subjected to her annoying voice.Dick Strawkins wrote:Steven Novella chimes in to the Harriet Hall threat with a bit of a slapdown for Rebecca - pointing out that there are many posts on Skepchick blog using exactly the same language that the SJW and Watson are using to criticize Hall.
He should be careful.
She might kick him off the 'Skepchicks Guide to the Universe'
People a bunch of pages back were commenting on AronRa, about how he was 'staying out of it', and good for him. I disagree, avoiding the conversation does nothing to help solve the problem. Hopefully AronRa and Steve Novella get more involved. The only way to get past all this crap is to have the conversations, and not have high minded people stay out of it, because well it so petty.
This isn't a split in the movement it is a small bubble of particularly noisy SJWs and if I was a Name in the movement I'd ignore the whole mess and just respond when they take something I say out of context.
And that a "bad thing" somehow?Michael J wrote:I think that the hardest thing for the Slymepitters is that the smarter FTBers will suddenly stop pushing the rad-fem, rediscover Skepticism, get buddy buddy with Shermer and the rest again and when pushed blame the pit for all the troubles
Well, sure, but that was kinda what I was trying to ask, how does the vapid crap she posted benefit her? Or at least, how did she think that that it would?welch wrote:She's a New Media Douchebag. One of her Google Search agents, the ones looking for "skepchicks" and all variants returned a hit, and so she capitalized on that.
Will now has another post up about harriet hall, and we can probably expect more from the other skepchicks on this. In doing so, complete with plenty of links to various other articles, (unlike the FTB idiots, Rebecca does know how Google works), Will's article is now one of the first results for "harriet hall gender" in Google.
What was going through her head? The same thing that is *always* going through her head: "How can I make this benefit me?"
You shitting me? Watch this:katamari Damassi wrote:I've noticed that the SJWs love Eddie Izzard(Marilove's avatar)or at least find him one of the few acceptable comedians. Anyone know why that is? I couldn't make through Dressed to Kill.CommanderTuvok wrote:After Rebecca implied she wasn't taking much notice of Hall, she has to post one last post, allowing her minions to try and recast the role of bully. Here, we see Queen Bee's drones react with horror at the realisation Hall wore a shirt with a funny message on it. OH, THE INSOLENCE!!!
PS - Having a dog as his avatar doesn't make Jack99 any less of a complete shistain.
franc's post on Melody Hensley is great, detailed & thorough as usual: http://greylining.com/2013/02/21/melody ... or-cfi-dc/Lsuoma wrote:Franc - I know you stop by, even if you don't post. Love the latest Grey Lining.
Sacha - where the fuck is your parrot avatar?
I see what you did there.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:You shitting me? Watch this:katamari Damassi wrote:I've noticed that the SJWs love Eddie Izzard(Marilove's avatar)or at least find him one of the few acceptable comedians. Anyone know why that is? I couldn't make through Dressed to Kill.CommanderTuvok wrote:After Rebecca implied she wasn't taking much notice of Hall, she has to post one last post, allowing her minions to try and recast the role of bully. Here, we see Queen Bee's drones react with horror at the realisation Hall wore a shirt with a funny message on it. OH, THE INSOLENCE!!!
PS - Having a dog as his avatar doesn't make Jack99 any less of a complete shistain.
[youtube]x1sQkEfAdfY[/youtube]
(Underline mine)To use language that further identifies trans people as “other†and to take away their identities by not addressing them or to reduce them to a set of genitals or chromosomes is violence against trans people.
Yeah, that sounds like a great situation. If they stop pushing the rad-fem and SJW wank, we'd all have to find our lulz somewhere else.Michael K Gray wrote:And that a "bad thing" somehow?Michael J wrote:I think that the hardest thing for the Slymepitters is that the smarter FTBers will suddenly stop pushing the rad-fem, rediscover Skepticism, get buddy buddy with Shermer and the rest again and when pushed blame the pit for all the troubles
Our goal, from the very outset, has been to eliminate the hypocrisy-as-a-business-model that these clowns employ.
If "we" get "blamed" for that sea-change, then I am all for accepting said blame!
It is akin to "blaming" a physician for curing one of a nasty disease.
Someone had to say it...free thoughtpolice wrote:Ogvorbis who is apparently still deeply troubled by his abuse at the hands of hid scoutmaster 30 years ago.
Ogborvis
"I have someone that, if things get too bad (I (fifteen or so years ago) attempted suicide so I do have some idea where that line is), I can tallk to. I am just scared shitless of talking to anyone about this outside of the pseudonymous presence on line. I know what I did. I suspect what I did. And this is shit that is beyond the pale of acceptable."
Someone else
"I have no doubt that he suffered the trauma of child rape, but I also remember the Satanic ritual abuse thing of the 1980s, which produced extremely vivid false memories for the victims"
PZ's positive spin on TAM is interesting. I can't see how PZ could have had dinner with Randi and Watson not come up in conversation. Also no mention of the Harriet Hall article.Michael K Gray wrote:And that a "bad thing" somehow?Michael J wrote:I think that the hardest thing for the Slymepitters is that the smarter FTBers will suddenly stop pushing the rad-fem, rediscover Skepticism, get buddy buddy with Shermer and the rest again and when pushed blame the pit for all the troubles
Our goal, from the very outset, has been to eliminate the hypocrisy-as-a-business-model that these clowns employ.
If "we" get "blamed" for that sea-change, then I am all for accepting said blame!
It is akin to "blaming" a physician for curing one of a nasty disease.
I call fucking bullshit on it.AndrewV69 wrote:People will recall I brought this to your attention earlier, about Razib Khan, Diamond and the Cultural Anthropologists: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 226#p62226
Well, somewhat related to l'affaire Chagnon and the Yanomami, also spelled Yanomama (and which spelling you use places you in one camp or the other).
John Horgan claims that he was warned with words to the effect "that is a nice career you have there, shame if something happened to it" by no less than:Whoa!!!I was still working on my review of Darkness when I received emails from five prominent scholars: Richard Dawkins, Edward Wilson, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett and Marc Hauser. Although each wrote separately, the emails were obviously coordinated. All had learned (none said exactly how, although I suspected via a friend of mine with whom I discussed my review) that I was reviewing Darkness for the Times. Warning that a positive review might ruin my career, the group urged me either to denounce Darkness or to withdraw as a reviewer.
Read the whole thing here:
The Weird Irony at the Heart of the Napoleon Chagnon Affair
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... on-affair/
Before you do though:Unless you are a Biologist (and I am not),I suggest you do yourself a favour and throw everything that Gould ever had to say into the recycling bin. You might be safe with things like "Punctuated equilibrium" but if you are not a Biologist, how the fuck are you going to be able to tell when Gould was lying his ass off or not?Chagnon reiterated this view when I interviewed him for “The New Social Darwinists,†a critique of evolutionary psychology published in Scientific American in October 1995. He said he was disturbed at the degree to which some sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists downplayed the role of culture in human behavior. I said he sounded like Stephen Jay Gould, a vehement critic of genetic explanations of human behavior. I meant to goad Chagnon with the comparison, but he embraced it. “Steve Gould and I probably agree on a lot of things,†Chagnon said.
Evidcence mother fuckers!I was still working on my review of Darkness when I received emails from five prominent scholars: Richard Dawkins, Edward Wilson, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett and Marc Hauser. Although each wrote separately, the emails were obviously coordinated. All had learned (none said exactly how, although I suspected via a friend of mine with whom I discussed my review) that I was reviewing Darkness for the Times. Warning that a positive review might ruin my career, the group urged me either to denounce Darkness or to withdraw as a reviewer.
Hey geinus, you don't have to reconstruct emails from memory. You can just go and fucking read them again.I responded that I could not discuss a review with them prior to publication. (Only Dennett persisted in questioning my intentions, and I finally had to tell him, rudely, to leave me alone. I am reconstructing these exchanges from memory; I did not print them out.)
That makes zero sense to me.Michael J wrote:PZ's positive spin on TAM is interesting. I can't see how PZ could have had dinner with Randi and Watson not come up in conversation. Also no mention of the Harriet Hall article.
Another website blocked on O2 (UK mobile company, their block list is handled by bango who I think perform filtering for many other companies) as "adult content". I've not read much on Grey Lining, but unless something there was actually illegal or age-restricted (i.e. not just words) then it seems likely that this is a deliberate campaign to censor people. More concerning is the prospect that some countries might decide to filter their Internet connections nationally in the next few years - I don't see those systems being any less vulnerable to abuse than this one is.Skep tickle wrote:franc's post on Melody Hensley is great, detailed & thorough as usual: http://greylining.com/Lsuoma wrote:Franc - I know you stop by, even if you don't post. Love the latest Grey Lining.
Sacha - where the fuck is your parrot avatar?
To be honest I don't think so. At the job I am not allowed to talk about, there are generally a mix of public speakers who are male and female when it comes to presentations on different subjects - either internally or at external conferences in the arena. It is a profession that attracts relatively similar amounts of men and women (it's a very diverse workforce in terms of the *work*) so this seems a fair reflection of it.ReneeHendricks wrote:Grrr. In my reading as of late, I'm finding more and more articles/posts on people (feminists and their "white knights") being all bent out of shape over the lack of the female voice within different fields/topics. For whatever reason, many people tend to attribute this to sexism and the patriarchy. Even more discouraging is that these people don't even bother to think of reasons *other* than sexism or patriarchy. I'd love to see other feedback on this. I'm not saying "it's the nature of the female" but I do think there are some inherent traits that led themselves towards women not being so vocal in various fields/topics. Thoughts?
Cis-formers = Action Masters!Jonathan wrote:I was thinking Predacon, Maximal etc but that's much funnier. Well done, xir.Altair wrote:So that means we get Trans-Formers and Cis-Formers :think: ?Jonathan wrote:But are they Autobot or Decepticon. That's the real question. And don't even get me started on the other variants.Angry_Drunk wrote:They transform into a car, or airplane...it depends.Jonathan wrote: What the hell is "alternate form"?
Lemme guess: Elevator maintenance?rayshul wrote:At the job I am not allowed to talk about, there are generally a mix of public speakers who are male and female when it comes to presentations on different subjects - either internally or at external conferences in the arena.
Not true.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Get all those people from all "sides" around a table, and this fuckfest will be resolved in half an hour. Even more if there's a nice pint for each and everyone.
I doubt it is complete bullshit but time will tell. Another thing though, we did eventually discard phrenology, so if something better than IQ comes along, I see no reason to believe we would not do the same.Trophy wrote:@AndrewV69
The problem with IQ research is that it's not science yet. It's science-like and they use modern tools but it's the modern equivalent of phrenology, i.e., studying skulls to determine intelligence. Sure you can use the best measurements to study skulls, their volume and the minute and hereditary differences between skulls but it won't turn it into a "science of intelligence". Similarly, IQ research so far is bullshit since we don't even have an accepted definition of IQ, not to mention that there is not hard evidence for "g" factor. Until you can present really convincing evidence, it is all bullshit.
When I use weasel words, I usually have a good reason.But there is much more to it than the above. For one, the whole notion of IQ and the tests, how they are administered and scored, not to mention how they are normailzed between sex differences is not without controversy. You can GoogleFu that yourself.
Michael K Gray wrote:Not true.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Get all those people from all "sides" around a table, and this fuckfest will be resolved in half an hour. Even more if there's a nice pint for each and everyone.
I have tried it in person with PZ.
He just "plays" dumb, and acquires acute amnesia.
And then he lets his crowd of buzzing monkeys do his work in his favour.
Done it twice with him.
Not around a table, admittedly, but standing in front of several tables.
Tabula Rasa.
Sans beer-stain rings.
Yeh, that was a waste of time. If someone is willing to say whatever they want irrespective of facts they have lost any credibility and good faith they had.masakari2012 wrote:I would expect PZ to respond in the same manner as he did in the Google hangouts with C0nc0rdance and TheSkeptical Heretic.
That's it.Michael K Gray wrote:Lemme guess: Elevator maintenance?rayshul wrote:At the job I am not allowed to talk about, there are generally a mix of public speakers who are male and female when it comes to presentations on different subjects - either internally or at external conferences in the arena.
Getting warm?
Oh, there was beer aplenty the second time.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:That's your problem right there. No table, no beer.
This (in the earlier comment) was just perfect:CommanderTuvok wrote: New post up at Hall's blog from Cpt. Janeway!
:clap:"So I let others argue over it while I moved on to more interesting things."
Really? Like what?
Do you mean having dinner with Randi and being positive about TAM yes that is real.Michael K Gray wrote:That makes zero sense to me.Michael J wrote:PZ's positive spin on TAM is interesting. I can't see how PZ could have had dinner with Randi and Watson not come up in conversation. Also no mention of the Harriet Hall article.
Is it an hypothetical, or a real ocurrence?
(Or some random remark?)
FYI: I know from experience that PZ is a totally different person in real life. I mean: face-to-face potential confrontations.
He acts like a wimpish puppy-dog when confronted with even minor criticism in real life, rolling over all innocent-like, saying 'tickle my tummy'! "Don't scold me for shitting on your rug or I'll wimper & whine and make you look bad for maltreating a dumb animal."
What? Myers Worry?
http://www.leconcombre.com/concpost/us/ ... neuman.jpg
(Yes SN, I know!)
You explicitly said Randi AND Watson!Michael J wrote:Do you mean having dinner with Randi and being positive about TAM yes that is real.
The main problem is overstating the results. The WISC doesn't measure "g" (which has several different definitions, and WISC was more 'anti' than 'pro' g), but 'g' can be inferred from some statistical analyses of the various sub-tests. But that just makes 'g' a statisical construct (or operational definition if you're a glutton for punishment), not necessarily anything to do with what is ordianarily called "intelligence".Trophy wrote:@AndrewV69
The problem with IQ research is that it's not science yet. It's science-like and they use modern tools but it's the modern equivalent of phrenology, i.e., studying skulls to determine intelligence. Sure you can use the best measurements to study skulls, their volume and the minute and hereditary differences between skulls but it won't turn it into a "science of intelligence". Similarly, IQ research so far is bullshit since we don't even have an accepted definition of IQ, not to mention that there is not hard evidence for "g" factor. Until you can present really convincing evidence, it is all bullshit.
Sorry mistyped. I meant only Randi. Watson whole existence is drama.Michael K Gray wrote:You explicitly said Randi AND Watson!Michael J wrote:Do you mean having dinner with Randi and being positive about TAM yes that is real.
Evience, please?
I agree with the idea of looking for other reasons than patriarchy to explain the differential in male/female participation in a given area, because if it doesn't involve the overthrow of western civilisation as we know it, then there might be something that a supervisor or policy advisor could realistically do about it in finite time.rayshul wrote:To be honest I don't think so. At the job I am not allowed to talk about, there are generally a mix of public speakers who are male and female when it comes to presentations on different subjects - either internally or at external conferences in the arena. It is a profession that attracts relatively similar amounts of men and women (it's a very diverse workforce in terms of the *work*) so this seems a fair reflection of it.ReneeHendricks wrote:Grrr. In my reading as of late, I'm finding more and more articles/posts on people (feminists and their "white knights") being all bent out of shape over the lack of the female voice within different fields/topics. For whatever reason, many people tend to attribute this to sexism and the patriarchy. Even more discouraging is that these people don't even bother to think of reasons *other* than sexism or patriarchy. I'd love to see other feedback on this. I'm not saying "it's the nature of the female" but I do think there are some inherent traits that led themselves towards women not being so vocal in various fields/topics. Thoughts?
Shit. PZ wouldn't shout his round?Michael K Gray wrote:Oh, there was beer aplenty the second time.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:That's your problem right there. No table, no beer.
It was in the Hilton bar on the Yarra river², in the same Plaza as the GAC 2012.
PZ, Krauss¹, I, and other noted Aussie septics would gravitate to it as though it were a black hole, or strange attractor.
PZ would then hold court, and regale his sycophants, never paying for a drink, as far as I could discern.
The first thing that I asked (demanded) of him was to buy me a pint.
He prevaricated for a while and then changed the subject. The cunt.
No beer?
Only in a philosophical sense.
I then conversed with the likes of the ratbag Peter Bowditch famed of his column in the journal "Australasian Science", and cetera. Far more sane company. Peter even bought me a beer.
I trust that one might judge that, as an Aussie, I prefer Peter's style over that of PZ.
In the words of Hamlet: To Beer or not to Beer? That is not even a frigging question Horatio!
________________________
¹ Much, much shorter than I thought.
² The only river in the world that flows upside-down
Very good points. Unbeknownst to many and to SJWs in particular, Dawkins, that arch-sexist privileged old white man, has done a great debunking of the "biology is destiny" argument in The Extended Phenotype ("Genetic Determinism and Gene Selectionism".)AnonymousCowherd wrote: I agree with the idea of looking for other reasons than patriarchy to explain the differential in male/female participation in a given area, because if it doesn't involve the overthrow of western civilisation as we know it, then there might be something that a supervisor or policy advisor could realistically do about it in finite time.
The problem is not even with "nature vs nuture" (as someone up thread says. they both won). The question is how mutable are the characteristics of people, irrespective of the source of those characteristics? We may think that "biology is more likely to be destiny" because we think social structures are somehow easy to change. That's clearly what the SJWs imagine, even if they won't actually do the work required to accomplish that.
Excellent stuff. I believe there's an analysis of Svan's writing - similar to what he did with Ophelia - in the pipeline too. Looking forward to that - Svan has always struck me not just as one of the nastier baboons, but one of the oddest, too, particularly in the way she always tries to defend the indefensible in the case of Laden.Skep tickle wrote:franc's post on Melody Hensley is great, detailed & thorough as usual: http://greylining.com/2013/02/21/melody ... or-cfi-dc/Lsuoma wrote:Franc - I know you stop by, even if you don't post. Love the latest Grey Lining.
Sacha - where the fuck is your parrot avatar?
So they have outer party forums, inner party forums, and anybody who doesn't behave gets sent to room 101Skep tickle wrote:Aaaand capitulate it is! But that's not enough for Kassiane, who breaks out the training bit to put in his mouth:
Re: British family told to send daughter to Hindu school
Post by Kassiane » Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:21 am
Isn't I&A the place for getting all that "reverse racism" vernacular bullshit out of people's systems? This is in theory an advanced, or at least intermediate, sociological space. It's a given that people are using the sociological definition!hyperdeath wrote:I withdraw my previous comment. I wasn't distinguishing between racism in the vernacular sense, and racism as a sociological term.
To clarify, when I said that "reverse racism" exists, I meant so in the vernacular sense. I certainly don't believe (and I apologize for implying) that institutionalized reverse racism exists.
Not to continue the derail train, but I mean really. That's not even 101. That's remedial.
Isn't using "Nigerian Prince" as a byword for untrustworthy, kind of racist by the standards of A+?Dearest Wind;
Fuck off and die.
That goes for both you and your informaint. You are trampling upon the personal security and safety of the people who relied on that secret forum as a place to share delicate and personal information, which you were not added to due to being as trustworthy with people's emotions as a Nigerian prince, and you are doing so because you are so self absorbed that you think that the existence of a forum that you cannot see means that everyone there is telling juicy gossip about you.
I enjoy how they're still lying to wind regarding people gossiping about her on the secret forum.EdgePenguin wrote:Just noticed this:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 5&start=25
Isn't using "Nigerian Prince" as a byword for untrustworthy, kind of racist by the standards of A+?Dearest Wind;
Fuck off and die.
That goes for both you and your informaint. You are trampling upon the personal security and safety of the people who relied on that secret forum as a place to share delicate and personal information, which you were not added to due to being as trustworthy with people's emotions as a Nigerian prince, and you are doing so because you are so self absorbed that you think that the existence of a forum that you cannot see means that everyone there is telling juicy gossip about you.
Even though there are biological differences between the genders, I don't think there's many people in the skeptical movement who think that said differences should be the "destiny" for any given individual. Not at all. I'm sure there's some, to be honest as there always will be. People who are looking for perfection are always going to be disappointment.windy wrote:Very good points. Unbeknownst to many and to SJWs in particular, Dawkins, that arch-sexist privileged old white man, has done a great debunking of the "biology is destiny" argument in The Extended Phenotype ("Genetic Determinism and Gene Selectionism".)AnonymousCowherd wrote: I agree with the idea of looking for other reasons than patriarchy to explain the differential in male/female participation in a given area, because if it doesn't involve the overthrow of western civilisation as we know it, then there might be something that a supervisor or policy advisor could realistically do about it in finite time.
The problem is not even with "nature vs nuture" (as someone up thread says. they both won). The question is how mutable are the characteristics of people, irrespective of the source of those characteristics? We may think that "biology is more likely to be destiny" because we think social structures are somehow easy to change. That's clearly what the SJWs imagine, even if they won't actually do the work required to accomplish that.
Of course he does that. He enshrined it as rule six. He's talked about it proudly on more than one occasion. He's a coward, no more, no less. Well, rather a lot less, but still a coward. It's why he handles perceived power so wellMichael K Gray wrote:Not true.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Get all those people from all "sides" around a table, and this fuckfest will be resolved in half an hour. Even more if there's a nice pint for each and everyone.
I have tried it in person with PZ.
He just "plays" dumb, and acquires acute amnesia.
And then he lets his crowd of buzzing monkeys do his work in his favour.
Done it twice with him.
Not around a table, admittedly, but standing in front of several tables.
Tabula Rasa.
Sans beer-stain rings.
Pas mal, mais pas hilarant. Au moins J'ai pu practiquer mon ecoute francaises.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:You shitting me? Watch this:katamari Damassi wrote:I've noticed that the SJWs love Eddie Izzard(Marilove's avatar)or at least find him one of the few acceptable comedians. Anyone know why that is? I couldn't make through Dressed to Kill.CommanderTuvok wrote:After Rebecca implied she wasn't taking much notice of Hall, she has to post one last post, allowing her minions to try and recast the role of bully. Here, we see Queen Bee's drones react with horror at the realisation Hall wore a shirt with a funny message on it. OH, THE INSOLENCE!!!
PS - Having a dog as his avatar doesn't make Jack99 any less of a complete shistain.
[youtube]x1sQkEfAdfY[/youtube]
One rule for them, etc, etc. However, on the subject of wind (who goes by the name "incognito" here on the 'Pit), it really shouldn't matter whether was an informer or not (wind says there wasn't one), they were still lying to him/her.EdgePenguin wrote:Just noticed this:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... 5&start=25
Isn't using "Nigerian Prince" as a byword for untrustworthy, kind of racist by the standards of A+?Dearest Wind;
Fuck off and die.
That goes for both you and your informaint. You are trampling upon the personal security and safety of the people who relied on that secret forum as a place to share delicate and personal information, which you were not added to due to being as trustworthy with people's emotions as a Nigerian prince, and you are doing so because you are so self absorbed that you think that the existence of a forum that you cannot see means that everyone there is telling juicy gossip about you.
