Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

[Jan Steen]

What a pity that Hitler died before he could be tried in court. Now we'll never know the truth.

Don't be so hard on Clarence.
There could be an entirely innocent explanation: :D
(this will only work for those who knew the BBC TV show)

:lol:

[Tony Parsehole]

What a pity that Hitler died before he could be tried in court. Now we'll never know the truth.

Hahaha.
Fred West hanged himself in his prison cell. Now we'll never know the truth.

[Mykeru]

What a pity that Hitler died before he could be tried in court. Now we'll never know the truth.

Hahaha.
Fred West hanged himself in his prison cell. Now we'll never know the truth.

http://uploads8.wikipaintings.org/image ... n-1445.jpg

"Ah, dammit. Now we'll never know the truth".

[Za-zen]

Why, oh the fuck why, don't they start by presenting their tiny group of ideologues position on abortion?

For example; We believe in full bodily autonomy, our position on this means that we believe a woman should have the right to abortion on demand up until birth ( Or whatever their position, who knows what the fuck it actually is through the hand waving and obfuscation ).

Then explain how their philosophy lead them to assume that position as the logical conclusion for a secularist.

I know debate is so hard.

They had a couple of skepchick feminist SJWs, Sara Moglia and Courney something-or-other, on The Magic Sandwich Show a few days ago, who took a hard line on the abortion issue - essentially saying that they meant abortion should be fine at any point up until the moment of birth.
They were not, however, able to stick to this when the questioner starting asking specific questions about whether they really meant it was fine to abort and kill a 9 month fetus. Most of the other contributers seems to be saying that it sounded horrifying to them to adopt such a strategy - and that included Aron Ra.

It was amazing seeing them just crumble when the point was put to them - which probably explains the standard SJW stance to avoid all venues where they are not the majority and cannot ban those who pose awkward questions.

I watched that show, thought it was great. Two things Ra, stating he was onboard with "the whole feminist platform" is there actually a thing? But not being onboard with the 2 feminists platform of abortion on demand up until birth. (The no true Ra dilemna).

Secondly, Mowgli and Courtney were unable to hold their position under the most softball of logical tests, infact they were like two children who never learned to swim in the deepend for the first time. This is what happens when you have a group of self reinforcing ideologues who adopt philosophical positions, because it's the position of their ideology..

[Tony Parsehole]

Has anybody seen the Louis Theroux documentary with Jimmy Savile? I don't know which was the weirdest part. The bit where he said Gary Glitter was only guilty of having "funny pictures" on his computer, the part where he admitted to tying a man up in his club's cellar and beating him, the part where he said he'd never once had sex with a woman because they give you brain damage or the part where he was standing in his dead mothers bedroom/shrine and pawing over her old dresses.

[Tony Parsehole]

When Louis Met Jimmy:


Worth a watch.

[Mykeru]

"Wait, what does that sign mean?"

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g33 ... uicide.gif

"Oh, for fuck's sake"

[Tony Parsehole]

What a pity that Hitler died before he could be tried in court. Now we'll never know the truth.

Hahaha.
Fred West hanged himself in his prison cell. Now we'll never know the truth.

http://uploads8.wikipaintings.org/image ... n-1445.jpg

"Ah, dammit. Now we'll never know the truth".

the terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Centre were never tried for their crimes. Now we'll never know the truth.

[Mykeru]

"Stewardess, can you take my drink order?"

http://cdn.gifbay.com/2013/05/us_cargo_ ... -45966.gif

"Son of a bitch!"

[Apples]

Anyone else remember Marietta Higgs?

Didn't know about that particular dreadfulness. Apparently Marietta "reflex anal dilation" Higgs still stands by her diagnoses.

Higgs and Wyatt based their evidence on a technique called reflex anal dilation, which would supposedly detect signs of sexual assault. After Higgs had experimented on her own children and found a negative result, she concluded that any positive result must mean that other children had been abused. Despite it being too small a control group to give any definitive answers, the dubious test and results were still enough evidence for the state effectively to kidnap and contain over 100 children and arrest their parents. ...

In 2007, Higgs said in an interview with the BBC regional TV news show, Look North, that she would do the same thing again if she had to, and that she suspects the number of children being abused in Cleveland was even greater than the 121 named.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13120

[Beta Neckbeard]

I've just started watching the magic sammich.

Sarah Rules (everyone asked to give their position on abortion by way of introduction) gives a big smiling thumbs up. "I think abortion is great!"

:bjarte:

[Tony Parsehole]

Even if the guy is guilty of some skeevy teen sex, I don't think he raped anyone, let alone someone not even sexually developed. I can believe he might have molested some people.

"Although I believe he is capable of sexually molesting underage girls I don't think he'd actually *rape* anyone...."

Fuck me Clazza, do you even proofread?

[Tony Parsehole]

"Stewardess, can you take my drink order?"

http://cdn.gifbay.com/2013/05/us_cargo_ ... -45966.gif

"Son of a bitch!"

I made a music video of Steps "Tragedy" to this on my old Youtube Channel but, sadly, it was taken down.

[Mykeru]

"Stewardess, can you take my drink order?"

http://cdn.gifbay.com/2013/05/us_cargo_ ... -45966.gif

"Son of a bitch!"

I made a music video of Steps "Tragedy" to this on my old Youtube Channel but, sadly, it was taken down.

Did you Super Marios Bros. it?

[Za-zen]

"Stewardess, can you take my drink order?"

http://cdn.gifbay.com/2013/05/us_cargo_ ... -45966.gif

"Son of a bitch!"

I made a music video of Steps "Tragedy" to this on my old Youtube Channel but, sadly, it was taken down.

somebody forgot to put money in the meter

[Za-zen]

Even if the guy is guilty of some skeevy teen sex, I don't think he raped anyone, let alone someone not even sexually developed. I can believe he might have molested some people.

"Although I believe he is capable of sexually molesting underage girls I don't think he'd actually *rape* anyone...."

Fuck me Clazza, do you even proofread?

logical hole where you brain is, please revisit your argument.

[Mykeru]

Just skimming a short documentary on Fred and Rosemary West and, I have to ask,

Fred and Rose West The House Of Horrors 1 4 YouTube.png

(591.23 KiB) Downloaded 209 times

Is this a poor product placement advert?

[windy]

They had a couple of skepchick feminist SJWs, Sara Moglia and Courney something-or-other, on The Magic Sandwich Show a few days ago, who took a hard line on the abortion issue - essentially saying that they meant abortion should be fine at any point up until the moment of birth.
They were not, however, able to stick to this when the questioner starting asking specific questions about whether they really meant it was fine to abort and kill a 9 month fetus. Most of the other contributers seems to be saying that it sounded horrifying to them to adopt such a strategy - and that included Aron Ra.

It was amazing seeing them just crumble when the point was put to them - which probably explains the standard SJW stance to avoid all venues where they are not the majority and cannot ban those who pose awkward questions.

I watched that show, thought it was great. Two things Ra, stating he was onboard with "the whole feminist platform" is there actually a thing? But not being onboard with the 2 feminists platform of abortion on demand up until birth. (The no true Ra dilemna).

http://zouak.com/files/2010/11/burningplatform.jpg

[James Caruthers]

[youtube]9tpL1K8ZqrU[/youtube]
So, this video.

https://aremonstrantsramblings.wordpres ... -or-wrong/

And here is a religious person responding.

Why am I posting this? Because I think the religious person is largely correct. There are several tenets of humanism which I find very uncomfortable and religious.

“Humanists do not look to any God for rules but think carefully for themselves about what might be the best way to live. This approach means we have always to be empathetic and think about the effects of our choices on the happiness or suffering of the people, or sometimes other animals, concerned.”

This is no better than the drivel a religious person might spout. It says nothing about the method of arriving at moral conclusions being more correct. Is the person who wrote this so retarded he or she does not believe that religious people are capable of using empathy? Many of them are so empathic that they ignore what their religious book says when it conflicts with their empathy. So, how is this particular humanist worldview better? Because as we shall see, this is hardly a dogma-free moral perspective.

From the rebuttal:

If it is down to individuals to contemplate ethical decisions for themselves why does Stephen Fry now sound like an authority telling me how I ought to make my moral decisions? That is the method he just decried.

Indeed, I often see these pseudo-religious secular figures tossing down nonreligious (but dogmatic) moral commandments from on high. Women SHALT NOT make less money than a man, for any reason ever (even their own choices.) Thou SHALT NOT deny the proud womyn her abortion for any reason. Thou MAYEST NOT suggest that a Christian or religious person might have the straight dope on some particular political or moral issue. So if this is not a religion, let me just suggest there are some aspects which are similar.

From the video:

“We have to respect the rights and wishes of those involved. Trying to find the kindest course of action or the option which will do the least harm. We have to consider carefully the particular situation we find ourselves in and not just take any rule or commandment for granted. We have to weigh up the evidence we have available to us about what the probable consequences of our actions will be.”

Do the least harm? Bull. Unless you want to go full vegan and be a Buddhist, trying to avoid stepping on ants, go take a fuck to yourself. :lol: Nobody really knows what the consequences of their actions will be. That's just an invitation for us to guess. Just guess! Should you have an abortion? What will be the consequences? Hmm, I guess I'll look into the future and see.

Yes, I'm being a dick. But what he's saying is so dumb. Everyone, at all times, tries to see what the probable consequences of their actions will be. Or maybe the response says it better:

Yet more authority you will notice. Notice the constant use of “we have to.” Why do ‘we’ have to? A moment ago it was declared that ethical decisions were for individuals themselves to decide upon but now Fry is telling individuals where their thinking must take them. He also appears to be suggesting that an atheist ought not to be deontological in their ethics. This will come as a surprise to many atheist philosophers!

The video:

“This way of thinking about what we should do is explicitly based on reason, experience and empathy, and respect for others rather than on tradition or deference to authority.”

More loaded words, I notice. I remember my fundy Christian preachers telling their flock to use reason and experience, haha. "Experience and empathy." Everyone already does this, with the exception of sociopaths and BPDs. I'm just gonna assume the video means a certain KIND of morality, in which case, these words are code for "liberal" or maybe "SJW" morality.

I think this religious person responding here understands atheists better than Fry does:

Sorry to make the exact same point once more but this is more authority. Not everyone agrees that those four criteria are the best criteria for making moral decisions. Among atheists there are many other options proposed so why does this set get the nod over all the others? Despite the protestations to the contrary this is simply replacing one voice of authority with another.

“When we look at our closest relatives in the animal world, we see the same basic tendencies we see in ourselves; affection, cooperation, all the behaviour needed to live in groups and thrive.”

And the response, edited a bit for length:

You might have also noticed the selective observation of other primates going on. Of course we see affection and cooperation going on in the animal kingdom but we also see killing, rape, polygamy, polyandry, defending of territory, and the killing of infants. So why did the BHA leave these behaviourisms out? They are also an integral part of life for primates. This is another reason why one should not argue that just because something ‘is’ that that’s the way it ‘ought’ to be. On that basis a person could pick out all kinds of disgusting moral choices and argue for their validity simply on the basis that they occur all the time around us.

Okay, I do think the naturalistic argument is shit. But it kinda sounds like this rebuttal could be heading in the direction of GOD HATES FAGS. But probably not, lol. And yeah, it pisses me off when hippies talk about how wonderful nature is, forgetting all that bad shit.

Fry then goes on to give a basic explanation of the moral progress idea. This idea is the view that over thousands of years the moral consciousness of human beings has been improving and getting better. Of course, this is just another version of the same is/ought problem as stated before. Just because morality changes does not mean it has improved necessarily. We must ask on what basis do we think one type of morality is better than another. The other problem with this view is that human beings appear to be struggling with tendencies and moral (mis)behaviour that was around from our earliest records of human history. There is still murder, wars, slavery, lying, brutality, torture, rape, and genocide (to mention just a few). Not a few historians have noted how bloody the twentieth century was and this fact appears to cause some problems for those who would hold that things are improving. But, notice, even if one concedes that there has been some moral improvement over time this does not add any weight to the proposal, being made by the BHA, that morality ought to be consequentialist and individual.

I used to think "progress" was overall a positive thing. I don't think I really buy that anymore. But I wouldn't say I'm worried about the decline of society. I do believe that this idea of the future as a positive thing, and progress as always awesome, could lead to some interesting changes to our society. But whatever. I'm not saying you should believe what I believe, just that atheists should be totes free to believe whatever, and come up with their own morality that works for them. Even if I don't agree. The moral progress idea often doesn't allow for dissenters, lest he or she, by dissenting publicly, be relegated to the status of a Great Satan figure.

“Ultimately, morality comes from us, not from any God. It is to do with people with individual goodwill and social responsibility. It is about not being completely selfish, about kindness and consideration toward others. Ideas of freedom, justice happiness, equality, fairness and all the other values we may live by are human inventions and we can be proud of that as we strive to live up to them.”

Well, the first line is trivially true to any atheist, and probably partly true to any religious person who has thought about their morality at all. "Social Responsibility." Know what my social responsibility is re: my morals? Jack shit. My morality is mine, and as long as I obey the law, that's the absolute limit of what anyone else can demand from me. Quite a lot of authoritarian language in here, isn't there?

"Not being completely selfish." This wording pisses me off. I can feel the grimy subtext behind it. "Equality." "Fairness."

Response:

All the BHA appear to be doing is throwing out some general words which are important in modern western (primarily liberal?) culture and taking it as a given that everyone will applaud. But this is not doing any serious ethics. Quite the opposite. It’s just asserting what matters but without any justification for why. And virtually everyone agrees with notions of ‘fairness’, ‘happiness’ and even ‘justice’ but people mean very different things by these terms. Vladimir Putin is at home using words like these but what he means by them and what a member of the BHA means by them are probably very different things. So then, on what basis, is one vision of justice right and the other wrong?

The BHA want to tell you that morality is an individual thing and that you can make your own moral decisions for yourself and yet, on the other hand, they are also telling you (in a very authoritative fashion) what conclusions you ought to come to. If you go to the website for the British Humanist Association you will find a large number of moral views you need to sign up to to fit in with their world view. If we ignore the pretense, the BHA are not really saying you can decide morality for yourself (they are not moral subjectivists at all) what they are saying is they have already decided what is moral and what is not and they hope you will agree with them.

Well, that's my case. Agree or don't. 8-) Christianity is still bullshit btw.

[Tony Parsehole]

"Stewardess, can you take my drink order?"

http://cdn.gifbay.com/2013/05/us_cargo_ ... -45966.gif

"Son of a bitch!"

I made a music video of Steps "Tragedy" to this on my old Youtube Channel but, sadly, it was taken down.

Did you Super Marios Bros. it?

I have now:
[youtube]zqslJTKj8OA[/youtube]

[Tony Parsehole]

Even if the guy is guilty of some skeevy teen sex, I don't think he raped anyone, let alone someone not even sexually developed. I can believe he might have molested some people.

"Although I believe he is capable of sexually molesting underage girls I don't think he'd actually *rape* anyone...."

Fuck me Clazza, do you even proofread?

logical hole where you brain is, please revisit your argument.

If somebody is capable of sexually molesting an underage kid they're capable of forcing their dick in somebody.

[Tony Parsehole]

Just skimming a short documentary on Fred and Rosemary West and, I have to ask,

Fred and Rose West The House Of Horrors 1 4 YouTube.png

Is this a poor product placement advert?

At least it wasn't an advert for soundproofing or patio furniture.

[helenhighwater]

When people pay money to see the NBA instead of the WNBA, they're not being misogynistic...they just want to see the best basketball players and best play possible.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_ro ... 1384225118

More men play like this than the NBA elite:

http://www.laughroulette.com/wp-content ... -fatty.jpg

Sports are fat-shaming, misandrist, racist, ableist, and gender-binary reinforcing tools of evil. I'm not good at sports, either.

Fat men need love, too. Just from someone else.

Now why is my damn wine glass empty!!!!!

DAMN YOU SHERMER !

[Za-zen]

Humanism is full of presupposition, it is a belief system. It's also a thin veil of pseudo moral justification for a swathe of politics, mostly centered around nonsense concoctions of why other people deserve your money.

[Brive1987]

Poor PZ.

Being a loud / rude "new atheist" is so passé

An aging neck beard with a tentacle porn fetish looks stupid sticking up for the sisters.

And now he is not even allowed to troll big name skeptics as rapists?

What's a man to do?

[katamari Damassi]

I hear Saville plays guitar with his thumb over the neck. I bet he uses a screwdriver instead of a hammer when he hammers a nail. I remember reading on a blog that Saville was dual-wielding groupie asses with his molester hands. His hands have specially evolved to grope boys and girls, now allow me to describe the precise method of evolution and how it differs from your layperson's interpretation of it.

Not to mention how the universe seems to be fine tuned for Saville to molest children.

[Southern]

Jesus, will you stop fat-shaming Southern, you ableist moron.

Just because you ninja'ed me, Zoidberg, doesn't mean you can talk about my sexy fatties. I may be slow, but in the end, it's the sexiness that counts.

[youtube]SE65tPC1AyA[/youtube]

[Mykeru]

[youtube]zqslJTKj8OA[/youtube]

Perfect!

I double dog dare you to do the Bjork Stalker:

[Za-zen]

Your head was not the holy one Tony

Clarence wrote (My italics)

Even if the guy is guilty of some skeevy teen sexWhat the fuck is skeevy teen sex, I don't think he raped anyonegood for you, i don't know whether you raped anyone, nor can think you haven't, i am agnostic as to whether you are are a raper, but that's irrelevant, what is relevant is if you have been charged with, and found guilty of rape by a legal jurisdiction. Rape is after all a fucking legal term, and what may be rape in one jurisdiction may not be in another, let alone someone not even sexually developed.ooooooh let alone, you just can't fathom it, well that's settled then I can believe he might have molested some people.you're big on this belief thing, aren't you, it seems to make up the most part of you argument, was he proven to have molested persons via due process or not, is the only fucking question that matters

[Sunder]

and a couple of Attack on Titan manga volumes

Warning. I haven't read them, but I've seen people pick out examples where the Attack on Titan artist isn't that great with regard to anatomy and proportions. And I mean on the human characters. The titans are deliberately drawn disproportionate.

[Dick Strawkins]

snip

Response:

All the BHA appear to be doing is throwing out some general words which are important in modern western (primarily liberal?) culture and taking it as a given that everyone will applaud. But this is not doing any serious ethics. Quite the opposite. It’s just asserting what matters but without any justification for why. And virtually everyone agrees with notions of ‘fairness’, ‘happiness’ and even ‘justice’ but people mean very different things by these terms. Vladimir Putin is at home using words like these but what he means by them and what a member of the BHA means by them are probably very different things. So then, on what basis, is one vision of justice right and the other wrong?

The BHA want to tell you that morality is an individual thing and that you can make your own moral decisions for yourself and yet, on the other hand, they are also telling you (in a very authoritative fashion) what conclusions you ought to come to. If you go to the website for the British Humanist Association you will find a large number of moral views you need to sign up to to fit in with their world view. If we ignore the pretense, the BHA are not really saying you can decide morality for yourself (they are not moral subjectivists at all) what they are saying is they have already decided what is moral and what is not and they hope you will agree with them.

Well, that's my case. Agree or don't. 8-) Christianity is still bullshit btw.

I tend to view humanism as secular utilitarianism with the added value judgement that humans are worth more than other species (which gets around the problem of speciesm/don't kill an ant.)
It probably shares the same common features with individual religious based moralities that these themselves share with the moral teachings of other religions - namely the golden rule - the only difference being the stated motivation: God/spirit/ancestors tell the religious to treat others as they want to be treated themselves, while humanism says treat others like you want to be treated because this leads to a more just society for all.

[TiBo]

Another Truther? Did you even read what Dick Strawkins just wrote? The morons are flying low today.

Yes I did. And what he said doesn't actually change anything. While independent witnesses are a promise of revealing the truth, it's the trial that has to determine if these witnesses' testimonies fulfill that promise, or not. The police's or the prosecutor's accusations aren't really worth a penny. And even when assuming that these testimonies would've been flawless, they can only attest to single events. If someone is accused to have molested 300 children, and a "flawless witness" testifies to the molestation of 1 child, then what does this testimony say about the other 299 ? While this testimony demands further investigation, it's not nearly sufficient to convict a defendant on these other 299 accounts.

I'd never say that Mr. Savile is "likely to be innocent", the known facts simply forbid me to do so, but it's also unwarranted to say that he did do all the things he's said to have done. That door is closed.

What a pity that Hitler died before he could be tried in court. Now we'll never know the truth.

Actually, he was tried - in the only way the law allows it - indirectly, through trying his accomplices. To convict them, the initial crime has to be proven as well. And that's what the Nuremberg trials were all about. Besides that, most of Hitler's actions were openly documented at any given time, since he wanted them to be documented. No room for any type of public opinionfest. :violin:

[John D]

[youtube]9tpL1K8ZqrU[/youtube]
So, this video.

https://aremonstrantsramblings.wordpres ... -or-wrong/

And here is a religious person responding.

Why am I posting this? Because I think the religious person is largely correct. There are several tenets of humanism which I find very uncomfortable and religious.

<much content removed>

Well, that's my case. Agree or don't. 8-) Christianity is still bullshit btw.

I agree James - I am a dues paying Humanist and a Humanist Celebrant. The group does tend to drive me up the wall however. I agree with your points. I struggle to stay with these guys, but there are no alternatives. If I want to be a Celebrant they are probably the best game in town. In my state of Michigan you have to belong to a "church" as it is broadly defined in order to perform a marriage ceremony. The Humanists are then best organized to get me where I wanted to go.

So, as a very much "official" Humanist I feel like I have some skin in the game. I am constantly pointing out problems with their claims, but I pretty much just get shouted down. I am however, very honest when I say that I believe in the tenants of the organization. I really am a Humanist as it is defined. The devil is in the details however, and the organization and leadership come up with some really crappy arguments.

I think that the word "progressive" is at the heart of the problem. They say that Humanism is a "progressive" philosophy. This automatically gets people thinking that anything conservative is wrong. It pushes them logically toward political causes that are very "left leaning". This is where things get tricky for me.

Their main moral focus is on "compassion". This is a really interesting topic to me. Most "progressives" will tell you that compassion is the greatest virtue. Everything boils down to the Golden Rule, they say, and if we follow this, everything will go fine. This is really simplistic and quite wrong. It is also very similar to how progressive Christians talk about morality. This obsessive focus on compassion tends to ignore other virtues which creates a problem. There are many moral concepts that I broadly define as "virtues". All virtues should be celebrated, not just compassion. How about, hard work, honor, honesty, self-sufficiency, expertise, patience, affection, frugality..etc...etc...etc. The Humanists don't give any weight to all these other ethical models so their political and social positions are immature, and childish.

[Sulman]

Why, oh the fuck why, don't they start by presenting their tiny group of ideologues position on abortion?

For example; We believe in full bodily autonomy, our position on this means that we believe a woman should have the right to abortion on demand up until birth ( Or whatever their position, who knows what the fuck it actually is through the hand waving and obfuscation ).

Then explain how their philosophy lead them to assume that position as the logical conclusion for a secularist.

I know debate is so hard.

They had a couple of skepchick feminist SJWs, Sara Moglia and Courney something-or-other, on The Magic Sandwich Show a few days ago, who took a hard line on the abortion issue - essentially saying that they meant abortion should be fine at any point up until the moment of birth.
They were not, however, able to stick to this when the questioner starting asking specific questions about whether they really meant it was fine to abort and kill a 9 month fetus. Most of the other contributers seems to be saying that it sounded horrifying to them to adopt such a strategy - and that included Aron Ra.

It was amazing seeing them just crumble when the point was put to them - which probably explains the standard SJW stance to avoid all venues where they are not the majority and cannot ban those who pose awkward questions.

It's easy for a college ideologue to spout shite like that on abortion, but no matter what your choice views are, I think anyone that isn't horrified by the idea of that is very strange.

[paddybrown]

Your head was not the holy one Tony

Clarence wrote (My italics)

Even if the guy is guilty of some skeevy teen sexWhat the fuck is skeevy teen sex, I don't think he raped anyonegood for you, i don't know whether you raped anyone, nor can think you haven't, i am agnostic as to whether you are are a raper, but that's irrelevant, what is relevant is if you have been charged with, and found guilty of rape by a legal jurisdiction. Rape is after all a fucking legal term, and what may be rape in one jurisdiction may not be in another, let alone someone not even sexually developed.ooooooh let alone, you just can't fathom it, well that's settled then I can believe he might have molested some people.you're big on this belief thing, aren't you, it seems to make up the most part of you argument, was he proven to have molested persons via due process or not, is the only fucking question that matters

I think the distinction Clarence is groping for is that there is a difference between what Bill Wyman did - have sex with a thirteen-year-old who, despite being legally deemed unable to consent, consented - and what Roman Polanski did - fuck a thirteen-year-old against her will. Both are illegal, and neither are exactly advertisements of good character, but what Polanski did was worse by orders of magnitude. Not really sure it's relevant in the case of Savile, as the allegations against him mostly seem to be about about taking advantage of people who were in no position to resist rather than banging willing underage groupies.

[BarnOwl]

and a couple of Attack on Titan manga volumes

Warning. I haven't read them, but I've seen people pick out examples where the Attack on Titan artist isn't that great with regard to anatomy and proportions. And I mean on the human characters. The titans are deliberately drawn disproportionate.

I'll be interested to see them - I'm afraid I've been spoiled by Miyazaki's artwork. Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is pretty amazing, IMHO.

[TiBo]

I'll be interested to see them - I'm afraid I've been spoiled by Miyazaki's artwork. Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is pretty amazing, IMHO.

Be sure to check "Spirited Away", that was my entry into Miyazaki and the reason why I got all his other films as well.

[Za-zen]

[youtube]_mtUcd_ApDM[/youtube]

[zenbabe]

" It was BS from the start of course. The charleton 'science' behind the authoritarian #banbossy campaign is revealed: http://washingtonexaminer.com/unmasking ... le/2546128 "

Oh. Thanks for the bump, Kenteken, feel free to fuck off after taking this linx for your basket.

http://pulpbits.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... t-Face.jpg

[Dick Strawkins]

and a couple of Attack on Titan manga volumes

Warning. I haven't read them, but I've seen people pick out examples where the Attack on Titan artist isn't that great with regard to anatomy and proportions. And I mean on the human characters. The titans are deliberately drawn disproportionate.

I'll be interested to see them - I'm afraid I've been spoiled by Miyazaki's artwork. Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is pretty amazing, IMHO.

Sneak preview :D

[youtube]GssqcxOqNh4[/youtube]

[CuntajusRationality]

Why, oh the fuck why, don't they start by presenting their tiny group of ideologues position on abortion?

For example; We believe in full bodily autonomy, our position on this means that we believe a woman should have the right to abortion on demand up until birth ( Or whatever their position, who knows what the fuck it actually is through the hand waving and obfuscation ).

Then explain how their philosophy lead them to assume that position as the logical conclusion for a secularist.

I know debate is so hard.

They had a couple of skepchick feminist SJWs, Sara Moglia and Courney something-or-other, on The Magic Sandwich Show a few days ago, who took a hard line on the abortion issue - essentially saying that they meant abortion should be fine at any point up until the moment of birth.
They were not, however, able to stick to this when the questioner starting asking specific questions about whether they really meant it was fine to abort and kill a 9 month fetus. Most of the other contributers seems to be saying that it sounded horrifying to them to adopt such a strategy - and that included Aron Ra.

It was amazing seeing them just crumble when the point was put to them - which probably explains the standard SJW stance to avoid all venues where they are not the majority and cannot ban those who pose awkward questions.

I watched that show, thought it was great. Two things Ra, stating he was onboard with "the whole feminist platform" is there actually a thing? But not being onboard with the 2 feminists platform of abortion on demand up until birth. (The no true Ra dilemna).

Secondly, Mowgli and Courtney were unable to hold their position under the most softball of logical tests, infact they were like two children who never learned to swim in the deepend for the first time. This is what happens when you have a group of self reinforcing ideologues who adopt philosophical positions, because it's the position of their ideology..

Mowgli and Courtney seem like despicable human beings and probable sociopaths, and their performance on this show makes me want to donate money to a pro-life group just out of spite. Clearly neither of them had ever really given their position much serious thought because, as mentioned, they seemed surprised and unprepared to respond to even the most basic challenges. For example, they first insisted that bodily autonomy was absolute and that women had the right to kill the fetus right up until the moment of birth; but when pressed further at least one of them flippantly changed her mind and conceded that it would in fact be murder if a women kills the fetus five minutes prior to birth. Neither showed any real understanding of the significance or logical implications of their opinion, nor of the sudden change to which she had just agreed.

Mowgli in particular seems like a broken person. This psycho gleefully and proudly believes an unborn fetus has no value or rights up through the point of birth, and at several points she even implied that values/rights are suspect even after birth. On when the unborn becomes a full person, she at one point suggested that full personhood isn't conferred until such time as people can drive and vote. No shit, that's what she actually said. :lol:

[Za-zen]

Your head was not the holy one Tony

Clarence wrote (My italics)

Even if the guy is guilty of some skeevy teen sexWhat the fuck is skeevy teen sex, I don't think he raped anyonegood for you, i don't know whether you raped anyone, nor can think you haven't, i am agnostic as to whether you are are a raper, but that's irrelevant, what is relevant is if you have been charged with, and found guilty of rape by a legal jurisdiction. Rape is after all a fucking legal term, and what may be rape in one jurisdiction may not be in another, let alone someone not even sexually developed.ooooooh let alone, you just can't fathom it, well that's settled then I can believe he might have molested some people.you're big on this belief thing, aren't you, it seems to make up the most part of you argument, was he proven to have molested persons via due process or not, is the only fucking question that matters

I think the distinction Clarence is groping for is that there is a difference between what Bill Wyman did - have sex with a thirteen-year-old who, despite being legally deemed unable to consent, consented - and what Roman Polanski did - fuck a thirteen-year-old against her will. Both are illegal, and neither are exactly advertisements of good character, but what Polanski did was worse by orders of magnitude. Not really sure it's relevant in the case of Savile, as the allegations against him mostly seem to be about about taking advantage of people who were in no position to resist rather than banging willing underage groupies.

I disagree that there is an actual difference, despite the nuance. Polanski's case could be categorized as aggravated, but both in the jurisdiction i live in are statutory rape. The statutory part of that is highly significant, in that it means that it has been ruled a 13 year old is incapable of sexual consent. Whether you think she consented or not, is again irrelevant. She cannot consent.

[ROBOKiTTY]

The Pit has been very mean lately. Be nicer pl0x.

[Jan Steen]

I'd never say that Mr. Savile is "likely to be innocent", the known facts simply forbid me to do so, but it's also unwarranted to say that he did do all the things he's said to have done. That door is closed.

There is enough evidence for me to say with a high degree of confidence that Savile was a child-raping piece of human garbage. That he did not also fuck corpses or blackmail the Queen, or whatever it is that Clarence read on a blog, is utterly irrelevant.

Besides that, most of Hitler's actions were openly documented at any given time, since he wanted them to be documented. No room for any type of public opinionfest.

On the contrary, Hitler did his best to hide most of his war crimes. There is no direct proof that he ordered the Holocaust, for example.

[ROBOKiTTY]

There are innocent juvenile kittehs reading, you know.

[Tony Parsehole]

somebody forgot to put money in the meter

That's one theory.

[deLurch]

By the way, just incase you don't get it, i'm assuming the rant they've published, is the rant they submitted.

So Hemant was trying to do them, himself & the pro-choice campaign a favor by trying to not let them embarrass the pro-choice position.

[Tony Parsehole]

I'll be interested to see them - I'm afraid I've been spoiled by Miyazaki's artwork. Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is pretty amazing, IMHO.

Be sure to check "Spirited Away", that was my entry into Miyazaki and the reason why I got all his other films as well.

My little 'un loves that film. I do too.
Howl's Moving Castle is pretty cool too. And Porco Rosso.

[Tony Parsehole]

The Pit has been very mean lately. Be nicer pl0x.

If you think it's bad now you should have been here in the Age of Oolon.

[Lsuoma]

I hear Saville plays guitar with his thumb over the neck. I bet he uses a screwdriver instead of a hammer when he hammers a nail. I remember reading on a blog that Saville was dual-wielding groupie asses with his molester hands. His hands have specially evolved to grope boys and girls, now allow me to describe the precise method of evolution and how it differs from your layperson's interpretation of it.

A lot of the hysteria reminds me of the Brass Eye style of reportage. Their Paedophilia special really hit the hail on the head (with a screwdriver, no less...)

[Za-zen]

By the way, just incase you don't get it, i'm assuming the rant they've published, is the rant they submitted.

So Hemant was trying to do them, himself & the pro-choice campaign a favor by trying to not let them embarrass the pro-choice position.

who'da guessed, but know he's a massagonist oppressing weemen everywhere from their godless given rights

[LurkerPerson]

I think a lot of the SJW's are merely taking the most radical pro-choice (I'd even go so far as to say pro-abortion) arguements to their logical conclusions.

[Lsuoma]

What a pity that Hitler died before he could be tried in court. Now we'll never know the truth.

Don't be so hard on Clarence.
There could be an entirely innocent explanation: :D
(this will only work for those who knew the BBC TV show)

[youtube][youtube]A9yJUOdVyUc[/youtube][/youtube]

[Ericb]

I hear Saville plays guitar with his thumb over the neck. I bet he uses a screwdriver instead of a hammer when he hammers a nail. I remember reading on a blog that Saville was dual-wielding groupie asses with his molester hands. His hands have specially evolved to grope boys and girls, now allow me to describe the precise method of evolution and how it differs from your layperson's interpretation of it.

A lot of the hysteria reminds me of the Brass Eye style of reportage. Their Paedophilia special really hit the hail on the head (with a screwdriver, no less...)

I've heard that his guitar had some damn fine tuning.

[Dick Strawkins]

Mowgli and Courtney seem like despicable human beings and probable sociopaths, and their performance on this show makes me want to donate money to a pro-life group just out of spite. Clearly neither of them had ever really given their position much serious thought because, as mentioned, they seemed surprised and unprepared to respond to even the most basic challenges. For example, they first insisted that bodily autonomy was absolute and that women had the right to kill the fetus right up until the moment of birth; but when pressed further at least one of them flippantly changed her mind and conceded that it would in fact be murder if a women kills the fetus five minutes prior to birth. Neither showed any real understanding of the significance or logical implications of their opinion, nor of the sudden change to which she had just agreed.

Mowgli in particular seems like a broken person. This psycho gleefully and proudly believes an unborn fetus has no value or rights up through the point of birth, and at several points she even implied that values/rights are suspect even after birth. On when the unborn becomes a full person, she at one point suggested that full personhood isn't conferred until such time as people can drive and vote. No shit, that's what she actually said. :lol:

To be fair to Mowgli, she did initially claim to agree with Peter Singers stance on abortion - which is philosophically consistent and does allow for infanticide - although I don't think Singer extends it as far as adulthood as Mowgli did at a couple of points.
But if you are going to go down that route you need to face the consequences of this stance regarding very late terminations. Mowgli and Courtney whatsit seemed to want to use the excuse that late term non-emergency terminations were too rare to be worth considering - thus they wouldn't have to answer the question of whether it is OK to abort a viable and healthy 9 month fetus.
I think these types of abortions ARE very rare - which is why the current laws in the US that restrict non emergency abortions at this stage, are quite well accepted, even by most mainstream pro-choice groups.
The other people on the panel made the reasonable point that advocating full term abortions (as Mogli and friend were doing - and as FTB/Secular Woman/Skepchick also seem to be advocating) would be a very bad move politically as this may provoke a backlash that would end up restricting more women from access to safe early terminations.

[Za-zen]

I think a lot of the SJW's are merely taking the most radical pro-choice (I'd even go so far as to say pro-abortion) arguements to their logical conclusions.

Atheism demands infanticide! Come on regreta we know you have it in you.

[Mykeru]

I think a lot of the SJW's are merely taking the most radical pro-choice (I'd even go so far as to say pro-abortion) arguements to their logical conclusions.

They are operating from the Cult 101 playbook: Who is most pure, most extreme, who can say "I told you I was hard-coreâ„¢".

Whether or not it makes sense is not only largely irrelevant, making sense just demonstrates that you're not a true believer.

[LurkerPerson]

The fact that women are responsible for the vast majority of infanticides probably plays a small role there as well. If it is the pruview of the sacred feminine, it's practically a certainty that no guilt or shame should ever be attached, because reasons.

[LurkerPerson]

Is it sad or hilarious that the strawman of the atheist baby-killer, the slippery-slope of pro-choice into straight up advocacy for infanticide, previously existing only in religious social conservative's minds, has slowly become a reality? I don't know if laughter or tears is the best response at this point. Although given that I frequent the pit off and on, obviously laughter.

[Za-zen]

I think a lot of the SJW's are merely taking the most radical pro-choice (I'd even go so far as to say pro-abortion) arguements to their logical conclusions.

They are operating from the Cult 101 playbook: Who is most pure, most extreme, who can say "I told you I was hard-coreâ„¢".

Whether or not it makes sense is not only largely irrelevant, making sense just demonstrates that you're not a true believer.

Why can't we follow the breadcrumbs to the conclusion, that abominations such as zinnia and the rest of the sjw's suck the life out of the rest of us, and have a mass extermination.