Quantcast

«

»

Dec 12 2012

And Paul Fidalgo!

Somehow in last week’s post on our new bloggers I blanked on our fourth great addition! So I am remedying that right now. We have a quarto, not a trio, of new bloggers at FtB.

So please also welcome Paul Fidalgo at Near Earth Object, communications director for the Center for Inquiry with diverse skills and interests and skeptic cred. My favorite sample…

I don’t imagine that Bob-Fucking-Dole would feel that he had to wheel his ailing carcass to the floor of the Senate to plead with his own freaking party to back the treaty if he thought the obstacle to ratification was just how spooked Jim Inhofe might be about U.N. boogeymen. I bet you Dole knew that his real adversary was going to be the giant sacks of cash strewn about the halls of the Senate office buildings.

(from My Own Conspiracy Theory about the Disability Treaty)

He kinda might be right. Meanwhile, I’m so rocking the last chapter of my book that I’ve decided to put off further blogging again until next week. I so want to complete by end of week and I’m really close to doing that. In the meantime, go read some Paul Fidalgo!

31 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Paul Fidalgo

    Hey thanks! Much appreciated!

  2. 2
    snowman

    what has happened with your Atheism+ thingy? down the toilet already?

    1. 2.1
      Richard Carrier

      “Atheism+” refers to a set of values for the atheist movement. Judging by the topics and speakers being increasingly selected for atheist conferences, the topics now widely discussed on atheist blogs, and where the money is going, Atheism+ has won the argument. One need only quibble about what to call it. And as I said from the start, that’s not important. But if for some reason you obsess over labels and thus want to see what people who avidly identify with that label are doing, then browse their forum.

    2. 2.2
      snowman

      So what exactly has changed within atheism at what conferences since you’re A+ insultfest flameout months ago to indicate “Atheism+ has won the argument”?

      Or do you mean all the silence (or laughter by other atheists) indicates a great success because some people started a new forum? Though maybe you’re right, I see on their Organization and Activism forum one of the biggest threads is for “Epilepsy awareness month ” with 2 pages of posts!

      That’s A double-plus good! You guys really are shaking up atheism!

      Is there actually a finished moral code yet that members MUST follow, or are you still working on that? Aren’t all atheists now required to buy a transvestite dinner once a year or, as you said, you’ll call them scumbags and shun them?

      >>One need only quibble about what to call it. And as I said from the start, that’s not important.

      It’s so funny how you constantly try to wiggle out of what you actually say! It’s so shockingly dishonest that even when I agree with you on something I know I can’t trust what you’re saying.

    3. Richard Carrier

      Conference rosters and large donors (and even periodicals) are supporting more discussion of social justice and charitable causes, sexual harassment policies, diversity growing objectives, and the expansion of atheism to things other than theology and of skepticism to things other than pseudoscience. The anti-A+ mantra that atheists should just talk about and do atheism has completely sunk like a lead balloon. And the anti-feminist wing is everywhere on the ropes.

      Your silly notion that we were working to finish some sort of moral code “members” (of what? you mean advocates?) “must” follow is just anti-A+ rhetorical bullshit that has nothing whatever to do with A+ or anything we have argued. We set forth a core set of moral values (not a code) and explained why we should all embrace them. And no anti-A+ person has advanced any argument against them that I know. So even they agree with us. They are just too sunk in cognitive dissonance to admit it even to themselves.

      As to my saying “what it’s called doesn’t matter” being dishonest, you are the one who is lying. I linked you to my article on this, where from the start I have been saying exactly that, and so has every other A+ advocate. The label is irrelevant. The values are the cause.

      Anyone who claims we ever said differently is the one who is being dishonest.

    4. 2.3
      snowman

      Btw, are you not welcome in Atheism+ anymore? I just saw they have an intro specifically repudiating you! Wow:

      http://atheismplus.com/faq.php

    5. Richard Carrier

      Repudiating me? I’m not even mentioned there.

      You must be engaging creative exegesis. Like a Christian apologist.

    6. 2.4
      snowman

      So you mean atheism shouldn’t be about atheism anymore, it should be about promoting recent liberal values as “true” out of all the possible values in the history of the human animal? Hmm, interesting.

      It’s so funny how you constantly deny even the most obvious points, like how their FAQ page repudiates you, as they go into further detail about in their forum there.

      >>some sort of moral code “members” “must” follow is just anti-A+ rhetorical bullshit that has nothing whatever to do with A+ or anything we have argued

      OK, so you mean the code of required faiths you and others specifically listed was for nothing then. Thank god, any decent skeptic would denounce such faith tests even if they act in accordance with some of the list. Doesn’t it even including “non-Ableism” now? Holy jeez, you guys are sad examples of skeptics and atheists, pathetic.

    7. Richard Carrier

      It’s so funny how you constantly deny even the most obvious points, like how their FAQ page repudiates you, as they go into further detail about in their forum there.

      Since you have yet to adduce a single example of this, what’s actually so funny is how much you are avoiding evidence-based argument and acting like Fox News and just making shit up and hoping if you keep repeating a lie someone will be foolish enough to believe it.

      This behavior (including your covert defense of a disregard and prejudice against the disabled) tells me that you are not a reasonable person and there is no point in having any conversation with you.

      Grow up. Please. It will do us all good.

    8. 2.5
      snowman

      It’s funny how your powers of exegesis fail you completely when it concerns your foibles. Any non-self-proclaimed-genius can read their FAQ page and search for your name in their forum for oneself to see immediately how they repudiate you there. Odd you can’t figure it out, isn’t it?

    9. Richard Carrier

      Evidently you can’t. As you have conspicuously failed to do so several times now. You evidently can’t find a single link to any comment post or any relevant sentence to quote. That’s what’s odd. And everyone here is kind of noticing that.

    10. 2.6
      snowman

      Another completely unnecessary Richard Carrier self-induced foot shooting.

      Everyone??? It’s only you here and you who are blind about yourself, Richard. Anyone else has obviously used the link given and their forum – i.e., the evidence I gave above – to see for himself. The very first forum posts there about you condemn you, Mr. Pro-Researcher!

      It ain’t hard to figure out. What is hard to figure out is why you repeatedly deny obvious things, and instantly go on personal attacks instead, and thus make yourself appear so intellectually untrustworthy.

    11. Richard Carrier

      The very first forum posts where? Provide the link.

    12. 2.7
      snowman

      Do your own clicking. But how about this one where you just admitted you knew all about it! http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/3018/comment-page-1/#comment-31586

      Holy Buddha, how can anyone trust anything you post? You don’t know the first thing about having an intellectual conscience; for you it’s all about fighting and obfuscating and “winning” points.

    13. Richard Carrier

      Nice try. But that’s not what we were talking about.

    14. 2.8
      snowman

      Oh, OK. So now you’re saying their repudiating you directly – in their faqs, and in their forum – wasn’t the repudiation “you” were talking about.

      You’re unbelievable.

    15. Richard Carrier

      No, that’s not what I am saying. But you are clearly disinterested in the truth, so it matters not at this point.

  3. 3
    Richard Martin

    Interesting tidbit. My 16 year old daughter has a friend whose grandmother, 78 years old, has apparently renounced religion, belief in God, and belief in Jesus. She reportedly stated the reasons as “because science has discovered so many things that have disproven religion.”

    You gotta like it.

    Maybe that would be an interesting bit of research or at least a post with people chiming in with their examples: older people renouncing religion and belief in the supernatural.

    Rich

  4. 4
    thunderstruck

    Had to look at what you figured the Thunderf00t thing was about.

    Basically he’s a criminal because he leaked what the FTB inner cabal was gossiping about? Am I reading this right?

    I’m a bit out of the loop, I don’t go to conventions for fear of rape.

    1. 4.1
      Richard Carrier

      No, he hacked a private secure server of a registered corporation. That’s by almost any definition computer espionage. One can only quibble over the exact wording of anti-hacking laws and what loopholes a lawyer could claim. Morally, however, anyone who hacks a private computer system to steal private communications is a criminal in my book. As the fourth amendment says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” He violated that. Maybe you don’t give a shit about our rights. But that’s your own moral failing.

    2. 4.2
      snowman

      Richard, seeing you were all righteous I just had to wonder what this was about and check into it to see how honest you were being..

      Why are you lying (yet again) and saying he “hacked a private secure server” when even your own guy explains that he was INVITED by your organization to receive emails and the invitation was never canceled so he simply re-clicked the link it when it stopped working? (http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/08/10/what-thunderf00t-did-and-how/)

      It may be sly but it isn’t anything remotely like hacking. (And it does seem much less “immoral” – to use your word – than what was being said on your list about him and about trying to get people who passingly disagreed with you guys fired from jobs, etc!)

      Also, isn’t it true that email does not have an expectation of privacy? Isn’t it true that any person receiving email is perfectly free to forward it or publicize it as they like unless bound by a signed confidentiality agreement? If true – as I understand it to be – he didn’t violate anyone’s rights as you wildly claim using your unreasonable and convenient “in my books he’s guilty” non-standard.

      Richard, would you call it a “moral failing” on your part when you lie about things like this just so you can try to win every point?

    3. Richard Carrier

      Why are you lying (yet again) and saying he “hacked a private secure server” when even your own guy explains that he was INVITED by your organization to receive emails and the invitation was never canceled so he simply re-clicked the link it when it stopped working?

      That’s a hack. He exploited a security flaw. Moreover, he did so in stealth (thus evidencing his guilt). He was not invited back into the list. He used an invitation from earlier, which did not say he could re-use it, and then he made sure no one noticed he had done so and spied on us. In the same fashion, using a movie ticket twice to sneak into the theater is illegal. Just because the theater staff don’t check carefully makes no difference.

      He knew what he was doing was wrong, and that it was violating our privacy. He did it anyway. That makes him untrustworthy scum who does not respect the rights of others.

      The emails he stole do state confidentiality was required (it’s in every byline). But no, it is not necessary that they do so when the emails are in a private network that you were not authorized to access. Many a case has been won over this, as in divorce cases when one spouse hacks the email of another. That’s a violation of privacy rights.

      I haven’t said one lie. You are the one trying to defend an immoral, dishonest violator of our constitutional rights by spewing bullshit instead of facts.

      Hmmm. I wonder if you are a sockpuppet for Thunderf00t.

    4. 4.3
      snowman

      >>He exploited a security flaw.
      No, he used a standard invite, no flaw in the server at all.

      >>Moreover, he did so in stealth (thus evidencing his guilt).
      No, he did so the same as he did the 1st time, same as everyone does. He used the invite he was given to enter.

      >>He used an invitation from earlier, which did not say he could re-use it
      Did it say he couldn’t use it??? Did you have a contract saying he couldn’t use it again? Ahhh….

      >> and then he made sure no one noticed he had done so and spied on us.
      No, is it spying to be invited to a party but not talk to anyone?

      >> In the same fashion, using a movie ticket twice to sneak into the theater is illegal.
      If the ticket for which you have a contract says for one show only, yes. But his ticket didn’t say that, it would have said “Click here if you want to join the list and receive our emails” (I assume). So he did just that, and you guys agreed again!

      Apparently your server admin is as bright as your understanding of basic logic and the law.

      So, prove otherwise, have the police arrest him, or stop falsely libeling someone by saying he hacked your server and stole your emails and violated your rights and is a criminal, all of which are clearly entirely false.

      If you can’t be trusted to be truthful on small points like this…

    5. Richard Carrier

      No, he used a standard invite, no flaw in the server at all.

      Yes, it’s a flaw in security that allows a used invite to be re-used even after someone is de-invited and no new invite has been issued. That’s reusing a theater ticket. Just as I said.

      No, he did so the same as he did the 1st time, same as everyone does. He used the invite he was given to enter.

      Hmmm. Now I’m starting to think you are a sock puppet for Thunderf00t.

      He knew he was barred from the list, exploited a loophole to get back in, and then stayed quiet and culled emails so no one would know he was there. That’s evidence of guilt: by hiding, he knew he was doing wrong; he likewise knew he was doing wrong when he used an old invite after being de-invited. Indeed, when we caught him and kicked him out again, he tried hacking back in several times (only that time we closed the security loophole so he failed), thus evidencing his guilt again (since he knew full well he had been barred twice but kept trying to sneak back in). That’s as I see it. And as I expect anyone it was done to would see it. Or indeed as almost anyone with a basic sense of morality would see it.

      No, is it spying to be invited to a party but not talk to anyone?

      He wasn’t invited. He was de-invited. That he could exploit an earlier invite is reusing a theater ticket. And yes, hiding, when you know you’ve been kicked out of a room and then sneak back in using an expired invite, is indeed spying–insofar as taking steps to gain access where he knew he was expelled, and taking steps to avoid being detected there as long as possible, listening in on what went on, is “spying.” Which sounds like a reasonable description to me. Indeed, I’ll bet lots of actual spies do exactly that, in all sorts of ways.

      Your attempt to avoid the fact that he knew he was violating our constitutional privacy is either game-playing (you are just fucking with me), or you are Thunderf00t trying to self-rationalize a despicably immoral act that makes his name mud, confirming him worldwide as an untrustworthy dirtbag who will violate the privacy of people doesn’t like, and not even be ashamed of it.

  5. 5
    snowman

    Btw, what do you even mean by “anyone doing X is morally a criminal”? It makes no sense at all. Criminality is a legal matter. Legally, doing X can make you a criminal, but not “morally”.

    The only great “free thinking” comments on your little internecine war are by this guy here. (About 5 here http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/2012/08/thunderf00ts-unauthorized-access-and-leaking-of-the-private-ftb-mailing-list/#comment-8393) and on TF where he flails several dunderheads posting nonsense like you do here, Richard

    1. 5.1
      Richard Carrier

      Criminality in the sense you are talking about is a matter of what juries decide. But you don’t get to claim you aren’t a criminal simply because you haven’t gone to trial. Nor do you get to claim you aren’t a criminal simply because you can exploit an unjust and unintended loophole in a law. Morally Thunderf00t is a criminal because he committed what I believe a reasonable moral person would judge to be a crime: a “search and seizure” of my personal papers without permission or due process. Whether the minute technicalities of computer hacking laws have caught up to that fact yet, or what a jury might find if he was ever brought to justice, I cannot say, because I do not know. But that is a different matter from whether in my own moral judgment he is a criminal. He has not yet been convicted of the crime. But I would testify in court that he committed a crime.

      Semantics are a distraction anyway. Deceitful, rights-violating scumbags are still deceitful, rights-violating scumbags. Even if they haven’t been caught by INTERPOL yet.

    2. 5.2
      snowman

      Again, you make absolutely no sense at all and just show you will post anything to not admit a point.

      Yes, I can not only claim but state definitively that he is not a criminal if not convicted under the law. Jeez.

      No, morally you are not a “criminal”; criminality is a legal matter. Jeez.

      >>But I would testify in court that he committed a crime.

      Well, then the judge would tell you you’re a complete illogical dunderhead usurping his role in society because that’s for the court to decide. That’s why you’re in the court testifying. (Remember: horse then cart.)

      And no he didn’t hack anything under the law. Use your logic to explain how the law is other than what this guy argues in his posts: http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/2012/08/thunderf00ts-unauthorized-access-and-leaking-of-the-private-ftb-mailing-list/#comment-8393

      Or stop lying?

      Btw, why haven’t you called the police and why haven’t they charged him if he actually broke the law as you otherwise libel him? QED?

    3. Richard Carrier

      Semantic quibbles that avoid the point being made are a boring waste of time.

      (We haven’t charged him because he isn’t in the U.S. and lawyers cost more than we think it’s worth, since his credibility has already been ruined, which is punishment enough. But if I find him in the U.S. one day, and the statute of limitations hasn’t run out, he might get a surprise.)

    4. 5.3
      snowman

      So you can’t argue with the logic of what the guy posted about the law there bc that would be “semantic”? In other words, “No mas”, you admit his logic is correct?

      Until you can prove using the law that he hacked a server and committed a crime and violated rights, you should not libel him. Some nut could use YOUR low standards to say you raped a child and are a criminal and so forth “in his book” and “morally a criminal”, even when you never broke the law, like say had a young looking gf.

      Btw, why do you always use the cheapest debate tactics when you’ve clearly lost a point? I’d never heard of TF until the post above. You guys live in tiny little circle over there. As soon as someone nails you on a point you post that they must be a christian or a sockpuppet or some such thing, as though that would make any difference to the point at hand. Really makes you look untrustworthy, Richard..

    5. Richard Carrier

      I haven’t libeled anyone. Everything I have actually said is true. You evidently don’t know the difference between libel and free speech.

      I’m growing bored of this bullshit. Go away.

  6. 6
    snowman

    Wow, fantastic argument, Richard: “I’m just going to keep saying I’m right bc I can’t argue with clear logi, now go away.”

    What was that horrible neologism you used on another post, “head-in-sanding”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

%d bloggers like this: