There is no such thing as a godless family? » « Look familiar? Just when you think Slimy Sal couldn’t sink any lower… He’s just got to dive into the Marianas Trench. Quote-mining (badly) my daughter isn’t just ugly, it’s vile and loathsome and despicable…but that’s typical Cordova, now declared Asshole of the Year. Share this:PrintEmailShare on TumblrTweet There is no such thing as a godless family? » « Look familiar?
truth machine says
Actually, after watching the video of Ayumu doing it, it may not be a bug — I can’t perceive all the numbers that s/he clearly can. But that’s a matter of visual processing, not memory. (Which isn’t to say that chimps may not have superior short term memory as well.)
Robin Levett says
@truth machine (#500):
I was having trouble getting beyond 5 or 6 right – but (using Firefox on XP at the moment) it always blanks in a fraction of a second – how long should it be allowing?
Of course you aren’t; you’re just throwing out general allegations that cannot be confirmed or refuted – other than on your authority, of course – because of lack of specificity.
Come on; even FtK agrees that “condone” has two meanings – the one she claimed to be intending, and the popularly supposed one. Let’s take her very first post, #26; she said:
One presumes that Ftk believes that both she and Scordova are saying the same thing about Skatje – using the same meaning of “condone”? Now Scordova’s original post implied (to be very generous) that Skatje would bring home a collared peccary as a prospective husband. What meaning of “condones bestiality” would you assign to that suggestion?
Her behaviour on After the Bar Closes (the reference is above) makes it even clearer that she intended that the Pharyngulites assume that she meant “approves of or advocates bestiality”, while leaving herself the get-out of the dictionary meaning she then claimed to be using – but she then actually accuses Skatje of advocacy in a post at 12:08 on January 3rd:
Let me put it this way.
You are defending FtK after she helped Sal Cordova attack Skatje. This probably annoys Skatje.
She is 17, and thus a minor, a “child” in the legal sense.
The first meaning of the term “molest” is “to bother, interfere with, or annoy.”
By your logic here, there is nothing objectionable or dishonest about me referring to you as a “child molester.”
I think Azkyroth just won the internets.
Anton Mates says
Firefox on OS X, and it does the same thing for me. Looks like it blanks just as quickly for the chimp.
I can get them all right most of the time, but not with anything like Ayumu’s speed. Of course, he’s been practicing since he’s a kid; makes me feel like my mom must have felt when she used to play Mario Brothers with me.
Brian Macker says
Do you always use the phrase “by your own logic” then repeat old jokes that in no way resemble anything discussed?
Does it seem safe to hide behind a child’s skirt? Perhaps if she’s so tender she shouldn’t be on the internet posting on bestiality, or as you use the word defending bestiality. After all, according to you, anything on a subject that isn’t arguing against it must be for it. Even if it’s the simple truth about the meaning of the word condone.
She’s probably annoyed at you for pointing out that she’s a minor. So by your logic, and not mine, that makes you a child molester. Now, I could say something nasty here but I’m not interested in winning the intertubes.
I know you hate it but the fact is that on this comment thread nothing said by FTK was particularly offensive, in fact it was rather mild compared to the behavior condoned by Myers here on the part of other commenters.
In fact the most nasty implications were put in her mouth by people like you. She says condone and you make it approves of.
I’m not the kind of guy who circles the wagons around wrong thinking. If you say something that’s wrong I’m going to call you on it even if that makes someone in a different group look good. Many of the atheists here act offensively all the time and FTK didn’t write anything particularly offensive here that I read.
If Myers doesn’t want his daughters writings to be used as a reflection on him and other atheists then he should take away her access. Sal’s attack is pretty damn predictable and there’s about six or seven of you here, including Myer’s who’d be all over any Christian kid who slipped up like this.
I just went an read some of FTK’s comments on the other site and she said that she doesn’t like the joke Sal made. So there you go, she’s not defending his action. Does that make you feel all warm inside now. She thinks he was wrong to do it too.
For a bunch of people so against concern trolls and whiners you sure are showing a lot of concern and whining. FTK believes atheists make bad parents based on the writings of one atheist kid. That’s stupid but Skatje wrote what she wrote.
Don’t start pretending Skatje’s post doesn’t condone bestiality. It does. Live with it, and live with the fact that others are going to have differing opinions on the subject. Some people actually believe that bestiality is wrong. Something Skatje couldn’t bring herself to say. She was able to say that hurting the animal during a sexual encounter was bad, but not the actual sexual encounter itself.
It absolutely was relevant to the situation at hand. Like FtK, I made a statement about a person, using words that have an understood, implicit meaning (connotation) in addition to their actual definition (denotation). Each statement was factually true according to the technical definition of the words, but (I assume…) both false and slanderous according to the connotation of the words used. In FtK’s usage, it was perfectly obvious to any reasonably intelligent person that she intended to convey the connotation of the words used – to imply that Skatje actively approved of the practice of, not merely disapproved of the criminalizing of, bestiality – while leaving herself the “out” of pretending that she was only attempting to apply the technical definition. (Other statements of hers, as Robin Levett kindly pointed out, bely this intention, and based on your last paragraph of your response I infer that you do, at some level, acknowledge what she was actually attempting to communicate). So far as I can see, the only difference between her statement and mine was that hers was used in an attempt to buttress an argument she couldn’t win by reason, whereas mine was deployed as an illustration of the fallaciousness of your defense of her statements.
By “by your own logic” I meant the following:
If this is true of FtK’s statement about Skatje, it is also true of mine about you. Either the connotation of the words used is irrelevant when the technical definition applies, or it isn’t. Which is it, Mr. Macker?
(I note that for all your flailing and sputtering you did not engage this point in your response, and in fact seem to have utterly failed to grasp that I was making a rhetorical argument, not an actual contention).
Ie. she couldn’t bring herself to lie. This seems to be a very condescending way of describing someone who has different opinions than yourself.
If I say that suicide shouldn’t be illegal, do I automatically condone suicide? In what sense? I don’t “disregard or overlook” suicide. I don’t “give tacit approval to” suicide except in some very limited situations. I don’t “forgive” suicide since I don’t think my forgiveness is relevant.
….yeah, that’s what I thought.