This is too much. Sarah Palin gave a policy speech today in which she claimed that she wanted more support for children with disabilities, more tools to test for disorders, and while also decrying the expense of scientific research.
Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? […] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.
I am appalled.
This idiot woman, this blind, shortsighted ignoramus, this pretentious clod, mocks basic research and the international research community. You damn well better believe that there is research going on in animal models — what does she expect, that scientists should mutagenize human mothers and chop up baby brains for this work? — and countries like France and Germany and England and Canada and China and India and others are all respected participants in these efforts.
Yes, scientists work on fruit flies. Some of the most powerful tools in genetics and molecular biology are available in fruit flies, and these are animals that are particularly amenable to experimentation. Molecular genetics has revealed that humans share key molecules, the basic developmental toolkit, with all other animals, thanks to our shared evolutionary heritage (something else the wackaloon from Wasilla denies), and that we can use these other organisms to probe the fundamental mechanisms that underlie core processes in the formation of the nervous system — precisely the phenomena Palin claims are so important.
This is where the Republican party has ended up: supporting an ignorant buffoon who believes in the End Times and speaking in tongues while deriding some of the best and most successful strategies for scientific research. In this next election, we’ve got to choose between the 21st century rationalism and Dark Age inanity. It ought to be an easy choice.
Lies!
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_human_induced_climate_change.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-behind-climate-change
The scientific consensus is that we are affecting the environment, it’s funny that non-scientists talk about how there’s no science behind it.
The IPCC begs to differ.
Hi Eric. You’re wrong. Oh, and stupid. But thanks for driving by.
(As if you care, here are the data on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Yes, the source of CO2 is humans burning fossil fuels, there is no other possibility. Yes, carbon dioxide absorbs long-wave inrared radiation. That increases the heat content of the atmosphere. This is by any reasonable definition “harm to the atmosphere.” Aaa, what’s the point?)
Eric the liar, back to talk about with is and isn’t scientific proof. TSK, TSK. Maybe you should check what various scientific societies think on AGW before your open your yap. You don’t convince scientists without proof.
what the hell is going on here? 501 comments and no hot gay fruit fly porn yet? You guys are the sorriest excuses for liberals I ever did hear of.
There isn’t a lick of science that demonstrates humans are causing any harm to the atmosphere, so, Governor Palin is correct. Global Warming / Climate Change is a religion, because it has to be taken on faith due to the lack of evidence for it.
U R an IDIOT…we are all a little more stupid for reading this…ERIC just do a LITTLE research before comparing RELIGION to Earths core temp. increasing and the ice caps melting…just scary…
Shame on the Republicans for believing in all the garbage that McCain, Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter throw at them. These folks truly treat you as illiterate kids with no minds of your own. The sad part is that most of you are intelligent folks, but you seem to relish in this symbiotic, dysfunctional relationship and in being fooled into believing in these garbled ideas and thinking. The relationship between the general members of the Republican Party and its leaders seems to be same as that between the Germans and the leaders of the Nazi party. It is as if the members want to be misled by their leaders and they want these leaders to lie to them. It is almost as if they do not want to hear the truth, because the truth will reveal their own prejudices and their own shortcomings. Palin has exploited this with great success. She knows that the Republicans do not want to hear the truth. She knows that the Republicans are incapable of any introspection (Otherwise, the Limbaughs, the Hannitys, and the Coulters would not be able to fool them). She knows that the best way to appeal to the Republican Party is to speak to their amygdala (on the contrary, you have to appeal to the Democrats’ frontal cortex). She knows that fear is the dominating emotion of most of the Republican Party members. She knows that most Republicans either do not have the ability to comprehend the ramifications of her divisive messages or are too lazy to explore the issues on their own. She knows that gutter politics turns on the Republican electorate. For the aforementioned reasons I do not blame Palin. She is after all complying with the wishes of her Party. Republicans strongly believe in a black or white world. Grey is incomprehensible, because it requires thinking. Republicans believe that America is perfect and all other member nations of this world are imperfect. I believe that the current Republican Party is gripped in the jaws of intolerance and jingoism. The Party believes that any one who strays from this worldview is either un-American or dangerous.
It is unfortunate that the media is obsessed with McCain’s tactics. His failure so far has nothing to do with tactics. It has every thing to do with the soul of the Republican Party. The Party’s very soul is in peril and it needs to purge people like the Limbaughs, the Hannitys, and the Coulters from its midst. Some times, you have to cut the hand to save the whole body.
I appeal to the moderate members of the Republican Party to rise up against their current leaders and to show them that you are indeed capable of thinking on your own. You need to rise above this dismal state of affairs my fellow Americans, and listen to your inner voices. For too long the extreme right of the Party has dimmed your voices. Take heed of my words and rescue your Party’s soul. Otherwise, your Party will be discarded to the annals of our nation in the next decade or two. Alas, I hope it is not too late.
One last word, true Americans are those who do believe that we are not perfect, and that each day we can make our nation better. Those who believe that we are a perfect nation are the true enemies of this great nation.
I think Patricia wishes she could grasp any Vienna Sausage.
Real or not.
I also bet supporters of AGW wish the science comes any where close to being called a theory.
But what do I know I’m anti-science as declared by the most holy arbiter of who gets to believe what, Nick Gotts.
Thank GOD for Sarah Palin. She is by far the best thing that could have happened for Obama’s campaign (not that he needed the help, but hey, it sure adds to the irony which is always more fun). Proud to say I’m an independent who has already sent in my vote for Obama/Biden 2008!!
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx
Nick Gotts, MHAoWGTBW
:)
The terminology behind it doesn’t matter, but there is strong science behind it which you would find if you looked in any reputable scientific journal or talked to the vast majority of climatologists. The scientists think it’s science, they think the evidence is behind it. It seems that you think you know better than the vast majority in that field…
Isn’t AGW a scientific consensus, rather than a scientific theory?
EricA, science thinks your opinion on anything scientific is irrelevant, as you show now idea on how science really works. One right scientist beats one million science illiterates any day. Welcome to Science. If you don’t want to be illiterate on science, then you need to listen to what scientists are telling you, not politicians or pundits. That means lurking, not posting for a month or so.
SC (#493):
I didn’t notice anything, so it’s all OK.
As for when I give another talk. . . well, we’ll have to see the next time Rebecca runs out of options! :-)
The French fruit fly research she ridiculed concerns the Olive fruit fly Bactrocera oleae, not Drosophila sp.
Nevertheless since the two species are close, the results of the French research may well lead to advances in understanding Drosophila and may bring similar medical advances.
To say nothing of the damage she has done to the public perception of fruit fly research in general.
I kid you not: this woman is a jerk
–Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 25, 2008 10:22 AM #215 —
Nick, that is such an excellent take on the issues of capitalism and socialism, free trade and monopolies that it should really be taught in schools.
No political system is prefect, but some are less horrible than others.
Lived my first 36 years in Norway, and the next 26 in Australia, and have experienced the difference between a socially egalitarian society (Norway) and a largely greed-driven society (Western Australia).
There is no black and white difference between the two places, and a lot has changed, but I always remember the Scandinavian emphasis on quality of life as different from living standard, where the first is measuring your mental and physical well-being, whereas the latter is looking at your material needs.
Scandinavia has long had a tradition of noblesse oblige in the sense that with wealth, power and prestige come responsibilities. (The old noblesse used the term mostly for obligations towards others in the same social strata as themselves).
So maybe a bit of the Scandinavian style socialism (looking after and helping the disadvantaged in the society) could remedy some of the ills of US society, and put an end to the dog-eat-dog approach of the repugnican rednecks?
But no reason to hold one’s breath!
“They cited an instance in which she labeled robocalls — recorded messages often used to attack a candidate’s opponent — “irritating” even as the campaign defended their use. Also, they pointed to her telling reporters she disagreed with the campaign’s decision to pull out of Michigan. ”
She better stop it, or I might gain a modicum of respect for her.
I just received one of those republican smear emails (now targeting Michelle Obama) sent to me through one of those “forward-all-smear-emails” republicans.
This time I wrote a response (because I know the guy who forwarded it, and I feel sorry that he is a misguided, but otherwise OK person who is unable to look through these Karl Rove tactics). Feel free to use whatever you want to take from it next time YOU receive this Republican trash:
———–Quote
Here is another one back at you.
Republicans talk about “patriotism”. Maybe someone can explain to me what is patriotic about the fact that tens of thousands of Americans die prematurely each year because they could not afford health care, and no republican seems to give a damn.
Republicans talk about lowering my taxes. And indeed, I actually saved some money with George “Dubya” Bush.
At the same time, I have now lost about 100 times that amount from my 401k and my investments because of that bonehead’s destructive policies. And if McNoBrain makes it to the White House, he is just going to continue the destruction of our economy, straight for the abyss.
Sh*t-for-brains Palin does not believe in Evolution, she believes the world is not older than 5000 years and that mankind once co-existed with the dinosaurs, using them as riding horses. Science proves her dead-wrong, but Palin does not believe in science. Problem is of course that science and engineering have placed this nation on top of the world for the last 100 years. Thanks to Palin and her science-denouncing compadres like Bubba Dubya and McNoBrain, we will be lucky if we even make it to the fifth place in that list for the next 100 years, with countries like China, India, Russia and Europe soon beating the crap out of us.
McNoBrain selected barbie-doll Palin as his running mate because he believed women are stupid enough to vote for her just because she is a woman. At the same time, competence was thrown out of the door. That’s not Country First, that’s Election First. Of course, if McCain would kick the bucket during his reign, Palin would become the president of the mightiest country on earth, a woman with the experience (and “mean-girl” attitude) of a high school cheerleader.
McNoBrain did not care about the impact such a numbskull president would have on this country. Because, hey, what does he care, he would be DEAD if that happens, right? And THAT calls himself a patriot??? Despicable. People should be smarter than to vote for Machiavellians like that.
I can give you another 50 or so of these examples, but I think the message is clear.
Please do not email me Republican smear like this any more. This great country deserves much better than that. We ALL should demand much more from our leaders, don’t short-change yourself!
————- endquote
just driving by…one other point to consider is the revitalization of the age old conflict of the religous wars that brought this country to what it is today…see http://rip-and-read.blogspot.com/2008/08/fourth-cousins-war-according-to.html as an intro to this tangential thread
I will be so glad when everyone of you gets your wish of having Obama as your next President. Then you will have to deal with your three favorite Dems: Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. It will be amusing to listen to all the crying that will go on after a couple of years of their being in office as they mess up this country even more than it is right now. We’re in the toilet now, but will be in sewer when they get in.
Hey, the most useful stuff I learned when I was studying genetics was from fruit flies. And as part of a winery family, I gotta say that the more research done on vineyard pests the better. We lost 70 percent of our vineyard to glossy-winged sharpshooters, and the bottom line wasn’t pretty.
Seriously, what’s wrong with our educational process that we have ended up with such a large anti-science segment of the population? To me, this is very very scary.
Dear SC:
Sarah Palin is a dumb bitch and a stupid cunt. She is also a dumb cunt and a stupid bitch.
Now, please stop reading this blog, and never comment here again, like you said you would. Because no one with intelligence is interested in conversing with a hypersensitive humorless twat.
Olive fruit flies don’t belong to the genus Drosophila; they’re actually in another taxonomic family, the “true fruit flies”, Tephritidae. If this is indeed the research that Palin was dissing, she doesn’t even have the excuse of not understanding (or believing) the rationale behind using Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism. Olive fruit fly is an invasive European species that damages crops in its native range and has been turning up in California.
In other words, Sarah Palin thinks it’s a waste of money to study a biological phenomenon that can cause losses to American businesses.
Good Zarquon, would you buy a used brain from this woman?
Camboy.
FUCK OFF!
It is easy enough to point out the foolishness that is Sarah Palin without using bitch or cunt. And most people who use those words on a regular basis tend to be very misogynist. SC has been right to call some people out on this.
Now as for you telling SC to leave and never comment again, I have this question; WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU? SC has been here since I started coming here. She is part of what makes this site special for me and I want her around. What have you contributed? I do not recall your moniker at all.
You are just a stupid little git who is upset that a woman called you on your game. And then your cry out at the top of your lungs. Grow up you sad little fucker.
Just how often does your “democratic” system need to fail you before you Americans realize that your system of government is 200 years out of date?
Instead of debating policies, you focus on patriotism. When will you grow up and face the real issues that are screwing your country?
Presidential politics US-style will continue to deliver you with the “lesser of two evils”.
American “democracy” clearly doesn’t work.
I love Palin.
I think she will make a great VP and after that President.
What is strange in this election is how much time we spend talking about her?
Maybe it is because when we compare Barack Obama to John Mcain he just does not match up?
Piss off Camboy – BOY you are, git!
You think you can fuck around with SC, well bring it on BOY. I’ll stick a sugar tit up your ass, short pants.
Because Obama has had two years of public vetting, McCain has been in the spotlight for decades, Palin is an unknown who hasn’t been vetted in any way. Her pick is a media circus of it’s own.
Posted by: Jimmy Joe | October 26, 2008
What is strange in this election is how much time we spend talking about her?
This is not strange at all. First, John McCain has a greater chance than most other candidates to die in office. Palin has a good chance of being president if her ticket wins.
Second, picking such an unimpressive person person show McCain’s decision making abilities. If he goes so wrong on this, where else is he going to show bad judgment?
Now, now – she’s doing her best.
Perhaps using less inflammatory language would help ideas get past her defenses…
“fruit flies”
Kind of makes you think ‘homosexual’, don’t it?
And that darned French connection – gosh, those frogs are un-American.
I think if we call them “freedom flies” and quickly shout, “Look, there’s a witch!”, we might sneak it past her.
She’s one of the most monstrously awful people I’ve encountered. McCain’s nomination of her reminds me of a monkey flinging poo.
The problem is that we do NOT get “to choose between the 21st century rationalism and Dark Age inanity”. We “get” to choose between 19th century socialism and Dark age inanity: two equally damaging and discredited philosophies. Obama talks better, but his vision is just as damaging as hers is. It ought to be an easy choice, but it isn’t.
We desperately need some better alternatives to both of them. Proportional representation, viable third parties, IRV or other voting systems that actually are capable of determining what people actually want; these are reforms we really need, so as to get out of the ongoing situation of being stuck for the lesser of two evils every damn time. I can’t remember a presidential election where both major party candidates didn’t suck.
PhilB
Clinton didn’t suck, he just got blown.
You are so quick to jump on the media attack band-wagon that you neglected to listen to the facts of what she is really talking about…!
The pork barrel spending on fly research that Palin is talking about is aimed to study affect that flies have on olive plants in California… it has nothing to do medical research!
And the point of her speech is taken totally out of context. The point of the speech was to criticize how Washington (both republicans and democrats alike) holds up important legislation to fund special pet projects (a.k.a. pork barrell spending). Check out what she was REALLY talking about at this URL… http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008
Hmmm… I guess that makes PALIN smarter than most of YOU that have commented on this BLOG.
I am afraid the problem is much bigger than Palin. In any civilized country, it is expected of a candidate for a high office to be minimally literate. In our country, 37% of the population believe that she can be a president just fine. Any vice-presidential candidate would have been kicked out of politics forever for saying that Democratic-leaning states are anti-American, she gets away with literally anything. Watch, Rush and Ann Coulter will make her the next Republican partee nominee for president. Lies need to be really big to be believed – said Goebbels. And Palin is a student of this wisdom.
And we all thought it could have not gotten worse than W! We will miss his intellectualism when we end up with President Sarah Palin!
“It is about abusive language
directed atvaguely associated with certain groups,particularly minoritiesnot including men, or white people, or rich people.” – SCAbsurd.
MNJ, #536, whined:
Considering there are numerous mentions upthread about the planned growth of the olive industry in California, a sensible person might think you should have realised it’s actually somewhat important, economically, to do this kind of research.
Fucking tool.
Jams, I suggest that you and SC have well and truly reached the point of diminishing returns regarding this issue, and that anyone interested is by now well aware of your respective viewpoints and has formed their own opinion. And, not to pick sides, I offer the same suggestion to SC in the converse.
Note that I’m herein trying to interject as a disinterested party.
Posted by: Camboy | October 26, 2008 12:25 AM
Posted by: Jams | October 26, 2008 2:14 AM
I’m not wasting any more time on these odious creeps.
Your neutrality is noted, John. Be sure to keep that in mind the next time the conversation turns to dumb spics. Bardus.
Janine and Patricia,
I’m beyond flattered – really overwhelmed. Thank you for coming to my defense.
WOW, Wowbagger! You really impress me with your slick cursing and your ability to MISS THE POINT COMPLETELY!
Palin’s criticism is aimed at PORK BARREL SPENDING!! Do you know what THAT is? That is when federal funds (OUR tax dollars) are being wasted on stupid things like the Shedd Aquarium in Illinois. I guess I forgot how important that aquarium is to me in MY state. That $1.6M (appropriated by Senators Durbin and Obama) really does a lot of good for MY state and our country (NOT)! That is not how I want MY WEALTH to be spread around!
Now how’s THAT for whining?!
Vote McCain/Palin! — after 8 years of Dubya the world needs something to laugh at… ;-)
Palin’s criticism is aimed at PORK BARREL SPENDING!! Do you know what THAT is?
well, you might not know what it really is, but you sure know where the caps-lock key is on your keyboard alrighty.
suggest you stop using the computer and go back to watching Oprah.
SC, because I respect you I feel I should clarify, even though I’m probably digging my own hole deeper and losing any remaining respect you have for me.
1. I was a migrant to Australia from Spain in 1972 (age 11), and once at school was the recipient of various epithets such as spic, dago etc. Yes, it bugged* me (once I understood the meaning and intent of the insults) and led to physical confrontation (even expulsion at one point).
2. I disagree with both you and Jams (and I suppose that technically makes me not neutral, but I hope you understand what I mean). I don’t think there’s a distinction in invective between correct and incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate (or if there is, it’s situation-specific) – one is either using vulgarity or is not.
3. In my experience, insults are just colloquial* labels and generally not understood to be literal or gendered. Admittedly, both males and females are called “cunt” or “twat”, whilst only males are called “dick” or “prick” – but I think this reflects an unthinking acculturation more than any conscious sexism.
4. The intent of such invective can be generally inferred from context, and hence I consider that the same term can, depending on context, be either sexist or not (i.e. it often is is functionally just a label that each interlocutor recognises as an insult). So I consider that your implicit claim that there is a set of sexist and non-sexist insults fails.
5. I believe I understand why the sexism of some epithets riles you, and so have sympathy for your exasperation whilst recognising that many who employ them are probably unaware of the implicit sexism. Which I think is a point Jams made.
6. Referring back to #105, I confess that I don’t understand your claim that “cunt” is sexist but “douchebag” is not – for the reasons I stated in that post and given my own inexperience with actually employing such terminology.
End of rant.
* the vernacular :)
Posted by MNJ, #534:
When you put it like that, it’s hard not to agree.
Regarding nabalzbbfr @ #292,
I’d like to call Poe, anyone second?
Well, maybe there’s something about the meaning or intent that you’re still not understanding in this case.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here, but this has zero to do with vulgarity.
Come on. It isn’t men who are being called cunts and twats around here, and when they are, it is an insult precisely because it’s a term for women or female genitalia, like pussy. I know you have an aversion to dictionaries, despite your professed love of words, but Jesus fucking christ – I posted no fewer than four links to dictionary defnitions for these words. “Cunt” is defined as a derogatory term for women. To make this more explicit – definition for cunt at Dictionary.com: “Disparaging and Offensive. a. a woman.” Are you claiming your understanding trumps that of several dictionaries?
Again, see the dictionary defnitions. And please point me to the instances here in which “dumb cunt,” “stupid bitch,” or “humorless twat” were not misogynistic.
I thought epithets themselves couldn’t be sexist.
I don’t think it is, but see Sven’s comment above. In any event, I did not say that in every case these words are used with conscious misogynistic intent. They are still antifemale slurs. I objected to the use of the words and the hostile environment this created. I didn’t claim that everyone who uses them is a raging misogynist (though many, as we’ve seen, are). Please refer back to my final comments on the “An Inspirational Poster” thread if you still don’t understand. So if you understand and sympathize with my annoyance at the use of sexist language, then we agree, and you aren’t neutral after all.
You were arguing from ignorance, and trying to deduce the social meaning for the word from what it denotes, but this failed because it doesn’t work like this. It would seem reasonable to expect that “douche” or “douchebag” would have developed into misogynistic slurs, but for whatever reason this hasn’t been the case. They’re more commonly applied to males, and they’re not generally seen as offensive to/by women. Before I posted my response to your comment, I did a quick online search, and the discussions I found among other women confrimed this. I would be happy to consider evidence to the contrary.
I think what MNJ is trying to say is “MY MONEY ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE!” Thanks for your contribution.
Jimmy:
“I think she will make a great VP and after that President.”
Why?
Yes, there is “Fruit fly research in Paris, France.” We also raise bees on top of the Opera House because they are an excellent indicator of pollution levels.
When you have the IQ of a doorknob, you can’t understand those things.
I hope she never, EVER makes it to the White House.
A frenchie who loves science.
Nick Gotts: Did you miss my reply to you at #335? (It seems to have got buried amidst a flood of posts this morning.)
Well yea it is my money because I actually work my butt off for it. I’d prefer not waste a penny of it on people like you guys who think you’re entitled to it. And if I had the time and was stupid enouth to watch Oprah, then I might also be dumb enough to vote for B.O. But I think that capitalism is much better than socialism, so I won’t be voting for Barry.
It’s cool that so many French people are dropping in. Welcome. :)
Y’know, it’s interesting: PhysioProf and truth machine are veritable fonts of profanity and insults. And yet, while I may have cringed once or twice while reading, I’ve never been offended by what they said or thought them racist or sexist. And yet people here are claiming misunderstandings or a simple lack of intent on the part of those using derogatory slurs. I submit that these excuses are largely nonsense.
Posted by: MNJ | October 26, 2008 3:17 AM
Now how’s THAT for whining?!
Salty. Weak, but salty.
MNJ whined (even more):
Our tax dollars? That seems a little unlikely, since I live in Australia. But hey, feel free to complain on my behalf.
Asshat.
Shit,am I late to this party or what….
Nice one !!!
Just to flog a dead horse a lil :(Hello SC..:-) )
Well,its ok for McCain !
http://showhype.com/video/did_john_mccain_just_say_the_c_word_on_live_tv/
Sarah Palin a-peels tuhmee cuz her purnowncis wirds lahk reel murkins dew: “nucular” and “eye-rack” and “eye-ran”
yall quit picin awan her
@ #15, Patricia | October 24, 2008 10:36 PM
I’m from the Netherlands and I can assure you that we have our share of, let’s say, intellectually challenged politicians too. Stupidity is the basic building block of the universe, as Frank Zappa said.
The problem with all of the above participants they don’t talked sense at all. What’s your problem with Sarah Palin? Who after the election, winner or loser will migrae to Pakistan to be its First Lady. Remember, that dumb idiot of Pakistan liked her? No need to debate about Sarah as she will no longer be in the US of A after 4th November, surely she will be a Pakistani after that, Todd will be a single father and who knows, might be next Gov of Alaska and the President in 2012?
The problem with all of the above participants they don’t talked sense at all. What’s your problem with Sarah Palin? Who after the election, winner or loser will migrae to Pakistan to be its First Lady. Remember, that dumb idiot of Pakistan liked her? No need to debate about Sarah as she will no longer be in the US of A after 4th November, surely she will be a Pakistani after that, Todd will be a single father and who knows, might be next Gov of Alaska and the President in 2012?
A university actually hired a jerk like PZ Myers to teach young students? He expresses himself like a nerdball, hurling personal insults.
@SC, the fact that I’m having to look this up* to respond leads me to concede I’m basically arguing from ignorance. What I find is less than definitive, though I’ve just checked with my wife (who does have a B.Ed. in English and she supports my interpretation).
Regarding point 2, I was trying to indicate that I don’t see how a subset of vulgarities is non-<XXX>ist but what to me seems a similar subset is not. I obviously failed.
Anyway, I’ll shut up about this issue henceforth.
Finally, I don’t have an aversion to dictionaries (which I literally used to read when at school), but to spellcheckers.
—
* Specifically, the term “cunt”, which I’d be more than happy for women to reclaim. And it’s not that easy to look up, I get drowned in a sea of opinion rather than references. I had originally looked at the Wikipedia entry on that word and thought it supported my original opinion (“used informally as a derogatory epithet in referring to either sex”), as well as my dead tree dictionary (New Shorter Oxford, 1993) – “2. A very unpleasant or stupid person”.
OTOH, based on your comment, I’ve just looked at dictionary.com (“a. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a woman. b. Used as a disparaging term for a person one dislikes or finds extremely disagreeable.”) and webster online (“usually disparaging & obscene: woman”) both of which support your opinion.
Robert Scheppy, clueless asshole #563, wrote:
Does this look like a classroom, laboratory or lecture theatre to you, shit-for-brains? What, you can’t comprehend that someone can act one way while he’s teaching and another on his personal blog?
Where are these dumbasses coming from? It’s like someone’s sent out for fresh idiots.
No, I am corrected about the purpose of the grant. It was for olive fruit fly research, some of which went to Paris.
I don’t think they grow olives in Alaska, and if they do have fruit flies I’m sure they hunt them from helicopters with NRA approved earmark subsidized assault rifles.
It doesn’t matter if it was genetic research or pests on crops, it’s about McCain/palin ticket attitude on science, McCain have pounded >those poor grizzly bears since 2003 and think he just so funny. They don’t seems to understand that if you don’t if you don’t allow a broad search for knowledge you neither get the ground breaking really valuable stuff. Much scientific advances have been side effects.
http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/10/07/john_mccain_bears/
Julie Stahlhut wites:
So what kind of Republican is this nitwit Palin anyway? Isn’t it a bedrock tenet of the Republican party that what is good for business is good for the people? So how can she say that this research does not contribute to the public good?
I confess that I don’t understand your claim that “cunt” is sexist but “douchebag” is not
I can throw in on this one: Douching is something that was created because women were thought to be dirty, especially in their sexual parts. The act of doing it actually leads to yeast infections more often than not, because it disturbs the natural pH and floral balance. Therefore, douche is ok as a slur because it refers to something awful and unnecessary and damaging. You could use “required episiotomy” the same way, I suppose, but it doesn’t roll off the tongue as well.
Certainly glad that all the politicians already in Washington are so smart that we will never have to worry about a housing bubble or finanical crisis in this country.
Hey,whats a nerdball??
Now then Scheppy(is that like Skippy?),you have witnessed Dr Myers hurling personal insults in class? Being a jerk towards students,even young(juicy,underage) students?
Oh? You havent? Just hateposting? Ah…I thought so….never mind,carry on then…
Is Sarah Palin stuck on stupid?? Even we common folk know that experimentation is necessary to make discoveries and you do not always discover what you are looking for, sometimes you get surprised and find something really useful. Like the vaccine for Polio, Measles, Smallpox which was derived from “cowpox”, Penicillan, treatments for Cancer, etc. Someday, they may even find a cure for “Down’s Syndrome”. And when you print something that describes another by a latin name, of course we the “ordinary” folk are going to pull out the dictionary! Who wants to sound like Palin? Tis better to look it up than to spout something that is totally stoopid!
I hirden går én,
som er bare til mén.
Tro ham vârt,
han er ond og svart.
Translation Please? Quite a few of us are not bi-lingual.
I wonder how many who are opposed to Palin voted for Bush Jr, TWICE? I just wonder, that’s all. I suspect that a sizable percentage of those with righteous indignation towards Palin actually voted for the current idiot in the white house. What does it have to do with anything? Well, for one, it shows that they are hypocrits. And, two, they are as stupid as they claim Palin to be.
Palin is all of these and some
Calling someone who is displaying the attributes of a moron a moron is not a personal insult. It’s the truth.
For example, you sir or madam are an idiot. An idiot who comes an complains about personal insults while calling someone a jerk and a “nerdball” (whatever the hell that is).
Are you trying to suggest people here did?
One has to wonder how she gave birth to 5 children if she is this stupid. Do you suppose she also thought you laid an egg and sat on it? Who knows, she is fooling a lot of people.
Ro 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Romans chapter 2
1 ¶ Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
Too stupid to use contraception ;)
Why are your congressmen asking for earmarks – that’s U.S. taxpayer dollars – to fund fruit fly research in France? Why can’t the French fund their own research with their own tax payer dollars?
Frank McCarly.
Go away. Quoting scripture means nothing more than you can read.
Nothing More.
See what the Hillary supporters were saying about Palin:
http://stargasbord.com/2008/10/switching-sides-why-hillary-clinton.html
fixed it for you
Did Sarah Palin believe in more support for children with disabilities BEFORE she had a baby with Down’s syndrome???
John McCain favors yet MORE trade relations with a country (China) that actively sanctions and even FORCES abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy.
So much for ‘pro-life’.
These two are the biggest danger to democracy our country has ever know and could give a $hit about abortion as long as they get into office.
I hope Palin gets knocked up AGAIN and has a stupid kid with a rotten temper that looks like McCain.
Why Forced Abortions Persist in China
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1615936,00.html
Palin is the most stupid person ever to hit the political stage. I cannot believe anyone is stupid enough to vote this bubblehead into office. She is an embarrasment to the USA. This Republican is voting for intelligence. Obama./Biden
What do you get when you cross Sarah Palin with a fruit fly?
A schlafly.
Bob Carroll, if I had been drinking coffee it would all over the monitor.
Why are people upset or surprised by Palin’s remarks? All politicians pander to the hoi polloi. She is just another rabble-rousing political hack, and there are 100s more just like her standing in line.
Yes and the correct response to someone running for her office that says the idiotic things she says is to just say “Bah everybody does it”. When in truth not everyone does.
Great idea Richard.
BTW, for all of you slagging off Palin. What makes us laugh down here in Australia is Obama’s great judgment in selecting Biden.
Has there ever been such an idiot in high office in all of U.S. political history?
Roosevelt was president in 1929 and people had televisions? The U.S and French kicking Hezboallah out of Lebanon? The guy who spouts wall-to-wall bullshit at every interview and says he’s gonna hold Obama’s hand when he gets tested?
You could down a tonne of magic mushrooms and still not get close to the planet that guy is on.
And what next? Oprah as ambassador to St James?
The ludicrous piece of denialist garbage linked to by Eric Atkinson@510 is comnprehensively debunked at:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/lorne-gunter-and-the-national-pest-debunked-again/.
I invite people to read both, and the links from both, and make up their own minds.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo @ 426
OT sad news for Rev BDC: just heard that Merle Saunders died.
BUMMER!!!
He was in Houston about 10 years ago, my freind who does the Dead show got a hold of him and we went to the hotel and interviewed him in the coffee shop for about an hour.
VERY VERY nice laid back guy. Totally cool, he could really pump a B-3.
That old Merle and Jerry album is a classic
and the non-sequitor award for this thread goes to….
azgreatgram :One has to wonder how she gave birth to 5 children if she is this stupid.
on a biology related blog, no less
LOL! Look, numbnuts, SC has a long track record of insightful, deeply analytical, well-argued, and witty posts here.
All you’ve shown is attempting to stifle her free speech and misogynistic insults. Given the baseline level of commentary here, you’d be missed a lot less than she would.
Besides, if all you want to do is spew gender-related insults, there’s tons of other blogs you can go to where you won’t be called on your shit.
On the other hand, really over-the-top misogyny in comments has gotten people banned by PZ, so you could just keep it up.
Exactly right, SC: Numb and Number aren’t worth the time you’d waste on them.
Well yea it is my money because I actually work my butt off for it. I’d prefer not waste a penny of it on people like you guys who think you’re entitled to it.
Ok, fine. Don’t drive on my roads, though; my taxes paid for them. And don’t use my ambulance, fire, or police services if you need them, either; go hire your own. I also hope, if you went to public schools, that you’ve reimbursed them for the job they did educating you for that job you work your butt off at.
Bob Vogel, um, speak for yourself. Go back to your formative years in education (do you have any?) and just take the word apart according to its Latin and Greek bases: muta, from the Latin mutare, “to change.” Even if one had a very poor education but is attracted to reading articles like this, one should be able to recognize that “muta” comes from mutable/mutate which means change. Now, let’s get back to our lesson, shall we? “Genize:” obviously come from genos (Greek), meaning race, offspring. Let’s play Electric Company (that bad liberal children’s show from the 70s) and put them together: Change+Offspring. Think you can figure out the basic meaning of mutagenize now? I have more faith in the general public’s intelligence and ability to read and understand, or at least their ability to use a .com if they don’t.
Thanks, thalarctos.
I know I said I wouldn’t waste any more time on these people, but I can’t resist.
No, I didn’t, you stupid schlafly.
Walton @ 176:
The conduct of RNC-paid police in and around St. Paul MN, before and during the Republican convention, serves as a stunning example.
Oh, HTM hell. Another AM catagstrophe. I’m sure you can make sense of that, though.
Whoah! The Obama fan’s remarks here were mean and hateful. Can’t stand haters. This gives me a glinpse of what America can become under the Obama regime. It can become the world of haters. Chill out people. Relax. People will decide who they want to vote, regardless. No need to be hateful.
MNJ @ 554:
Fair enough. Don’t pay taxes. And, in turn, don’t avail yourself on any tax-supported public services — roads, sidewalks, hospitals, police, etc.
Because why should everyone else but you waste our pennies on public services to guys like you who think you’re entitled to them?
As a society, we can cover those who can’t pay (not having the money to do so, being too young, too old, too sick, etc.) — but what’s in it for us to cover those who can pay yet won’t?
VLo, you need to look at the hateful remarks posted by the McSame people here and criticize them first before you ask us to tone down. What I hear from you is “don’t be mean to me, but my group can lie, distort, and be mean to you”. Get the word out the Rethugs first to be more civil. Anything else is not moral on your part.
Incidentally, another vote (or “second”) for SC to get a Molly.
For sheer patience and persistent clarity of explanation, over and above the call of duty.
According to McCain insider Martin Eisenstadt, another “makeup artist” named Tracy Thorp was brought in to do one thing for Sarah Palin: Apply a SPRAY-ON TAN. Yup, it’s one of the crazier sidenotes to this scandal, but apparently they wanted to get rid of Sarah’s “Eskimo tan” so they brought in Tracy the tan lady from LA. Eisenstadt actually raised the first concerns about the makeup artists two days before the New York Times and Wash.Post did their stories today. Here’s the link:
http://www.eisenstadtgroup.com/2008/10/24/rnc-paid-for-a-spray-on-tan-for-sarah-palin-too/
Carlie @ 595:
Whoops, now I see you beat me to it.
Though I suppose it won’t hurt to have two people making that point.
Actually. I am beginning to like Sarah Palin.
Everytime she opens her mouth, she loses support for McCain.
Her extravant spending on clothes and a make-up artist has not made her “one of us” at all.
And the loony videos from her batshit crazy church are now making the rounds of You Tube; not helping her one bit.
Picking her for his running mate has to be the most stupid thing McCain has ever done.
I am perfectly content for them to come around – better late than never. I voted for Reagan, and he made me a Democrat.
txaz wrote: Do NOT let Dems take our freedom that was won with much sacrifice.
Oh, yeah. Don’t take away our freedom to lose everything we have if we get sick, even if we work hard at our jobs and have some level of health insurance. Don’t take away our freedom to get into bloody and pointless wars that are started by lies and carried out without any coherent strategy. Don’t take away our freedom to lose our savings to corrupt financial manipulators who have already successfully lobbied to make intricate banking frauds legal. Don’t take away our freedom to be tossed into overseas prisons without being charged with a crime if we happen to have the wrong kind of foreign-sounding name. Don’t take away our freedom to learn science in public schools without interference from religious extremists.
We’ve all been making lots of sacrifices OF our freedom to the current administration, and we’re now stuck with collapsing banks, increasing unemployment, diminished funding for scientific research, long-term money problems for people dealing with health issues, and the co-option of public schools as bully pulpits for uneducated fringe preachers. Someone has to fix this. And the last few years have made it absolutely clear that it’s not going to be the Republican Party.
Lets see…the fruit fly in question appears to be able to damage crops.hmm, So if I understand either the Republicans are looking for a “buzz word” to spread like wild fire amongst the gullible or perhaps it’s another (fraudulin/freudian) slip.Someone appears to want a good ole’ fashion round of pestilence.Some people just can’t get enough (drama/suffering). Just a humouras thought.
P.S. How about a good ole’ fashion swarm of locust?
It is shocking, from this side of the pond, to realise that there are voters in the US who admire and applaud this halfwitted chump. People are so thick they would actually vote for her? She makes GWB seem like genius by comparison.
There’s a flame war on the internet and everyone’s invited!
Carlie & Pyre…
I third the motion! SC has shown far greater patience than could be reasonably expected.
OM for SC!
VLo: Project much?
The MadPanda, FCD
“I can’t imagine how to fix this problem.”
How about a poster in every classroom that says “You can’t plan discovery. There is no wasted research.”
Dear SC
Oui dès l’instant que je vous vis,
Beauté féroce, vous me plûtes.
Merci infiniment !
I wrote a column about Palin and fruit flies yesterday at
http://tinyurl.com/5d5wuo
in case anyone is interested. I think every evolution blogger did. This episode is just too priceless.
Fourthed! For her valiant work here and on many other threads. Nothing says “We hate women” like the blithe use of misogynist slurs, and I appreciate SC’s pushback.
SC’s also got a hell of a lot more stamina for it than I do. I tend to just leave when I get that upset, and SC’s been amazing at keeping at it.
I’ll be the fifth, but don’t tell her as I want it to be a surprise when the Molly nominations open.
*headdesk* DOH!
It is disappointing to find, so many, with so much, that earned so little, have so much to say, against people who actually have earned for themselves a place in life.
In contrast, the democrats have a man who has served less than four years in the US Senate, sponsored nothing of value, has a history of abstaining (voted – PRESENT) in his own state 130 times. The nearest competition had voted only 50 times in that fashion. Obama’s was no DEMOCRAT strategy…he was a coward.
Well yea it is my money because I actually work my butt off for it. I’d prefer not waste a penny of it on people like you guys who think you’re entitled to it.
then don’t.
figure out exactly how much of the amount of taxes you pay actually goes to basic research, and simply refuse to pay it.
guess what fuckwit?
it would amount to about a 1.50, if you’re an average taxpayer (you did say you work for a living, right?).
then you could do the same for all the other things you don’t like.
hey, if you do really well at it, maybe you’ll become best buddies with Kent Hovind!
But I think that capitalism is much better than socialism
you do of course realize that the last 8 years of republican administration lead to the first time in history that our entire banking system has been socialized, right?
did you miss the signing ceremony where Bush essentially forced all the major banks in the US to have 40% of their assets controlled by the federal government?
guess what fuckwit?
it’s the republicans that have ALREADY given you socialized financial institutions.
“I know I said I wouldn’t waste any more time on these people” – SC
“These people”? Yes, just lump random people into one big blob of transgressors. Is this part of your strategy for a more compassionate, less abusive world?
You really are a trashy piece of work.
Jams, please present your strategy for making this blog, and to an extent, the world, less abusive.
No plan, no talk about other people trying to make things more civil.
Why is it always a dichotomy between capitalist and socialist? Surely any system that operates needs to have a balance between the two with that balance point depending on the population involved. But it seems like the word socialist is a taboo, you just have to implement social systems while singing “free market” to get things done.
Posted by: Jams | October 26, 2008 4:43 PM [kill][hide comment]
“I know I said I wouldn’t waste any more time on these people” – SC
“These people”? Yes, just lump random people into one big blob of transgressors. Is this part of your strategy for a more compassionate, less abusive world?
SC was referring back to this:
Lumping together random people? I think not.
You really are a trashy piece of work.
*rougissant**
Wow. Thank you all. I’m speechless.
And thanks, Jams! Yes! I’ve long aspired to be a trashy piece of work! Awesome. (And you don’t know the half of it.)
Too bad you meant it as an insult, though, and prefer someone daintier. I was hoping you and I could get something going. I mean, with your wit, wisdom, and progressive ideas, you put men like truth machine, Ichthyic, Emmet, and Sven to shame. Really. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise – you’re quite the catch.
*like cheap Zinfandel grapes from California, USA – I kid you not.
Tyranny of the majority – Walton
Walton, that’s just a silly adolescent way of saying you oppose democracy.
There is no coherent justification for protectionism, and you haven’t given me one. All producers should compete in the same market, therefore creating broader competition and more efficiency. – Walton
Efficiency – like the immense financial crisis we’re currently in, product of decades of privatisation and deregulation? The “coherent justification” for protectionism within capitalism is not for me to give – I advocate global democratic socialism, which might use both markets and trade barriers, but would place major economic decisions under the democratic control of those affected by them. It’s interesting that you want all barriers to trade removed, but are keen to prevent there being any democratic check on the activities of the mega-companies that absence of barriers would generate (and indeed, the move toward it has generated). In other words, what you want is the tyranny of a minority – the rich. That’s what the proposals of the right always come down to.
I take your point about the fact that capitalism has never existed in a pure, unalloyed form, free of the constraints of geopolitics; this is certainly true.
No, you very obviously miss my point – which is that capitalism is what we have now and that geopolitics, complete with wars, tariffs and taxes, is and always has been intrinsic to it, not some external excrescence. When you talk about “capitalism” you are blethering about something that has never existed, and never could exist – because markets tend to generate inequalities, and those who are on the right side of these inequalities will then use them to reinforce their own position, employing state power if it is handy, and other means if not. Democracy is the only way to avoid this.
(Iceland, of course, can only run its fisheries protection system because the national government limits access by non-Icelanders, imposes restrictions on the proportion of catch rights any company can have, on nets, on where fish can be taken…)
In other words, what you want is the tyranny of a minority – the rich. That’s what the proposals of the right always come down to.
Jams and I will thank you not to use such hateful slurs against the downtrodden and suffering wealthy.
Saint @580 –
You, Sarah Palin and others seem to think piggybacking on an other country’s research will cost US taxpayers more than starting it from scratch in the US. Why?
Rolan Le Gargéac’s @614: I agree! One more French (female) vote for SC’s Molly. Wish I could also cast an other one…
sylvie
SC should-be-OM@628,
I do apologise – I must try and remember that it’s not the fault of the rich they are as greedy, callous, and prone to resort to violence as they are, but an unfortunate affliction, bravely borne!
Yes, just lump random people into one big blob of transgressors. Is this part of your strategy for a more compassionate, less abusive world?
My irony meter just exploded.
I voted SC for Molly last time, and I shall be doing so again next.
Anyway, back to my new hobby: arguing with Walton.
You should read Stiglitz’s book “Globalization and its Discontents”. He supports the free trade of goods and services (as he claims does almost every other economist) as a long term goal. However if barriers into a poor country with inefficient business are stripped suddenly, its domestic business may be wiped out, leaving mass unemployment. Iraq is an example of this happening (obviously, the violence doesn’t help). China is an example of this being averted by gradual liberalisation.
Stiglitz however is sceptical of the free flow of capital. If a poor country hits hard times and its capital has been liberalised, then all that capital can flee the country, leaving it devastated. See this. A successful development strategy has been to allow only direct investment, i.e. building factories.
First, it’s interesting how, in a place where the great majority of participants claim to be against religion and dogma, against blind following and for rational discourse, people who show up with a different rational and secular point of view are shouted down and insulted on a regular basis. “Fuckwit” is not a term that is useful in promoting a reasonable discussion. Such behavior is hypocritical.
Second, it’s really sad, and more than a bit frightening, that there are so many people that still believe in socialism as a viable and useful paradigm, after the history of the last couple centuries. People who are intelligent and educated, even. But I suppose if rationality hasn’t managed in over 500 years to conquer religion in more than a fairly small segment of the populace, we have to expect other irrational belief systems to persist for significant periods of time as well.
=====
Kel wrote (#624): [i]”Why is it always a dichotomy between capitalist and socialist? Surely any system that operates needs to have a balance between the two with that balance point depending on the population involved. But it seems like the word socialist is a taboo, you just have to implement social systems while singing “free market” to get things done.”[/i]
The primary dichotomy is really between individualist and socialist. The question is: are people to be respected as individuals with rights and liberty, and society as subordinate to that; or are people to be considered to be subordinate to and at the disposal of society?
When people are allowed individual liberty, capitalism typically develops as one of the primary and most effective systems of societal operation, as it is a system mainly of voluntary creation and exchange. Socialism, OTOH, is primarily a system of coerced “cooperation”, in which people are forced to expend some portion of their labor and lives for the benefit of others, without consent. Socialism is thus an inherently immoral system, and is rightfully opposed as much as possible.
PhilB
I enjoyed going to Pubmed and searching for Down syndrome and Drosophila just to see how much research that impacts on our understanding of Down syndrome and our potential treatment of it is done on fruit flies. Wow, quite a lot, by the looks of things.
The primary dichotomy is really between individualist and socialist. The question is: are people to be respected as individuals with rights and liberty, and society as subordinate to that; or are people to be considered to be subordinate to and at the disposal of society?
When people are allowed individual liberty, capitalism typically develops as one of the primary and most effective systems of societal operation, as it is a system mainly of voluntary creation and exchange. Socialism, OTOH, is primarily a system of coerced “cooperation”, in which people are forced to expend some portion of their labor and lives for the benefit of others, without consent. Socialism is thus an inherently immoral system, and is rightfully opposed as much as possible.
Ludicrous garbage. The dichotomy between socialism and individualism is a false one, as democratic socialists, and anarchists, have consistently fought for individual liberties for well over a century. Unlike “libertarians”, however, we recognise that what matters is real individual liberty – for which the resources to make and follow through choices must be available – not simply an absence of government constraints; and that all individuals should be entitled to these liberties, not just those lucky enough to be born into a privileged class, or even to be born clever.
Oh and historically, capitalism has developed just once, and large-scale murder, enslavement and dispossession of the poor was an intrinsic aspect of that development.
Interesting quiz: “Are You Smarter than Sarah Palin?”
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UePOdha_dHM
(No answers are given, but I’m pretty sure I knew most of them.)
So you don’t think that there’s the possibility of having an even greater liberty by having a system that has some social aspects like schools, hospitals, roads, law enforcement, etc.? Money can be taken and funded into programs that benefit society as a whole, those services can give us more liberty. All capitalism over socialism implies is pure economic freedom, money is not the only factor of life!
Killfile is indeed my friend.
Killfile powers activate! (touches Janine)
Posted by: alreadydecided | October 26, 2008 8:11 PM
wat
amk, that post will be gone as soon as PZ sees it. Long cut/paste of religious nonsense does not survive for long.
lol if true
I’d just like to mention that Bush asked for $310 million in “missile shield” spending for FY2008. Not for research and development but for deployment of a system which, if the weather is clear and other conditions are perfect, can shoot down a missile one time out of four. Provided that missile is broadcasting its GPS data. So really a few hundred thousand to keep a few weirdo biologists off the streets is not such a big deal (plus I bet the research will be able to save more than one out of four olive trees).
Oh yeah, and also around 70 BILLION dollars of the massive financial bailout are going to be available as bonuses for investment bank big-shots. “Hey, bang-up job on that economic meltdown, guys! Have some money!” “Okay!” No, really, having our tax dollars go to reward the people who essentially created *and* fell for a Ponzi scheme is a GREAT POLICY, whereas raising the top marginal tax rate a few percentage points is OMG STALINIST LOOK OUT.
Certainly we can all pray together! Happy to.
Oh mighty Bacchus, and glorious Pan, we beg and beseech you both to deliver unto us wine and lust. May we all feast, drink and fornicate until we puke. Amen!
Oh mighty Bacchus, and glorious Pan, we beg and beseech you both to deliver unto us wine and lust. May we all feast, drink and fornicate until we puke. Amen!
A glorious prayer. Amen sister…….but I have to go to work in the morning. Drat.
Two words
Bactrocera oleae
TWIT
You claim to be a scientist, and you don’t even know your fruit flies!
Ooo, ooo, how ’bout we add an invocation to Eris, that she may bless these proceedings? The Grooviest of Goddesses always makes a party better, as do her most beloved saints, Coyote the Ever-hopeful and Bugs the Rascally.
Alas, I, like our friendly neighborhood Nerd, must also hit cubeville in the morning and must temporarily abstain. But next weekend is only a few days away…
The MadPanda, FCD
Nerd – Never fear sweet sir, as a High Priestess of Strumpetry, I absolve you, and you may make your sacrifices and gorge yourself at your next convenient time.
And because I am a generous slut, I add 23 ducats to your swill tab. Give the Redhead a treat!
Eeek! Et tu Mad Panda? *smooch*
I am also a pope and follower of Emperor Norton. Damn straight, let’s stagger out of the bowling alley and shout a hearty, Hail Eris!
Pfft! The best part of this is, PZ is goin’ to hell for letting all these godless heathens dance suggestively around his blog. Ha, ha, ha! ;o)
Many thanks, O Strumpetly One! When next I may safely imbibe, I shall add an additional pint of the best in memory of Emperor Norton, Duke of Canada and Protector of Mexico (Whose Boots Governor Palin Is Not Worthy To Polish With Her Nose).
The MadPanda, FCD
alreadydecided.
go fuck yourself.
Jake @ #212:
The difference pretty much boils down to the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. There’s a much shorter list these days regarding whom we’re allowed to disrespect without compunction. Women are still very much on that short list.
Yeek!
Rev. to whom are you addressing the ‘go fuck yourself’?
I’m a busybody, and I want to keep up with the pace of fucking.
If the Palin/McCain sticket manages to steal the White House like the last buffoon did, I see a mass exodus of intelligent people from this once great country.
@alreadydecided
Christian supremacist masturbatory propaganda
Yes, most of us here have long been aware of the fact that Francis Schaeffer was a lying hate-mongering anti-freedom slimeball… what’s your point?
Already Decided @ #638:
FAIL. They didn’t write that there was a Creator. They wrote:
“…all Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”
Notice the important distinction? They didn’t say “endowed by A Creator” or “endowed by THE Creator”…they acknowledged that each person has their own version of “Creator”. The distinction is actually monumental in scope. In other words, not only do people have inalienable rights that neither a municipal government, nor a state government, nor even a federal government can deny…not even different versions of “Creator” can deny people their inalienable rights. We each get those rights no matter who or what we think created us.
It’s genius, really.
Well, Myers,
It’s apparent that some things that education cannot eliminate are bigotry and prejudice, because you are full of them; they seem to ooze out of every opinion you state.
I know that in the past you have stated a preference for dealing violently with those whom you despise. I seem to recall some threatening language you used in reference to one of your son’s high school science teachers.
Is that still your current stance? Are you calling for violence against the GOP VP nominee?
Good god, I can’t believe the vehemence of some of these reactions. Don’t some of you ladies have anything better to do? (your monikers are unambiguously female, so on that basis I’m assuming you’re female)
Janine: I have been reading this blog for years, because it entertains me immensely. I have commented before, with this same signature, but I grant you very rarely. Why? Because I have a life, and I don’t have time to get involved in a big discussion with anyone on what is, in the end, just a fucking blog. But sometimes I see a post that inscences me so strongly, that I just can’t hold back. And I still try to tell myself, hey Camboy, work to do, bedtime… But sometimes I just can’t manage it. In this particular case, comment #40 was just more than I could bear.
Secondly, in terms of being a git. Well, I had never heard that word before, but I looked it up on webster’s online, and I found that it meant: a foolish or worthless person. Well, OK, if you can determine the worth of a person on the basis of 1 comment, well, all I can say is, you must be some kind of fucking genius as far as I’m concerned. As for myself, I am a sufficiently accomplished person (math Ph.D. from a top school, an academic career where I solved a number of significant problems, and now, well, a wall street sleaze, but I’m making lots of money–and actually, amongst the people who were warning the powers that be at the top of our lungs that the present crisis was coming, but alas, no one listened) that what someone like you thinks of me is about as important to me as knowing the exact number of people who are at this moment experiencing flatullence in Sri Lanka is.
But the main thing I want to respond to is your plea that I grow up. Well as far as I am concerned, if I were actually conversing with grown ups right now, there would be no need for me to even be writing this comment. On this blog, people tend not to pull punches. At all. The serious people here are grown ups, they have high IQs, and they don’t get their boxer shorts (or panties) in a bunch over trivialities. People are regularly reffered to on this blog as “dickhead”, “asshole”, “fucktard”, and a rather lot of other barnyard epithets. The vast majority of these appelations are insults that are in traditional colloquial usage considered insults toward males. And why do commenters choose these particular lexicons over others they might select? Is it because the commenters here (the vast majority of which are admittedly male) feel they have a special need to belittle and hurt the male sex of our species? I myself would propose another idea: I think they are using these particular epithets primarily because………drumroll now………: THEY ARE SPEAKING FUCKING ENGLISH. And when you are speaking English, and you have to deal with a creationist troll, a bible thumping fucktard, or an utterly repugnant thing like the Sarah Palin phenomenon, you do not mince words. When you want to express the deepest and most heartfelt contempt for some thing or some one, you are going to use the most striking, sharpest, and indeed most visceral language you can use. Because there is no other way to make the strength of your contempt clear. And that means you are going to use epithets like “dickhead”, “son of a bitch”, “pecker”, and, most definitely “cunt”, and “twat”, as well. In all honesty, I don’t think I have ever used the words “cunt” or “twat” before to insult any one but a male. Think about it. What could possibly be more insulting than to be compared to the oppossite sexes’ genitalia? As for “bitch”, I grant you, that one is for girls. But so what. Grow the fuck up yourself. We have all these insults for men. You want equality? Well, you got it. Here are the insults for you.
Patricia: My response to you (and anyone else) will be proportional to what you have contributed to the conversation. In actual fact you are not going to be sticking anything up my short pants. Why? Because this is the fucking internet. You don’t even know what short pants I’m wearing right now. OK, I’m done with you.
Finally, SC, the person I ultimately have to thank for the fact that it’s 1:30 am on a sunday, and I haven’t gone to bed yet.
Sarah Palin is a stupid fucking bitch. Period. And when I say that, whilst the probability is not exactly zero, if she were in fact a penis bearing member of the species, I admit it is unlikely I wouldn’t choose a different epithet for her. And what I would most like to know is what the fuck does that have to do with you? Or any other non-penis bearing member of the species besides Sarah Palin? When I come across some asshat, and refer to him as a “dickhead”, a “dick” or in fact, almost the worst insult of all for a male, “dickless”, am I also insulting my brother, my male coworkers, my male dentist, my male college professors? Well, umm, like, no. Similarly, when referring to Sarah Palin, Elizabeth Dole, Schafly, and lots of other pillars of ignorance who happen to be female as “bitches”, “cunts”, or whatever, am I insulting my sisters (I got a lot actually), my female professors, Angela Merkel, or any other female besides the ones I’m referring to? No. All I’m doing is speaking English. Like, the way I was brought up. And when speaking that language, when we have to refer to a particularly obnoxious male, we tend to use words like “dickhead”, and when we have to refer to a particularly obnoxious female, we tend to use words like “bitch”. You know, in languages like French and German, they actually use different declaritives for male or female nouns. Are those intrinsically sexist languages? If so, you better get over to France and Germany and do something about it because the sexism over there is a helluva lot more ubiquitous than one little blog of a biology professor.
People are going to continue to speak English on this blog, and continue to use words that, in one way or another (and the overall slant really is against men, not women), have some gender connotations. Not because they’re bad people, or even because they are unwittingly sexist people. But just because they grew up speaking English, and they continue to. And there are far more important things to stay up until 2 am talking about than that.
Honestly, comment #40 is worse than something a concern troll would write, although the parallels are uncanny. Because at least a concern troll is, in the end, an honest troll (if you don’t find that a mind-numbing conundrum). You actually want people to take you seriously as an intelligent person, and you waste people’s time with worthless pc drivel like that?
It’s doubtful I’m going to reply to anymore posts on this matter. Like I said above, I have a life, and I really have nothing more substantive to say. You might try getting a life yourself.
Smile with this http://michaelpalinforpresident.com
Poor widdle Camboy got his feewings hurt.
Killfile.
“you ladies” was a nice touch though–I do believe that’s the first time this century I’ve heard that.
Indeed.
Honestly there was no significance whatsoever to “you ladies” than the simple fact that where I grew up (the sticks like you wouldn’t believe) that’s just the way people talk, and I have neither shame nor pride in that.
And if comment #661 is the best that The Lone Drinker can do, than “Indeed” is an understatement to say the least.
Poor widdle Camboy got his feewings hurt.
Really. The only thing worse than an odious creep is a sulky, defensive odious creep.
As Emmet said @ #161, “On the particular point, I half agree with SC: I abjure words like ‘cunt’, but I find it useful when another person uses them, since it tells me something about him/her.”
And sometimes, apparently feeling that insufficient, someone will they treat us to the full Manifesto of the Misogynist Party. Pouty little pissant.
Okay, quick question – is there any occasion where the word ‘bitch’ isn’t going to get someone labeled a misogynist? I wouldn’t use it to describe Palin – since she doesn’t, from what I’ve seen, meet what I would consider the criteria – but there are times when it seems the most apt term to use to describe someone.
You can’t win an argument with name calling SC. Either answer my comments substantively or admit defeat and go away.
And for the record, I am neither misogynist, defensive, nor pissant, just because I use words like “cunt” and “twat” just as freely as I use words like “dickhead” and “asshole”, and my comment was not “pouty”.
I am however really going to bed now, so any further responses from me will have to wait until Monday night.
It’s a calculated risk–if you really, truly, honestly, can’t think of a non-sexist way to communicate what you mean, then perhaps you should just go ahead and take responsibility for using sexist language in a particular audience.
But I am curious about the criteria for “most apt”. SC has asked repeatedly what the criteria for “bitch” is, other than just an easy/lazy habit to denigrate a woman; so far as I can see, she hasn’t received an objective, rational answer.
Perhaps if you could explain why it’s sometimes the most “apt”, we could make a first approach at an objective criterion that way.
Cambot – I’m not arguing with you. I’ve made my substantive arguments on this thread already, largely in response to people I like and take seriously, like John Morales. You’re beneath contempt.
I think that’s a really good question. Speaking only for myself: “Bitch” is more complicated than “cunt” since it can refer not only to women in general but to a specific set of behaviors typically thought of as “bitchy.” I don’t love it, but I’m not that offended by it and, honestly, have probably used it in the past myself. But in this case, people generally say something like “She’s being a real bitch” or sometimes just “She’s such a bitch” but with the clear implication that it is the specific behavior of this individual that is being referred to. The way I’ve seen it used on here of late (“stupid bitch,” “shit-for-brains bitch,”…) has seemed, in almost every case, to be as a derogatory replacement for “woman,” interchangeably with “cunt.” If I had seen it once or twice it would have irritated me but I would have given people the benefit of the doubt; but seeing it used like this several times in the same contexts in which “cunt” was being used (and on one thread repeated references to a woman’s physical appearance) drove me to say something.
criterion, dammit!
If America votes this idiot into power, it will have done the humanity the worst disservice in living memory. She is dangerously ignorant and only a failing heart away from the nuclear launch codes. It get a knot in my stomach every time I am reminded that so many people actually believe this stone-age stupidity.
And I’ll add that the behavior of none of the women discussed on these recent threads would “most aptly” be described as “bitchy” by any stretch of the imagination. Contemptible, ignorant, smug, xenophobic, deceitful, etc. – many, many terms more apt have been used. PZ managed these posts without any derogatory references despite plenty of insults – they could just as easily have been written about men.
To amk at #632 (sorry for the delayed reply).
You should read Stiglitz’s book “Globalization and its Discontents”. He supports the free trade of goods and services (as he claims does almost every other economist) as a long term goal. However if barriers into a poor country with inefficient business are stripped suddenly, its domestic business may be wiped out, leaving mass unemployment. Iraq is an example of this happening (obviously, the violence doesn’t help). China is an example of this being averted by gradual liberalisation.
I see what you mean, and, of course, this is intuitively correct; clearly if domestic industries are accustomed to being protected by tariffs, and have not become efficient, a sudden removal of tariffs leads to short-term unemployment. But in the long run surely it’s still beneficial?
Imagine country X is a stable nation with established property rights and the rule of law (not the case in Iraq, as you concede, so Iraq is a poor example). All its tariffs are abolished in the name of free trade, leading to the collapse of several domestic industries and mass unemployment. Surely, considering the lack of tariffs and the sudden large supply of cheap labour, global businesses will have a powerful incentive to move in and set up shop? From the perspective of manufacturing industries, requiring large supplies of unskilled workers, such an economic situation is absolutely ideal.
And in time, as the country industrialises (or re-industrialises), unemployment will drop, labour will become more scarce and wages will start to rise. People will have more spending money, so the market for consumer goods will increase. And of course, since you have no tariffs, imported consumer goods will be cheap – leading to a high standard of living. This is the route taken by several Asian countries in the last few decades, to great success.
Iraq is not going to develop like that because it is so politically unstable. Since there’s no way of guaranteeing property rights and enforceability of contracts, investors will not risk their money and businesses will not set up shop there. What Iraq needs, clearly, is security and the rule of law – which, as I understand it, is what US and UK troops are trying (with limited success) to achieve.
Camboy at #659: …and now, well, a wall street sleaze, but I’m making lots of money–and actually, amongst the people who were warning the powers that be at the top of our lungs that the present crisis was coming, but alas, no one listened…
Ah, a Wall Street insider – I’d be interested to know how you would analyse the causes of the present financial crash. I don’t know anyone in the US financial sector personally, so I’m interested in hearing what you see as the root of the problem, and whether your perspective is different from that of the academic economists (who, of course, seem to be disagreeing vehemently amongst themselves, with Nobel Prize-winners Krugman and Stiglitz saying one thing and the likes of Russell Roberts saying another). In particular, do you see it as primarily due to government policies (whether housing policy, monetary policy, or any other area) or due to the activities of the financial profession itself? And do you think deregulation has been a hindrance or a help?
Like I said, I wouldn’t call Palin a bitch. She’s an idiot, and that has nothing to do with her gender. Anyone saying what she says is going to attract scorn from me.
I’m trying to find words to describe the behaviour which would prompt me to call someone a bitch – and that’s a big part of the rationale for why I might use the word. If a woman is rude or abusive toward me I would be tempted to call her a bitch; the same sort of behaviour would prompt me to refer to a man as a prick or an asshole/arsehole.
That’s about the best I can do. Yes, it’s gender-specific – calling a male a bitch or a female a prick just doesn’t sit well – but is that misogyny?
‘Cunt’ is another thing entirely. I’m Australian, and we don’t use it (the word) in the same way as in the US. It’s more an alternative for ‘prick’, ‘bastard’ or ‘arsehole’, and used to describe another male of whom you think poorly – though sometimes only jokingly – rather than insultingly toward a woman. I’ve never heard a male refer to a female as ‘a cunt’.
But I know (and understand why) that is misogynistic.
Eusebius@657,
You’re a lying toad. In context, the remarks of PZ that you refer to were quite clearly metaphorical. I know it, you know it, anyone who has read them knows it. You. Lying. Toad.
The mushbrains complain that the government isn’t providing enough for Americans and wholeheartly condone using the power of government to extract hard earned dollars for the purpose of buying elections and running up the cost of food & services (like health care).
And yet, you are upset that someone is complaining about sending many of those dollars to a foreign nation to do research that can be done in this country and provide whorthwhile jobs to Americans.
too funny
The award for missing the point goes to Mover
You can’t name the specific qualities that would lead you to call a woman a bitch, but you think it’s at times the “most apt” term to describe someone? The fact that you can’t define it with any specificity is your rationale for using it? Huh?
Progress. But I’m confused – did you not read my comment @ #667? It’s not only the gender specificity that’s the problem, but that “bitch,” like “cunt” (or “cow” for that matter), is also a demeaning term for a woman generally. “Prick” isn’t for men, and neither is “dick” (I’ve called women assholes, btw). That’s how I saw it being used here – misogynistically.
(It’s not that these others don’t sit well. It’s that they don’t make sense in the language as it’s used. I wouldn’t be offended if someone called me a prick – just puzzled. Thanks for the clarification about the use of “cunt” in Australia. That may be at the root of some confusion, but since none of the people who’ve been called one on here recently are male that would be a bit strange.)
I keep returning to the fact that most of the men around here who deliver stinging insults day in and day out – PZ, truth machine, Nick Gotts, Brownian, Ichthyic, Emmet, Sven, and many others – have never said anything that seemed misogynistic or even hinted at it. I don’t believe this is because they’re constantly being careful and self-censoring. It’s because they don’t have the underlying attitudes towards women that would lead them to say such things. That’s my take.
Mover:
Science is an international enterprise. There is nothing wrong with sending money to research groups in another country if they can produce results that will directly benefit you.
The research was done on an agricultural pest in its native range. It seems a perfectly sensible place to do it. Has it occurred to you that there might not be anyone qualified to do the research in the US? If there was I suspect the money would have gone to an American team. Who would probably have had to go to France to do the research anyway.
A directly comparable example is work done on the Screw-worm Fly. This species is native to Africa, and would have decimated the South American Cattle Industry had it not been eradicated by releasing millions of sterilised males. The work was done by a scientist in London.
Oh, Walton, fuck off. Here’s what you said @ #178:
So if this flea had not only called Obama a “stupid n***r,” but then insisted that he was justified in doing so and referred to other commenters here in the same language, you would be seeking to engage him in civil discussion about the financial markets? What a fucking hypocrite and poser you are.
And after accepting my challenge to actually read some fucking history on the subject of Iraq/Iran and the US and UK and then backing out of it like a little weasel, you dare to pronounce upon the matter? You’re an ignorant little shit, Walton, and a liar to boot.
I don’t believe this is because they’re constantly being careful and self-censoring. It’s because they don’t have the underlying attitudes towards women that would lead them to say such things.
BINGO. That’s it, exactly.
SC @ #677:
Yep. Exactly. Men who don’t think like misogynists don’t talk like them either.
And before the tired old strawfeminist/”thought crimes” trope is dragged in, I’d like to point out that no one is trying to tell you what you can or cannot think. Just don’t be a denialist about it is all; if you’re going to routinely use terms like “cunt” and “bitch” to disparage women, own your usage–that’s all. (Wowbagger, I know that Australia and the US have very different trajectories; I’m speaking from a US perspective only, given the history and causative and resultant prejudices that Obama’s, Hillary’s, and Palin’s candidacies have brought to the surface and made visible in this election.)
You have the freedom to say whatever you want about women. We have the freedom to point out the implications of what you say. You have the freedom to respond, and so do we. Just take responsibility for what you say, instead of pretending that you’re really, oh, so enlightened despite your language, and free speech proceeds as it should.
As long as we’re naming names (spirit of the Molly?), I’d like to point out that Pierce literally walks the walk, as well as talking the talk. They, and many others here I’ve failed to name, who would never dream of turning discussion of a female candidate into a tableau vivant of misogyny, are just one of the things that make Pharyngula one of my favorite places for grown-up discussion.
SC: So if this flea [Camboy] had not only called Obama a “stupid n***r,” but then insisted that he was justified in doing so and referred to other commenters here in the same language, you would be seeking to engage him in civil discussion about the financial markets? What a fucking hypocrite and poser you are.
I didn’t remember. I haven’t been following this lengthy discussion about the misogyny of profane terms, having become bored of the topic days ago. I didn’t bother to read most of Camboy’s (very lengthy) most recent post; I was only interested in the bit about his experience in the financial markets. And while I deplore his use of bad language, I am nevertheless interested in what he has to say about finance. Just because I don’t consider someone’s behaviour on one issue ethical doesn’t mean that everything they have to say, within their area of expertise, must be rejected out of hand.
I would apologise; but I don’t see that I need to. It so happens that I agree with you about misogynistic profanities, as I made clear before. I think they’re offensive and inappropriate. This doesn’t mean I’m going to boycott or cold-shoulder anyone who uses such a slur, nor did I ever claim I was going to. I am not a hypocrite. I didn’t go back on my word; I have never used a misogynistic slur on this site (or anywhere else), and I am not going to do so. I’m interested in civil discussion with anyone and everyone about the most pressing issue of our time – the global economy – not in arguing over who said what and why they shouldn’t have said it.
And after accepting my challenge to actually read some fucking history on the subject of Iraq/Iran and the US and UK and then backing out of it like a little weasel, you dare to pronounce upon the matter? You’re an ignorant little shit, Walton, and a liar to boot.
I said “as I understand it”. I was not making a blanket assertion. I explained that I have not had the time or intellectual energy to fulfil your challenge. And since you see fit to call me a liar, I have no intention now of fulfilling it.
Of course you did, asshole.
Just like you don’t bother to read most of anything before responding to it with your inane blather.
I forgot. This is a person who loves Limbaugh and Coulter.
So by “very strong rejection,” you – unlike Nick, with whom you concurred “absolutely” – actually meant ignoring the comments entirely and treating the bigot with respect. Got it. Double-Talk Express, coming through.
But you’ve had the time and energy to spew your ignorant drivel here for the past several days. You never had the slightest intention of fulfilling it since you realized what it entailed. You’re a liar, little Thiers.
mmmmmmm….
Looks like I did shove somethin’ up poor little ol’ Camboys short pants, cause he’s left a naughty puddle on the floor.
Dear Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM.
Well enlighten us. What was the point?
Wait, let me guess.
1. Another excuse to use the most rude and foul language that small minds can find to describe another human being.
2. To show everyone your command of gutter talk while claiming some lofty insight.
3. To bash anyone who may have beliefs that do not match yours and your clique.
4. To promote the success of science in nice countries, like France, rather than spending it here, in the USA, a really mean and superstitious country, on the same type of research.
5. To influence others to support your position that this country does not produce enough scientists.
6. To influence others to support your position that the INS should lift the quota of 65K scientists from moving to this country.
I’m thinking the most likely are numbers 1, 2 & 3, and maybe number 4.
Yawn.
You’ve bored us all half to death Walton.
Except now. When SC is bored to tears by you, that’s just about the livin’ end.
Only one left to bore. Address further comments to PZ.
*I’m jest full of it this mornin!*
And you lie when you insist that you love and respect education, offering only as evidence that you are currently a student. When you’re given opportunities to be educated here, you ignore them. In fact, I don’t know if I’ve ever encountered anyone so resistant to education. You never seem to learn anything. What you love, gasbagito, is the sound of your own abstract ramblings.
Ms. Palin does not understand the importance of basic (pure) science. As anyone in science knows, we have learned more about humans via basic science than we have from applied science, e.g. X-rays, antibiotics, and in the case of flies, HOX genes and their role in development. Drosophila has been instruemental in the elucidation of so many biological principles, from the chromosomal theory to neurobiology. What do you expect from a woman who went to several schools and obtained a second rate degree in communications? I’d like to see her defend her views to the NIH or NSF.
CJ Harendza
“In the long run we are all dead” – and in the short term the workers can’t feed their families.
And when workers cannot feed their families, they have an annoying habit of rioting and scaring off international investors. The IMF even built the expectations of riots into their plans. This can also feed any other sources of instability – the British government has claimed some Iraqis join the insurgency because they can’t get jobs. Other risks include turning on scapegoats, the rise of demagogues and civil wars over valuable resources.
No, the successful route taken was gradual trade liberalisation, avoiding mass unemployment. Read Stiglitz.
SC: what was this challenge you issued to Walton?
This nit wit (Palin) seems to consider herself a rising star in the GOP. Holy crap, watch out! What a miserably dull tool.
Mover, You son, are an ass.
The good Rev. does not always use the most foul language that small minds can think of, nor does he always engage in gutter talk from some lofty height, he is a perfect gentleman. If there are strumpets, sluts, lesbians or man-whores in the room, he lets them mud wrestle first. Now shush.
amk,
This is Walton’s acceptance of my assignment:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/whoa_hitchens_endorses_obama.php#comment-1156939
The challenge itself is in the post just above (#132).
You’re ignorant. It’s become clear that the particular earmark, out of the thousands and thousands available, that Palin’s speechwriters chose to have her sneer at was research on a parasite of olives that is causing huge problems in the west coast (of the U!S!A!) olive-oil industry. This parasitic fly is native to western Europe. To understand the ecology of this animal and potentially learn ways to mitigate its effects in the U!S!A!, American scientists, representing the American U!S!DA, are going to France, where the fucking fly lives. Is that clear?
Now please STFU. Thanks.
clearly if domestic industries are accustomed to being protected by tariffs, and have not become efficient, a sudden removal of tariffs leads to short-term unemployment. But in the long run surely it’s still beneficial?… This is the route taken by several Asian countries in the last few decades, to great success. – Walton
no, it isn’t. All these countries (with the possible exception of Hong Kong, which was a very special case, with a guaranteed influx of ultra-low wage labour) protected their nascent industries. In the long run, what you propose is likely to ensure that the country, and the majority of its people, remain in a subordinate position in the global capitalist economy – which is exactly why this is the line pushed by the IMF etc. What you propose also leads to a “race to the bottom” as poor countries offer more and more to foreign corporations – tax holidays, lack of health and safety regulations, crushing of unions…). This isn’t speculation Walton, it’s history, whatever your “libertarian” propagandists tell you.
SC, I’m genuinely sorry. I really didn’t mean to cause offence.
Call me a liar if you wish, but I genuinely regret the fact that I seem to have pissed you off so much. Social interaction, whether online or in RL, is not my strong point. I try to be a civil and polite person; but occasionally I put my foot in it.
I will try and fulfil your challenge over the next few days, if that’s what you really want. I know my points are not always fantastically well-researched; but in my defence, I would point out that (1) my degree (which I haven’t finished yet) is not in economics nor international relations; (2) I’m trying to work on my studies, keep fit, maintain active involvement in several groups, and still find time to comment here (which I do far too much of for my own good); and (3) I have, on several occasions here, admitted myself to be wrong when I’ve been shown evidence to that effect.
You are perfectly entitled to think that my views are insane. Many people do. And if you think I’m an idiot or intellectually lazy, that’s your privilege. But please don’t think me a liar or a bad person. (I know I shouldn’t, objectively, take comments on the Internet so personally; but I can’t help doing so.)
SC, be careful not to refer to Walton as a “narcissist.” It bothers him.
This isn’t speculation Walton, it’s history,
It’s useless. Walton’s thick ideological coating protects him from any real historical knowledge actually sticking.
Mover,
You could just read the nearly 700 comments here and find out.
Those two have made other statements that are anti-science so that they can appeal to their anti-intellectual base. One of the main reasons Palin is on the ticket to begin with. Earmarks are one thing but they chose to pick on scientific based earmarks, on purpose. Because they know that being anti-science sells to the religious right and the portion of our populace that doesn’t understand the importance of good scientific research on their quality of life. That and she chose France because they know that their party has sufficiently drummed up enough anti-franco sentiment that it will sell to that same portion of the populace as well.
So to all of your points, no.
Poor little ol’ Walton. He’s got his wingdangdoodle all out of joint this mornin’.
Patricia, I must confess that I don’t actually understand the majority of your posts. On the rare occasions when I do understand you, it appears to be sexual innuendo with no apparent relevance to the previous remarks. Unfortunately, this severely impedes mutual communication, which I understood to be the principal goal of language. Perhaps I am abnormally naive or literal-minded.
Sigh. OK, Walton, I accept your apology and your re-acceptance of my challenge. Carry on. (But be aware that if I see you spouting off about Bolivia or the people supporting Morales again, my response will be swift and intense.)
This seems to be a real problem for the self taught, like Walton and SfO. I ignore both due to the repeative nature of their posts, and the post length being longer that a screen.
-sighs-
I would like to know why people who think that:
You have not got proof for ‘intelligent design’, no matter whether you have a defined imaginary friend or if you have some unnamed imaginary acquaintance, even. The fact of the matter is that all evidence points to evolution, and not only that, it is EXTREMELY disingenuous to fill the gaps with assumptions. The philosophical wanking is not amusing, please stop it.
Also, this magic shit does not exist. Guess what allows us to think and remember? Our brains. Our genetic code. The chemical reactions in our bodies and the organic compounds that are partially obtained from the food we ingest. OMFSM, kid, have you ever had a fucking biology class?
and:
Why can’t we agree to disagree with the subject of science and religion? – Dragon
Because science, although not sufficient alone, is a necessary precondition of the good life, while religion is false and harmful.
also believe they are any better than the fundamentalist Christians they are also insulting. After all, the same concept is there: utter refusal to listen to anyone else’s belief because THEY ARE WRONG AND WHY CAN’T YOU JUST SEE THE PROOF SITTING RIGHT THERE IN YOUR FUCKING FACE because everyone has some proof for what they believe, even if it is their own personal experience. Joey, drive by you may have been, but I agree. This post has degenerated to nothing more than hate-mongering and intolerance.
Katherine, I said that I believe magic is the same thing as energy. I did not say that I could create a magical fireball and launch it at your sorry, intolerant ass. That would have been something else entirely. What proof do I have for intelligent design? Squat. What proof do you have that lightning or volcanic explosions created a living creature out of pure chance? Squat. What proof do Christians have for Jesus to have risen from the dead? Well, at least they claim to have eye-witnesses. That, at least, is better than both of us. It is all a matter of faith and belief. Nick Gotts, not all religion and/or faith is harmful. Faith, in any religion or creed, is up to each individual. It is a choice, and not all followers of the same religion believe the same things. It is also granted in our Constitution that we may believe anything we choose to believe, and act upon that belief in any manner we choose, so long as the those actions do not infringe upon the rights of another.
Also, it was Richard Nixon who lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote.
I am sure that I will only be attacked more for saying these things, but there is nothing I can do but wish you the best. After all, my creed states “Harm none” very strongly. True, I do not always follow that, but almost no one holds true to all of their beliefs at all times in all circumstances.
When I said “agree to disagree” and proceeded to state my beliefs, I concede that I used the phrase in the wrong place, and judging by the length of this post as well as the first, I probably shouldn’t have said at all. However, I don’t think that was of sufficient importance to be noted. This, however, is only my opinion, which I am perfectly allowed to say.
“Though I may disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.” –Voltaire (not the musician)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wankering
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wankery
http://www.answers.com/topic/wanker
Regrettably, I could not find the definitions of the first two in a real dictionary. If anyone here agrees with anything I have said, then you must be as disgusted with this as I am. I’m not going to post anything more because I would be wise to pick my battles. This is not a battle worth fighting.
Wrong. It is not intolerant to require someone to support the assertions they make. Especially on a blog that is set up for discussion on the topics involved.
Show me where anyone has made that claim?
Nuh-uh.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire
The fact you think that is true really doesn’t help your point, whatever it may be.
The bible was culled from many “eye-witness” reports written by men many decades after Jesus’ so called resurrection. Not only that but even assuming the “eye-witness” factuality, eye-witness reports are inherently polluted by the bias of the witness. They are unreliable when not backed by other records, data, etc..
Plus these eye witnesses were 2000 years ago and the bible has been edited, re-written, translated and fabricated since the beginning.
Eye witnesses for jezuz.
Ha! Now that gives me my laugh for today.
Oh come on now BigDumbChimp, where’s all that foul mouthed gutter talk you are so reputedly full of?
Your point?
Oh I see your point. You’re trying to say we would stifle your right to say or believe what you want. Funny. Your comment still stands here.
We (I assume “we”) fully support everyone’s right to say whatever it is they want. But we fully retain the same right to call you to the carpet on statements you make.
In other words, “as can be seen above, I can not defend my position on magical thinking so I’ll scurry off so as not to have to answer the responses to my posts”.
Dear Sven DiMilo,
I defer to your vast knowledge of fruit flies that are able to destroy California olive crops all the way from France. Just think of what your martini would be like without the treasured olive. Will it ever be the same?
These are indeed mighty beasts that need to be annihilated from the face of the Earth before they move on to grapes (oh the humanity! A lost vat of Boone’s Farm).
I’ll be having nightmares due to this.
Thank you, Mover, for perfectly illustrating the mindset of Palin’s target audience.
Thank you for illustrating our point Mover.
Ha, Rev.! Beat ya!
Nick Gotts wrote (#635): “Ludicrous garbage. The dichotomy between socialism and individualism is a false one, as democratic socialists, and anarchists, have consistently fought for individual liberties for well over a century. Unlike “libertarians”, however, we recognise that what matters is real individual liberty – for which the resources to make and follow through choices must be available – not simply an absence of government constraints; and that all individuals should be entitled to these liberties, not just those lucky enough to be born into a privileged class, or even to be born clever.”
No, that’s the real dichotomy. Are you free to put your efforts toward the ends of your choice, or constrained to put them toward ends chosen by others? That IS real individual liberty, defined as simply as can be.
Conversely:
“Careless thinkers might take freedom to mean getting goodies from the state.” — Joseph R. Stromberg
=====
Kel wrote (#637): “So you don’t think that there’s the possibility of having an even greater liberty by having a system that has some social aspects like schools, hospitals, roads, law enforcement, etc.? Money can be taken and funded into programs that benefit society as a whole, those services can give us more liberty. All capitalism over socialism implies is pure economic freedom, money is not the only factor of life!”
Not if the “money can be taken and funded into programs” is coerced and not voluntarily given. Coercion is the opposite of liberty; you cannot achieve liberty by coercion of the populace. Certain individuals who are inclined to harm others may have to be coerced to stop doing so, but even there it’s clear that the coercion is not for the liberty of the coerced person.
And a voluntary capitalist system is perfectly capable of providing aspects like schools, hospitals, roads, etc. The only thing it needs government for is lawmaking and law enforcement, as those relate to dealing with those who would engage in violence, theft, fraud, property damage, or dangerous negligence.
=====
And SC and Parricia (and a few others), getting all up in arms about someone being abusive, then turning around and being flatly abusive to others yourself, simply for them disagreeing with you, is hypocritical, not to mention weak.
PhilB
I hate olives, and vermouth, hence martinis.
Olive oil, however, is what we were talking about. At least I was. Mover was just talkin’.
Because, Dog knows, when I was dying from the blood clot that eventually took out three feet of my small intestine, the only thing that would have made that experience even more perfect would have been having to comparison-shop for hospitals.
Walton, this is exactly the kind of scenario that I was talking about when I said libertarianism requires being a denialist about a great deal of biology. Sounds great in theory late at night when the wine is flowing freely, but the transaction costs mean it’s hopeless in application.
Boncer is a simpleton so far out of his intellectual (and I use the term loosely in his case) depth I’m surprised his head hasn’t been crushed by the extreme pressure.
Sven DiMilo,
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Doesn’t olive oil come from olives?
You mean you never heard of drilling for olive oil?
Olive oil, however, is what we were talking about.
Isn’t that what they use to cook up that elitist arugula crap with? ;)
This lack of shock shocks me. How can the media pretty much ignore this? But mayby I’m just European.
And SC and Parricia (and a few others), getting all up in arms about someone being abusive, then turning around and being flatly abusive to others yourself, simply for them disagreeing with you, is hypocritical, not to mention weak.
My inability to grasp the point of the discussion, let me show you it.
Doesn’t olive oil come from olives?
Oh, yeah? Then why are there still MARTINIS+NACHOS?
And why would you want to eat nachos with your martinis?
Are you really going to try and make a point that studying insect pests and their effects on crops that we grow in the US is unimportant?
grill, baby, grill
Why is it that these people who piss and moan about a few million dollars going to some scientific project that doesn’t immediately benefit them and only them never seem to mind to multiple billions of dollars thrown into military quagmires? I guess they don’t understand science, but they like explosions. No wonder Jerry Bruckheimer donated to McCain’s campaign.
sauté, baby, sauté
Exactly. Ignoring the effect on people’s livelihood (or not actually), there’s a lot more to “Homeland Security” than Abram tanks and M4 Carbines.
And a voluntary capitalist system is perfectly capable of providing aspects like schools, hospitals, roads, etc.
Shill, baby, shill.
Mover, how would you feel about spending that earmark money on studying species delineation and genetics of harbor seals?
The so-called crop plants are just plants that couldn’t make it in the competitive ecosystem and decided to freeload on us humans. It’s time to end this artificial regulation of insect “pests” and let the plants compete on the free market.
Mover:
The Olive Fruit Fly is native to Eurasia and Africa, but has migrated to California when the olive trees were transplanted. Unfortunately its natural predators did not come with it, and so it can spread unchecked. Going back to its native habitat to look for natural predators that will control it is the logical thing to do.
“And a voluntary capitalist system is perfectly capable of providing aspects like schools, hospitals, roads, etc.”
Capable would imply that it would actually happen. Communism is also capable of the same thing.
Everybody ignores the obvious: Palin thinks the most efficient way to combat the Olive fruit fly is to have them shot from helicopters with a bounty of $ 150 per head.
But I believe the research is being done in Montpelier, not Paris..? that is, Montpelier, France…
Are you free to put your efforts toward the ends of your choice, or constrained to put them toward ends chosen by others? That IS real individual liberty, defined as simply as can be. – Phil Boncer
Sure it is, but maximising liberty for the rich often tends to minimise it for the poor. According to your political viewpoint, if one person has managed to get hold of all the food in a famine (without force or fraud, just by being clever, lucky, or rich to start with), and chooses to let others starve in order to maximise their own gain, we should respect their right to do so. After all, that’s “real individual liberty”. Myself, I’d back the starving taking the food by force in those circumstances; I choose the right not to starve over the rights of property. This example, by the way, is not arbitrarily chosen; in famines, people almost always die because they cannot afford the food that is available (because a few people have managed to get hold of most of it), not because there is none at all. But hey, as long as there has been no force or fraud, what are they moaning about? Oh, they’re moaning because they’re starving? Well, it’s their own stupid fault for being born poor.
Oh, and about “your efforts”. You, Phil, like all human beings, have benefitted from the talents and efforts of countless others, both your contemporaries; and the dead going back hundreds of thousands of years, without whom all “your efforts” would be in vain, and who can receive nothing from you. You are also, I would guess, (like me) among the beneficiaries of several centuries of violence, theft and fraud on the part of European and Euro-American imperialists. But you’re convinced you owe no responsibility to those less lucky than you. Well Phil, if necessary I am quite prepared to coerce the greedy and selfish, by democratic means, to share the good things of life more fairly – and to be coerced in this direction myself (that is, I’m prepared to be obliged to pay taxes for public goods and the abolition of poverty, but only if others pay also). The anti-democratic nature of “libertarian” thinking is seldom stated explicitly, but it seems a quite obvious implication of what you say that even if taxation for public health or education is overwhelmingly and provably the choice of the majority, you feel you would be morally justified to resist it by force.
windy@734 wins the thread!
Is it me he’s trying to say was abusive?
I haven’t even used the ‘F’ word today. Sheesh.
SC, #677, wrote:
Apologies – I didn’t explain that correctly. I didn’t mean that I would use the term when I couldn’t think of other words; it was that I couldn’t find the words to describe a hypothetical situation in which I would be prompted to use it – because I can’t think of the last occasion on which I’ve been inspired to refer to someone as a bitch. But I think I’ve come up with something.
Okay, here goes: if my sister-in-law is in a bad mood about something and is slamming doors and insulting me – as she sometimes does – I’d think about calling her a bitch, based on her actions.
But that’s the only time I’d use it. It’s linked to a particular situation or behaviour, and never to a generic comment to demean or denigrate a woman or women in general.
I suspect that it’s the sociolinguistic differences between Australia and the US that are fueling this, since, AFAIK, men ‘down under’ only use the term bitch in situations like the one I’ve described – when it’s in reference to a specific behaviour. It’s rare that it’s used otherwise – at least in any of the social circles I’ve been part of. It really doesn’t mean the same thing at all.
I appreciate your response. I still don’t think you’re responding to my comment @ #667, though. It’s the possibility of this situation/behavior-specific usage (which exists in the US too and which isn’t entirely unproblematic itself, especially for men, but that aside) that’s relatively far less offensive and thus can occasionally make interpretation a bit more complicated. But that isn’t how it’s been used here. No one was pointing to specific behaviors on the part of Palin or the woman who filed the false report about the Obama supporter, for example, and calling them bitchy on that basis; nor have people been able to justify its use after the fact in terms of specific behaviors – and you’ve said you wouldn’t qualify Palin’s behavior as bitchy as you understand it in any way. If it’s never used as a generic disparaging term there, I would expect that to hear it used as such here would lead Australians to question or challenge rather than accept or defend it.
Nick Gotts wrote (#738): “Well Phil, if necessary I am quite prepared to coerce the greedy and selfish, by democratic means, to share the good things of life more fairly – and to be coerced in this direction myself (that is, I’m prepared to be obliged to pay taxes for public goods and the abolition of poverty, but only if others pay also). The anti-democratic nature of “libertarian” thinking is seldom stated explicitly, but it seems a quite obvious implication of what you say that even if taxation for public health or education is overwhelmingly and provably the choice of the majority, you feel you would be morally justified to resist it by force.”
So there it is, you are explicitly OK with using force against people for the “crime” of being wealthy. There is a demonstration of the evil of socialism right there.
I am not “anti-democratic”; I think demoncratcy is a fine way to decide a lot of unimportant things. But the stuff that matters is NOT properly subject to a vote. It doesn’t matter what percentage votes for it, it still would not be right to kick out the blacks or round up the Jews or steal everything from the wealthy just because most people wanted to.
The founders of this country spent a lot of effort designing our governance, and wrote the Constitution carefully, to try to avoid the excesses of democracy, to avoid the tyranny of the majority.
So there it is — I (and a few others here) am in favor of liberty and individual human rights. You (and a frightening number of others here) are in favor of socialism.
It’s sad that the lessons of history are so hard to learn. I hope it can be correctly resolved peaceably over time, and not require those who wish to defend their liberty to do so actively again.
Regardless of all this, I’m going out of town for a week, so y’all can have fun without me.
PhilB
Oh, and I neglected to mention in #667: In two of the recent threads it was also accompanied (in the same comment or others) by expressions of desired violence against the woman in question. If there had been any question of casual or intentional misogyny in these threads – and, really, there wasn’t – that should have settled it right there.
SC wrote:
If you mean do I agree with how the term’s been used to describe Palin in this thread then the answer is no. I agree 100% with what you’ve written on the topic in this thread: the term has been used in its misogynistic, catch-all sense to describe women, and I wouldn’t attempt to justify its usage or try and rationalise that it’d been used in any way other than that.
My initial question was asked solely in order to gain a better understanding of what the word meant to different people in different contexts.
Hey Phil. It’s called a progressive tax code. Not socialism.
Socialism is nationalizing banks and buying investment firms…
OOPS guess Bush is a socialist.
Quit quaking in your boots and getting the vay-puhs.
But I dare you to take a pot shot when the IRS comes calling.
I agree. However, please don’t denigrate Loons. They are far more noble than Ms. Palin.
Won’t someone please think of the poor rich people? Will no one shed a tear for them as they are forced to give up their dream of owning a fifth car or a third home?
“You’ll pry my Bahamian Tax Shelter from my COLD DEAD HANDS!”
Cool. Thank you for saying that.
For the record, I was actually referring to this one (or the direction it seemed to be heading), the one about the false-report filer, and “A Real, True American Woman.”
OK. I’ll say, though, that I don’t understand the attachment people seem to show to words like this, when there are plenty of better words that can be used that have no potential misogynistic connotations. Again, I just cannot imagine some men – my father, for example, when he was alive – even thinking it, let alone saying it. I find this whole “But is it a slur to use it then? How about then?” quite curious. I’m not trying to implicate you here in any way, or suggest that you’re a misogynist. For what it’s worth, I’ve always really enjoyed your comments and haven’t found them at all offensive, and I appreciate your asking for my thoughts on this.
Boncer: Regardless of all this, I’m going out of town for a week, so y’all can have fun without me.
…
Posted by: Steve_C | October 27, 2008 8:05 PM
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 27, 2008 8:15 PM
Posted by: Steve_C | October 27, 2008 8:20 PM
Don’t know about anyone else, but I’m already having fun (and Nick hasn’t even responded yet).
SC,
Glad we sorted that out.
Thanks – likewise.
Me too, and thanks. :)
“that I don’t understand the attachment people seem to show to words like this”
I don’t agree with everything you say about when or how certain words should be used, but I also find it rather odd just how pissy people get when you call them out. As if the right to call people cunts was somehow fundamental to their very being. As if it were somehow equivalent to actually being oppressed in some way.
The Schadenfeude will be delicious on November 5th.
Now THAT will be fun.
This is fun too. Fox HATES it when you call them biased. I suspect that the Obama administration will be relentless in their calling them on their bullshit.
Fun, fun, FUN.
It’s a fundamental right in Australia
It’s a fundamental right in Australia
I can’t tell if you’re missing Rey’s point or making a joke.
By all means let’s pretend all scientific research is good and worth the money. Next year we will likely have a $800 BILLION dollar deficit and a dead economy… Spend baby spend!!! Don’t worry about how we are gonna pay the $53- $96 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities over the next 30 years. Its Ok as long as we study global warming or some other “scientific” fad of the day. But I guess being a “researcher” beats the hell out of competing with the Japanese on robotics.
you do realize that’s science too?
What an idiot.
Rev, please! Don’t insult the poor, simple idiots!
This is an example of deliberate and willful stupid, instead.
The MadPanda, FCD
Yeah sorry. Dumbfuck maybe?
I’m sure Mr. “doesn’t know shit” above there doesn’t realize the safe food he eats, the clean water he drinks, the medicine he takes, the computer he uses and a multitude of other things are a direct result of scientific research.
Fucking dumbass.
‘Til their armies blow our asses awa-ay.
(Sorry. The right scares me. I’ve seen what they’re capable of.)
Exactly, Rev!
Although, in all candor, I was thinking more along the lines of ‘muddy-mettled lack-witted turnip’ instead.
Hmm. Now where’d I put that Shakespearean Insult Generator?
The MadPanda, FCD
Post # 160
Fox news IS NOT THE FAVORITE AMERICAN NEWS CHANEL!!! Please, expand your search of American News. Fox is Republican. Need I say more?
Palin is who Isaac Asimov was thinking of when he wrote:
“Imagine the people who are not be ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes.”
I love that quote. It is so appropriate for Palin et al.
Patricia: “Mover, You son, are an ass…. Now shush.”
Patricia,
I know these comments can be confusing, so let me help you out. When I posted the list of possible reasons, it was in response to the good Rev.’s post that I had missed the point. It in no way reflected on the good rev.’s post itself, but rather on the many posts by responders to this blog that I read and found wanting in any level of civilized decorum.
Oh, and if I’m your son, you reveal your age to be at least 70 years of age. I wish you at least another 70 happy birthdays, Ma.
I am not “anti-democratic”; I think demoncratcy is a fine way to decide a lot of unimportant things. – Phil Boncer
In other words, you’re anti-democratic.
But the stuff that matters is NOT properly subject to a vote. It doesn’t matter what percentage votes for it, it still would not be right to kick out the blacks or round up the Jews – Phil Boncer
Agreed. Democracy implies the right of everyone to continue taking part in democratic decision-making. Therefore killing, expelling or disenfranchising voters is anti-democratic whatever the majority in favour of it.
or steal everything from the wealthy just because most people wanted to.
However, you can still take part in democratic politics without being wealthy, so taking wealth from the rich by legislative means is not anti-democratic. You think property rights should be absolute; I don’t. You, as I said and you did not deny, would allow the rich to starve the poor to death in order to increase their wealth further (as indeed they do in capitalism); I wouldn’t – in fact I’d say it was evidence of the monstrous evil of “libertarianism”.
The founders of this country spent a lot of effort designing our governance, and wrote the Constitution carefully, to try to avoid the excesses of democracy, to avoid the tyranny of the majority.
Ther founders of your country were mostly racist, sexist, snobbish, slaveholding hypocrites. They devised the constitution to keep their kind in power, and on the whole very successfully. The USA was built on slavery and land theft on an enormous scale – are you going to give all the land back? Compensate the descendants of the slaves? If not, stop prating about “theft”.
#678
“Science is an international enterprise. ….”
Oh, let me be clearer for those who are way above my pay grade.
I support research in almost all areas that researchers can dream up. It all returns some value in the long run.
My objection in this thread is that partisans are using a one-liner in a speech to condemn one person, a politician, and are using it as a wedge to garner favor for their preferred candidate/political party.
The fact is nearly none of our representatives in government, at all levels, have any insight to any scientific endeavor. They just cast their votes in a way that will promote their continued position of power until they move on to more power (or get found out). Gov. Palin looks a whole lot like the kind of person the founders envisioned, i.e., a citizen representative.
Now, a lot of partisans have been running around whining about President Bush’s position on climate change and linking McCain to Bush, as if McCain is going to continue Bush policies. Well, there is no doubt that McCain will keep some of Bush’s policies, like keeping taxes lower than Obama would, but one of the reasons the media labeled McCain as a “maverick” was because he often differs with Bush in policy positions.
Climate change is one of them where Bush and McCain have parted company.
I imagine that McCain will be spending plenty of money on research since he does support it and it looks like he will have a tax-and-spend congress that will pork up everything they send to him to sign.
Oh, and Bush supports lots of research as well. Just go to Whitehouse.gov and search for “science” (as I did). It will reveal policy statements, appropriations, programs, etc. that President Bush supports. I know, I know. It’s all a lie, right? Well, it only takes a little research to find out if they are lying or not. So, help yourself.
Also, try to remember how your tax dollars get allocated. And this is important:
Only the US Congress can allocate tax dollars, not the president.
The president tells congress what he/she needs to pay the bills and the congress throws that into the circular file after extracting some talking points. Then congress porks up some spending bills after much over the top blustering, then sends it to the President to make it the law of the land.
The bottom line is the President has only the bully pulpit and the veto pen to stop congress from running up the tab. The president, whoever it is, is not your enemy or the enemy of science.
It’s the US Congress that you have to influence. And, good luck with that. I believe they only respond to high visibility stories in the legacy media and big dollar donors, such as the Chinese and George Soros.
Ohhh noes! It’s the SOROS! Run for your lives!!!!
Such a joke.
Mover,
Pick up The Republican War on Science
You’ll get a good idea exactly how anti-science the current administration and the GOP is.
Mover,
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html ,
The Bush regime has systematically tried to change or censor scientific findings for political reasons, to an extent vastly greater than any previous administration. See for example
Chris Mooney’s The Republican War on Science, and complaints by leading NASA climate scientist James Hansen. It is possible McCain would be better (he at least acknowledges the reality of anthropogenic global warming), but Palin, with her brazen rejection of science with regard to both evolution and climate change, would almost certainly be worse. How can a woman who believes the Earth is 6000 years old be anything other than disastrous for science, and indeed, for us all?
#700
I see, you and your like-minded friends are “intellectuals” and should be the class of Americans that make all the decisions.
That attitude seems vaguely familiar.
I don’t believe that I am aware of all those religious and uninitiated multitudes who are anti-science. I personally don’t know anyone who is anti-science. I’m a big science and science fiction fan. I love the works of Asimov, Vonnegut, Heinlein and Clark and read Popular Science and lifehacker a lot. Besides, there are only a few minor religious outfits that have virtually no influence on government spending, so I don’t worry about them.
But, if your primary concern is embryonic stem cell research, then I can see why you might have a problem with people who believe in the sanctity of human life (and it would help explain supporting the political party of death). But, there are lots of places to get stem cells. I’ve just recently learned that viable human stem cells have been successfully extracted from human body fat. There are tons of that in this country.
Just a thought, do you, being real smart and all, think that the government is encouraging some of the multitudes to get fat so their lobbyists from BIG FAT can charge the uneducated masses to suck out their chubby stem cells and sell it sell to France?
Just remember while you’re being all full of yourself, it is those multitudes that make science possible.
What’s your take on fertility clinics?
I like this Mover better.
I don’t believe that I am aware of all those religious and uninitiated multitudes who are anti-science. – Mover
I think it’s clear to most here that you’re not aware of very much. You might start with all the creationist dingbats trying to get their lies into science classrooms.
But, there are lots of places to get stem cells. I’ve just recently learned that viable human stem cells have been successfully extracted from human body fat. – Mover
Adult stem cells have not been shown to have the same properties as embryonic stem cells. Unless and until this is shown, it is scientifically vital to have access to both.
Methinks that Mover is trying to find the Prime Mover of Aristotle.
You mean to tell me that rant @ #773 was sincere? I thought it was a Hardt-&-Negri parody (may be redundant).
#772
FYI: The VP cannot make any law and cannot sign any bill into law. She can only break ties in the US Senate. You know, like when the president’s spunky sidekick, Algore, intellectual and taker of the initiative to invent the beloved internet, signed the largest tax increase in the history of this nation. Now, with the reports that the mushbrains will be getting 60 votes in the Senate, how often to you think she will have to exercise that duty over 8 years (before she becomes president)?
BTW: FYI: Evolution is a theory that has taken on the characteristics of a faith based religion. Lots of followers, lots of data from experimental models and theories, lots of experts, lots of “evidence”, lots of agreement, lots of similarities of species, and even more recently, a theory on how life was sparked into existence from Campbell’s primordial soup. Evolutionists have faith that all this will be proven to be true in time.
BTW: BTW: I have a hard time believing the whole 2000 year old story that goes like, ‘Honey, I’m pregnant, and God is the father. We’re still getting married, right?’ thingee in a time when an unwed mother was more likely to be stoned to death at the prompting of her father and the intellectuals of the time. But that does negate the faith that this world and our ability to contemplate our own deaths, unlike any other time-modified creature showing signs of life, was not an accident of nature.
Why is “evidence” in quotes. Is all this evidence false?
Um no. Not faith. Verifiable research that has hard data and makes predictions in many different fields all continually supporting the ToE, not destroying it.
Of all the ignorant things you’ve said, this is the most ignorant.
Chimpy, I think you just “proved” to the unmoved Mover that you are merely a follower by your defense of the theory. But I also think that Mover does not understand what a theory is in the science vernacular.
Hint to Mover, a theory is higher up the ladder then a fact. Theory is used to explain facts.
Janine, it appears Mover is just another preelection troll that has a brain the size of a mosquito. I’ll be happy when the election is over. Then we might get back to regular programming.
Stop lying Mover. Stop being a dumbass.
Go hang out at the Corner. You’re nothing but a troll.
Sarah Palin is the one who doesn’t seem to understand what her role is. Her lack of depth and McCain’s lack of ideas or direction are why they’re going to lose in a landslide.
Everyone else knows that the VP is there to breaks ties and also to be ready to step into the president’s shoes should the president become unable to perform his duties. It’s McCain who thinks the VP choice is just a cynical choice to get a bump in the polls and to hang on to your base. That’s why neither Palin or McCain really want to talk about what Palin’s qualifications are…
Mover, you’re not speaking truth to your opponents, you’re spouting lies and talking points that Fox, Drudge and McCain are feeding you. It’s boring and not even a challenge.
I believe what Mover is trying to say is that he recently purchased the Jumbo-Size Right Wing Buzzword Pack, and thus he somehow thinks that Sarah Palin is competent and has everyone’s best interests in mind.
Anyone who spouts the Al Gore claims he invented the internet meme has swallowed the right wings crap hook line and sinker.
McCain’s own advisors are now talking about how they feel like Palin has scammed them and that she’s got the knife kit already sharpened.
The GOP backstabbing and bloodletting is gonna be ugly November 5th.
Bring popcorn, it’s gonna be gorier than Saw V.
Wow, that was just terrible. There’s plenty of disagreement over mechanisms for evolution, the only agreement is that evolution happened. And the reason for that is that all the evidence points to evolution. Also abiogenesis is not evolution – it’s to do with the origin of life, not the origin of species.
779 – biggest tax increase in history? Only if you don’t factor in population growth and inflation. Both Reagan and FDR enacted larger tax increases. See http://www.factcheck.org/treasury_tax_expert_to_bush_clintons_increase.html
FYI: The VP cannot make any law and cannot sign any bill into law. She can only break ties in the US Senate. – Mover
Good grief, what a dolt. McSenile is a 72-year-old cancer and (at least by his own account) torture survivor, who by common observation is by no means the man he was 8 years ago. He’s quite likely to die or become incapacitated within 4 years. Come to think of it, do you really believe Cheney has limited himself to breaking ties in the Senate these last 8 years.
On the theory of evolution: wise up, moron. Only in Dumbfuckistan is there any doubt about its validity.
But that does negate the faith that this world and our ability to contemplate our own deaths, unlike any other time-modified creature showing signs of life, was not an accident of nature. – Mover
English translation please.
#780
The word evidence is in quotes because some folks believe that many times scientists don’t get it right. You know, like the ones who Claimed “Global Cooling” in the 1970s: Who said eating eggs was killing us, then they weren’t, then they are again (but not so much) and who claim that second hand smoke is killing 400,000 Americans each year (in recent commercials), up from 3000 each year (but is on no certificate of death): Those scientists that predict 18, no 16, no 21, no 12, hurricanes each year. These guys can accurately see back in time for millions of years, showing why there are sand pipers and egrets, house cats and tigers, whales and carp, by adopting popular theory and experiments using equipment that they also invented with data they are sure is accurate. Just think, every year researchers find ways to refine their techniques and prove that some prior data was absolutely wrong.
I would not want to take away from those scientists and researchers that brought us Apollo 11, Pong, the polio vaccine, silly putty, the microchip, microwave ovens, nuclear power, and LCD TVs. But the most overused term being used over the last 2 decades is “expert”. Everyone makes mistakes, me included. Scientists are no different.
Evolution looks very good and yet, it is still just a theory, like the big bang, relativity, time travel and UFOs (I find time travel to be fun to contemplate, but impossible).
Mover, I see you’re back as another RW idiot.
Scientific theory means well tested and supported by evidence. In the case of evolution, this probably around a million, give or take a hundred thousand or so, scientific papers backing evolution, and essentially zero disproving it. It doesn’t get any better than that.
This compares to UFO’s, Palin’s intelligence, time travel, god, inerrant bible, and your ability to actually think through something.
Wow you really trumpet the tenets of bad logic.
The Science was wrong before gambit is an old and tired one.
In the troop there is one who’s nothing but a drag.
Don’t trust him(?), he’s mean and black.
I’m starting to believe we can get this thread to 1000. Why that should matter, I have no idea.
Jeez, Mover…cut it out. My eye-rolling muscles are cramping up again.
You seriously equate evolution–the central unifying principle of modern biology–with UFOs and time travel??? “Just a theory”??
You do not know anything about science. You don’t know the current state of knowledge, you don’t know the data and observations that support that knowledge, you don’t know the process and how it works, and you don’t know the underpinning philosophy of that process.
And yet you come to a blog run by a scientist and read by scientists (and, of course, others) and expect anybody to care about your ill-considered opinion of evolution or time travel?
Ignorance + arrogance really pushes my buttons.
#782
A “theory is higher up the ladder then a fact. Theory is used to explain facts.”
Is that higher, as in higher on the evolutionary scale?
#791
I know the difference between barroom theories (guesses) and scientific theory (backed by some evidence). And I have no doubt that critters, people, cats, whales, etc., have changed over time.
I do not insist that Darwin’s origin of species theories aren’t worthwhile or true. But I understand he has this near the end of his book..
“[P]robably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”
Question: Who, or what, “first breathed” life into inanimate matter?
What I do insist is that Darwin’s followers, in ever increasing numbers, use the theory of evolution as another evidence for their atheism. Not that I really care what others believe, but the ones I’ve spoken to are rather excitable on this topic. Much like some folks here. The argument I hear most these days is that man evolved the same way everything else did and there is no intelligence in the design. It’s just natural selection, adaptation, mutation, heritable traits, etc. But no one as yet is able to prove or provide evidence of how all of this got started (the spark in the primordial soup), though I’ve read a discussion on it (Robert M. Hazen – Origins of Life). And no explanation of why it is that human beings, alone among the Earth’s critters, can and are many times consumed with his self awareness, future and death. Did that come about naturally? Does science fiction become fact? Asimov’s positronic brain had enough connections to become self aware and we work the same way?
I await your enlightenment.
#789
“McSenile ” is a tough old bird. Or hadn’t you noticed? You shouldn’t worry about funding scientific projects under McCain. Recall that he has a record of voting with Bush, and Bush has authorized billions in scientific research with a Republican congress and with the Democrats, as well. I thought you guys like “reaching across the aisle”? Which kinda makes this entire thread just therapy for some worry warts.
“English translation please.”
Human beings are aware that we won’t live forever, we plan for the future and some accomplish things that will put them in the memory of future generations, a pseudo immortality. You know, like Darwin. Dogs, cats, fish, spiders, elephants, whales, etc., etc., have no such thoughts (as far as we know).
“Time modified” is another description of critters changing over time, according the Church of Evolution.
“Accident of nature” implies that there was no “intelligent designer” involved with the process as atheists want to believe.
#792
“The appeal to “science was wrong before”” does not apply. My argument is not that the theory is entirely wrong. My argument is that people, scientists, researchers, etc., make mistakes and while they have a pretty good argument and consensus, again I’m not convinced that it proves an absence of intelligence on the designs, especially when it comes to the starting fluid.
You can reach this discussion under the SB splash page “hot topics”. The link reads: “Palin discredits fruit fly research”. “Palin disparages fruit fly research” would be more accurate, but it really should read “Fruit flies discredit Palin”.
Mover, you make the typical illiterate mistake of comparing evolution to abiogenisis, which is a different kettle of fish that evolution. However, there is evidence available that does indicated that there is no need for a creator at any point during the synthesis of the original molecules of life, or at any point to forming life.
If a designer is needed, why don’t your write up a paper and submit it to the scientific journals instead of carping about it here? I’m sure you’re so brilliant you can get it published in Science or Nature and win a Nobel prize. Or else your whole idea is punch of religious bullshit and will be considered as such, with the paper rejected as non-scientific. You need a better argument than that shit to get us to consider god.
If you have anything to offer to the discussion other than RW bullet points, do so. Otherwise, go away. You are getting very monotonous.
Do you also realize that it was written nearly 150 years ago and the science done between then and now has added exponential amounts of information and made many changes to the theory? Just because Darwin lived in a time that he did with the cultural and social ways they had does not mean we have to continue to honor them. Especially in the absence of any evidence of a designer.
Which has exactly zero bearing on the validity of the Theory.
But inroads are being made (Miller-Urey). Lack of results and or data on the subject does not automatically mean you can insert God as the answer, again especially with all evidence of God lacking.
As soon as someone can show actual design and prove it is design then the scientific community will be happy to embrace it. “Accident of nature” is your term.
No it applies exactly to what you said above
Yes. That’s exactly what you were saying.
Here’s a good read on why Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Becca,
I saw and was bothered by that same headline. “Discredit” the research, she did not.
It looks like Palin has energized Obama’s base, too. Early voting has started in most states. Get it on.
You know, like the ones who Claimed “Global Cooling” in the 1970s – Mover
There were none, moron; it’s a denialist lie. There was a small amount of discussion of the possibility. See
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/langswitch_lang/in
Well, this thread certainly is a goner (an insane week–no time for this blog). Just as well, since I am not interested in getting in any extended discussions on this blog. But I see from some of the commentary that I have received that I will have to clarify what I have said. It should be clear from posts #525 and #658, but apparently, for some people at least, it’s not. Many people have responded, and some of you may be making valid points, but I don’t have time to respond to you all, so I am only going to address SC. In particular, her assertion in comment #667 that “I’m not arguing with you. I’ve made my substantive arguments on this thread already”. Well, I’ve read all your comments up to this one SC, and I think the “substance” in your substantive comments is pretty thin. In any case, in no way do your previous comments amount to a refutation of what I am saying. Of course, maybe you’re not claiming that they do. Maybe you just don’t want to argue. When a person replies to a substantive and reasoned argument with name-calling, I don’t know what I can reasonably assume but that they don’t have the balls to take the callee on. And in this particular case SC, that would be the right way to be thinking, because if you do take me on you’ll be squashed like a cockroach. But as it is, you have a very convenient, face-saving out. Since this is such a long dead thread, you can just never respond, and say you never even heard that I commented again. And even if you did, why would you waste time writing a response no one is going to read? Fine with me. I’m doing this for posterity.
The asshole ripping will commence below. First, though, I want to achieve that elusive “clarity”
A few people, not just SC, have called me, and my comments #525 and #658 “misogynist”. Well, there is nothing misogynist about those comments, and I challenge anyone to demonstrate how from those sentences you can construe that I am by necessity making a misogynist statement. Hell, I challenge you to point out a single necessarily misogynist sentence. It’s not there, trust me. I just checked (And it is against the rules to point out the places I used the B-word in reference to Palin. The whole point of this disussion is that that is not a misogynist thing to do. Besides, I was only doing it to piss SC off). I am not a misogynist, and I am not any kind of bigot. Disagree? Look up the word bigot in the dictionary please. Shouldn’t be a problem for SC. (I grant you, I’m not the nicest chap you’ll ever run into, but that’s not at all the same thing)
What I am is a free speech absolutist. I believe as strongly as I a believe the sky is blue, that there should never be the remotest constraint on speech. Anything, hate speech, fine, holocaust denial, go ahead. Not a holocaust denier myself, but like Voltaire, I’ll go to the grave to defend any holocaust denier’s right to say what he believes. This is a crime in Germany, and other places in Europe I believe. Maybe someone knows more than me, how serious is it? How long can they lock you up for simply for asserting you believe something? Absurd. Paradoxical that the Germans have failed to learn one of the most important lessons from the worst period in their history by legislating control over its free discussion. I don’t like libel or slander laws, although I admit we need them in some form. This is one of the few cases (the only case?) where the USA gets things righter than any other industrialized democracy. Based on supreme court rulings, as it stands now, the basic legal reality in the USA is that only in the case that speech could incite imminent violence can there be any legal constraint on it. And that is right. Quite frankly, even that little constraint I am not entirely comfortable with. I can reconcile myself with it by saying that you’re not really constraining speech anymore, the purpose of that much constraint is to control the violence. OK, I can say that and manage to live day by day, but I can never say it without that little voice in my head snipping “BULLSHIT!!!”. Many will disagree, and that’s fine, there is some room for disagreement here. I’m not having that discussion on this blog. All I’m going to say if you believe there should be some kind of legally enforced control of speech is that Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and North Korea today are some examples of societies with governmental control of speech. Think you’d be happier living in a society like one of these?
And that is why I cannot read a comment like SC’s #40 and not cringe like I would if a severed human head fell into my cereal bowl. What the fuck, SC, who appointed you the language policewoman? Haven’t you read 1984? I can use the B-word, the C-word, the T-word, whatever, and if I want to make a derogatory statement about a woman, or anyone else with it, I have every right, and moreover it doesn’t mean anything but what I mean it to mean. If you think it means something else, why don’t you ask for clarity. Or complain, but if I make it clear what I am saying, you may think my language distasteful, but you’re just going to have to not like it and accept it. It’s your problem, not mine. Of course, I have a right to be a bigot (though not when I’m doing things like hiring people, grading math exams, etc), and I can use these words to insult someone at the same time make a slur against women generally if I choose to. But no one here is denying that, and SC has made it clear that she isn’t either. The problem is your insistence that the use of such words is intrinsically misogynist. Bullshit. And I should also make it clear that I am not accusing SC of promoting censorship. She has explicitly said in her comments that she is not. No problem.
But what she is trying to do is entirely in the spirit of censorship, and since she is in no position to implement such a thing, what she is doing is the closest acheivable goal for her. She is trying to anathematize the use of certain language, certain words, to create an atmosphere where the consensus will be that using the B-word is tantamount to bigotry. I guess pursuing that kind of strategy has been working for the ADL in the real world, so why not give it a whirl in the blogosphere. She claims all she is trying to do is create an environment where certain people will not feel uncomfortable participating, but how uncomfortable do you think you are making it, SC, for someone who just uses colloquial langauge, like they grew up doing, with no ulterior motives at all, and finds himself or herself branded a bigot, when they are nothing of the kind, and meant nothing of the kind. How exactly does this net out to a positive development SC? You have made some people feel more comfortable at the expense of other people, including most likely some of the very people you were trying to make feel comfortable in the first place.
Guess what SC. You will never create an environment in which no person ever feels the slightest discomfort. It is not achievable. And if you try to achieve it, and the attempt has been made in the past, you are simply going to create a situation where one group’s set of values are imposed on others who don’t share them. You are trying to impose your values that women and other minorities deserve to not feel uncomfortable on me, by limiting my right to express myelf openly, with whatever language I deem suitable, which is something I value more than your right not to be uncomfortable. I value it more than I value my own right not to feel uncomfortable also–I am supremely happy to live in society where I will be subject to slurs and bigotry against myself, if it means that I and everyone else can speak what they think openly (and these days SC, don’t think that WASP males, not to mention wall streeters, don’t have to put up with lots of bigotry and unjustified abuse–I don’t deny we have nothing to complain about in the end, and yes we still have the bulk of the power, no argument, but that’s beside the point). If you think you have a right to enforce what you think is right on others, there is no effective difference between you and the christian right. They believe as surely as you do that what they think is right, and that everyone should live by their rules. There is a motif that runs through this blog, in PZ’s posts and the commentary, that no one has the right to not be offended. You can believe what you want, but you can’t demand that others respect what you believe. The principle is usually applied here to the christian right, but it applies equally to everyone, including you. If you think you can or should villify others for using certain language that you find offensive, you’re just like the bible thumpers who complain about abuse from “militant atheists”.
And anyways, even if a world where no one ever had to be offended was achievable, why would you want to live in it. I sure as hell don’t want to, and I don’t know anybody who would. We could probably make the world a less violent place by lobotomizing all children at birth, or in early childhood, but there’s a reason why we don’t. Lot’s of things in the world are detestable and repugnant to me, believe me, but there’s nothing I would do to change that. We are all as a species nothing more or less than what natural selection crafted us into, and there is no right or wrong about that, it just is what it is. There is no metaphysical hook you can support your particular moral code on, it just it what it is, by evolution, by your DNA, by the society you have grown up in. No one is any righter than anyone else. And I would rather live in a world with the fullest range of natural diversity, where I knew all humans could be who they are, whatever that is, and, for all my disgust at some things, I’ll happily pay the price of feeling it to observe the human race as it truly is in all its diversity (obviously we have to have laws, and I’m not suggesting we don’t have to put some constraints on behaviour. But speech? That’s a form of thought control, and I’ll have none of it). I’ll take that over the homogenized world that SC seems to want (only partially I know, but bad still).
The above few paragraphs are more about “where I’m coming from”. They really do not substantively support my main point. And in the end, my main point (that is, the main point of comments #525 and #658), is really something so trivial, so timid, so weak, that it’s mind boggling that people have gotten their panties/boxer shorts in a bunch over anything I’ve said.
All I am wanting to say is that you can use the words “bitch”, “cunt”, and “twat”, and that does not make you a misogynist or a bigot. And the use of such words is not an intrinsically misogynist act. And therefore, if you choose to use those words, don’t let anyone tell you that you’re a misogynist, and call the fuckers on it if they do. Can they be used to be a misogynist? Of course. Are they used by misogynists? Obviously. But I would suggest in the majority of cases, probably the vast majority, that is not how the words are being used. At their core, these are words for expressing contempt. Contempt in a very strong, perhaps the strongest possible, forms. They are barnyard epithets, and we do not say them in polite society or around children, but it is precisely because these words are “special”, that there are times when there is no substitute. Yes, the B-word (which is the main one I’m going to focus on as I’ll explain below) is expression of contempt towards women. When we call a man a bitch, and contrary to what SC suggests in #325, it is quite common, and makes perfect sense, we are not expressing contempt in the same way. It means something different. Basically, the B-word is to refer to a contemptible woman, and, when used for a woman, it is the strongest form of expressing your contempt. But that contempt is directed at the individual being reffered to. It is NOT (or there is no necessity that it be) an expression of contempt or hatred or anything of the kind toward women collectively–it is directed at an individual only. That is certainly the way I mean it when I use it, and it is the way people mean it where I come from. And when I hear it on TV, in movies, etc, that is usually the way it is meant. There is no sexist slur intended. Now, as an expression intended to denote a contemptible woman, and not a man, it certainly can imply that the individual is contemptible in a characteristically female way. So when I call a woman a bitch I may be in part communicating that she is contemptible in a particularly feminine way. But that is NOT BIGOTRY! Women and men are different, there is nothing to argue about there, and contemptible women are contemptible in certain ways that men are not, and vice versa. And there is nothing wrong with saying that that contemptible woman over there is contemptible in a particularly female way, and the B-word is a one way of doing that. I would say this applies quite well to Sarah Palin for one thing–she’s contemptible in ways that lots of men are as well, but the B-word doesn’t exclude that. There are also words for saying that a man is contemptible in a particularly masculine way (a lot more I think), and don’t waste my time telling me there’s not. Again, recognizing genuine differences between the sexes (or races, ethnicities, whatever), is not bigotry. It is bigotry when you think that BECAUSE this person is from some particular gender, race, whatever, that that person must have this, and that, and whatever stereotypes that exist about that group. At first order, the B-word is a way of expressing contempt specifically towards a woman, but it is A woman, and not women generally. It may have that connotation, but I have every right to use the word without that, and unless something from the context makes it pretty clear that I am expressing that connotation as well, you are quite unjustified in assuming that I am.
Consider the link to the definition of “bitch” on Webster’s online that SC provides in post #401. There are 4 definitions there, and only the second one is relevant:
2a: a lewd or immoral woman b:a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman–sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse
I don’t know SC, you’re not planning on going to law school are you? Words of advice: do not become a lawyer. You will live your existence in poverty until you die–well, unless you manage to snag a rich guy. Why would you cite as evidence something that completely undermines your point? Definition a. clearly refers only to an individual. b. also refers only to an individual woman in it’s basic form, but then that is qualified with the proviso that it can be used as a slur. I am not denying that that possibility exists. Like I said, the B-word has that connotation. But how do you know that in my previous posts when I used the B-word to describe Sarah Palin that I wasn’t invoking definition a.? Or even definition b. and this just wasn’t the “sometimes” when it was being used a generalized term of abuse. You don’t know, and nothing about the way I used it or the context justifies assuming that. Why are you calling me a misogynist? And more importantly, whatever the original post that set you off was, how do you know that person was meaning it in this way? Actually, maybe that person was being a misogynist, but you have no right to conclude from that that all future users of the B-word are using it in that way. As the definition you linked to makes unequivocally clear, there are other possible meanings that have nothing to do with misogyny.
So the B-word is not an inherently sexist word. That is a connotation it possesses only. That connotation may be invoked frequently when you hear it, but I am of the opinion that it is not. What I said in the previous sentence is not really a supportable statement–well actually it is, in various ways. Arguing anecdotally that “my friends and I never mean it that way” is no support for it, but there are more scientific ways we could do it. Those would be a lot of work though and I’m not going to do it. I don’t need to because the onus is on SC (and she makes equally unsupportable claims in her comments, which we’ll get to by the by) to prove that it isn’t true. Because she is the one who is trying to control what people can say, and how they can say it. If you call someone a bigot, and try to censor that alleged bigotry, the onus is on you to prove it.
And if, in fact, the B-word is not, by necessity, a misogynistic word, then what is left of SC’s argument that people should be using “gender-neutral insults” as she says in comment #54? First of all, there is the fact that I may, as I alluded to above, want to say, not just that this person is contemptible, but that that she is contemptible in a characteristically female way. Well then, by definiton, a “gender-neutral” insult is not going to express what I want. I have every right to say that, as I explained above that does not constitute bigotry, and then what word am I going to use? If I want to express the contempt with strength, “bitch” is as good a choice as there is, I mean honestly, the best choice, and what is wrong with my using it? It’s the right word in the sense that it is the unique word in English that best expresses what I want to say. How does using it make me a misogynist? Finally, even if I just want to express contempt towards a person, and that person just happens to be a woman, let’s look at some of the gender-alternatives alternatives SC has proposed. From post #203 we have some contributions from PZ:
raving fruitbat
Rovian slimebeasts
Very good, very creative. A little on the nerdy side (like I mean, really, do you think out in the real world anything more than maybe 1 percent of the population would even recognize these as insults, never mind care?). And she likes some of scooter’s ideas from post #154, some oldies but goodies like “bat-shit insane” and “fucktard”, some I haven’t heard in a while like “Pus Bucket” and “Ass Clown”, and some truly ingenious ones:
Butt-munching Tweed-weasel
Witback kneed godsucking scuttle puppy
Witless window-licking clown car
Wanking chest puddle
and so on. Yes yes, very nice, very creative, I like them too. And they are completely useless for me if what I want to do is to articulate, in the strongest, most unequivocal terms, that this woman over here is a repugnant, descpicable, worthless excuse for a human being. Becuase it is just a fact that amongst speakers of English that the most pejorative derogatory way you can describe a woman is to call here a bitch. Hatred (directed towards an indivual) is not a very intellectual emotion. Really, it is a very primitive, prehistoric, indeed, prehuman thing. Sometimes, the best way to express it is not to be too intelligent, but just to resort to a standard, accepted, universally understood barnyard epithet, and if you deem it’s the best way to express your hatred for someone, there’s nothing wrong with using it.
OK, this is what I’ve been saying. This is what posts #525 and # 658 are about. I’ve had to connect the dots a bit in this post, but evidently I needed to, hence the length of this post (and it ain’t over yet ladies and gentlemen).
With me nonexistent reader? Cool. Now on to the ripping.
SC suggests in post #667, in response to my pointing out that you cannot win an argument by calling people names (well, not if you’re not in kindergarten) that she has made her “substantive comments” already and is not arguing with me. As I have pointed out in the first paragraph of this post, it is not completely clear what she means. She could just be saying that she isn’t going to argue with me at all, that she has finished arguing, in the previous posts, and just doesn’t want to continue? That is fine if that’s what she wants. Life is short, and I don’t blame here. And really, I’m not saying anything that lots of other people have not been saying to her. I think I may be saying it a little better, but if she didn’t even bother to read my posts, thinking that it was just old news, well I can’t blame her. But, I have clarified things in this post well enough, and articulated them well enough, that there is really no excuse for dismissing it as an invalid argument. She is free to not continue to not argue, and as pointed out above, she has an easy out. But she will have to live with my conlusions (or at least live with their unchallenged status) in that case.
But there is another way to interpret what she says, it is possible she is claiming that her previous posts have already refuted what I am saying in mine, and that is the notion I want to deal with now. To make the matter plain, she has absolutely and unequvically not, and in now way do here comments in this thread constitute a refutation of the argument I have spelled out in this post. I’ve read them all, and we’ll go through them now, just to keep me honest.
First some general observations about SC’s comments. The core of her positions is that the B-word, as well as the C-word and the T-word are misogynistic slurs against women, with the implication that anyone who uses these words must be slurring women him or herself by virtue of nothing more than their use of the word. No consideration of context. No consideration of other possible meanings, even in the very dictionary reference she cites as supporting evidence (see above). She make this statement repeatedly in several comments.
#117
“Stupid bitch” “dumb cunt” and “stupid twat’ are misogynistic slurs.
#394
In our culture, at the moment (though they may be completely reclaimed in the future) “cunt” and “bitch” are misogynistic slurs”
#483
“Cunt” and “bitch” are slurs against women as they are used in our society/ies. That is the social meaning given to these terms , as recognized in dicitionaries.
Not an exhaustive list. She repeats this assertion several times, and what support does she offer for it? A reference to a dictionary definition that in actual fact supports the exact opposite of the point she is trying to make (again, I have dealt with this above). In addition, she also offers……NOTHING. That’s it, a dictionary definition that provides only support for her opponents. That and her evident conviction that if she just repeats this sentence enough times on a comment thread on Pharyngula that she can just make it be true. Yeah, either that or at least that all the sheep following her comments will start to believe it themselves if it’s etched into their brains enough times. Well sweetums, sorry, but not this sheep. It’s the silliest bullshit I’ve ever heard. My argument for why is above, before the ripping started, so you can look up there if you forgot.
I will however make something clear, as some people might at this point say, well, judging from the examples Camboy has just cited from posts #117, #394, #483, she’s not necessarily saying that these are the only way to use these words, just that they can be. Well first of all, it doesn’t sound like she’s permitting any other possibililties to me. Her use of the article “the” in the second paragraph cited from #483 suggests that she doesn’t think there is any other way to use these words. And she sounds to me like she is saying “this is what these words mean, period”. But most importantly, it must be what she is implying by these sentences. Why? Because her whole position falls to pieces if she is not. She is saying that if people are using these words, that they are being misogynists, or at least are engaging in a misogynistic practice whether they know it or not. And on that basis she argues for censoring them or what I have argued above is the same thing. Her whole argument falls apart if there are other legitimate uses of these words that are not misogynistic, since then you have no right to assume they are, and to censure their use of these words.
She repeatedly comes back to this assertion, constantly in her comments, because it is the lynchpin of her entire position. All of her other arguments rest on this statement. But SC, as I have discussed above, this is a completely unsupportable statement. I have explained above why you certainly can’t support it with what’s in the dictionary. Are you claiming that regardless of what the dictionary says, in practice in the real world anybody using these words is always being a misogynist? Why? What is your evidence for such a broad statement about society? Is there some sociological/psychological study, do you have some kind of statistics you can cite? I have never heard of such a thing. I think it is too specific a question to be amenable to measurement by social scientist’s methods. I don’t think there’s any way you could conduct a study that could definitively measure such a thing as what “connotations” people are implying when they use a particular word. Even if you did, there is no chance it would be any kind of authoratative evidence. The best it could be is suggestive. And you want to censor people? On the basis of such a flimsy foundation?
Let’s just go through the comments themselves and see if we missed something:
#40 (and #54 really) are what started this whole thing.
#84 I agree, “Pig-ignorant dipshit” is not misogynistic. That has nothing to do with it.
#99 I am not talking about the “lion’s share of gendered slurs on this site”. Indeed, I am talking about words like “bitch”, “cunt”, and “twat” which, as we have seen, are not (by necessity of course) slurs at all.
#102 vacuous
#105 irrelevant
#117 well this is the first place where she makes the unsupportable assertion. Apart from that, more about that bobcat, or whatever is was, yadda, yadda, yadda
#203 The post where gender-neutral alternatives to the B-word etc. was offered. Dealt with above. And some narcissistic, self-righteous whining. SC why are you such a girlie-man?
#219 I haven’t read Jake’s posts, but if you say he’s a twit I see no reason not to believe you. I mean if he can’t even win an argument with you??? (OH c’mon, just a joke). Not much else of substance, just a repition of various unsupported statements. One thing I would like to say though SC, is that I don’t live in your world either, and you have no right to assume that I or anyone else does. The world is what it is, not what you want it to be.
#226 , #241 irrelevant
#325 There are really a lot of words on this post. I really do not want to read all those words.
#331 nothing
#394 Jesus, its a fucking epidemic. This is worse than #325. But this is the next place where SC repeats the unsupportable assertion, so I guess we owe it to her to take a look if, in fact, she has miracously produced support for the unsupportable.
Well, she seems to be interacting with some kind of douchebag. She seems to do that a lot. I don’t know, could explain a few things. I don’t know, she seems to be trying to change the subject, as she has in some other posts. Are you angry at misogynists, and misogynistic posts on other threads? Is that what you want to talk about? Fine, but what the fuck does that have to do with the implicit misogyny of using the B-word? Which is what we started talking about. Please stay the fuck on topic. I think the problem is you have a warped definition of what a gendered slur is. It seems to be something like “anything SC doesn’t like” is your defintion of a gendered slur. A lot of the things you are talking about probably aren’t in actual fact male or female directed slurs at all. They’re just people speaking english, in particular the most colorful parts of the language.
In any case, there is nothing of relevance in this dialogue to the central claim, until the end of the post. There, 3 dictionary references are given, these for the C-word. I have been focussing on the B-word, because that is the one for which SC has the strongest case, but the arguments I have above for the dictionary references SC provided for the B-word, apply equally to these. In this case it is even more absurd, becuase, as these definitions make clear, cunt can be used just as a way to denote a contemptible person of either gender. It is not really a gender-specific insult at all. And as I, and I think at least one other supporter here have pointed out, it is usually used to insult men not women. So how is it again that the C-word is a slur against women SC?
In any case, once again, the dictionary citations only undermine SC’s argument, and there is nothing further to say abou them.
And now, I think we owe it to SC to address here statements in the last paragraph of this post.
“Utterances are defined as misogynistic or derogatory more generally through social convention.” Well then why in the fuck did you bother with the dictionary citations you dumbass. If social conventions are what’s relevant why are we even talking about the dictionary. Did you think that, when you realized you really have no way to make the case that by social conventions the B-word and the C-word are slurs against (due to the inconvenient fact that it’s bullshit), and then looked at the dictionary and so that it really didn’t support your case either, since there were definitions provided that were not even gender specific, that somehow, in some inexplicable even magical, but unassailable way, but putting these two insufficient arguments together, you would get a watertight irrefutable case? Like I said above, DON’T go to law school.
“In our culture, at the moment…(one of the versions of the unsupportable assertion cited above)” Well, here she once more repeats the unsupportable. So far, no support given. Maybe she’ll get to it in the last sentence. Let’s see…
“You can’t make that not so by saying you don’t think it’s the case” EXACTLY!!!!!!! You even understand the basic principle! This is going to be easier than I thought! Now, all you have to do is turn that statement around and apply it to yourself. And the unsupported, untested, unprovable horse manure you’re spraying all over everybody’s hard drive.
#401, #403, #419, irrelevant, vacuous, pointless
#483 More interaction with another douchebag. And another repetition of the unsupportable statement. And how about some supporting evidence at last? I’ll give you three guesses.
#493, #494, # 511, irrelevant
These are all the posts by SC between the intial #40 and my first post. In between my two posts there were a few posts, but as I see them, only one had much substance, or addresssed the arguments here, and that is #550, so I’ll address that here.
The first real sentence that has anything to do with it is:
Come on. It isn’t men who are being called cunts and twats around here, and when they are, it is an insult precisely because it’s a term for women or female genitalia, like pussy.
I realize speaking with coherence is a dying art, but could you at least try to say something a little intellilgible? “It isn’t men who are being called” followed by “and when they are” ??????? How am I supposed to respond when you haven’t even figured out what you are trying to say yourself? If you’re saying only women get called those things, I say, BULLSHIT, and please prove it if you’re going to make a statement like that. Or give SOME kind of support. I for one highly doubt it’s true. Oh, but suddently, well, you’re not really saying that??? So actually there’s nothing to prove because you’re actually not saying that???? I can tell you interact with creationists a lot, because you seem to have mastered a lot of their talents at winning arguments by being as obfuscating and incoherent as possible. Oh, but now I see, the C and T words are misogynist becuase they refer to female genitalia. Right. Kind of like the way I call some asshole a dickhead, a prick, a cock, etc, I’m in reality expressing my deep seated resentment and hatred of all men. Now I get it.
Next,
I posted no fewer than four links to dictionary defnitions for these words. “Cunt” is defined as a derogatory term for women. To make this more explicit – definition for cunt at Dictionary.com: “Disparaging and Offensive. a. a woman
Well, there is really no need for me to say anything, becuase I have already shown how the dictionary citations SC has used are the worst possible support she could try to employ, and do far more to undermine her argument than support it. But what the hell…
First, the C-word is the wrong example, because your own citations provide one complete alternative to anything to do with women per se–the C-word can be used just to denote a contemptible person, period. And as I have said, that’s always the way I’ve used it (until this thread), and everyone I know uses it that way too. But even to the extent that it is an insult for women in particular, it is, as I have discussed above, an insult of a SPECIFIC woman. And as I have argued above, that is not bigotry or misogyny, and you can not chastise someone for using it that way.
And please point me to the instances here in which “dumb cunt,” “stupid bitch,” or “humorless twat” were not misogynistic
Well, I think I have used all three of these lexicons on this thread, so I can tell you with complete authority about those cases. Let’s just go over them:
“dumb cunt” not misogynistic
“stupid bitch” not misogynistic
“humorless twat” not misogynistic
Go figure? The first two were directed at Palin because she fucking terrifies me, and the idea that she could be president is beyond anything I can deal. And that has nothing to do with my mother, my exgirlfriends, you, or anybody except Palin, who merits the worst invective. “humorless twat” was direced at you of course. Becuase you are humorless, at least as far as your behaviour in this matter is concerned. And because you remind me of Jar Jar Binks.
In any event, I did not say that in every case these words are used with conscious misogynistic intent. They are still antifemale slurs. I objected to the use of the words and the hostile environment this created. I didn’t claim that everyone who uses them is a raging misogynist (though many, as we’ve seen, are)
You can object to them all you want, but you can’t censor or villify others for using them. They are “antifemale” in the same way calling a guy a “cocksucker” and any number of other things is a antimale (that also, of course, has a homophobe aspect to it, but quite frankly, that just proves my point all the more). They are anti-the thing I am trying to insult. Period. And no one has any right, in the absence of further information, to conclude that they are anything else. Don’t like the evironment??? Then piss off. This is not a blog for children.
I don’t think there’s much else in this last post worth looking at.
Well, that’s really all I have to say. See, nothing to it.
I really don’t have much energy left at this point, and I’m not going to do much of a wrap-up. I’ll just repeat that anybody who thinks their right not too have their feelings hurt trumps my right to speak my mind, as I see fit, is wrong, wrong, wrong, and needs their had examined. And people on the left are just as bad about this as people on the right. Again, it’s the same thing–you’re trying to impose what you believe on others, and you have no right. And if you try to push it onto me, expect a vigourous and forceful reponse. I’ve made my point, I think, quite clearly. If SC or anyone else things they can refute what I have said here, go ahead. Honestly, I don’t know if I’m going to come back to this thread ever.
Finally, I would just like to say to SC, that in fact I have nothing against you, I don’t hate you, I’m not even mad at you. You make lots of very insightful comments on this blog (not that I always agree with them), and I am not trying to villify you in any way. I just cannot let comments like the ones being made by you and others on this thread stand unchallenged. I am too passionate in my beliefs on this point.
Holy sheepshit, did I write all that? Loser. Get a life, Camboy.
Idiot.
Camboy: “Besides, I was only doing it to piss SC off”.
Your conclusion is compelling: “Loser. Get a life, Camboy.”
Patricia: well, nothing actually.
John: Actually, that was not my conclusion. Call it an epilogue if you want. But seriouly, if you are not going to address anything I’ve said substantively, you’d do better to say nothing. There’s nothing you can fault me for in this post. I mean, you can argue with the content of it if you want, but that’s not what you’re doing You cannot dismiss it with a petty little swipe. The arguments in my post are sound. If you’re not up to addressing them, so be it, but you contribute nothing with a vacuous insult.
You cannot dismiss it with a petty little swipe.
I just did.
you contribute nothing with a vacuous insult.
I quoted you, then wrote “Your conclusion is compelling:” followed by the very last sentence of your post.*
If I ever have my own words quoted at me and consider that an insult, I’d hope to realise that I’d’ve been a fool.
* I was playing on polysemy – and that I feel I have to explain such obviousness to you says something, no?
I stand by it.
Idiot.
John, in reference to post #807:
You cannot dismiss it with a petty little swipe.
I just did.
No John, you have not dismissed even a lepton of it. Because, when I say “dismissed”, I am not saying that you have shown your own personal contempt for it. Any asshat with an IQ over about 35 can do that. You can do that even if you haven’t read a single word of my post. When I say “dismissed” I mean that you have in some convincing way shown that my post is worthless, and of no value, that you have dispensed with it in some way, and no one need look at it or consider it anymore. You have not done that. As I just said, my arguments are sound. No rational person would read your silly little post, and on that basis alone not take a look at what I have written.
And then there is the rest of this:
you contribute nothing with a vacuous insult.
I quoted you, then wrote “Your conclusion is compelling:” followed by the very last sentence of your post.*
If I ever have my own words quoted at me and consider that an insult, I’d hope to realise that I’d’ve been a fool.
* I was playing on polysemy – and that I feel I have to explain such obviousness to you says something, no?
John, what you did was to take two totally unrelated (and utterly insignificant) sentences out of their respective contexts, and pretended to be clever because you found some “double meaning” in them. Good for you, what do you want, an honorary degree now?
First of all, you just admitted that post #805 constituted a “petty little swipe” in other words, an insult. And what else should I conclude from the tone of #805.
And this sentence:
If I ever have my own words quoted at me and consider that an insult, I’d hope to realise that I’d’ve been a fool.
makes no sense whatsoever. On the surface, it’s just a plain falsehood. As applied to the last line of post #803, it’s idiotic. You’ve basically taken two completely superfluous lines from my post and claimed that you have found some significance in them. John, just take post #803 and delete both of those sentences. And then read it again. Guess what? It won’t change anything I have said. I am uninterested in wasting my time playing rhetorical games with anybody. The only thing I care about is substance. Either respond with some substance or don’t respond.
Good night.
Oh my god, look at that awful line:
…worthless, and of no value…
Well, I was at the short end of a bottle of merlot (a 1.5 litre bottle–I know, I’m a rube) when I wrote that. Yeah, like that’s an excuse.
When I hear Sarah Palin talk about science I feel like Charlie brown listening to Lucy say that “Oak trees are cut down to make knotty pine recreation rooms” My stomach hurts!
http://notimeforclocks.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/15/
Camboy,
If you really think people are going to waste their time reading your reams of self-justifying crap, you are indeed a total loser and idiot. I managed the first paragraph, which included this ripe piece of stupidity:
“I don’t know what I can reasonably assume but that they don’t have the balls to take the callee on.”
Addressed, of course, to SC, whom you are aware is a woman, and in the course of a screed supposedly defending yourself against charges of misogyny. You pathetic wally. Here’s a piece of news for you Camboy: women don’t have balls!
My, my. Good to be back, sorry that some things have not changed, glad of others. Blake and Rev still hot, SC (of the beautiful mind of which I lust – grin), the lovely and delightful Patricia, others well spoken, well thought.
Some old trolls, some new, none saying anything new. Walton, get out of the textbooks and live a bit, dear boy.
Sarah Palin is not ignorant, she has chosen to be stupid, to act stupid so as not to scare her base. She is shrewd and canny. She has chosen to appeal to the ignorant and the fearful. She has chosen the side that says the godly can loot the ungodly with their god’s blessing. She is dangerous because she is not ignorant. My 4 cents, inflation you know.
Get out and vote if you have already so done. While I do hope you vote Obama, I do want all to vote. I want a record turn out. I want this election to mean a choice was made. I am a citizen and a veteran of multiple wars and have spent time as a civilian contractor in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that my country cannot take another four years of Republican misrule. I have voted in every election since I was 18 and this one is the first where I can truly say I am voting for someone as opposed to voting against the greater of two evils.
Nice to be back, Pax Nabisco – JeffreyD
Oh I think she does…
Palin’s Movement Urges ‘Godly’ To ‘Plunder’ Wealth of The ‘Godless’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/palins-movement-urges-god_b_139987.html
Sense of proportion much?
Yes, how dare she order you to get out of Pharyngula and never darken our door again with her unacceptable words?
Oh, wait–that was *you* who did that.
FREE SPECH–UR DOIN IT RONG
You’ve chosen an interesting rhetorical strategy to convince us all that you’re no misogynist.
However, having spent 6 years getting my PhD when I could have been working on my MRS degree all along, don’t I feel like the perfect ass now?
She made a scientific mistake – fruit flies are an important experimental subject for gene research. Nonetheless the level of vitriol here seems excessive when compared with almost anything Al Gore said, for example his claim that cigarette smoking is a cause of global warming???
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2006/10/cigarette-smoking-significant-cause-of.html
Now that IS a wackaloon.
Whether Gore actually said cignarette smoking is a cause of global warming I don’t know, since the sort of moronblog Neil Ctraig [sic] links to is not worth taking seriously (ah, I see it’s his own, and he’s yet another “libertarian” halfwit), but if he did, he’s right. It’s estimated to produce about 5 teragrams of methane p.a., a small but not insignificant proportion of the 300 teragram p.a. anthropogenic total. More important, growing, curing, packaging and transporting cigarettes all require energy, and growing also requires land (which could otherwise be used for food or biofuel).
gore invented the internet, quayle teaches secondary school spelling, biden is humble, geraldine ferraro isn’t affiliated with the mob, spiro agnew pays his fair share of taxes, bill clinton smokes cigars and billy carter doesn’t wear depends — i rest my case
gerard pawling@818,
What case?
That, or a clue.
Hints toward the latter:
1) Social relationships are not all about you!
2) Misogyny is still too culturally ingrained to make “intention” a relevant issue.
3)
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
4) Posterity doesn’t give a shit.
Nick Gotts @812, thalarctos @815, Sven DiMilo @820
If you think I am unaware of the various ironies that are rather pervasive in my post, let me assure you, I know all about ’em–they were all put there intentionally. I’ll leave to you to decide what they mean.
And, since every one of you has in some way or another repeated the unfounded insinuation that I am a misogynist, I guess the next remark is addressed to you all as well. Every one of you has levelled that charge at me, and not a single one of you has offered a single word to back it up. If you are going to make such a serious charge against someone, you really better make sure you have a strong case. Please point to even one thing in any of my posts that reveals that I have an unfounded prejudicial hatred towards women. You can’t of course, because it’s not there, because I have no such thing in me. If none of you have the intellectual capacity to make that case (strongly suspect this is it) then don’t go around making unjustified slanders.
Look up the words bigotry and misogyny in the dictionary. So we know what we are talking about. I have no prejudice or prejudicial hatred towards women collectively. Every new woman I meet, or come in contact with in whatever way, I bring no preconceptions to it. It is up to her to show me who she is, and I judge her on her own individaul actions. There is nothing on this thread that I have posted that is inconsistent with anything in the last two paragraphs. If there is, why don’t one of you, rather than slandering me, just point out that sentence (Thalarctos, as noted above, the particular sentence you singled out was meant to be ironic, so you really can’t use that one. And anyways, judging from your last sentence, you seem to agree. You are female? I hadn’t realized.)
For example, as I said at the end of my long post, I think SC says insightful things, I think she is one of the most intelligent commenters here, and I have nothing but respect for her. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything she says either. And if I don’t agree, I don’t see how it is misogynistic to take here on.
In fact, quite frankly, post #803 is probably almost the strongest piece of evidence I could provide in favour of the argument that I’m not a misogynist. Why? Because if I were really a misogynist do you think I would take the time, effort, and thought to compose a behemoth of a post like that. Why wouldn’t I just dismiss SC with an “Ahh, stupid bitch, just like all the rest of ’em” (an example of the B-word actually being used in a misogynistic way. And, yes Nick, I know SC is a woman). I took SC’s arguments in the comments seriously enough to take the time to build a serious case against her. I poured lots of intellectual energy into that post. And not because I have some prejudice against her because of her gender. Because I care about this issue. And I don’t tolerate being told what I can or cannot say by anyone–make or female.
Anyways, unsuprisingly, all we have in the comments here is lots of invective without foundation, and no attempt to actually respond to what I have said, though Thalarctos seems to have at least done me the service of reading a little ways into it. As I have said to John Morales, the arguments in post #803 are sound, and you cannot refute them by insulting me personally. If that’s what you want to do, fine with me. But you are contributing nothing to the matter, and my basic conclusion remains unchallenged.
And just for clarity, let me reiterate that basic conclusion: you can call a woman a bitch without being a misogynist and without committing a misogynistic act (God, it’s such an utterly trivial thing, why are we having a discussion about it). That is what I have established in post #803, in the process I have also dispensed with SC’s comments in this thread: her comments do not constitute a refutation of this assertion. If that’s what she wants to do, she will have to say more.
I am not going to reply to anymore baseless attacks and infantile name calling. If you have something substantive to say in response to my posts, I’ll respond (well, honestly, you better do it soon. This thread is more than a week old, and it is likely that by 24 hours from now, I’ll have stopped looking once and for all). Also, since my arguments are addressed to SC, if she has anything to say, I will reply. Otherwise, post #803 stands unchallenged, and is the last thing I have to say on the matter.
*That’s* how you read my last sentence? Really?
In that case, you can add irony, sarcasm, and reading comprehension to your list of UR DOIN IT RONG.
thalarctos,
The sentence from # 821 that you have quoted was also an ironic one. Think please.
Camboy, you seem to be under the impression that a long rambling response is superior to a short, to the point response. This is not the case. Many people, such as myself, will not read posts much greater that a screen. While I have not read your posts due to their length, from the responses to your posts you failed to make your point.
Nice try at irony, but coming from you, it really doesn’t work–you just can’t pull it off the way you seem to think you can.
You come in here, call us “ladies” because of course how we’re interested in being called is all about how *you* were raised, order SC out in the name of “free speech”, invoke the tired old “snagging a rich man” trope, explain to us how we should believe your words rather than our own lying eyes about your behavior, and then you think we should take your word that you meant any of that ironically?
For all your credentials you cited in your appeal to your authority above, I wouldn’t take your word whether or not it was raining without looking out the window for myself. So don’t mistake my sarcasm for agreement with you on anything.
You could do yourself a huge favor by taking Sven’s advice above. Or not, w/e.
Nerd of Redhead,
Post #803 is as long as it is because it had to be. There was no other way I could say what I had to say. The details are important, and sometimes they are important enough that you just have to face them address every last one of them. And when that’s what you need to do, well, I’m basically your man. My long posts are a reflection of me, of the way I talk and the way I think. I once had a 30 hour conversation.
In this case, I had to build a watertight case for my position. I also had to refute everything SC had said. In other words every one of her posts (that were relevant). That forced me to write a long post.
If you don’t want to read long posts, that’s fine. I don’t blame you. There are far more important things to do in life. But the consequence of that is you really have no right to judge them. Most of the people here responding haven’t read it either. I mean, some of them have read enough to quote mine, but none of them have really read what I was saying. Because to date not a single commenter has actaully addressed the content of that post. Nothing I can do about it. It’s a long, hard to digest post, but that’s what it had to be.
thalarctoss,
Whether I was lying about my credentials is immaterial (although I was not), because I am not expecting anyone to listen to me because of them. Contrary to what you write, nowhere in any of my posts have I appealed to their “authority” as a substantive part of any of my arguments. In fact they only came up a single, solitary time, when I was informing “The Lone Drinker” that her insults meant nothing to me (OK, I guess I was kind of “appealing to the authority” of my credentials then, whatever, that was a totally nonserious exchange). If you don’t want to believe in my alleged credentials, fine with me. It’s immaterial to anything I have to say here.
Keep in mind, if you don’t see the irony in that sentence from #821, it might be your fault not mine. As you are clearly predisposed to believe me a misogynist, you may simple be too unwilling to let your “irony meter” out and detect it. I grant you, my irony is often very subtle (in this case I really don’t think it is though), and maybe I am asking to much of people to get it, but I can’t help it. It’s just the way I talk.
In the case of the “ladies” remark, I really didn’t mean anything by that at all. I know very few women who are the least bit offended by that word. If you were, well, I’m sorry that I offended you, and if I had known, I probably would not have put it that way. But given my feelings on freedom of expression, I really can’t say I’m sorry about using the word in general. There are lots of things that members of the public might say that some groups might find offensive, but we cannot go around passing laws against it, we cannot go around villifying people for words they might use that some particular group, possibly unbeknowst to the speaker, might find offensive, and we cannot accuse the speakers of being bigots, when they meant no offense and in fact have no prejudices. And I believe that NOT because I am a misogynist, a racist, and anti-semite, or anything like that at all. I say it because I am a free speech absolutist, and I believe it is better to live in world with unrestricted expression and thought, than one where laws are passed to prevent hurting the feelings of perfectlhy competent adults, who should be able to handle their feelings being hurt. I don’t see how this makes me a misogynist. If you think it does, please explain to me how.
As for telling SC not to post, I was using her own words against her, because she said that was what she was going to do–and then proceeded to post at great length. I was making fun of her. Also, as should be clear from what I said at the end #803, I obviously didn’t mean it–the only one here who has the authority to forbid anybody from posting was PZ. So in a way, I was making fun of myself too, pretending to have an authority I clearly don’t have. Most of all, though, there was nothing misogynist about this, because it had nothing to do with SC being a woman. I would have said the same thing to anybody who claimed they were gonna stop posting, and then belied there own threat. If I missed something here, again, please tell me what it is.
As for the “marrying a rich guy” line, that was something I said in the midst of argumentation with SC, whilst dealing with her comments and arguments. I really don’t think you can blame someone for what they say in a debate. When you are in the heat of an argument, you put into use whatever is useful to defeat your opponent. In this case, I was basically being rather irreverent about SC’s comments and debating skills, and the fact that that little side comment had a slighty sexist twist to it, and in the middle of a debate about misogynist language, was just a way of pushing the irreverence a little further. It served a certain rhetorical purpose. I guess some might be offended by it, but again, I’m not going to constrain myself, in a situation like that, by not saying something that might be offensive to someone, if it’s useful to me, in that context, to say it. That doesn’t make me a bigot. Maybe it makes me insensitive a bit, but that’s not the same thing.
I’ve tried to address your position in #825. Since you’ve actually responded to me with something besides name calling (and yours and Nerd of Redheads are the first such posts on this thread), I’ve tried to address your substantive comments. I don’t think you have any right to call me a misogynist, and I think I’ve dealt with the issues you raised in #825 here. If you disagree, it would be nice if you would explain what I have failed to address.
And BTW, if you want I can explain the irony of that sentence from #821, just so you know I’m not making it up or grasping at straws. I still think it would be better if you figure it out for yourself.
Camboy, I didn’t read your argument, because if took that much space to make it, you didn’t have one. Still not showing any judgment.
As for the “marrying a rich guy” line, that was something I said in the midst of argumentation with SC, whilst dealing with her comments and arguments. I really don’t think you can blame someone for what they say in a debate. – Camboy
When you’re angry, your real self slips out. In your case, a disgusting misogynist. Not to mention a pompous, self-important, blithering idiot.
Nerd of Redhead:
The proof of the Feit-Thompson theorem, that every finite group of odd order is solvable, is 255 pages long. That is 255 pages of hard mathematics from start to finish. This is the most important theorem in finite group theory, and one of the most important theorems in all of mathematics. My post above is long, but it is not 255 pages. On the basis of the principle you just enunciated in #827, the proof of the Feit-Thompson theorem, in fact, contains no argument. And so I guess that means there is really no Feit-Thomson theorem. Am I following you correctly?
I think you better let the group theorists know about this.
Nick: I said I wasn’t going to reply to posts like yours, and I really shouldn’t, but I would just like to point out that you have no idea what I’m like when I’m angry–because I have never been angry when I have posted here. Why would I be? This is a blog for christ sake–I don’t care.
Oh, one other thing. I have my flaws, no doubt about it, but self-importance ain’t one of them. The only thing I care about is truth and its free discussion. If you look a little deeper at my posts, you’ll see that.
because I have never been angry when I have posted here. – Camboy
So you don’t even have that excuse for your disgusting misogyny.
I have my flaws, no doubt about it, but self-importance ain’t one of them.
Says the man who posts thousands of words of attempted self-justification.
wait
What?
Camboy, still not a good explanation why you need 1000 words to say “I’m a mild misogynist twit”, when the previous would suffice. If you don’t want your bad behavior mentioned, don’t make it public. Too much attempt at justification usually means you are guilty as charged.
Your posts just repeat the same tired old assertions over and over and over and over and over again. They don’t make any ‘arguments’. If the Feit-Thompson theorem had done the equivalent – repeating ad nauseum for 255 pages that 2+2=5 – it would have been laughed at and stuck in the ‘TimeCube’ file.
Camboy – You don’t care. Oh good.
Then don’t post here anymore, you misogynist little twit.
Sorry, man…not sure I’m keeping up…more irony?
“I don’t think you can blame someone for what they say in a debate.”
That deserves a gold medal.
#274
“what ails the “base” cannot be fixed retroactively. THe only ways to repair the damages these fools suffer from is in utero–or mebbe ‘ex utero,’ as in abortion.”
Oh, I see. The high minded, kind hearted, and humanitarian folks around here would censor those they do not understand with murder, before and after birth. You may want to consider that the people who are pro life and who do not believe they have been “punished” with babies and are not killing them, my end up out-numbering the mush brains that do avoid their punishment by killing their innocent unborn babies.
#733
Those mush brains who are trying to cast Gov. Palin as anti-science or anti-environment should have a look at her requests, including the one for seal & sea lion research. It seems earmarks are the only way your priorities can be funded.
You can’t have it both ways.
FYI: People have been known to learn, grow and change their positions on various subjects. I would think that the touchy-feely mush brains would admire that in anyone, including government officials.
#774
Fertility clinics are just another way to suck dollars out of the few that nature has said “no” to.
I’m thinking the allegiance that many mush brains seem have with nature, wouldn’t mush brains be skeptical of fertility clinics as well? Aren’t those doctors tinkering with evolution’s natural selection process?
#799
I’m illiterate? You can’t even spell “abiogenesis”.
The theory of evolution has changed over 150 years. So enlighten me. Has the theory of evolution now abandoned the “breathed life” part?
“Especially in the absence of any evidence of a designer”
oh, argument by negative proof. That always works.
“Which has exactly zero bearing on the validity of the Theory.”
But has everything to do with its popularity.
“But inroads are being made (Miller-Urey). Lack of results and or data on the subject does not automatically mean you can insert God as the answer, again especially with all evidence of God lacking.”
oh, argument by negative proof, again.
“As soon as someone can show actual design and prove it is design then the scientific community will be happy to embrace it.”
It seems you portray yourself as scientifically aware, but this remark of yours indicates that you have not heard of DNA. That looks pretty well designed to me.
#802
“There were none, moron; it’s a denialist lie. There was a small amount of discussion of the possibility. See..”
Where I found this:
“But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):
* 7 articles predicting cooling
* 44 predicting warming
* 20 that were neutral”
Let me tell you right up front. Google and Wikipedia are some of the most amazing things that have come from the tech boom. But I have to say that it probably won’t count as legitimate “research” when put to the test.
To that let me add that I was alive and well and an adult in the 1970s (not that you could from the way I acted at the time) and that I read, heard an saw the ‘global cooling’ soothsayers’ rhetoric for years, many more times than your ‘researchers’ found. When it got clobbered by the global warming crowd we, as in the general public, started hearing about warming instead.
Personally, I couldn’t care less about global warming or colling. In fact, I moved to Florida to get warmer winters. I own no ocean front property and my home is 26 feet above sea level. If global warming raises the level of the seas, it will be many generations before my decedents would have to move. Did I mention that it was cold last week?
But, hey, look on the bright side. Your candidate Obama air) has promised to bankrupt the coal industry. I wonder how many thousands of blue collar workers will be put on welfare due to it?
#803
Let’s talk about perspective for a moment.
Mr. Camboy starts his rant with “Well, this thread certainly is a goner (an insane week– no time for this blog ). Just as well, since I am not interested in getting in any extended discussions on this blog.”
Then pounds out 6,558 words!
I don’t want to be around in the occasion where he has time to kill. geez.
Too funny
Vote McCain/Palin or there won’t be enough government money (read: taxpayer dollars) for science related earmarks after Obama gives it all in payola to his friends in Chicago, and to Iran and Cuba to avoid confrontations.
You’re ignorant, Mover, but you have just managed to condense the entire argument in favor of ID creationism into just 8 words. Nice job!
Can you sort of see, though, how that’s not a scientific argument? Unlike–completely unlike–the case to be made for biological evolution, and even for abiogenesis?
#795
“Ignorance + arrogance really pushes my buttons.”
And yet, you do not recognize it in yourself.
You neeed to be careful of detecting false positives, Mover, as nothing Sven said there was either ignorant or arrogant in the least.
It is a simple fact that what you said is clearly ignorant of scientific knowledge, and Sven stated it calmly, patiently, and factually, not arrogantly.
However, both of your demonstrated errors (ignorance of science and hypersensitivity to false positives on ignorance and arrogance) are fixable, if you are willing to invest the time and effort to gain knowledge of the world around you.
Oh my so much fail in one post. There are likely to be typos following this as I need to run out but I just couldn’t resist.
“mush-brains” Way to support your points.
What an amazingly insensitive and ignorant position to take. Should people who are sick not see a doctor because that’s what nature “intended” for them? my question was more what do you think of the embryos that are left there frozen, but i guess you answered that question indirectly.
That’s one of the seriously dumbest things I’ve read today.
Wrong. Not argument by negative proof. You really should understand a concept before you bring it out in an argument thinking it will make you come off as intelligent or informed. If anything , you are using the argument by negative proof, and argument by god of the gaps or even argumentum ad ignorantiam if you prefer.
Seriously. That failure of logic alone exposes your utter arrogance of ignorance.
If we don’t yet have an explanation for it and you automatically say designer lacking any evidence or data to support that or claiming there isn’t any evidence to deny it, That is argument by negative proof. It is not argument by negative proof when you require evidence for something before you choose that option.
Again which has NOTHING to do with how correct the theory is so your point means exactly nothing.
See above.
So of course because you think it looks designed means it is. How about some science to back that up instead of just claiming it is so. Look up the blind watchmaker and refer back to Argument ad ignoratum some equivocation and even a form of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because you as a human perceive patterns where they do and don’t exist, as humans are prone to do, does not mean that it is designed. Again especially with nothing to back your assertion.
You sound like a scientist who gets a lot of federal funding.
You shouldn’t be surprised that there are people who think using federal tax dollars for research is not the place for government (because it isn’t).
Furthermore, to take those taxpayer dollars and send them to France, of all places. Let the French subsidize their own research.
There are plenty of businesses, private enterprises, universities and the like that will fund research.
Yes, it is harder than simply gorging at the government trough but don’t pretend that people who have a philosophical difference on how to fund research and use taxpayer dollars wisely are “anti-science”.
You just make yourself sound like an ivory tower intellectual who is out of touch with people who actually have to produce goods and services to earn a living.
Reality Hammer, too smart to read up about what the research is for.
Professor
/eyeroll Says who?
You obviously haven’t been paying attention.
Again you haven’t been paying attention to what research they have been targeting.
#842:
oO
Camboy,
Despite your delusions, we have never been in an argument or debate. In fact, I stated quite plainly several days ago that I was not and had no intention of engaging with you. I’ll borrow PZ’s words:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/shes_baaaack.php#comment-1188474
You claim to respect me and my intelligence, despite referring to me in your first post as a “humorless* twat.” Well, that respect isn’t mutual. I thought you were a creep after that first comment, and nothing you’ve said in the torrent of words since has changed that perception (much has reinforced it).
I will not reply to your endless, meandering defense, which more than substantive arguments offered that rare combination of aggression and sulkiness, protestations of apathy and pleas for understanding, and veering between self-righteous indignation and pouty attempts to explain or justify bad behavior usually only found in regrettable late-night, wine-fueled post-breakup emails. Your “rebuttals,” such as they were, consisted primarily of a confused rehashing of arguments that had already been made and discussed and attempts to refute strawman versions my earlier posts. The only statement to which I feel it necessary to respond – and which provides the clearest evidence of your utter inability to derive meaning from text – is your repeated claim that I said I was going to stop posting (on this thread or this blog) and then went back on that threat. As I pointed out above, I never claimed that. Can you read? I never claimed that. Stop telling lies about me.
*I don’t think I want to know what anyone would find humorous in calling a woman a “dumb cunt” or a “stupid bitch.”
*clenched-fist salute*
Posted by: SC | November 4, 2008 12:18 AM
*I don’t think I want to know what anyone would find humorous in calling a woman a “dumb cunt” or a “stupid bitch.”
We are not able to understand because women are stupid.
We are not able to understand because women are stupid.
(Couldn’t resist, knowing what a big fan you are, Janine. :P)
Damn! This is one hell of a night for a troll infestation.
There’s kack everywhere.
Thanks SC, I enjoyed that too!
Sort of sounds like Dr. Johns eko eko iaa. :o)
How sweet, someone remembered my anti-Dead screed.
I will call your Dead and raise it to The Carpenters.
I will call your Dead and raise it to The Carpenters.
I’m out. That’s a straight flush. Sheer cheesy insanity. Beats even this:
Wow. Welcome back, JeffreyD, you’ve been missed. I hope you’re well.
JefferyD!!!
Oh welcome back!
Big bosomy hugs, and a smooch. I missed you.
Welcome back, JeffreyD, you’ve been missed. I hope you’re well.
What he said. Sorry I missed you over the weekend, JeffreyD – I was away. Hope you’ll be back around more!
It would seem reasonable to expect that “douche” or “douchebag” would have developed into misogynistic slurs, but for whatever reason this hasn’t been the case. They’re more commonly applied to males, and they’re not generally seen as offensive to/by women. Before I posted my response to your comment, I did a quick online search, and the discussions I found among other women confrimed this. I would be happy to consider evidence to the contrary.
See http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2006/04/26/godbags-douche-bags-and-old-bags-and-why-it-matters/
See…
But see this:
http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/?inc=article&id=549&x=little-douche-scoop&_c=a-e–pop-tart
and the comments here:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/010494.html
I’ve never called anyone a douche bag in my life. But then I’ve never called anyone a Kotex or jockstrap either.
How stupid would it sound to call somebody a big ol’ pantyhose or a boxer.
I don’t like douche bag as an insult, but people aren’t going to quit using it.
I wasn’t endorsing the argument, just providing it. I avoid the term rather than have to defend it based on one side of an etymological debate.
It would seem reasonable to expect that “douche” or “douchebag” would have developed into misogynistic slurs, but for whatever reason this hasn’t been the case.
See http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/09/04/on-douchebags/
She goes on to defend its use.
Well of course I take exception to douche being the same as trollop.
We sluts stand in solidarity with the trollops.
I’ve never called anyone a douche bag in my life. But then I’ve never called anyone a Kotex or jockstrap either.
Ever called anyone a scumbag?
We sluts stand in solidarity with the trollops.
And we appreciate it.
Woot!!1 A little fat man in the morning!
He do rock.
(Of course, the Harry Belafonte version of that tune sets the bar…ooh and there it is, in #853. I’m sorry, I cannot bear to view the Carpenters’ version. I am weak.)
SC – Humm… I’ll have to think about that one. Scumbag isn’t high on the list of my usual slurs. I tend more towards the Edwardian terms, I’m a Stephen Fry fan.
#841
“”mush-brains” Way to support your points.”
I attended a class on the proper techniques used to convey main points of the training I was instructing. The first rule is to talk to people in terms they will understand. I see so much name calling going on here, that I thought it only appropriate to join in.
“What an amazingly insensitive and ignorant position to take.”
It is? I’m thinking it’s a pragmatic, straight forward statement of fact, unadorned with religious implications. Once again, I’m trying to speak on a certain level of understanding.
“Should people who are sick not see a doctor because that’s what nature “intended” for them?”
Ridiculous. Do you know anyone who speaks for nature’s intentions?
“my question was more what do you think of the embryos that are left there frozen, but i guess you answered that question indirectly.”
I do not subscribe to the cult of death, described by me as groups of people, like some Democrat supporters, who believe that no life, human or other animal, has any sanctity. No “rights” above other people’s sense of convenience, or especially, their sense of being punished. Where we all are just fertilizer, waiting our turn in the garden. People who, in their own minds, can justify any act of selfishness in order to make themselves feel better and make life more convenient for them. And I do not claim to know when life begins or if/when a fertilized human egg has any “right to life”. I don’t believe anyone else knows when life begins either.
This what I know about frozen fertilized embryos:
I do know that a fertilized human egg is a living creature.
I do know that a fertilized human egg can be nothing other than a human being if nature takes its course, unencumbered by expert human interference.
I know that death is final. No changing your mind afterwards.
I know that everyone makes mistakes.
I know that I will make my mistakes faulting on the side of life, regardless of the consequences.
So, when you ask what I think of extra frozen human embryos, assembled as insurance policies for the clinic to try to make good on their promises (and to collect their fees) if at first they don’t succeed, I can answer is that it is a thought provoking issue. (probably above your pay grade, eh?)
Some choices are:
Just destroy them?
Use them for experiments (destroying them)?
Implant them in someone else who is willing and find out if there are any great scientists, Nobel Laureates, leaders, etc. in there? Or, maybe burdens on society?
Do they have souls? (ha, ha, just ignore that one. We wouldn’t want anyone to go ballistic around here)
I do not presume to know what is the correct moral stand to impose on this issue, but I would vote not to kill them for any supposed high minded reasons, or just not create them in the first place (for profit).
“Again which has NOTHING to do with how correct the theory is so your point means exactly nothing.”
Opinions are like rear ends, and yours stinks. Ha ha, take that Mr Evil :)
“That’s one of the seriously dumbest things I’ve read today.”
And yet, you did not answer the question.
“Wrong. Not argument by negative proof.”
Really.
Religious people provide no scientific “proof” of a higher being, according to those who pray at the alter of Darwin, and you and yours use this to promote your own belief that their is no higher being. Your argument is the absence of proof. How can it be anything else? All that evolution shows is that things change and that we are all related.
“Again especially with nothing to back your assertion.”
A design is a design. All of your ranting can’t change it. No need to get your panties in a bunch. Chill. Have another lude.
Thus spoketh Mover:
Religious people provide no scientific “proof” of a higher being, according to those who pray at the alter of Darwin, and you and yours use this to promote your own belief that their is no higher being. Your argument is the absence of proof. How can it be anything else? All that evolution shows is that things change and that we are all related.
If you knew the first think about biology, you would know one does not need to know much about Charles Darwin to be in the field. It is like any other field of science, those who make major progress in any field of knowledge gets left behind. This is because the knowledge they gain gives everybody else more tools to work with. There is no worship of Darwin. Bur he is highly regarded by many for that rare ability to take the ideas floating about at that time and combine them with first hand experience to better explain reality.
Every thing you have prattled on about rests on the above paragraph. Yet you are so wrong. You have no understanding of those you oppose. So you try to fit them into the roles you are familiar with. You have nothing except the question you do not want to face; what designed your designer?
There’s this great little thing called the null hypothesis. Basically in the absence of evidence, there’s no reason to believe. In a world with no evidence for the supernatural why believe in Yahweh over Thor, Ra, Zeus, Mazda, Brahman, The Giant Rainbow Serpent, or Ziltoid The Omniscience? There’s no evidence for any of them and thus no reason to believe.
Your argument is the absence of proof.
No, it’s the absence of reasons.
A design is a design.
How profound. But what matters is that designs demonstrably can result from unintelligent processes.
Mover, still trying to push your godbot/neocon agenda. The election returns have started coming in, so you are too late to change minds.
Mover, I am a working scientist, and you had a few lies in your last post. First of all, science does not prove or disprove the alleged existence of god, and cannot use god as an explanation. Science and theology divorced a couple of centuries ago. Religion has a problem when they try to adhere to the myths written down in millennia old books when present knowledge shows those books to be wrong. Secondly, there is no alter to Darwin. Creationists/IDers keep mentioning Darwinism. Frankly, I don’t know what they are talking about. Science reveres Darwin to the extent that he put together many disciplines and described evolution in general terms. Darwin got many things wrong, and didn’t have the knowledge of genes and DNA for the actual mechanism for change. So science has added greatly to Darwin’s description of evolution, and has gotten way beyond, a 140 years beyond, the science presented by Darwin. So trying to call evolution Darwinism is a pure lie.
If you wish to demonstrate ID, the first thing you have to do is to define who/what you mean by designer. Is it an advanced alien, or god. First define that. If you mean god, then you have to prove god in order to use god as an explanation. But science does not allow god to be used as an explanation, so any ID theory using god is unscientific. If evolution is overthrown, a Nobel prize is waiting for the author of the first paper with the new theory. Why isn’t there any papers in journals like Nature and Science, where Nobel prize winning work is often published? The answer is simple. There is not a competing scientific theory out there. ID is a religious theory, and science properly ignores it because it is religious.
And the award for the most redundant tautological statement made this year goes to… Mover
Of course design is design, it’s whether design can come about through natural processed. And we were quite clearly designed by the process of evolution (just look at the eye), just as the earth was designed by gravity. Design does not require an intelligent force, it just requires a force.
“Mover, still trying to push your godbot/neocon agenda.”
I don’t have a godbot/neocon agenda.
My agenda is a country that follows the laws, instead of making them up as you go alone.
I’m against an Obama presidency because he has no clue about anything, other than debating, including the US Constitution. And he’s a lawyer.
Have you heard his recorded interview on PBS in Chicago? He didn’t think that Warren Court at all radical, even though they created “rights” out of thin air. He was disappointed that the Court didn’t impose “economic justice” on this country. That translates to requiring those working Americans to tithe to the government so he and his bureaucrats can give handouts to those they decide are worthy of it.
Well, now he’ll get his change to put some radicals on the US Supreme Court.
Mover, only a neocon would call Obama a radical. I know what radicals are, since the radical movement was going on when I was an undergraduate. Obama is just slightly to left of center, which makes him light years away from being a radical.
All neocons see themselves as middle of the road, rather than to the right as they are on any political continium. Just another untruth from you.
Posted by: Mover | November 5, 2008 11:05 AM
I don’t have a godbot/neocon agenda.
My agenda is a country that follows the laws, instead of making them up as you go alone.
Humans have always made up laws as they went along. Where else are they going to come from?
Ooooohhh wait a second. I think I get it.
(Looks up to the sky)
They are handed down to us from above.
-snort-
Quoting SC (in response to Walton):
“Of course you did, asshole.”
This coming from a woman complaining about the use of the term “bitch”.
Is the word “asshole” sexist?
It usually attributed to men, but no, it’s not sexist.
And why are people pretending that there aren’t gender specific insults? You’re a dickhead if you’re a guy and you’re a bitch if you’re a woman. Big fucking deal. Let the recipient of the insult feel insulted. God dammit.
Seeing that this thread came to an end a couple of days ago, this must have really been chewing on you. Also, just because one means an insult does not mean the recipient feels it.
I’ve just started reading this thread.
Randy, in message 11 wrote, in reply to my observation right at the start of these comments that the research Palin had heard about was not about genetic research, but research into fruit flies as agcricultural pests:
“Benson, Does it matter?
one leads to medical and other breakthroughs, the other leads to economic development by helping an important industry (agriculture) avoid collapse. ”
Yes, it does matter. It matters to PZ Myer’s vituperative rant about Palin being against genetic research in fruit flies. Surely people can see that this kind of ranting is just a little too quick, given that the research that led to her mocking attitude was not research using fruit fly models in genetics like he was going on about?
To fix the argument, though, I believe all that has to be done is to observe that the evidence strongly suggests that Plain is ignorant of all kinds of fruit fly research and thus would ignorantly condemn all kinds of it as “useless to the public good”. Because, if she had heard of genetic research, and thought it not useless, in order to look like she was criticizing it, she would have to have qualified her statement to avoid people taking her for a person who thought such genetic research to be useless. That she didn’t make any such sort of qualification at all suggests that she really is as ignorant as PZ Myers is claiming. But it isn’t as evident as he claims, and he did not do due diligence on this issue.
The truly ignorant buffoons are those equivocating on the issue of the kind of fruit fly research Palin was talking about. It was NOT the kind that may help in finding cures for Autism. It was research in finding ways to DESTROY the olive fruit fly that was detrimental to olive crops! People really need to stop the blind insanity and equivocations and deal with things factually.
Lrg prdcts whlsl sl, prvds cstmrs dmnd