I’m in trouble now — I have drawn the ire of Massimo Pigliucci. I’d be chagrined if it weren’t such an ineffectual criticism that is mainly Pigliucci doing a little foot-shooting. I’ve also annoyed Ronald Lindsay of the CFI (as well as several other people associated with CFI), but his criticism is even feebler. Somehow, CFI has the idea that ferocious criticism of CFI staff is to be discouraged — because we are generally on the same side, we’re apparently supposed to be in solidarity on everything.
That’s not going to happen. I support the CFI; I criticize the CFI. I also support the NCSE; and I criticize the NCSE. If you’re on the side of science, reason, skepticism, etc., all the good stuff I value, that doesn’t mean you can expect me to complacently go along with everything you say (and vice versa, of course). The whole idea that advocates for critical thinking get an extra-special free pass from criticism with hearts and unicorns on it, just because we share common goals, is the antithesis of critical thought. Am I going to continue to be mean and cruel and judgmental against even my own allies? Hell, yes.
There’s a cliche that I hear all the time, and that I despise because it is so trite — organizing atheists is like herding cats. I die a little inside every time I hear it because it is so old, but also because it is inaccurate. Everyone seems to picture masses of willful domestic cats wanting to scurry off to play with yarn or chase down mice; it’s just not right. Organizing atheists is like herding lions, or at least ideally it should be. What we want is a community of fiercely independent, roaring, wrestling, arguing, fighting freethinkers; cross them, and you will get rhetorically mauled, and our battles are not about polite batting about with little kitty paws at issues, but should involve claws and fangs and uncompromising forcefulness. Everyone who is complaining that the harshness of the debate degrades the discourse, get stuffed; I think the call to weaken the vigor of the disagreement is the real degradation here.
But back to Pigliucci. I am deeply underwhelmed. His entire complaint is about goddamned tone; he even advises me to look up rational thoughtful discourse in the dictionary, as if I should be swayed by bloodless definitions. He also trots out dictionary definitions of some of the insulting terms I used, as I was unaware of their meaning, or needed some reminder that they were perhaps a bit excessive. Nope. I knew what they meant and meant what I said. De Dora was foolish, stupid, lacking in strength of character, and indulging in masturbatory sloppiness while contributing to the cause of the enemies of reason. I’m not backing down because Pigliucci has a dictionary.
What this is actually about is that De Dora is a personal friend of Pigliucci’s, a contributor to his blog, and he is part of the administration at CFI. We apparently are supposed to be nice to such connected people. Sorry, but you don’t get to be stupid because you have friends in high places. Pigliucci seems to understand this, because he feels free to insult me (or perhaps my friends aren’t quite high enough), and it undermines his whole argument; it is silly to make a high-minded complaint that I used insulting words against a friend while using plenty of insults against me…which is fine, by the way, it just means that his principled argument about tone and form is a load of horsepuckey.
So forget the whole complaint about tone. Let’s deal with the substance. This is where we differ, and where I think De Dora is an idiot. This is all about a dunderheaded creationist complaining about a textbook that called his superstition a “myth”. Here’s the full quote from the book, Tobin and Dusheck’s Asking About Life(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll):
In the 1970s and 1980s, antievolutionists in Arkansas, Tennessee and Louisiana passed identical bills calling for “equal time” for teaching evolution and creationism, the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian god in six days. But a court ruled that the “equal-time” bill was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the separation of church and state.
And to put it in perspective, that was a small part of a two page section of the text that summarizes the legal history of efforts to keep creationism out of the public schools. It is not a book that condemns Christianity, carries on a crusade to abolish religion, or calls believers delusional; it is moderate, entirely polite in tone (praise Jesus! It meets the most important criterion of the faitheists!), and plainly describes an entirely relevant legal and social issue for biologists in non-judgmental terms. It does use the accurate, factual term “myth” for what creationists are peddling, and that’s as harsh as it gets. It is exactly what the less rude proponents of evolution teaching should want.
But no. All it takes is one indignant creationist (One! Who doesn’t even get any headway with the local schoolboard!) to complain, and what kind of support does a reasonable and polite statement in a textbook get from the intellectual cowards — a phrase I use in complete awareness of the meaning of each word, thank you very much — who want to run away from any conflict? De Dora whines, ‘well, he has a point’. Pigliucci makes a worthless complaint about knowing our epistemological boundaries, implying that the statement of fact in Tobin and Dusheck is a violation of the separation of church and state. On one side, a creationist who is offended that a science textbook is not sufficiently deferential towards his superstition; on the other, science, which refutes his claims at every step, and a textbook which lists court cases and says that creationism is a myth. In the middle, De Dora and Pigliucci, siding with the creationist.
If a science teacher can’t even flatly state that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000, because philosophers will complain about epistomological boundaries, we’re doomed. If the effect of biology on society can’t even be mentioned in a textbook, then the relevance of the science is being sacrificed on the altar of religious submission. Getting enmired in these pointless philosophical “subtleties” when the facts are staring you in the face is a recipe for the further gutting of science education in this country.
We don’t need to teach atheism in the science classroom — and I’ve said often enough that I don’t, and don’t endorse such activities — but we do need to be forthright about the conclusions of science. We cannot give religion so much unwarranted privilege that it is treated as a special category, in which the pronouncements of faith may not be contradicted at all, in even the mildest, politest manner, by a science teacher…but this is precisely what De Dora and Pigliucci are advocating when they rush to support a young-earth creationist who objects to any discussion of the social context of evolutionary biology. I guarantee you that Kurt Zimmerman was not exercising subtle thinking and thoughtfully contemplating the inappropriateness of a specific epistomological issue in his kid’s textbook. He was being an ignorant ass, nothing more.
I’m afraid Michael De Dora is not fighting the same battles I am. I read a number of his articles, and his biggest concern seems to be running away from any confrontation, making excuses for the other side, and suggesting that the people in the front lines who are smacking around our opponents are making way too much noise. He’s not on my side at all, but seems to be helping the other guys far more. And suggesting that I shouldn’t treat him as a nuisance and a collaborator with nonsense because he’s somebody’s friend is not going to hold me back at all.
Your blog, your rules, but it makes you a hypocrite. You complain about being expelled from a cinema for your opinions, but you’re happy to expel me for stating my opinions. Go on dickhead, ban me, prove I’m right.
Ah crap – posting after someone dares PZ to dungeonify them….and I had a serious question…well I’ll try anyway.
I read the Beyesian and Popper stuff. But I’m still not sure where scientific philosophy is going. Can anyone recommend a nice overview or history of both science practice and science theory?
oh and bye kirby…buh bye.
See, nothing but hypocrites hiding cowardly behind pseudonyms. They see nothing wrong in banning someone for his stated opinions and reasoning. Stupdity seem to run this place of big chickens.
MK:
PZ wouldn’t ban you for stating your opinions. He may ban you for being a dumb, boring troll, which is different.
I think PZ was telling you that you don’t have to agree with his judgment that you’ve committed bannable offenses. He’s the judge. He’s not perfect, but he does strive to be fair, and when it comes down to it, he makes the call, not you, and not anybody else.
That wouldn’t prove you right, dumbass. Your taunting PZ in that particularly stupid way is itself the kind of trolling that should get you banned, if you keep it up rather than trying to say something on topic and worth hearing. Not because you’re cussing at PZ, or because you’re criticizing him, but because you’re pigheadedly doing it wrong—e.g., asserting that it would prove something it woudn’t.
P.S. I strongly advise you to reconsider using your real name for trolling, or even posting comments in ways that are likely to be perceived as trolling by somebody who’s not paying close attention. If I was a potential employer I’d google you, and if I found this kind of stupid trolling, I would not hire you. Don’t expect potential employers to agree with your opinions, or to agree that your behavior is justified, even if you are quite sure you’re entirely in the right on both counts. You might be, but just as it’s PZ’s call whether to ban you, it’s an employer’s option not to hire you.
(Likewise, potential dates are likely to google you and not like what they see. They too may judge you harshly, fairly or not. That happens all the time these days.)
One of the reasons people dismiss you as a clueless noob is your apparent lack of understanding of the legitimate value of pseudonymity. There’s a very good reason we have a constitutional right to publish opinions pseudonymously, and actually doing so has a glorious history.
Meyrick, remember that abusive language gets in the way of serious discussions.
I am not hiding…but posting any real info on internets is not safe. I have not even been following the Kirby part of the discussion (couldn’t care less – some days I check for new witty put downs but could not get up the interest – too cold and gloomy around here for that). Been off reading the Philosophy stuff, as noted.
I just know that peeps who ask to be banned are typically granted their wish (and usually pronto) and was wishing you fond adieu. If there was an emoticon for wavy hand I woulda put it there too.
So, stop yer snarlin at me. For all I know you are getting yourself banned for snapping at innocents and general grumpiness. I was just on the look, for a book.
While I agree with much of what is said in this article, there is a potentially sticky little point here where I do not.
First, no one human represents all the skills necessary for a human to survive, particularly in society as it exists today. As such, humans must be able to form a cooperative structure to survive.
My place of contention is that sometimes, the supposed needs of an individual or individuals may run counter to the needs of the cooperative structure itself. Upon reaching that situation, “herding lions” is not a good thing.
I would point out that the antivaccine “fringe” have a big component that is upper-class, educated people who believe that having a strong, loud “freethinking and informed” opinion exempts them from the needs of their fellow man without realizing that they have shot themselves in the foot.
Freethinking is okay, but it must be tempered with an awareness of the insufficiency of an individual. Freethinking coupled with arrogance is a recipe for disaster because it makes it difficult for someone to tell such a person when they have made a mistake and that they are wrong. I don’t think an arrogant freethinker is ultimately better for our world than the arrogant pious.
I’m going to post my info request over on zombiethread too…
PZ… I am so sorry.
I actually spoke the “herding cats” line to your face at a breakfast last year at SOU in Ashland. I am mortified.
I really like the Lion idea. Roar.
I see MK is still trolling. What a loser. If he actually had some evidence…
And where is your evidence your published? I asked hours ago, still nothing! Another hypocrite … no surprise.
holy fuck, this converdsation is stupid. Kirby is totally incapable of understanding that no one gives a flying fuck about his “abusive” language, and that what made us think he’s a creobot were his inane arguments, not a single impolite word.
And then he thinks it’s his opinion that’ll get him banned, not the pretending and the wanking.
And it seems he thinks that the description of historical/judicial determination of creationism as unscientific and irrelevant doesn’t belong in a science book, because instead we should treat religion as something unscientific and irrelevant.
And lastly, he seems to think that Britain (and Europe in general) is secular because it practices NOMA. fucking laughable.
Jadehawk:
You’re the wanker for understand bone obvious points of philosophy.
You call me a wanker and you don’t even know what the word means. What a dumb fucker!
What the fuck do you know about Europe? Been there? Read any history?
I’ve posted a series of questions:
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2010/04/questions-for-accomodationists.html
I hope I get a few answers, since I haven’t to these and similar questions in the past. Although I say that this program seems to me dishonest, it’s not an attack. I’m trying to understand where people are coming from, since “I don’t believe it, but we should respect the belief and epistemic system that produced it” doesn’t make sense to me.
I give up. Josh, Nerd and Jadehawk are clearly ignorant prats. Simple thought experiments go through one ear and out the other with them. Read a fucking book sometime. Take a course at university or something.
Sorry fuckwit, evidence is physical, not philosophical. What a loser. One would think he has no understanding that science is all about the physical evidence, or lack thereof…
Meyrick Kirby:
This, you said, was your main point, no?
Saying the Earth was created in six literal days is possible to test for, right? And saying that the Earth was created 6000 years ago is a testable claim too, is it not? What it was created by does not matter so much as the original claim of the Earth being 6000 years which is clearly false. Your subsequent claims that either a being was tricking us into believing the world was billions of years old or that something may happen that will refute what we know are the untestable claims. In other words, we can test for the Earth being 6000 years, but we cannot test for supernatural beings playing tricks on us, nor can we know what we don’t know yet (obviously).
Creationism belongs to the category of falsity and myth because it did originally make a testable claim that has been refuted and involves a religious narrative. Thus, it does not belong in a science class for the same reason that phlogiston does not belong in a science class, other then as a history lesson.
I can still invent a scenario where phlogiston theory is true (invisible fairies are hiding the phlogiston particles from us, thus everything we know about heat is actually wrong), but the idea loses its testability at this point.
Creationism is myth because it involves a (false) claim using a supernatural entity in it. Note that both the fairy-phlogiston idea and creationism only lose their testability when we insert a scenario in which something interferes with the accuracy of the senses of all of humanity (supernatural beings, unknown creatures, and unknown factors). When we no longer have fidelity in our collective senses (though not necessarily individual senses which is why science relies on the replicability of an experiment) to view the world with, a hypothesis becomes untestable.
The fundamental error in your point is giving primacy to the idea of religion itself being untestable, thus not being able to make any predictions within the system which are themselves testable. The grand religious narrative, with enough exegesis, is indeed untestable currently, but some claims within the text, religious claims or not, are indeed testable (e.g. pi equals 3). Thus, creationism can be said to be false and mythological in the same way as any other testable but wrong religious idea can.
Herding cats.
Herding cats.
Four-year-old:
And don’t let the door hit ya where the dog should have bit ya.
Back to our regularly scheduled argument. I like Scott Hatfield’s comment and, even better, comment 127.
Then some people say that this is rote learning. Well, we teach children to count their change when they buy something, right? This is the scientific equivalent of being able to make (or count) change.
Fuck off Kirby. You’re intentional attempts at martyrdom are just the latest in your little game of “see how much I can fuck with people at a random blog”, to go along with your pretending to be a creationinst, and playing the “can’t prove a negative” game that would render all science completely useless. You’re just a fucking shit-stirrer and we’ll do well to be rid of you, whether by your own doing or by that of PZ… and if you think playing little games like “banning me will prove my point” will buy you a stay of execution, you clearly don’t know PZ.
If PZ was going to ban you for having a different opinion, you’d have been gone after about your third post.
If PZ was going to ban you for being insulting, you’d have been gone after your first post.
If PZ was going to ban you for merely trolling you’d have been gone after your admission of doing so several hundred comments ago.
If PZ was going to ban you for being a boring, repetitive wanker, you’d have been bammed at least 200 comments ago.
That you are still here removes any and all right for you to make any false claims of persecution.
If PZ bans you now, it will have been well deserved, and will be for the unyielding repetition of all the offenses listed above. It will be because you are a boring, repetitive, muddled-thinking, dishonest, tone-concerned, shit-stirring troll.
So why don’t you just save him the trouble and fuck right off already.
Sorry about the double post.
Dear Mr. Kirby,
I would like to enquire as to your response to the hypothetical example of someone objecting to the use of ‘theory’ as a technical term, as opposed to its colloquial meaning, in a textbook – saying in effect that it isn’t correct to call gravity an unproven conjecture?
Would it be correct to remove or alter the word ‘theory’ in that case?
Kirby –
There… fixed that for ya…
Sigh…
you’re –> your in #521…
*shakes fist at the chimp*
I feel so…ignored. *sniff*
Meyrick Kirby #515
If several people are all telling you basically the same thing and nobody is agreeing with you, maybe the fault isn’t with them.
For instance, you’re still insisting that abusive language is what set everyone off even though you’ve been told, many times by many people that it wasn’t a consideration. Perhaps, just perhaps, these people know what their reactions to your abusive language are. I realize it’s an absurd concept that the great Kirby (the peace of Derrida be upon him) might be wrong, but consider it as a Gedankenexperiment.
Kanteloupe:
Two books I can thoroughly recommend are A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson, and The Big Bang by Simon Singh.
Great reads, both of them. In truth, though, you could go along to Pop Science section of any bookshop where a plethora of riches awaits.
I reckon that the standard of the books you will find there will delight you – science writing is of an exceptionally high standard generally.
The BBC continues to make science programmes of great interest – recent series included a history of surgery, the cell, and chemistry, a currently running one with Brian Cox on astronomy, and even an upcoming one on the whole history of science.
(Not available world-wide, unfortunately…)
Happy reading/watching!
“wanking”, first from the bottom.
ooooh yeah!!
*makes notch on score board*
ok, if I get called a “stoopid American who doesn’t know shit about Europe” one more time, it’ll draw even with the times I’ve been called a “stoopid European who doesn’t know shit about America” :-)
trolls are so predictable.
But have you ever been called a stoopid north hemispheran who doesn’t know shit about Botswana? :)
well, at least that would be accurate, hehe…
So, if you went to the Discovery Institute and everyone started telling you that you were wrong about ID, that would mean you are wrong?
Appently Jade is a world expert on Europe. Okay, why is Europe atheist? Because of it’s history of militant atheism?
As for me being a wanker, exactly where do I congratulate myself? You’re simply an idiot who says the first think that comes into the pee sized brain inside that six inch skull.
kirby, the great mindreader, who knows what we think better than we do. obviously it must be the one measly, unimaginative “insult” that made us think he’s a creobot; because he says so. clearly all of us not agreeing with his assessment of the situation, means we’re a hivemind. Can’t possibly mean kirby is wrong, because kirby is never wrong, and he knows people better than they know themselves.
Yep, accusations are made, and no evidence provided. You lot are no different than the creationists. You belong together. No wonder many atheists despise the militant types.
@kantalope
Well, you could try Evolution of Epidemiologic Ideas: Annotated Readings on Concepts and Methods by Sander Greenland or Causal inference by Kenneth J. Rothman (it may sound strange but there’s been a lot of thinking about it in epidemiology).
Otherwise, you could take a look to the chapter “Is falsifiability the touchstone of scientific rationality ? Karl Popper versus inductivism” by Adolf Grünbaum in Essays in memory of Imre Lakatos (available on Google books, p. 213).
Or take a look in the PhilSci Archives (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/).
Or ask Andrew Gelman (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2004/10/bayes_and_poppe.html). Probably better to ask on his Scienceblogs blog, though.
Now, why do I have the feeling you had an emotional hard-on to get to that conclusion, and so constructed your stupid little game here just to give yourself an excuse to say it?
Tired.
That is you to a “T” MK. Evidence is your Achilles heel. You have none, and you opinion is worthless. What a loser….
Hey, but at least MK had a great rebuttal to my post at #494!
His point in responding to that was…
…
Um, ok, he didn’t.
But I know why.
It was because I used terribly rude language such as…
…
Well, heck, can’t use that excuse either.
@#152 (yes, Meyrick Kirby)
To what possible end? And apparently you agree there is evidence to contradict it so why are you still here bothering us? We’ve all fallen for the divine joke so there’s no point continuing this. Someone above said ignorance is curable and that’s true but stupid is forever! Just think, Meyrick, you’ll be stupid for eternity.
Of course, the question wasn’t about atheism but secularism, to the extent that these countries are secular. But with regard to both secularism and atheism, Europe has a long history of “militant” atheism and anticlerical action by anarchists, Marxists, radical republicans, and the like. What makes you this this hasn’t played an important role?
Speaking of evidence…
There are a lot of examples where getting entirely pissed off and vocal have propelled movements to the forefront of national consciousness and accomplished change. Suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights, etc.
What are the examples where playing nice and accommodating have accomplished the same scale of change? What can Pigliucci and Mooney and even Plait and the rest point to as one single example of that approach working? Anything? Anywhere? They keep claiming that the kind and soothing let’s-all-hug approach is the best, but from what historical evidence? I see none to support that, and an awful lot against it.
BDN and Tis Himself: thanks good starting places.
BBC has all the good education stuff. My Ipod bursts at the seams with BBC podcasts. Wish our public TV could still come up with stuff like COSMOS.
Carlie #542
But Carlie, you don’t understand. If we upset the goddists they won’t respect us. Whereas if we’re nice to them, like Pigliucci et al want, they’ll become nice to us.
Of course what Pigliucci et al go out of their way to ignore is our very existence is an affront to many goddists. So what the Pigliucci bunch really want us to do is go back into the closet.
ooops that was AnthonyK not tis himself one post above,
Thanks Anthony
You’re welcom….
Oh. Never mind.
indeed; the Enlightenment itself was an anticlerical movement of this type.
Now add greater economic security and the much wider existence of non-religious social capital building communities, and voila, a secular(-ish) continent!
I think you are right, ‘Tis. Pigliucci & co. don’t seem to understand that theocentrism runs deep in our culture where the general assumption, almost anywhere you go in the USA, is that you are a theist or wooist of some sort while being an atheist or skeptic has long been seen as taboo (unless you are rich, just like it has been for Teh Gayz). So, it doesn’t matter if you come out meekly or with a bang, it will still shock people because our culture does not prepare people for encounters with godlessness (not the same as being anti-Jesus/God).
Pigliucci and De Dora don’t want the godlessness of science to shock people, so they are fine with never confronting erroneous beliefs and toning down their own beliefs, but what’s more, you should be fine with it, too. Again, they fail to realize that it will always be upsetting to someone in a culture where atheism and skepticism are marginalized. And this accommodationism they spout (along with Meyrick Kirby) really seems like the more dangerous position to take because it suggests that not enlightening people is beneficial to the future of society and humanity.
I can see, in everday life, that being accomodationist is fine – I mean it would be stupid and entirely unproductive for me to go out and picket church services, or for groups of atheists to attempt street prozletyising, for example.
I can also understand people like, say, Phil Plait who sees no reason to be an in-their-face guy. And I don’t think they should be criticised for it: not all of us want to be like Hitchens or Pat Condell. Apart from anything else, I loathe people who try to force their faith on others – for me, my (lack of) faith is something that people can ask me about but I won’t insist on telling them.
(Heh. My 9-year-old nephew told me he was an atheist yesterday – and his primary school has a bit of a god-bot head. His 11-year-old sister is “agnostic”. Cool!)
So I won’t criticize Phil for not going the whole hog – but when it comes to people like Massimo criticising “us”, from his pulpit of philosophical bullshittery, then, yes, I do get cross.
(And I’m sure I’m not the only one to notice that his piece, reprising PZ’s title to no effect, was much less well written, and argued, than the original. It happens more and more often – the Prof’s pieces are much sharper and wittier than his detractors. I wonder how the book is going?)
If they kept providing me actual evidence the way we have you, example after example, that I could not refute with the peer reviewed literature, then sure.
Not too worried about that happening, frankly… but back to you…
And if they were to do that and I were to just ignore it and continue to tell them they haven’t provided any… well, that would just make me an asshole. (nudge, nudge…)
Shit, the thread doubled in length while I wasn’t looking… I actually wanted to go to bed…
In science I don’t care about “elevating”, “better”, or other such politeness crap. Many religious claims are falsifiable, see comment 320. They enter the domain of science where, S. J. Gould would say, they don’t belong in the fucking first place. Too bad for them! We can’t say “because those claims are religious claims, we must pretend they’re not falsifiable”; that would be dishonest. It would be a lie. It would be unscientific.
Bingo.
As an example, it does not matter that the current hypothesis of the shape of the benzene molecule comes from a dream. Literally – from a dream Kekulé had in his siesta. He woke up, thought it made sense, tested it, and the rest is history.
Blcokqutoes – can’t live with them, can’t live without them…!!!
(Yes, both typos are original, not contrived.)
If I have to choose between the facts and any strategy, I’ll stick with the facts. Go ahead, accuse me of fiat iustitia et pereat mundus; I can take it.
Besides, I don’t think spreading a noble lie has ever worked. AFAIK it has always backfired.
Why do people in Britain (and Europe generally) care so much less about religion, on average?
I think it’s because of education, the thing that’s so difficult to get in the USA.
Go here and look up “trolling”.
We are allowed – even required – to argue, no, to demonstrate that certain religious ideas are false, namely those that contradict science. Where’s the problem? Creationists can try to disprove scientific hypotheses the same way anyone can. :-|
That would be about the stem of wisdom, not the love of it as intended :^)
Ehem.
There are very good reasons for pseudonymity on teh intarwebz. I don’t use a pseudonym because I lack the imagination to come up with a good one and because it’s occasionally handy when people can find me in Google Scholar…
Untrue. Greg Laden did troll on his own blog a few weeks ago. (With disastrous results for everyone involved, himself included.)
Argumentum ad hominem.
Who makes an argument is completely irrelevant to whether that argument is wrong.
Shame on you.
You moron. You were assumed to be a creationist because you appeared to defend creationism. Why isn’t that obvious?
And there I was, thinking I was leading a sheltered life.
<headdesk>
PZ isn’t just talking of this one particular thread. <headdesk>
He didn’t complain.
He laughed.
…ehem…
You might want to revisit that sentence.
Oh, and… Behe being a scientist? What science has he done since he joined the Disinformation Institute?
David Marjanović wrote:
Thing is, I don’t think he was; sure, he was behaving in the assholish way that we would call trolling, but it’s his blog so I don’t think it applies. Yes, that’s a double-standard – but it’s like destruction of property; it ain’t a problem if it’s your property.
Clownshoe Kirby has been given several different falsifiable claims directly from Genesis relating to creationism and has been given the evidence falsifying them…
And yet continues to wildly stroke himself while insisting we simply can’t provide any.
Kirby to somedude out of the blue: “Hey, tosser… What’s the square root of 9?”
somedude: “3”
Kirby: “So you admit you don’t know?”
somedude: “Not what I said. I gave you an answer. 3.”
Kirby (breathing harder): “Ah, but can you absolutely prove that?”
somedude: “Ummm… dude… the square root of 9 is 3. What are you just trying to start an argument for fun?”
Kirby: “No… I’m telling you that since you can’t disprove that the square root of 9 isn’t 4…”
somedude: “Yes, I can…”
Kirby (breathing even heavier and rapidly) “I don’t think I like your tone”
somedude: “What the fuck has my tone got to do with it? The square root of 9 is 3, you asshole!”
Kirby (sweating profusely): “Now, see, if you would not use such abusive language, we could have a much more constructive conversation about the epistemological truth of square roots”
somedude: “Dude… what the fuck are you on? You asked me to tell you the square root of 9. It’s 3. End of story”
Kirby (allllmost there): “Sooo… you won’t answer the question. I knew it! I knew you wouldn’t answer it…I just kneeeeeeeeewwwwwww….”
momentary pause…
Kirby: “I think I’m gonna need a towel”.
Or -3.
*runs*
554 & 555 FTW!
SC –
I gave it at least 5 posts before someone was bound to point that out. Seems I was mistaken.
Damn you… ;^)
Errr..psst Celtic…+3 or – 3
[pedant/maths teacher]
I read Celtic’s “3” with a glottal ±
When did this turn into Literotica?
AnthonyK
Yes, yes… I know it… I realized it just as I posted it… and SC was kind enough to point it out for me in the very next comment.
*sigh*… that should teach me to try to be funny and clever at the same time.
I have no excuse.
Eeeew. Well, after that, something completely different:
insect photography using the iPhone
Mmmmmm…glo’al…
Oh, and check out Alex Wild’s photographs in the link above – I feel a screensaver coming on, if not a T-shirt.
Awww….we hurt their widdle feewings!
http://yourenothelping.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/that-crazy-little-thing-called-tone/
Perhaps PZ should start a Tone Thread, where those with chronic vapors can take their endless supply of concern. They never come up with anything new and appear to have no knowledge of history. Stupid, tiresome, useless.
Now, now, don’t hurt their poor widdle pearl clutching™ feelings to make them go away. Give us a chance too. And don’t be afraid to say what you really feel…
;)
Oh, my… an entire blog dedicated to tone concern? How lovely.
“You’re not helping”
Ummm… we’re not helping whom? Do what exactly.
If you mean we’re not helping you fucking faithiests pretend like coddling the religious and playing nice has ever fucking furthered the “cause” one fucking iota, then you’re not only a concerned pissant, you’re also naive, and you don’t fucking represent my goals.
Fuck off, the whole lot of ya…
To all concerned: I think my favorite comment on this thread was #498. It seemed so rational, so sensible, so urbane.
To Meyrick Kirby: I’m a theist. But (as you might be able to tell from my ‘OM’), I get treated pretty fairly by the denizens of this blog. Critical, yes. Scornful, often. Favored with creative insult, upon occasion. But, for the most part, fairly and even with good humor.
Since outlier views like mine are in fact tolerated here, that would tend to give the lie to any claims that you are being pilloried or face a likely ban for ideological reasons. I’ve been coming here for years, and I usually enjoy it.
You, on the other hand, managed to stir up a shitstorm almost immediately upon arrival. That should tell you that (if your goal was enlightened discourse) your approach isn’t working.
And, if your goal wasn’t enlightened discourse, what the hell, seriously, do you not have any cat’s tails to tie together in your neck of the woods, that you have to torture the rest of us with your pathology?
My word, MK certainly is a distasteful little piece of excrement, is he not? I have tried to be fair and read both sides, but I find his tone to be most distressing. He is insulting and vulgar. I intend to strongly complain to the management of this blog for allowing a man such as he to post. I will also send MK a copy of Lady Deirdre Waggon’s Book of Etiquette.
Excuse, I must go and recline for a moment to allow the ugliness to pass. I will pray for you MK.
PZ @ #53
You see, what really matters here is what species of feline sports the sniniest coat. So it’s panther FTW!
How about this?
@504: You complain about being expelled from a cinema for your opinions, but you’re happy to expel me for stating my opinions.
The only way the situations would be equivalent is if you complained about the content of Pharyngula on your own blog and were then prevented from paying a fee to simply read this blog without posting comments.
By the way, simply reporting events that occurred is not “complaining”, nor is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Expelled producers.
#501, not #504
Also,
Your blog, your rules, but it makes you a hypocrite.
How does enforcing the rules posted up front — rules that all the commenters here must abide by — make PZ a hypocrite? You admitted to trolling, and trolling is a clearly stated bannable offense. You should already be banned by that standard, but instead you’ve been given many chances to redeem yourself after that. You’ve thrown those away, choosing instead to whine about tone and pseudonyms and credentials, and now you’re simply lashing out like a child caught misbehaving by an adult.
Since you show no signs of changing your ways and following the rules the rest of us follow, you’ll soon either be banned or you’ll flounce out of here in a dramatic huff. Either way, you’ll be forgotten quickly by most everyone because you will have contributed nothing and made no lasting impression. You’ve failed to even be an interesting troll.