Comments

  1. Snoof says

    “And BYE FOR NOW”

    Does this count as a flounce?

    Judging by the behaviour of previous threads? No. It does not. Xe’ll be back tomorrow, most likely, as it’s nearly midnight in eastern Australia.

    Yeah right. But the point is, a red-green colourblind person cannot imagine or visualize green, no matter how hard you try to ‘describe’ this colour to him.

    You can still define green, though, in terms of wavelength, frequency and intensity. You can construct a model of colour, and you can do experiments to test the validity of that model, even if you’re colour-blind. The fact that you can’t see (or distinguish) it merely means your senses are not suitable for the job, not that it’s in some way “indefinable” or “unknowable”.

    I have no personal experience of electrons (them being too small to see, hear or touch) but I can still construct and use a rigorous mathematical model of how they behave. In fact, human understanding of how electrons behave is the most precise theory in all of science. The fact that we know electrons so intimately is why you’re able to use a computer to demonstrate your ignorance to so many people at once.

    And once again, you’re assuming God is undefinable. There are at least a billion theists who disagree with you on that proposition. How do you know you’re correct and they’re not?

  2. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Einstein never used it, Darwin never used it, Newton never used it, even Richard Dawkins doesn’t use it — at least, not in the public. Why do you? Have you forgotten how our minds project?

    Bullshit Cricket. All you do and say is bullshit. You aren’t the equal of those scientists, and to think you can hold them up as an example is bullshit. And they would call your sophistry bullshit. It’s not scientific inquiry, or even honest inquiry of reality. Back in the day, we called your free form and evidenceless sophistry BULLSHIT SESSIONS. You demonstrate why with each and every post you make.

  3. Amphiox says

    You know, like a red-green colour blind person cannot see the colour green even when it is right there in front of him, and everyone else around him can perfectly see this colour, except him?

    This is idiocy. A red-green colour blind person CAN STILL SEE GREEN. He (it is usually a he) lacks the ability to distinguish green from certain other colours. But, he can distinguish green from still other colours.

    So yes, he CAN SEE GREEN. He CAN RECOGNIZE GREEN, if not with the same degree of accuracy as someone without that disability. His experience of the colour green is not as precise as that of most other people, but HE STILL HAS AN EXPERIENCE OF IT.

  4. Amphiox says

    Well, then stop using the word ‘bullshit’ so often for starters. Einstein never used it, Darwin never used it, Newton never used it, even Richard Dawkins doesn’t use it — at least, not in the public.

    And I suppose you have the complete record of everything Einstein, Darwin, and Dawkins has ever uttered, written, or posted on the internet, to the last syllable, to demonstrate this?

  6. Amphiox says

    I would say some things simply cannot be defined, but can only be experienced subjectively.

    If you can describe this subjective experience to another, then it can be defined.

    Without definition, it cannot be described. If it cannot be described, then no one can ever know if you actually experienced this subjective thing, or are just lying about it.

    Indeed, the way our brains work, if you cannot describe it, you probably cannot even experience it anyways.

    From the point of view of everyone but you (and probably you as well), that which cannot be described does not exist.

  8. mikmik says

    rajkumar:

    Yeah right. But the point is, a red-green colourblind person cannot imagine or visualize green, no matter how hard you try to ‘describe’ this colour to him. And this strengthens the point that colours cannot be defined, but can only be experienced subjectively.

    Correct. See ‘Mary’s room’ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary%27s_room

    Now, according to the theory, God is all around us all the time, but we can’t feel or experience God for the same reason. The **fixing of the eye** in the colourblind person’s case translates into ‘raising the consciousness’ here.

    First, I’ll point out that you used the words, “according to the theory” which is an incorrect application of the layman’s understanding which is ‘guess’ or ‘hypothesis’ or ‘speculation’ and not in the scientific meaning of propsed explanation of facts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
    Oh yeah, you heard of wikipedia?:
    In modern contexts, while theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily measurable, in modern science the term “theory”, or “scientific theory” is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method

    So, you already are conceding the fucking game by implication because you are still one unit short, one quantity of fucking evidence, for. fucks. sake. period. oops.
    (Fuck off, cat, I’ll take over)

    Fuck, that cat is smarter than raj the kumar, FFS!
    So, raj, let me esplain sumthin’. There are two realities, hokay?
    1. The so called objective, or concrete, reality that is commonly experienced and tested and subject to “intersubjective verifiability”, for fuck’s sake.
    2. Subjective reality is the one in your fucking head with all the fucfking colors that you see, the experience of which cannot be transfered outside of your own brain pan into another’s subjective reality, you fucking moron! You have said as much. Does this not pathetically obviously lead to the fucking conclusion that what you imagine, and what hits you one the head and causes you to see colors, are not the same fucking thing, no matter how many improper analogies you concoct, like they taught us in grade fucking two?
    (Sorry, went to washroom, cat, you know, sorry)
    Now, quickly, can you say objective reality?
    “We are using the term objective reality in contrast to subjective reality, which is reality seen through our inner mental filters that are shaped by our past conditioning. Objective reality is how things really are. Although it is possible to perceive objectively, we cannot take in the totality of reality and say anything about it; we can only point to some of its characteristics. So whenever we explore reality in any specific manner, we have to leave out something. For example, when you describe an orange, you cannot say anything about its totality. You have to talk about its color or its taste or its shape. If you want your description to encompass the whole thing — its color, shape, and taste all together — you can only say, “orange.” It is the same with objective reality. If you want to say anything about it, you have to focus on its specific characteristics. (Facets of Unity, pg 206)”

    We test out subjective reality by how well it maps onto the concrete fucking space of our surroundings ie OUTSIDE OUR FUCKING HEADS

    Any fucking moron can take peyote or acid or work himself into a fucking tizzy and feel shit, fuckhead. Many of these experiences, subjective realities – they really are experienced, they are real things that you fucking morons try to tell us about – are called “seeing god” and “spiritual journeys” “god was speaking to me”.
    The best, though, thee eff ucking best, is catnip, meow I mean mmmmmaaaan(gotta go, mikmik’s here again)

    WTF? Anyways, found this:

    False Analogy
    Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy:

    The relevance of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion.

    The amount and variety of the examples in the analogy.

    The number of characteristics that the things being compared share.[2][1]‘

    An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects. The term “false analogy” comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to engage in a detailed examination of analogical reasoning.

    And another thing. Anyone that has attended even one fucking kindergarten class knows

    Mass hysteria—other names include collective hysteria, group hysteria, or collective obsessional behavior—is the spontaneous manifestation of the same or similar hysterical physical symptoms by more than one person.[1][2]

    A common manifestation of mass hysteria occurs when a group of people believe they are suffering from a similar disease or ailment.[3] Sometimes referred to as mass psychogenic illness or epidemic hysteria, there is a clear preponderance of female victims.[4]

    LMFuckingAO!! :)

    Faaaaaaaaak! Now I see this has all bin esplaint to you already!!

    Wait, what the …. You said WHAT!?? “In that case, instead of sounding smarter to you, I would rather say something, because I do not know what translates into ‘smartness’ for you. The art of avoidance is not being smart, you know. You know I am not asking a very hard question. Don’t you? But if you are unable to answer and comprehend a simple question, then I won’t insist. I just thought you were smarter than that…”

    Look, rajkumar, now I’ll tell you something that no one else has:
    The only thing fucking dumber than mikmik’s fucking stoopid kitteh, is a smart rajkumar, mothrfuckeRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

    A survey of some classic and modern sociological and psychoanalytic contributions to the study of mass psychology, with special reference to the understanding of mobs, manias of various types, hysterical epidemics, and mass illusions and delusions. Topics include: the rational and irrational in social life; problems of definition and value judgement; classic studies of group psychology and religion; the open and the closed mind; hysteria, past and present. The course will begin with an introduction to Freudian and Kleinian psychoanalytic theory, the perspectives we will utilize to study mobs, manias and delusions. In this course we seek to study the irrational in social life and to do this we need to understand the role of unconscious mental processes—ideas, phantasies and emotions—in the life of individuals and groups.

    http://www.yorku.ca/dcarveth/4645.htm

    I’ll give you a hunt, christians etc. Everything you have ever thought of as proof or evidence for god?

    It has been fucking shredded, and not just fucking shredded already, I mean: Fucking Shredded All-Fucking-Ready Six Fucking Ways From Fucking Sunday By Fucking Smarter And More Rational and Sane Fuckheads Than You If I May Be So Fucking Bold So There!!

    (Sorry, sorry, bloody cat again, sorry)

  9. says

    AE:

    But people can verify that green exists independently of whether they can see it or not.

    I’m reading The Tell-Tale Brain by V.S. Ramachandran right now, just finished the chapter on synesthesia. He recounts the case of a young man who is red-green colour blind and a number synesthete. He’s missing the pigment cones, however, the V4 colour map in the brain works just fine, so when he sees numbers, he experiences red-green colours but describes them as “Martian colours” because he’s never experienced them in the world. Fascinating stuff.

  10. says

    I wouldn’t really call it ‘believing’. It’s more like a subtle ‘knowing’.

    I giggled out loud. Seriously. So, you “subtly know” something but you don’t “believe” it? In other words, even you are aware at some level that you are utterly full of shit.

    The knowing at this stage doesn’t tell me what God is, or what the universe is, but the knowing does tell me what God is NOT and what the universe is NOT. God is NOT how religions and myths defined him so far. The universe is NOT how some people have defined it so far.

    EVERYONE IS WRONG EXCEPT RAJ! Yeah, that’s a plausible theory.

    Maybe I am wrong.

    You don’t sincerely believe this.

    This is why I am doing some exploring here…

    You are exploring nothing except your own metaphorical bowels.

  11. A. R says

    Well, since raj won’t be back until much later tonight (for Americans), perhaps we should get back to evil scheming?

  12. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    Na ubaya gani scheming ingekuwa kwamba kuwa, oh bwana wa giza na ubaya?

  14. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    Земи го trolls, да се борат едни со други? Hmm.

    Па, би можеле да започнат со користење на цитати од Rajkumar да се побие Dano на аргументите и инсистираат на тоа дека Dano се негира raj, или обратно (каде и заменик е worser, која е).

  15. A. R says

    Dit kan werk. Dink net aan die moontlikhede van die beit van ‘n mistieke trol teen ‘n volle op godbot!

  17. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    Definitely. Trollodon godbotici versus Trollodon mysteci. Cool beans.

  19. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    Yep, now how do we make it work?

    hey, now. I’m just the useless idea guy. The one who handles the implementation of the impossible idea is a guy named Louis,.

  20. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    Caine:

    I’m reading The Tell-Tale Brain by V.S. Ramachandran right now,…

    Oooh. Sounds completely fascinating. I just added it to my Amazon wish list. Thanks for the tip.

    [meta]
    This is not what rajkumar is saying, but I think is an interesting (sorta poetic) description of subjectivity of experience as compatible with objective reality:

    For example: the Mexican sierra has “XVII-15-IX” spines in the dorsal fin. These can easily be counted. But if the sierra strikes hard on the line so that our hands are burned, if the fish sounds and nearly escapes and finally comes in over the rail, his colors pulsing and his tail beating the air, a whole new relational externality has come into being–an entity which is more than the sum of the fish plus the fisherman. The only way to count the spines of the sierra unaffected by this second relational reality is to sit in a laboratory, open an evil-smelling jar, remove a stiff colorless fish from formalin solution, count the spines, and write the truth “D. XVII-15-IX.” There you have recorded a reality which cannot be assailed–probably the least important reality concerning either the fish or yourself.
    It is good to know what you are doing. The man with his pickled fish has set down one truth and recorded in his experience many lies. The fish is not that color, that texture, that dead, nor does he smell that way.
    Such things we considered in the months of planning our expedition and we were determined not to let a passion for unassailable little truths draw in the horizons and crowd the sky down on us. We knew that what seemed to us true could be only relatively true anyway. There is no other kind of observation. The man with his pickled fish has sacrificed a great observation about himself, the fish, and the focal point, which is his thought on both the sierra and himself.
     
    — John Steinbeck, The Log from The Sea of Cortez

    Except that often the person in the laboratory is also the person in the boat. Whatevs. I read this this morning and thought it tangentially pertinent.
    [/meta]

  21. Louis says

    Initially, I see three main options:

    1) The Obvious: HEY TROLLS! DANCE FOR OUR AMUSEMENT!

    2) The Reverse Psychology: HEY TROLLS! DO NOT DANCE FOR OUR AMUSEMENT!

    3) The Almost Subtle: Start agreeing with one of the trolls. The other one, incensed by how reasonable we appear to be being to one loon will double down on loon antics.

    Louis

  22. chigau (Twoic) says

    Louis
    I like your #3.
    We could make it extreme; fawning on one and spittle-spewing cursing t’other.
    and then switch.

  23. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    Louis:

    You misunderstand. Your job is to get the Trollodon mysticus to fight it out with the Trollodon godbotticus. Kinda like Godzilla versus Mothra.

  24. Louis says

    Ogvorbis,

    Oh I understood. I think those might do it. I suppose:

    4) Tell T. mysticus that T. godbotticus thinks that use of recreational pharmaceuticals and “exploring ideas” is morally repugnant, and one should stick to Jesus. Or something. Maybe get T. godbotticus to try to burn T. mysticus as a witch.

    Might also work.

    Louis

  25. Amphiox says

    I respectfully disagree with the taxonomic classification of our current trolls into the Trollodon genus, as it can be clearly seen that neither of them have any teeth.

  26. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    I respectfully disagree with the taxonomic classification of our current trolls into the Trollodon genus, as it can be clearly seen that neither of them have any teeth.

    Er, I can’t come up with anything that sounds like a slime mould?

  29. says

    Amphiox:

    I respectfully disagree with the taxonomic classification of our current trolls into the Trollodon genus, as it can be clearly seen that neither of them have any teeth.

    I agree. If we go with the Discworld Trolls, they definitely don’t qualify. However, they could qualify as Pebbles, tiny troll babies.

  30. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    I agree. If we go with the Discworld Trolls, they definitely don’t qualify. However, they could qualify as Pebbles, tiny troll babies.

    If we leave them in a very cold environment, will they become super intelligent?

  31. Louis says

    Amphiox,

    You make a good point. I agree with you entirely. However, I believe this means:

    19TH CENTURY STYLE CLASSIFICATION WARS!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I propose the generic name of Ludens.

    Anyone who disagrees will be drummed out of the Royal Society, mocked publicly, and lampooned in Punch.

    Louis

  33. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    I think that Trollodon has precedence as the genus name. The subspecies (T mystikus, T godbotticus, T libertardia, and T assholicus) also have precedence. Check the time code — first in publication!

  35. Amphiox says

    While Trollodon has precedence, the question at hand that must be considered, is, do the current specimens, while clearly members of the greater family Trollus, belong in that particular genus, or are they the type specimens for a new genus. From the generally archaic nature of their arguments, the clear absence of higher behavioral flexibility in response to external stimulus-responses, and the apparent absence of any hint of mammalian neocortical activity, I could propose Trollosaurus, though even this is problematical, as anyone familiar with the cognitive diversity among diapsids can attest to.

  36. Louis says

    Chigau,

    I was going for the Latin for “playful” with connotations of foolishness or childishness. There are other words that would work.

    Louis

  37. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    Amphiox:

    Or we could go full splitter and name them Godbottisaurus christi, Libertariadon americus, Mystekionyx dopi, and Assholisaurus trollius.

    Unless you are a lumper?

  40. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    And I suspect that Assholisaurus may be a nomen dubiem as the traits associated with the genus Assholisaurus can also fit the Godbottisaurdae, the Mysterionidae and the Libertariadonidae. All definitely part of the family Trollus, but there may be too much overlap with Assholisaurus for it to stand as a valid genus.

  41. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    There used to be a Fuckosaurus that tried to rampage on the ground. It was kind of pathetic.

  46. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Oops! I should have refreshed.

    But my link is all of the Dennis Moore sketch.

  48. A. R says

    I hereby describe the species Trollodon menzii common name, the Common MRA. A full description may be found on the Pharyngula wiki. to summarize:

    Family: Trollus
    Genus: Trollodon
    Species: menzii

    Thus: Trollodon menzii (A. R)

  49. Louis says

    OH MY LACK OF GOD!

    I actually screwed up a Monty Python reference. I shall hand in my geek card immediately. Sorry everyone. That was inexcusable.

    Louis

    P.S. Thanks for the correction ladies.

  50. scifi says

    Amphiox,
    “A fine-tuning creator ALSO needs to have the capacity to FORESEE, in advance, that fine-tuning the set of parameters just so, would result in the outcome that is the universe as we observe it.”

    Not necessarily. A creator may have had to do it several times before it got it right and/or was able to make adjustments. This may be why only part of the universe is capable of supporting life. Everyone right away thinks of the Christian God who is supposed to be all knowing. The Christian God is made up.

    BTW when I refer to parameters, I’m thinking of the atrophic principle in which there are constants that have to be within an extremely narrow parameter, other wise life of any kind couldn’t exist. For instance, If the gravity constant is a hair stronger, the big bang would have shortly collapsed and if it were a hair weaker the expansion would have been too fast to allow for the formation of stars and planets and would have resulted in cosmic dust. Neither one would promote life of any kind. If the weak nuclear force were a hair too strong, atoms would be held too tightly together to allow for compounds to form and if a hair weaker, atoms would not stay together and would fly apart.

  51. A. R says

    I hereby describe the species Accommodare stultus, common name: the Accommodationist. A full description may be found on the Pharyngula wiki. to summarize:

    Family: Trollus
    Genus: Accommodare
    Species: stultus

    Thus: Accommodare stultus (A. R)

    Known subspecies:

    A. stultus atheistii
    A. stultus agnosticus

  52. Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian says

    scifi,

    when you say

    A creator may have had to do it several times before it got it right

    are you proposing creator + multiverse?

    By the way, I propose «atrophic principle» as evidence for the existence of Tpyos. Such an awesome typo could not be the mere product of chance.

  53. A. R says

    A proposed classification scheme for the family Trollus:

    Family: Trollus
    • Genus: Trollodon (disp)
    o Species: assholicus
    – racistii
    o Species: godbotticus
    – repetita
    – defensor
    o Species: libertardia
    o Species: menzii
    – defensor
    – privilegiata
    – mysognyistus
    o Species: mystikus
    – stultus
    • Genus: Accommodare
    o Species: incommodus
    – atheistii
    o Species: stultus
    – agnosticus
    – athestii
    • Genus: Creationistii
    o delugionistii
    o complexionem
    o hovindii

    (•=genus level, o=species level, -= subspecies level)

    Thoughts?

  54. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Still presuppositional Scifi. You have no logical argument, just a wish that a creator exists, and only way for that to be is if you presuppose it first. Your creator is still imaginary to everybody here, except you.

  56. A. Noyd says

    rajkumar (#455)

    the knowing does tell me what God is NOT and what the universe is NOT. God is NOT how religions and myths defined him so far.

    Well, then you have a definition of god. As I said (in #415 on the previous page), which you seem determined to ignore, “God is defined by whatever any given theist or deist is using to conceive of ‘god’ as distinct from ‘not god.’ “

  57. says

    Bullshit Cricket. All you do and say is bullshit. You aren’t the equal of those scientists, and to think you can hold them up as an example is bullshit. And they would call your sophistry bullshit. It’s not scientific inquiry, or even honest inquiry of reality. Back in the day, we called your free form and evidenceless sophistry BULLSHIT SESSIONS. You demonstrate why with each and every post you make.

    I was talking about you, Nerd. Not me.

    And I thought you people were ‘deliberately’ trying to avoid the question about ‘defining’ green. Now I see, none of you have really understood the question. Probably because your community college teachers never asked you these questions. All of you are basically playing the same Wikipidian recordings of ‘wavelengths’ and ‘the science behind colours and colour perception’. Jeez. Really?

  60. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Probably because your community college teachers never asked you these questions.

    Sorry cupcake, you lose again. Most of us are well beyond community college. In my case, Public Ivy. And some of those responding to your idiocy, Ivy. And some of us teach at the university level, where they give out PhDs. You know, that degree well beyond your mental capabilities.

  61. says

    Whatever else Rajkumar’s god is, it is apparently male. It can do many things, but it cannot gestate fetuses.

    Wrong. It is just the traditional way of addressing god. Use anything you like, if HIM bothers you. Him/Her/It/Them/They/XYZ or whatever. I actually prefer a SHE myself, since using a SHE makes god sound more … you know warm and emotional…. but odd at the same time, because it’s been really long time since people stopped addressing God as a she.

  62. says

    I actually prefer a SHE myself, since using a SHE makes god sound more … you know warm and emotional…

    There you go anthropomorphising God… you can’t have it both ways!

  63. says

    Sorry cupcake, you lose again. Most of us are well beyond community college. In my case, Public Ivy. And some of those responding to your idiocy, Ivy. And some of us teach at the university level, where they give out PhDs. You know, that degree well beyond your mental capabilities.

    OK. But I would say it’s a real pity if you have to tell me all this. I thought the quality of your posts would reflect the quality of your educational background automatically. So it does. Turns out, a Phd from a third class university is a very ‘different’ kind of Phd from the one that is granted by a first class university, such as Harvard, Oxford etc.

    But, still, you did go to a community college, didn’t you? That should be enough to set you back 20 years from those who chose finer institutions.

  64. A. R says

    raj:

    community college

    Nope. Try again. I’m private (and ludicrously expensive)liberal arts.

  66. Amphiox says

    Not necessarily. A creator may have had to do it several times before it got it right and/or was able to make adjustments.

    This is hilarious. Scifi apparently doesn’t realize that what it is proposing here is functionally indistinguishable from multiverse theory, except for the addition of an unnecessary and unparsimonious creator.

    But let us consider this version of a creator hypothesis in greater detail:

    THIS creator must PERSIST long enough to observe the results of the evolution of several universes with different trial fine-tunings. That’s ONE ADDITIONAL PARAMETER.

    This creator must ALSO have the capacity to PERCEIVE the results of trial fine-tunings. That’s ONE MORE ADDITIONAL PARAMETER.

    This creator must ALSO have the capacity to DISCRIMINATE between different resulting universes. That’s ONE MORE ADDITIONAL PARAMETER.

    This creator must ALSO have a PREFERENCE for one particular type of universe result over others. That’s ONE MORE ADDITIONAL PARAMETER.

    This creator must ALSO have the capacity to create universes MULTIPLE TIMES. That’s YET ONE MORE PARAMETER.

    This particular creator hypothesis is EVEN LESS PARSIMONIOUS than a creator hypothesis with a creator getting everything “right” in one shot.

  67. A. R says

    raj: Perhaps it’s traditional for your culture, but several other cultures (betcha didn’t know those existed dija?) have primarily or exclusively female gods. Only patriarchal cultures have male only or male-dominated pantheons.

  68. says

    But, still, you did go to a community college, didn’t you? That should be enough to set you back 20 years from those who chose finer institutions.

    And classist! My, you are a veritable fount of prejudice!

    But I suppose it’s natural, since you’re into pre-supposition, why not do some pre-judging as well?

  69. Brownian says

    This is hilarious. Scifi apparently doesn’t realize that what it is proposing here is functionally indistinguishable from multiverse theory, except for the addition of an unnecessary and unparsimonious creator.
    But let us consider this version of a creator hypothesis in greater detail:

    THIS creator must PERSIST long enough to observe the results of the evolution of several universes with different trial fine-tunings. That’s ONE ADDITIONAL PARAMETER.

    This creator must ALSO have the capacity to PERCEIVE the results of trial fine-tunings. That’s ONE MORE ADDITIONAL PARAMETER.

    This creator must ALSO have the capacity to DISCRIMINATE between different resulting universes. That’s ONE MORE ADDITIONAL PARAMETER.

    This creator must ALSO have a PREFERENCE for one particular type of universe result over others. That’s ONE MORE ADDITIONAL PARAMETER.

    This creator must ALSO have the capacity to create universes MULTIPLE TIMES. That’s YET ONE MORE PARAMETER.

    This particular creator hypothesis is EVEN LESS PARSIMONIOUS than a creator hypothesis with a creator getting everything “right” in one shot.

    scifi’s a dishonest idiot, but this is worth quoting.

  71. Amphiox says

    BTW when I refer to parameters, I’m thinking of the atrophic principle in which there are constants that have to be within an extremely narrow parameter,

    Define “extremely”.
    Define “narrow”.

    other wise life of any kind couldn’t exist.

    Are you sure?
    Define “life”.

    For instance, If the gravity constant is a hair stronger,

    Define “hair”. A “hair” is mighty small on a human scale. On the scale of Planck lengths is it enormous.

    the big bang would have shortly collapsed

    Define “shortly.” A LOT can actually happen in a universe that lasts just one second.

    and if it were a hair weaker the expansion would have been too fast to allow for the formation of stars and planets and would have resulted in cosmic dust.

    So certain that life requires stars and planets? (Go back and define “life”).

    Neither one would promote life of any kind.

    Are you sure?

    If the weak nuclear force were a hair too strong, atoms would be held too tightly together to allow for compounds to form and if a hair weaker, atoms would not stay together and would fly apart.

    Are you so sure that life requires atoms? (Go back and define “life”).

    And of course, as has already been explained to this dishonest troll, but which it apparently continues to deliberately ignore, all of the above arguments are relevant ONLY to the situation wherein you vary ONLY ONE parameter at a time. If you vary multiple parameters at a time, the whole line of argument falls apart.

  72. Amphiox says

    I actually prefer a SHE myself, since using a SHE makes god sound more … you know warm and emotional…. but odd at the same time, because it’s been really long time since people stopped addressing God as a she.

    And there goes the raja again, defining god, even while insisting that god cannot be defined.

    Two-faced liar.

    It’s pitiful.

  73. A. Noyd says

    rajkumar (#2-57)

    And I thought you people were ‘deliberately’ trying to avoid the question…

    Quit “deliberately” avoiding my proof that definitions of god exist (#391), my answer to your question of what god is (#415), my answer to why the onus is on believers to give definitions of god (#415), and my proof that you do have a definition of god yourself (#2-56). It’s making you look like a chickenshit.

  74. says

    But, still, you did go to a community college, didn’t you? That should be enough to set you back 20 years from those who chose finer institutions.

    At what prestigious institution of higher learning did they teach you the Argument From Green?
    Me, I learned that one at LSDU. It’s a great school, but the football team is pretty bad. The wide receivers tend to ignore the ball and try to catch their own hands.

  75. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    *hands Amphiox a BIG glass of his favorite swill and a BIG bowl of popcornz. Then serves the other responders. The Pullet Patrol finally stops giving me the evil eye*

  76. says

    I thought the quality of your posts would reflect the quality of your educational background automatically.

    In your case, would it be fair to say that any qualifications you have are mail order from an unaccredited seminary school? Seriously, rajkumar, I wouldn’t be criticising other’s education when you can’t show even basic reading comprehension skills.

  77. says

    SallyStrange:

    I don’t mind saying that I went to community college, before transferring to a 4-year university.

    I did community college prior to a 4 year university as well. Started classes at 16, went full time at 17. OCC in Costa Mesa, California. It was a fab school, with wonderful, engaging professors.

  78. Amphiox says

    The main problem with the cladistics of the Trollus family is the evident rampant lateral gene transfer that seems to go on between all the various lineages….

  79. says

    I thought the quality of your posts would reflect the quality of your educational background automatically.

    If that’s the case, Cupcake, you haven’t quite made it out of high school.

  80. Amphiox says

    We can evidently add “quality” to the list of english language words that the raja cannot define.

  81. A. R says

    Amphipox: Yes, the appearance of lateral gene transfer is a problem. I’ve attempted to solve it by defining subspecies which encompass attributes that cannot be assigned to the species as a whole but are seen in its members. For example, individuals of T. menzii may or may not primarily be rape apologists. Thus individuals who display a high degree of apologia are assigned to T. m. defensor.

  83. says

    Ah, so you’re sexist as well as stupid.

    Color me shocked.

    If you think that’s sexist, then I am afraid you are just a bit too obsessed with sexism. Men and Women are equal, but they are not the same. They are very different. How is it sexist to point out these differences? These are facts of life.

  86. Amphiox says

    Looks like we can also add “sexist” to the list of english language words that the raja cannot define.

  89. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Nerd. why the hell can’t you answer an extremely simple question?

    What fuckwitted question, since you asked it? I don’t answer stupid bullshit questions. Oh, that explains it.

  90. says

    If you think that’s sexist, then I am afraid you are just a bit too obsessed with sexism.

    Sexists always think feminists are “too obsessed” with feminism.

    If I tell you that I am a woman, it doesn’t mean that I’m warm and emotional. It doesn’t even mean that I have a uterus. It just means that I identify as a woman.

    But then, you are incredibly stupid. I’m not surprised that the complexity of human experience escapes you.

  91. John Morales says

    [meta]

    1.

    Wrong. It is just the traditional way of addressing god. Use anything you like, if HIM bothers you. Him/Her/It/Them/They/XYZ or whatever. I actually prefer a SHE myself, since using a SHE makes god sound more … you know warm and emotional….

    2.

    Men and Women are equal, but they are not the same. They are very different. How is it sexist to point out these differences?

    Such incongruousness evinces dishonesty.

  92. John Morales says

    Nerd,

    What fuckwitted question, since you asked it?

    It’s confused and conflates two different colloquial senses of ‘colour’ — as what is experienced in the sensorium and as that property being perceived by the sensorium.

    (Incoherent conceptualisation leads to stupid questions*)

    —

    * To those who claim there are no stupid questions, I put it to you that asking a question the answer to which you won’t attend is stupid.

  93. says

    Sexists always think feminists are “too obsessed” with feminism.

    If I tell you that I am a woman, it doesn’t mean that I’m warm and emotional. It doesn’t even mean that I have a uterus. It just means that I identify as a woman.

    But then, you are incredibly stupid. I’m not surprised that the complexity of human experience escapes you.

    But women generally are more emotional than men. That’s a fact. Just like it is a fact that women give birth to children and men don’t. What you think about yourself is fine. I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about ‘most’ women. Don’t it personally.

  94. says

    What fuckwitted question, since you asked it? I don’t answer stupid bullshit questions. Oh, that explains it.

    Oh Please! Don’t say that, because you have already answered every question I have asked you since last night. It is ‘how’ you have answered those questions … is what is under discussion now. I am under the impression now that you didn’t understand the question. None of you did, actually.

  96. John Morales says

    rajkumar:

    But women generally are more emotional than men. That’s a fact.

    No. It is your opinion.

    (Your opinions hitherto expressed have been worthless, so I’m not surprised by this one)

  97. says

    Really? Got evidence?

    No. But that doesn’t mean it is not true. I am sure you haven’t got evidence for many things in your life, but they are still working fine for you. Right?

  98. says

    The correct way to put is: Women are generally more in touch with their emotions then men. Or, they listen more to their emotions and feelings than men. It’s not a criticism. I wish I could as emotional too….

  99. A. R says

    No. But that doesn’t mean it is not true.

    And here we come to the crux of the problem. Raj admits that xe thinks that evidence doesn’t matter. Listen here idiot, it fucking does matter. No evidence = it didn’t happen. Go out and look for evidence, there might be some. But don’t make fact claims until you have it, OK Cupcake?

  101. says

    But women generally are more emotional than men. That’s a fact.

    Aside from calling this a fact without substantiating it, the worse part of this statement is how vague it is. What do you mean “more emotional”? Do women experience more emotions than men? Do they put a greater emphasis of their decision making stemming from an emotional base? What about different forms of emotion, are women more subject to feelings of lust or anger or happiness than men? And how much of it is individual variation? Is it that there are more really emotional women than men, so that the average is slightly askew towards women? How does it work?

    Because making a nebulous statement then calling it a fact isn’t really doing anything other than making a bare assertion. It may be right in some sense, but it’s not really saying anything substantial so calling it a fact is showing more how you see things than reflecting some truth about our species.

  102. John Morales says

    rajkumar to Kel:

    Really? Got evidence?

    No. But that doesn’t mean it is not true.

    Such ignorance of the distinction between belief and knowledge is truly prodigious.

  103. says

    It’s not a criticism. I wish I could as emotional too….

    You don’t need to just accept things as they are, you know. I mean, you could take goat glands.

  104. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I am under the impression now that you didn’t understand the question. None of you did, actually.

    No, it was a fuckwitted bullshit question, just like all you have asked from your first bullshit post. Your failure to communicate is not our failure to understand. If we fail to understand, you made a mistake, failed, was wrong, wasn’t right…get the picture.

  105. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    It is just the traditional way of addressing god. Use anything you like, if HIM bothers you. Him/Her/It/Them/They/XYZ or whatever.

    How about ‘imaginary’?

    But women generally are more emotional than men. That’s a fact

    You got an actual citation (and I do not mean one of these) to back that up?

  106. says

    Got evidence?

    No.

    Yet you declared it was a fact earlier…

    That it may be true is different from it being true. If you call it a fact, you need to show that it’s a fact. If you don’t, then people have good reason to think that you are talking out of your arse.

  107. says

    OK. That was a misunderstanding. I wasn’t calling Sally “warm and emotional”. She thought I was, but I wasn’t. End of story!

    Now, I would now like to get back to my original question about the colour green, if anyone is interested?? If not, then I am going to leave assuming none of you understood the question, but all of you tried to bombard me with your Wikipedian arsenal nevertheless.

  108. Amphiox says

    Looks like we can add “none”, “true”, and “answer” to the list of English language words the raja does not know how to define.

  109. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    No. But that doesn’t mean it is not true.

    That is . . . crap. I have not words for the level of stupidity contained in that statement.

    Stereotypes, including stereotypical sexism and misogyny, are indicative of lazy thinking. Or abject stupidity. Or US conservatives. No matter which, though, it ain’t good.

    Now, I would now like to get back to my original question about the colour green, if anyone is interested?

    Already answered. Multiple times. You just either do not understand the answer, or you don’t like the answer.

  110. Amphiox says

    The words “answered” and “understand” can now also be added to the list of English language words that the raja cannot define.

  111. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I would now like to get back to my original question about the colour green, if anyone is interested??

    We weren’t interested when you first asked your bullshit question. And still not interested now. The only question I have for you I have any interest in, is what would it take for you to shut the fuck up??? Bullshit speculation is mental masturbation. Nothing concrete or realistic will come out of such speculation. BULLSESSION MATERIAL, but we don’t like bullshitting. You do. You need to find other bullshitters for your conversation.

  112. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    And to go with my new dinosaur sheets, I also received my used (and very cheap) copy of Mesozoic Vertebrate Life from 2001. I can lie in my dino sheets and read my dino books while snuggling with a stuffed goat.

  114. says

    Already answered. Multiple times. You just either do not understand the answer, or you don’t like the answer.

    So, what is your answer? You are saying it is actually possible to describe or define the colour green to red-green colourblind person? If yes, how? By telling the person the science of colours and colour perception?

  115. Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian says

    rajkumar said:

    That was a misunderstanding. I wasn’t calling Sally “warm and emotional”. She thought I was, but I wasn’t. End of story!

    Nonsense. Everybody understood that you were trying to fit women in general into the stereotype of “warm and emotional”, even though you admit this generalization is baseless. It is your stereotypical view of women that was the problem.

  116. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    o, what is your answer? You are saying it is actually possible to describe or define the colour green to red-green colourblind person? If yes, how?

    Science, as per above. Fuckwitted bullshitting idjit, you were answered by many with the same correct response.

  117. says

    OK. That was a misunderstanding. I wasn’t calling Sally “warm and emotional”. She thought I was, but I wasn’t. End of story!

    No, what you were doing was implying that I’m not like “most” women, according a poorly defined criterion. That is, “emotionality”. Is it rational to go to war? No? Who starts most wars? Not women, right? I put it to you that men are more emotional than women.

    That’s a fact. I have just as much evidence to show that’s a fact as you had for your “fact.”

    You are saying it is actually possible to describe or define the colour green to red-green colourblind person?

    It is possible to both describe and define the color green to a color-blind person.

    If yes, how? By telling the person the science of colours and colour perception?

    Pretty much. You could also include some poetic descriptions of the subjective experience of the color green.

    You don’t have a point, do you?

  118. says

    You are saying it is actually possible to describe or define the colour green to red-green colourblind person?

    We’re trying to tell you that green is the brain’s interpretation of light within a certain band of wavelengths. And whether or not there are some people who cannot distinguish it from yellow or whatever, or whether we’ll ever agree on a subjective description (probably not, what with subjective experiences being subjective), those wavelengths can be empirically and consistently detected in ways that don’t require working color vision. They exist whether or not you have a subjective experience of them.
    Now please show us how one detects the presence of god without relying on subjective experience. Use both sides of the internet if necessary.

  119. says

    Amphiox:

    The words “answered” and “understand” can now also be added to the list of English language words that the raja cannot define.

    Pressed-together sound clusters, he does not know how they fucking work.

  120. John Morales says

    SallyStrange, but the greenness of the green is subjective and thus ineffable!

    (Therefore, God)

    —

    (The growing ennui engendered by this specimen’s limited repertoire is similarly ineffable, therefore God the Hermaphroditic Gynandromorph)

  123. says

    I wasn’t calling Sally “warm and emotional”. She thought I was, but I wasn’t.

    Stop lying, you fuckwitted, sexist asshole. You seem to forget, you’re the stupid one here. We don’t have comprehension problems, nor are we hard of thinking.

  124. says

    Science, as per above. Fuckwitted bullshitting idjit, you were answered by many with the same correct response.

    No. All of you answered something about how we perceive colours, and how different colours have different wavelengths on the colour spectrum. That’s fine. That explains many things and reveals many secrets about colours….

    But that still doesn’t tell a person what the ‘blueness’ of blue is, unless the person sees the colour blue himself? Similarly, you can’t explain the ‘greenness’ of the colour green to a red-green colourblind person. You can only tell him it has this and that wavelengths on the colour spectrum, and how it is perceived by us, but this is not going to explain what is meant by the ‘greenness’ of the colour green.

    Suppose the colourblind person asks:

    what does green look like?
    How would answer?
    Green is the colour of growing grass?
    But the colour of growing grass looks same as the colour of oranges to the person….

    Green is the colour of green olives..
    But those green olives look like yellow olives to the person.

    Green is the colour of emerald
    But the person sees emeralds as reddish brown..

    You know what I am saying?

  125. says

    You know what I am saying?

    Yup. It’s nothing but sophistry and solipsism.

    Do you know what those words mean? Those are not good things.

    Right, right, silly me–you don’t care about what words mean.

    That makes you an idiot. I don’t see why you bother trying to communicate if you can’t accept that words mean things.

  126. says

    feralboy12:

    I would describe green as being a warm, emotional color.

    Is it time for Colorless green ideas sleep furiously yet?

    Green…for me, it depends on the shade of green. Spring green I associate with tenderness and delicacy, the shade of new leaves, still fragile.

    Deep green, dark and comforting.

  127. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Raj, you insufferable fool. If a person is not equipped to detect a color, that person cannot see that color.

    Please, Raj, describe all the things around you that you cannot perceive but that we know is there.

    It is not fucking metaphysical!

  128. says

    But that still doesn’t tell a person what the ‘blueness’ of blue is, unless the person sees the colour blue himself? Similarly, you can’t explain the ‘greenness’ of the colour green to a red-green colourblind person. You can only tell him it has this and that wavelengths on the colour spectrum

    If you want to analogize this to the subjective experience of god/gods, then you need to provide objective evidence of the existence of god/gods. Even if everyone in the world became blind, we would still have the means to verify that blue/green spectra exist, much as we can verify the existence of infrared spectra.

    There is no such verification for the existence of any sort of deity, whether specific or vague.

    Thank you for playing. Come again!

  129. John Morales says

    rajkumar:

    You know what I am saying?

    Yes.

    “It’s confused and conflates two different colloquial senses of ‘colour’ — as what is experienced in the sensorium and as that property being perceived by the sensorium.”

    cf. Caine @9:
    “He recounts the case of a young man who is red-green colour blind and a number synesthete. He’s missing the pigment cones, however, the V4 colour map in the brain works just fine, so when he sees numbers, he experiences red-green colours but describes them as “Martian colours” because he’s never experienced them in the world.”

    —

    This stupid line of argumentation is usually done with explaining vision to a blind person, and I can see why.

  131. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    But that still doesn’t tell a person what the ‘blueness’ of blue is,

    Sorry, it does. Unless, like you, you don’t believe in science, and it’s instruments to describe reality. Your personal subjective experience you are trying for is just so much drug laden bullshit. BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.

  132. Amphiox says

    Looks like we can add “still” “doesn’t” and “waiting” to the list of English language words the raja cannot define.

  133. says

    Sorry, it does. Unless, like you, you don’t believe in science, and it’s instruments to describe reality. Your personal subjective experience you are trying for is just so much drug laden bullshit. BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.

    Sorry! I didn’t know this was how science was explained in community colleges… Like, NO YOU ARE WRONG AND I AM RIGHT. WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS BULLSHIT, AND WHAT I AM SAYING IS PURE SCIENCE.

    OK. I won’t insist.

  135. Antiochus Epiphanes says

    What is the color of having your ass handed to you over and over?

    I guess rajkumar can’t see that color, and we can not define it for hir.

  136. says

    Raj, I assume the point of all your greensturbation here is to create an analogy wherein you are trying to describe your subjective experience of “higher consciousness” and we are the colorblind horde failing to perceive what you are describing because our sensory equipment is faulty.
    But as I’ve tried before to explain, green is a perception of electromagnetic radiation in a certain band of frequencies, and that radiation can be reliably detected by means other than our senses.
    None of us can see radio waves, but I have a machine on the shelf here that can detect them–reliably enough that we use them to carry verifiable messages. Consistently, reliably, predictably.
    Their existence was predicted by a theory of electromagnetic radiation that also showed us how they could be produced and detected.
    Until you can do something like that with whatever the hell your “higher consciousness” is picking up, your analogy is bullshit.

  137. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    NO YOU ARE WRONG AND I AM RIGHT. WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS BULLSHIT, AND WHAT I AM SAYING IS PURE SCIENCE.

    Right rajkumar, science has evidence. You have opinion. See your brain/opinion on drugs *cracks egg into hot fry pan*.

  138. A. R says

    raj: I think Caine said something about reading a book about a synesthete who was RG color blind, but had intact color mapping centers in the brain. Xe “saw” green. That’s because colors as perceived are just specific ways specific neurones fire in response to specific wavelengths of light.

  140. Amphiox says

    We can now add “sorry” to the list of English language words the raja clearly is incapable of defining.

    Pitiful.

  141. says

    Right rajkumar, science has evidence. You have opinion. See your brain/opinion on drugs *cracks egg into hot fry pan*.

    Ok. Fine. You don’t want to answer, or you can’t answer. All the same to me. I won’t insist.

    Have fun

    I am playing tetris on facebook. Wanna play with me in a 2p Battle?

  144. says

    That green is something that the brain imposes onto reality is hardly revelatory. I have a subjective experience of what my computer is like, for example, how it appears to me may not be the same as it does for others, but it would be very different to say that the subjective experience of it is ineffable in the same way we might say that of colour. That there are some private things doesn’t mean that all things are private. And the fallibility of this comes when people try to take what is meant to be externally given as private experience. If anyone takes revelation for example to be in the category that colours are, then we have every reason to think that the experience was entirely in someone’s own mind. The analogy to colour for revelation, therefore, has the pitfall of not being able to get outside your brain – which is exactly what atheists allege about such experiences.

    If there is something external as the cause of such a private experience, then talking about its external nature is paramount. If you have the sensation of green, and someone is shining a green light at you, then it’s not that you’re having a private experience but a private interpretation of an external phenomena. The link between the wavelengths of light and the experience of light, that people here are talking about, suggests that our private experience isn’t so ineffable even if we can’t describe such an experience solely in terms of the physical nature of its components. Thus, if we’re going to take talk of private experiences seriously, then we need to establish just what is private and what its relation to our senses is. We’re left with “I’ve had an experience of revelation” rather than “God has given me a revelation” if subjectivity is the totality of evidence on the subject.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it.

  145. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE RIGHT AND NERD IS WRONG?

    Waiting for your conclusive physical evidence, or you have nothing but opinion. Which means you are WRONG.

  146. Amphiox says

    “Insist” appears to be yet another English language word the raja cannot manage to define.

  148. says

    Waiting for your conclusive physical evidence, or you have nothing but opinion. Which means you are WRONG.

    I have no problems with YOUR opinions, Nerd. Just in case you were wondering, the rule of ‘conclusive physical evidence’ applies just as much to you as it does to other people. See? ‘Inane’ opinions, whether they originate from you or anyone else, have no value in science, according to your own words….

  149. says

    And I have to go now.

    Sorry Sally for not answering you. I stopped answering you, because you seem a bit confused about your own gender. It looks like you are trying to become a man, or man-like, in a male-dominated society, which is why women being ‘warm and emotional’ sent you a very wrong signal. Ordinarily, women should take it as a compliment.

    Anyway, it is your choice. Men also don’t wear bras, just in case you didn’t notice…Some women can choose not to wear them, but the results are not going to be very favourable I guess…

    Bye!

  150. says

    Just in case you were wondering, the rule of ‘conclusive physical evidence’ applies just as much to you as it does to other people.

    According to you, that would be “not at all.”

    Therefore you have no rational basis for insisting that either you or Nerd is either right or wrong.

    You are mired in subjectivity. Everything is right and everything is wrong, all at once.

  151. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    conclusive physical evidence’ applies just as much to you as it does to other people.

    Conclusive physical evidence encompasses all of science. You lose…

  152. says

    It looks like you are trying to become a man, or man-like, in a male-dominated society, which is why women being ‘warm and emotional’ sent you a very wrong signal.

    Haha, I KNEW it! I’m a fake woman! I held off on saying that you were accusing me of being some sort of un-woman, since the evidence at that point did not support it. Ah well. Thanks for proving my suspicion right, you sexist piece of shit.

  153. says

    I stopped answering you, because you seem a bit confused about your own gender.

    Could you be any more condescending?

  154. says

    It looks like you are trying to become a man, or man-like, in a male-dominated society, which is why women being ‘warm and emotional’ sent you a very wrong signal.

    And you don’t think you’re a sexist douchetart. So, explain, Cupcake – just how are we women trying to become a man? Is it that upsetting to you that we’re capable of using our brains and you aren’t?

  155. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Some people use a shovel for digging a hole — rajkumar used a groundbuster.

    (I pity the fool)

  156. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    I stopped answering you, because you seem a bit confused about your own gender.

    Drop dead, asshole.

  158. A. R says

    Holy shit. It’s been a very long time since I’ve seen so much sexism and misogyny in a single comment. Raj must have a special device to squeeze that much shit in the comment box.

  159. says

    It looks like you are trying to become a man, or man-like, in a male-dominated society, which is why women being ‘warm and emotional’ sent you a very wrong signal.

    OK, that’s it. If that fucker comes back, I’m not even going to pretend to be civil or bother with trying to explain something.
    Fuck.
    And the dumb jerk won’t even acknowledge me or respond to any of my questions. What the fuck? Is it my hairspray?
    Without external verification, subjective experience is nothing more than subjective experience. Which means it doesn’t apply to anyone else. Dumbass.
    It’s like the fucker hallucinated a boat in his driveway and thinks we should all go sailing.
    Go ahead and drown, fucker.

  160. says

    Even if I were confused about my own gender, that would not affect the logical analysis of the arguments I’m making.

    You are, as I said, Raj, amazingly stupid. And bigoted to boot.

    Congrats, you are a complete failure at being a decent person.

    Is that what you were trying for?

  162. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    It looks like you are trying to become a man, or man-like, in a male-dominated society, which is why women being ‘warm and emotional’ sent you a very wrong signal.

    Fuck you, you misogynist hack.

    It’s people like you who send wrong messages to women : that they have to be weak, emotional, defenseless and passive. That their only value resides in how caring they are and fuck any natural human inclination they might have.

    That their fussy pink lady brains aren’t able to grok math, engineering or science.

    Consequently women don’t think they have talent in math, engineering or science because they’re told from childhood that this won’t fit their pretty heads. They end up as caregivers whether they like it or not.

    From every woman forced into a role that she never desired, fuck you with 50 rotting porcupines.

  163. says

    The rule of ‘conclusive physical evidence’ applies just as much to you as it does to other people.

    Do you not understand what the burden of proof means, dude? You made the claim, you present the evidence.

    It looks like you are trying to become a man, or man-like, in a male-dominated society, which is why women being ‘warm and emotional’ sent you a very wrong signal.

    Fuck off, sexist.

    Ordinarily, women should take it as a compliment.

    Why? Because you say so? Different women value different things because, LE GASP, we are not a fucking hive mind.

    Some women can choose not to wear them, but the results are not going to be very favourable I guess…

    This is confused even by misogynist standards.

  164. says

    Holy shit, raj is like an onion, isn’t he? Starts off looking like an ordinary fuckwitted troll, and the layers start to peel off and christing fuck (as they say in Medford), what a disgusting display of misogynistic shittery.

    Fuck off, raj.

  165. A. R says

    Ons taksonomie val uitmekaar! RAJ is ‘n seksistiese ook!Dit is egter nie vertoon genoeg eienskappe om te her-ken dit dit T. menzii

  166. says

    What the hell is all this bullshit about green? Really? One (human) instrument can’t detect it therefore Dog? I don’t know about you, but I can’t detect radio waves without an external device. Not to mention infra red, or ultraviolet and up on the other side.

    This is the most absurd argument I have seen in a long time. It’s Dawkins’ electromagnetic burka with a bar in the middle… So dog must therefore exist?

    I’ll read the thread again, but I don’t think it’ll make any more sense the second time through.

  168. A. Noyd says

    rajkumar (#2-98)

    The correct way to put is: Women are generally more in touch with their emotions then men.

    Well, I’d like to be more in touch with your limbic system. Literally. And not just because you’re a cowardly little weasel who’s too afraid to respond to my posts.

  170. Amphiox says

    The raja clearly had a deprived childhood and was never told about the tale of the three blind men and the elephant, and never learned that story’s lesson.

  171. Amphiox says

    I stopped answering you, because you seem a bit confused about your own gender. It looks like you are trying to become a man, or man-like, in a male-dominated society, which is why women being ‘warm and emotional’ sent you a very wrong signal. Ordinarily, women should take it as a compliment.

    Yep. Smug misogynist asshole to the core.

    Pathetic.

  174. scifi says

    Amphiox,
    “This is hilarious. Scifi apparently doesn’t realize that what it is proposing here is functionally indistinguishable from multiverse theory, except for the addition of an unnecessary and unparsimonious creator.”

    Not quite. I’m saying that a creator may have had to do it a couple of times until it did it right, which is quite different from matter popping out of nothing all by itself extremely numerous times and forming huge numbers of universes with all possible parameters in which one turns out to have it completely right to produce life. It has been brought up numerous times that a creator adds complexity which is used to argue that natural means is more likely to be correct. But it ignores the fact that the likelyhood that our universe came about by chance with no direction from an intellectual source is also quite unlikely as well.
    I repeat that I am not saying that the natural means is eliminated as a possibility, only that it fails to eliminate a creator as a possibility.

    Let me leave you with a quote from Paul Davies Professor of Mathematical Physic from his book “The Mind of God”.
    “My conclusion is that the many-universes theory can at best explain only a limited range of features, and then only if one appends some metaphysical assumptions that seem no less extravagant than design. In the end, Occam’s razor compels me to put my money on design, but, as always in matters of metaphysics,the decision is largely a matter of taste rather than scientific judgment. It is worth noting, however, that it is perfectly consistent to believe in both an ensemble of universes and a designer God. Indeed, as I have discussed, plausible world-ensemble theories still require a measure of explanation, such as the lawlike character of the universes and why there exists a world-ensemble in the first place.”

  175. ibyea says

    @rajkumar
    You sexist moron, you answer Sally’s point. What, you can’t? Is your brain too stupid to keep up? Jealous that she is smarter than you? What’s wrong, LOSER?!

  176. says

    Let me leave you

    Yes please.

    Let me leave you with a quote from Paul Davies Professor of Mathematical Physic from his book “The Mind of God”. “My conclusion is that the many-universes theory can at best explain only a limited range of features, and then only if one appends some metaphysical assumptions that seem no less extravagant than design. In the end, Occam’s razor compels me to put my money on design, but, as always in matters of metaphysics,the decision is largely a matter of taste rather than scientific judgment. It is worth noting, however, that it is perfectly consistent to believe in both an ensemble of universes and a designer God. Indeed, as I have discussed, plausible world-ensemble theories still require a measure of explanation, such as the lawlike character of the universes and why there exists a world-ensemble in the first place.”
    this giant steaming turd.

    ARRGH!

  178. Amphiox says

    But it ignores the fact that the likelyhood that our universe came about by chance with no direction from an intellectual source is also quite unlikely as well.

    No it does not. You only think it does.

    What you continue to ignore is that the question of unlikelihood is irrelevant when considered in isolation. The question is always of relative unlikelihood.

    No matter how unlikely a universe coming about by chance might be, an intelligence capable of creating a universe is EVEN MORE UNLIKELY TO EXIST.

    I repeat that I am not saying that the natural means is eliminated as a possibility, only that it fails to eliminate a creator as a possibility.

    And as has already been explained in detail to you, but which you continue to dishonestly ignore, the above is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

    What matters is the RELATIVE POSSIBILITY of a creator COMPARED TO natural means.

    And natural means ALWAYS has a higher relative possibility than a creator.

    A creator only appears to be simpler to a lazy mind that lumps an undefined multitude of complex parameters it does not want to put the effort into understanding into a single nebulous label, that it arbitrarily chooses to call ‘creator’.

    Creator theory is the refuge of LAZY, INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST thinkers who DO NOT WANT TO DO THE HARD WORK THAT IS NECESSARY IF ONE WANTS TO UNDERSTAND THIS UNIVERSE.

  179. Amphiox says

    I’m saying that a creator may have had to do it a couple of times until it did it right, which is quite different which is quite different from matter popping out of nothing all by itself extremely numerous times and forming huge numbers of universes with all possible parameters in which one turns out to have it completely right to produce life.

    No it isn’t very different at all, except that sticking the creator into it makes the whole thing less parsimonious.

    You are simply too intellectually dishonest and lazy to admit this.

    Just consider this question:

    How many times does your creator have to try to get it right?

    Once you have HONESTLY answered this question with a QUANTIFIABLE NUMBER, you will realize exactly what I am talking about.

    But of course I have not considered you to be in this discussion honestly for a very long time now, so I’m not holding my breath.

  180. says

    from matter popping out of nothing all by itself extremely numerous times and forming huge numbers of universes with all possible parameters in which one turns out to have it completely right to produce life.

    It was also completely right to produce black holes. Yet the difference between us and black holes is that the black holes don’t think that a universe containing at least ~100,000,000,000 black holes was just right for its own existence.

    The problem with fine-tuning arguments is that they are incredibly anthropocentric. Yes, it all happens to be just right for us – if it wasn’t then we wouldn’t be around to say how right it was for us. So instead of taking the point as being tautologically true and getting onto the how it’s the case, the human mind is compelled to think their tiny fraction of the cosmos is the reason the entire cosmos exists! 14 billion years, some 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, and still people think it’s all about them?!?

  181. chigau (Twoic) says

    SallyStrange
    rajkumar is not gone, just resting.
    xe keeps to a schedule.
    xe will be back.
    and when xe returns I hope to learn if, by “green”, xe means 青 or 緑.

  183. chigau (Twoic) says

    A. R
    Bay moute sou konplo reyaksyonè klasifikasyon ou!
    Depi koulye a, nou pral klase tout bagay sa yo pa pran sant ak gwosè yo.

  185. chigau (Twoic) says

    A. R
    It depends more on the fact™ that the most important thing about learning Japanese as an adult is that they are messing with my head.
    二十歳 is pronounced はたち?
    bite me

  187. A. R says

    Dit kan werk, veral in ag geneem word dat raj het net bewys hoe moeilik trol taksonomie is.

  188. chigau (副) says

    A. R
    We do syens!
    I’d like to work “mother’s maiden name” into the classification scheme.

  191. chigau (副) says

    yay!
    I’ll name it after my first kitteh!
    Fluffymittensbootsi lookoutforthatcar
    or the next one
    Evildemonfiend tomcatfromhell

  192. A. R says

    New classification scheme!

    Famillia: Trollus
    Subfamillia: Trollii
    • Genus: Trollodon (disp)
    o Species: assholicus
    – racistii
    o Species: libertardia
    o Species: menzii
    – defensor
    – privilegiata
    – mysognyistus
    o Species: mystikus
    – stultus
    – mysognyistus
    • Genus: Accommodare
    o Species: incommodus
    – atheistii
    o Species: stultus
    – agnosticus
    – athestii
    Subfamillia: Fundamentalis
    • Genus: Creationistii
    o delugionistii
    – hamii
    -hovindii
    o complexionem
    o
    • Genus: Godbotticus
    o repetita
    o defensor
    o mysognyistus

  193. A. R says

    Subfamilies Trolli and Fundamentalis have been added. Godbotticus has been reclassified as a genus of the family Trollus, as opposed to a species of the polyphyletic genus Trollodon, subspecies of Godbotticus have been upgraded to species status, and a new species, mysognyistus has been described. A new subspecies, mysognyistus has been described to the species Trollodon mystikus in honor of raj, who has been reassigned to:

    Trollus, Trollii, Trollodon mystikus mysognyistus (A. R)

  194. mikmik says

    I have a wee question for Scifi, and/or every other seer that figures god might have created our universe, or what.
    Describe the properties of this god. It’s appearance, it’s constituency, it’s motives, it’s abilities, blah blah etc. What it’s made of, it’s capabilities/powers, and how it works it’s magic, so to speak.

    Was it sort of just playing fish with a bunch of other human shaped gods, got bored, and said, “Fuck this bunch of wankers, they can’t even count to 42 – think I’ll go piss around out back and squeeze my ass so tight it creates an instability on the third from the left event horizon of the black holes my omnipotent clenching forms, and uh, see wut ‘appens?”

    Or, maybe, this God sort of condenses out of the pre-universitic plasma of ionized dimensions and just happens to be fine tuned to the right parameters allowing only Jewish Deitetic narcissistic personality disorder, male, to obtain, one with a love so deep that blah blah blah?

    I hope I’m not making too much sense, godbot, and confusing you into wondering where, exactly, or even approximately, this so called god came from that you speculate as a reasonable consideration just because it can’t be disproved.
    Because, if you are going to talk about shite doing shite, you first have to explain the shite in the first place.

    I mean, it’s one thing to say something is possible, but first you have to explain how it is possible, sort of what we exactly do in physics and mathematics. And these possibles must be extrapolated from knowns, by which I mean proved to another bunch of boffins, not “I know of this guy that said he got these stone tablets that he would have kept but he broke them” rumor mongering.

    Because, really, entertaining the idea of a god is not warranted, is it, unless you have a reasonable idea of what this god is about, know what I’m sayin’? I’m mean, when you say god did it, isn’t this the exact time the scottish phrase “and then monkeys shot out of yer arse” was intended for?

    Now, it’s possible that god created the universe, and man, and also just as equally possible that god created the universe, and man, and then monkeys shot out of yer arse.

    So, could you please keep things in perspective for the rest of us and the next time you say that god might have created the universe, please also include that scottish bit and just say outright, “God might have created the universe and then monkeys shot out of my arse… Well, it could have happened!”

  196. chigau (副) says

    A. R
    Ek dink dat jy alleen kan wees op hierdie een.
    Dit is ‘n bietjie obsessief-kompulsiewe.

  198. A. R says

    chigau: I know, I tend to to things like this. Just like my ongoing project to find a way to make single-payer healthcare work fiscally in the U.S. wih minimal additional cost and maximal benefit.

    ibyea: Oh, don’t worry, Trollodon is still a genus.

  200. chigau (副) says

    A. R
    I really like how “obsessive-compulsive” translated as “obsessief-kompulsiewe”.
    It makes me think I could learn Afrikaans.
    Have some … *shakes rum bottle* … Argentinean red wine!

  202. mikmik says

    mikmik
    Sober up or post shorter comments.
    or both

    What, you keeping track of real estate now? My 3 comments in the last 400 vs your 200/400.

    Don’t fuckin go there. Or take a midol. Or both.

  204. Snoof says

    Answer my question, Raj. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE RIGHT AND NERD IS WRONG?

    You’re out of luck, I’m afraid. Rajkumar has staunchly ignored that question the seven or so times it’s been asked so far.

  205. 'Tis Himself says

    scifi #174

    You gave a quote from Paul Davies in support of the possibility that your sadistic bully of an asshole god might exist. However the quote is self-defeating.

    In the end, Occam’s razor compels me to put my money on design, but, as always in matters of metaphysics,the decision is largely a matter of taste rather than scientific judgment.

    Davies really wants a god to exist so he’s decided that it does. He recognizes he can’t justify his decision (the Occam’s razor bit is an attempt to sound all scientific about his wishful thinking) but he’s honest enough to admit it. His belief in gods is a matter of taste.

  207. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    Don’t fuckin go there. Or take a midol. Or both.

    Oooh, a PMS joke.

    How witty.

    What’s next, a menopause one ?

    oooh, ooh, I know. Let’s make jokes about men on lupron for prostate cancer.

    That should be funny right ?

    Right ?

    (oh, and FYI, as someone who has self-mutilation-inducing pain during periods, midol doesn’t work. Might as well swallow tictacs. It’s naproxen all the way for me baby.)

  208. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Scifi is still spounting the same shit it has for weeks, without moving its argument forward one iota. Lurkers, time to look at why.

    1. Null hypothesis. In science and skepticism, the null hypothesis is always non-existence. This is done to ensure that the burden of supplying the evidence is upon those making the claims. Scifi claims a creator, the burden is upon it to supply the hard and conclusive physical evidence for it. Nothing presented by Scifi.

    2. Naturalistic explanations are always scientific. They ignore imginary deities/creators. They are also the default postion. Scifi’s argument that we must prove that the naturalistic origin of the universe goes against this principle. It also goes against:

    3. Proving a negative. Scifi’s assertion that we haven’t proven the default naturalistic origin really requires us to demonstrate that the creator doesn’t exist. This is proving a negative, a logical impossibility without a well defined target where the evidence can be found. In this case, vagueness from top to bottom, so it is impossible to disprove.

    4. Parsimony makes it such that any explanation without an unevidenced deity/creator is simpler and gives the same answers as one with it. It is the preferred theory for that reason. Amphiox has done a Yeoman’s job above showing this fallacy.

    5. Inability to show evidence, like the calculations that the “fine tuning” is really that fine. Calculations by real scientists show many universes where life could originate. In each case, the life would be adapted to the constants for that universe, and they would be like Douglas Adams’ puddle, thinking the universe fits them so nicely. There is no difference between a created or naturalistic universe.

    And 6. Presupposition on Scifi’s part, as explained by ‘Tis #205 talking about Davies, and Scifi does the same, although it is dishonest enough not to admit it:

    Davies really wants a god to exist so he’s decided that it does. He recognizes he can’t justify his decision (the Occam’s razor bit is an attempt to sound all scientific about his wishful thinking) but he’s honest enough to admit it. His belief in gods is a matter of taste.

    These are six logical fallacies Scifi commits in his alleged presuppositional bullshit that a creator is necessary. Until Scifi backs off and upgrades it arguments, and loses the presupposition, it will not convince anybody of anything.

  209. opposablethumbs says

    Chigau, you know if the Argentinean red wine is from Mendoza it’s got a good chance of being pretty good, right?

  210. opposablethumbs says

    … or is that what you meant? If so, ‘pologies and I take back the barely-there snark.

  211. mikmik says

    Fuck off, you misogynist piece of shit.

    So let’s see, daisy. You call me a citiot and feel ashamed to be associated with city dwellers because of me and one other, now I’m misogynist piece of shit because because I implied chigua is PMSing.

    In the first case, I was arguing about the Zimmerman stand your ground thing with someone that I was calling bullshit on, and backing up my arguments with links to Harvard research about gun violence that vindicated every point I made as well as pointing out the utter stupidity of this person claiming they needed a conceal carry license because when they went to the shooting range, they sometimes had to park along the way, and they couldn’t risk leaving their weapon locked in their vehicle trunk because it might get broken into and the gun stolen.
    This, after I had pointed out that a major source of illegal handguns was stolen legitimate weapons and this person had denied was of consequence. (Forgive my faulty memory if I’ve missed the gist of what happened)
    To which I replied to you that it serves no purpose to sling cutesy invectives because I can do the same, but that behavior isn’t relevant to the specifics of the argument.

    This time, chigau haughtily dismisses me by commanding me to follow her orders and also includes an insult to my person by assuming I’m (a) drunk. Her anger was hypocritical and exaggerated, IMO, because it is the merest simplicity to spend 2 seconds scrolling past content you personally can’t be bothered(rightly or wrongly) with.

    Now, calling people idiots and misogynists are increasingly strong and nasty condemnations to render on someone. I already, rather politely, address your first transgression towards me, so what the fuck is your problem with the word midol in response to being disrespected in the first fucking place?
    There are fucking commercials on TV for midol as a prophylactic for PMS, I take midol for aches and pains, and both my mom and my ex wife used to use their pms to excuse abusive bahavior – both very progressive and not to be fucked with individuals.

    Furthermore, whenever I use the terms dick and prick, and their derivatives, no one has ever knee-jerked the ‘gendered insults= not allowed’ meme, yet bitch and pussy, and now midol earn the label misogynist, which I remind you, is an extremely serious charge that implies the use of violence towards women. I fucking assure you, I now feel justified in returning an equally disgusting retort, you man hating dyke.

    I don’t mean that, daisy, for there is no way I know anything about you psychologically, or personally, and I would never start an exchange by assuming anything of the like, and in fact, I almost never stoop to ad hominem in the first place unless they start it first, and I include material relevant to the discussion at hand.

    The thing is, girls(I’m a boy/guy), that I already had decided that my last two posts were excessive, bizarre, and esoteric parody that doesn’t really work anyways, so if chigau would have waited to see if I carried on a couple of more times like that, either there would be nothing to bitch about, or she could have been a little more creative, at least, in her insults. In any event, it is far more ignorant to sucker punch someone than any cheap shot deservedly returned, let’s keep that in mind, okay?

    You, cutter, I find trite and defensive, angry and psychologically wounded, but I still would never, ever, use that as an excuse to just up and screech at you. I don’t do that to anyone, I think that that is violent and gratuitously derogatory.

    Now, again, I can see the opening for another swipe/brush-off due to the length of this fucking comment, of which I feel painfully embarrassed that I can’t seem to speak concisely and appropriately to the point – believe me, but I can’t fucking stand the bullshit some people try to pull by being vague or general and it takes me a dozen or more paragraphs to try to head off all the weaselly avenues available to the players of such games, and it is considerably more difficult to illustrate the actual severity of many taken for granted put downs.

    So if you’re going to be a prick, then I may be a bigger douche in return, and this hyper sensitivity to anything that is remotely disdainful using feminine grammatical classification while allowing the opposite strikes me as disingenuous. But lobbing accusations of violent character around like some watery tart dispensing swords is egregious, as well as ridiculous.

  212. KG says

    Hey, the first thing I see after an absence from this thread is a flow of verbal diarrhoea from a dishonest, misogynist, homophobic scumbag. Mikmik, people do get regularly asked here not to use gendered insults, including “dick” and “prick”; nevertheless, these are objectively far less harmful than “pussy”, “bitch”, and insinuating that female commenters’ comments are the result of PMS. If you don’t know why, or pretend not to, that just confirms what a privileged arsehole you are.

  213. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    misogynist, which I remind you, is an extremely serious charge that implies the use of violence towards women.

    Not exactly.

    It’s possible to be dismissive and hateful without being violent.

    Using PMS to explain the anger of women is dismissive.

    I absolutely hate, hate, hate it when someone, man or woman, does that to me.

    It implies that real women should be all smiles and butterflies, and that they have to excuse their agressiveness with an hormonal disturbance.

    In other words we cannot be normal humans, with normal emotions, which include anger.

    Also, it’s not only men who display misogynist behavior, and if you want examples we can provide.

  214. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    mikmik:

    Using PMS as a silencing weapon against women has been around for a long time and has always been a misogynist tactic. When you use that weapon, you are saying, “She is angry, I don’t think she has any reason to be angry, so it obviously has to be menstruation. And since that is the reason (Midol moment, PMSing, etc), we can all ignore what the woman has to say because it is just her hormones talking. She’s hysterical.”

    Gendered insults are effective at silencing people. Human beings. And it is not welcome here and should not be welcomed anywhere.

  216. mikmik says

    Ugh, upon further reflection I think my opinion is wrong regarding gendered insults. Embarrassingly so.

    I don’t know what it’s like to be anything other than white male, so even if men get stereotyped as thinking with their dick, or not asking directions, or any other sort of class put down, it does not carry the slightest weight of other stereotyping because it is not a threat or mechanism to repress me in any sense that applies to anyone else.
    I cannot know what it’s like to not have at least equal status and treatment as a default standing in our society, or appreciate the fucking insidiousness of a deeply ingrained class structure that represses or condones that repression at every fucking little turn.

    I’m sorry, I think I might be starting to get it why there is, actually, a real difference between most gendered and stereotyped insults.

    Luckily, this time, shooting my foot, stuffing it in my mouth while burying my head up my ass and then stumbling backwards and landing on my butt, has paradoxically sharpened my view.

    It is, sadly, probably going to take more than that to learn me some brevity, I imagine ;)

  218. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    I’m amazed at the way the Trollodons are able to tag team. One leaves, another drops in.

  219. A. R says

    Og: Yeah, it’s quite an interesting example of inter-genus co-operation. (This is a molecular biologist trying to sound like an ethologist, so not sure if that’s official terminology)

  220. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    Yeah, it’s quite an interesting example of inter-genus co-operation.

    I suspect the Trollodons would describe it as ‘inter-genius co-operation.’

  221. A. R says

    Og, Yes, though the species Godbotticus has been elevated to genus level, making scifi a member of the species Godbotticus repetita (Ogvorbis).

  222. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    A.R.:

    Right. I need to print out the list, laminate it, and velcro it to my computer screen (well, the frame, not the screen itself).

  223. A. R says

    I’ve already got a printout; Yay OCD! I’ve also decided to assign raj to Trollodon mystikus mysognyistus (Ogvorbis)

  224. mikmik says

    Yikes I need to keep up!

    Oooh, a PMS joke.

    How witty.

    What’s next, a menopause one ?

    oooh, ooh, I know. Let’s make jokes about men on lupron for prostate cancer.

    That should be funny right ?

    That was my point, exactly. Well, not exactly, but in a way, LOL.

    A PMS insult compared to a drunken dolt insult is still about as classy as the drunken dolt insult in the first place. At least there was some call for me being an ignorant jerk because it was in return to someone being an ignorant jerk to me first.
    To show were this sort of dialogue leads to very quickly, but hopefully to show that the initial insult is the most ignorant one because it was unjustified. Whether you understand it or not, it was more than a assault on my behavior, young lady, and when you experience a few adult relationships turned bitter, you’ll understand.

    Now, toddle off and try to come up with something, well, along the lines of, “oooh, ooh, I know. Let’s make jokes about,” as you’re getting the idea, but that’s kind of transparent and not really effective or likely to be taken seriously.

    You see what I did there?

    Now this is really making a mountain out of a molehill, I don’t think any the less of chigau, Daisy cutter, or you: we’re all smart, nasty, and insightful, and I don’t think any specific statements by any of you, ever, would change those core character assets you all posses.

    Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos, I hear you, but please, other insults are also just as demeaning. I sure won’t be stooping to gendered crap any more, as you can probably now see my previous ‘recantation’ I posted, but that was sort of my point, that we get irate, and rightfully so, with gendered slander, but that is how nasty chigau seemed to me – that level of hurt – and I wont do the usual thing and focus exclusively on the one type of insult just because it is foremost in our awareness, and ignore the other as if it inconsequential and unimportant.

    This is/was more than a damn gender thing, and that ‘gender thing’ was a mechanism whose real intent was to illuminate the underlying principle, and draw attention to the nature of demeaning put downs and cheap shots in the first place.

    So, forgive me if I infer the wrong idea, but everyone either jumping on me or addressing my error exclusively, is exactly the situation I was trying to draw attention to, even before it has indeed turned out to happen. I am merely trying to illustrate the bias that rigid and reactionary boundaries are indicative of.

    As I had posted, I realize that I wasn’t understanding of the weight of gendered insults, but I have always understood the viciousness of belittling remarks in general, and that type of shit is equally uncalled for and unacceptable in any circumstance.

    In fact, belittling people in public is a fucking lowlife power ploy and is just about the most selfishly unfair tactic anyone can use. That’s the sucker punch simile I used. Offhand gendered remarks are exactly that, I know, and worse than I initially appreciated, and even though they may be one of the tallest, are not the only trees in the forest.

    Plus(cue violins), I am a recovering alkie and junkie and as part of the rehab I’ve been in for a couple of years, I had to sing in a choir praising the spilling of blood and unfathomably heroic martyrdom in order to give undeserving scumbucket dirtbags like me a promise of everlasting skinning and acid dousing if I don’t agree that this charade was so transparently effortless for something that first, manufactured the need for this event in the first place, but also was going to undie into a profoundly more pleasant situation in very short order anyways.
    So, being called a second class alkie on an anti christian bullshite venue(against xian BS) is too much irony for this windaelicker.

  225. says

    Mikmik, I just logged in to thank you for taking a moment to reflect further, but now I don’t think I will.

    There’s a difference between insulting a person by insulting the person, and insulting a person by insulting an entire class of people, to which the person you’re trying to insult may not even belong.

    Example: “That’s gay” as an insult.

    Do you get it?

  226. theophontes 777 says

    @ mikmik

    midol

    I had to look that up and then wished I had not. Sexism is not the way to win friends or influence people … at least not here.

    Fortunately:

    I’m sorry, I think I might be starting to get it why there is, actually, a real difference between most gendered and stereotyped insults.

    Though it is best to avoid gendered insults altogether, consider also what happens when a man (especially in a paternalistic society) uses a gendered insult against a woman. He is kicking down the social gradient of power. That insult adds to the oppression of women and reinforces the social iniquities. Sadly, the lions share of societies have such skewed gradients, be it in discrimination against women or minorities or any of a myriad of reasons.

    This is quite different to a situation when the section of society that is lower down the gradient kicks up. It is no longer an expression of oppression, but an expression of resistance.

    These gradients are easy to spot in many societies and claiming ignorance of these is a good sign of a lack of self awareness (particularly of one’s own privilege). If your own coutry is free of iniquity (I would love to believe this) that still does not excuse sexist remarks. We are part of a global community on the internet. One that is in itself a reflection of the underlying sexist and discriminatory problems of its constituents in RL. Here on Pharyngula, at least, we should strive to create a little haven away from all that bullshit.

    @ raj

    The above is just going to go completely over your head, is it not?

  228. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    A PMS insult compared to a drunken dolt insult is still about as classy as the drunken dolt insult in the first place.

    Except that anyone, male or female, can be a drunken dolt. Men are not silenced by menstruation-based insults. Women are. See the difference?

    At least there was some call for me being an ignorant jerk because it was in return to someone being an ignorant jerk to me first.

    No one here, that I know of, is denying you the right to be an ignorant jerk. We are asking, quite strongly, that you avoid being a misogynistic jerk.

    young lady,

    You have a problem with using ‘nyms? ‘Young lady’ is another that is used to silence women. It implies that, no matter the actual age, they are too close to being a child to be taken seriously.

    Now this is really making a mountain out of a molehill,

    No, it is not. Read up on rape culture, sexism and misogyny in modern western culture.

    please, other insults are also just as demeaning.

    Yes, there are also racist, agist and ablist insults which use a person’s physical characteristics as a way to silence that person. Using a term that applies exclusively to one gender is a gendered insult and is using physical characteristics as a silencing weapon.

    I am merely trying to illustrate the bias that rigid and reactionary boundaries are indicative of.

    Has anyone else here used a gendered, racist, ablist term as an attempt to insult or silence you?

    I have always understood the viciousness of belittling remarks in general,

    Sometimes belittling insults are quite appropriate. And the English language is rich enough and varied enough that you should be able to reply to a cutting put-down without resorting to misogynistic silencing tactics.

    I understand the struggle of addiction. It is perfectly okay to ask that insults regarding addiction be avoided. This is one I had not thought about but I have to admit that alcohol- and drug-based insults may also cross that gender/disability/race line.

    If that really was your point, you chose, quite possibly, the worst possible way to make it.

  230. Amphiox says

    Now this is really making a mountain out of a molehill

    Dismissing the offense as “no big deal” is a standard misogynist tactic.

  231. says

    Why am I never around when these conversations with the likes of raj and scifi go down? I’m feeling left out.

    Let me try some baby language.

    SciFi:

    The naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe is limited. But it does fit with what we know so far about the universe, and is pretty good at explaining what we see in the universe.

    If we find a bunch of stuff it doesn’t explain, we’d start looking for a better explanation.

    You are looking for a different explanation, but you haven’t laid out a bunch of things that the explanation we already have doesn’t explain. So we don’t know why we should want or care for your explanation over the one we have that works.

    Plus, the explanation you are proposing is, well, kind of not helpful. You have been clear, at least I think so, that the only thing you are firmly proposing about this creative entity is that it is, in fact, a creative entity.

    Well, to an observer, a universe that had an initial creator who then didn’t touch the world at all looks exactly the same as a universe with no creator. Adding this extra thing doesn’t help us predict anything, make decisions, or understand anything. It’s like doing algebra – it is easier to solve equations if you can reduce the variables. If Y = 7X, instead of writing X+Y you can just write 8X without cluttering things.

  233. Amphiox says

    Yes, there are also racist, agist and ablist insults which use a person’s physical characteristics as a way to silence that person.

    In my opinion, of all the various bigotries out there, misogyny is objectively the worst, most hateful, and most evil, for the simple reason that, at 51% of the human population, the target group is the largest, and therefore the largest number of human beings are harmed.

    (Short of universal hatred of all humans….)

  234. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    In my opinion, of all the various bigotries out there, misogyny is objectively the worst, most hateful, and most evil, for the simple reason that, at 51% of the human population, the target group is the largest, and therefore the largest number of human beings are harmed.

    And I am not minimizing misogyny in any way by pointing out that there are other forms of insults which are in the same vein as misogyny. I was attempting, most likely unsuccessfully, to point out that demeaning insults are not equal to demeaning insults which use a physical characteristic, over which the person has no control, as the vehicle to demean.

  235. A. R says

    theophontes: Ons doelwitte ‘n naby voltooiing is. Met die kortstondige opflikkering van vrouwenhating van die Raj, en Scifi se voortgesette onnoselheid, sal kom. Ons sal oorwin FTB!

  236. says

    Now this is really making a mountain out of a molehill,

    No, it isn’t. At all. There are millions of privilege-blind men like yourself and all of you together keep entrenched, toxic sexism going.

    Why do you have such a need to keep bringing up gender when it’s a woman you’re addressing? I can tell you – it’s because you’re belittling based on gender, “oh look, silly woman, must be on the rag! Oh, little lady, don’t strain your brain!” and so forth.

    If you simply wanted to lob an insult or three, there’s a wealth of them out there, certainly plenty of colourful language is demonstrated here at Pharyngula. Asshole, every one has one. Asspimple, asshat, assclown, etc. Fuckwit is fun or you could go with a combo pack, such as dimwitted dipshit.

    You see how simple that is? You see how that is not what you’re doing at all? What you’re doing is putting someone down based entirely on their gender. Not only that one individual, but you move on to a whole class of people – women.

    Now, we like to think of ourselves as full human beings. Unfortunately, a lot of people out there refuse to consider us that way. You’re one of them. Yes, you are. Stop and fucking think. You’re fully indulging in what we refer to as Bitches ain’t shit.

    We have brains. We are all individuals. We are human beings. Treat us with the basic respect you grant to other human beings, even when you’re pissed off and want to hurl insults. You do not get to reduce us to body bits and if you continue trying, you’re going to be in for a world of hurt here at Pharyngula.

    Try a bit of light reading: The Male Privilege Checklist.

  238. theophontes 777 says

    @ A.R

    opflikkering van vrouwenhating van die Raj

    Sulke onverdraagsaam kak is nooit alleen. By Raj hang dit in trosse.

  240. Amphiox says

    And I am not minimizing misogyny in any way by pointing out that there are other forms of insults which are in the same vein as misogyny

    Certainly I did not intend to imply that you were! It was intended to be a more general type of comment, and your statement seemed to be the most relevant introduction for it.

    (You were, at least to me, actually rather successful in getting your intended point across)

  241. chigau (副) says

    I’ve never understood this “world domination” thing.
    What would you do as Boss of the World?
    Force everyone to learn Morris Dancing?
    Outlaw peas?
    Build the Space Elevator?
    What?

  242. says

    Well, Mikmik, I was going to say that it was nice about how you got a clue that gendered slurs were wrong. And then you complain that

    A PMS insult compared to a drunken dolt insult is still about as classy as the drunken dolt insult in the first place.

    As you proved upthread by whining about “cutesy invectives [sic, because “invective” is a collective noun],” you are a tone troll who doesn’t understand the difference between an insult and a slur. Has nobody linked you yet to the Pharyngula Standards & Practices? “This is a rude blog,” but it is not a blog on which oppressive slurs are tolerated.

    Speaking of slurs, you used a homophobic one upthread — “man-hating dyke” — and then more or less said, “Ha ha, PSYCH!”, as if that absolved you from throwing homophobic words around. FTR, I’m not GLBT, although I’d rather have a bigot think I were a lesbian than a lesbian think I were a bigot. You really ought to apologize to the people here who are, however.

    Oh, and I wonder when’s the last time you informed a man with whom you were arguing that you found him “angry and psychologically wounded“? I never, ever see men characterized that way in internet debate, no matter how nasty they get. Women, however, get all sorts of diagnoses flung at us, the implication being that if we’re not “sweet and nice,” i.e. not coddling the egos of teh menz and otherwise performing femininity “properly,” we’re fucked up.

    Knowing now that you have a history of substance abuse, I would not ever ask you flippantly whether you were “drunk” or “high.” I would point out, however, that people who are not addicts do use drugs (including alcohol) and sometimes post under the influence of same. Therefore, I would argue that asking someone if they were drunk or high when they posted x comment is not necessarily oppressive.

    As for the previous thread to which you allude, while I can’t find it at the moment, ISTR that the woman of whom you speak had been the victim of a stalker, which is why she chooses to carry a firearm. I don’t know offhand whether the studies you linked to disprove the utility of doing so, but, personally, I would not want to put myself in the position of telling a stalking victim not to protect herself in whatever way she feels is best.

    Also regarding those studies, did they address the issue of carrying a firearm for hunting purposes and to protect oneself from certain wild animals? That was an entirely separate issue in that discussion.

    Moving on:

    it was more than a assault on my behavior, young lady, and when you experience a few adult relationships turned bitter, you’ll understand.

    What a fucking condescending piece of shit you are. Is that “uncivil” enough for you? If not, I invite you to stretch out your penile meatus as if you were imitating Goatse with it, then ram a dead, stiff hedgehog down it with a kebab skewer.

    Incidentally, the person who replied to you starting with, “Oooh, a PMS joke” was Kemist, not me. Your reading comprehension sucks bowling balls through a plastic coffee stirrer.

  243. A. Noyd says

    Amphiox (#230)

    Now this is really making a mountain out of a molehill

    Dismissing the offense as “no big deal” is a standard misogynist tactic.

    It’s also stupidly self-defeating, because if something is really of such minor consequence, then it’s no imposition at all for the ones causing offense to change their behavior.

  244. Rey Fox says

    I’m not a regular on these zombie threads, so let me see if I can guess what’s going on. Scifi still thinks that the universe is extremely fine-tuned, even though it’s been pointed out to him dozens of times that it is not, and rajkumar still thinks that what he sees when he’s high actually means something. Am I up to speed?

  245. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    Am I up to speed?

    And mikmik does not fully understand why using midol, PMS, and young lady as insults is not acceptable. Other than that, ya, you grok.

  246. Amphiox says

    Now that you are up to speed, Rey, if you want to stay abreast of these particular trolls, you’re going to have to slow down….

  247. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    Rey:

    Please also note that, upthread, A.R. has developed a list of the family Trollus, with both Trollii and Fundamentalis as subfamilies.

  249. Esteleth, Who is Totally Not a Dog or Ferret says

    A.R., quetatyë ya yássen sámanya pá torogi ya tular sissë i horma-ostanna. Tevatyet! Cé autair!

    / I had way too much fun translating that.

  250. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    You left out green and the flowering of Raj’s misogyny.

    I had forgotten (thank FSM) about Rajgreen (is that like soylent green?). And his turdblossom of misogyny also slipped my mind.

    They say that, as you get older, your memory is the second thing to go.

  252. Ichthyic says

    Plus, the explanation you are proposing is, well, kind of not helpful.

    that’s the key problem with attempts at supernatural explanations.

    they are dead ends.

    in the end, they explain exactly nothing, because you can’t use them to actually TEST anything, nor make predictions, nor base any productive or useful knowledge on them.

    There’s a reason we say “Science works!”

    400 years of it has clearly shown that it does, and has given us ENDLESS reams of useable knowledge that has resulted in tremendous changes to our lifestyles and quality of life.

    while thousands of years of attempts at supernatural explanations have given us…

    nothing. no productive knowledge whatsoever.

    all it has done is enable certain personality types to more easily dominate others.

    …and the only reason we know THAT is because of science.

  253. A. R says

    Esteleth: That language bears some similarities to several Scandinavian languages, and at least one form of Elvish. Where is your translation source?

  255. Esteleth, Who is Totally Not a Dog or Ferret says

    And the translation source was my own brain and a few peeks at the dictionary.

  256. says

    I immediately move that Rajgreen be raj’s new name when he shows back up. And you know he will.

    Great Idea. I like it too. Rajkumar is not my real name anyway. Might as well be Rajgreen, or RajBlue-Green, since blue-green is my favourite colour.

    By the way, how are we doing today?

  257. A. R says

    Esteleth: With the aid of several dictionaries this is what I have: Tale/history ?and? which once upon a time/wherein ?his mind? on torogi when come here the horde-home. Hate! May be ?go away/leave/invent?!

  259. says

    Rajgreen: Do please insert several decaying porcupine into your orifice of choice.

    In that case, you and I are going to have to see each other in person.

  260. Ichthyic says

    By the way, how are we doing today?

    sane.

    I can see you aren’t doing nearly so well, unfortunately.

    There are treatment options though.

  262. cm's changeable moniker says

    raj, your definition of god is essentially “something I feel”.

    That’s not terribly helpful to those of us who don’t feel it.

    Can you come up with a convincing reason why we should try to?

  263. says

    Rajgreen the Misogynist is back.

    Oh Yeah. I remember that intense emotional outbreak yesterday. So, when everything fails, this works? Right?

  265. says

    Hmmmm, think I’ll go with Misogyniraj instead.

    Who cares. I think I can sort of guess why you did that. This works every time to activate all the emotional screaming and yelling. And you know what, it is, in the end, a very ‘feminine’ characteristic.

  266. Ichthyic says

    This works every time to activate all the emotional screaming and yelling.

    LOL

    a misogynist trying to tell us how it’s all just the emotional women screaming and yelling.

    hey, fuckwit.

    I’m a guy, NOT like you, and I’d fucking kick your ass if you brought that shit into my house.

  267. Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian says

    Stop it, rajkumar. You’re not being funny.

  268. says

    I’m a guy, NOT like you, and I’d fucking kick your ass if you brought that shit into my house.

    You are just trying to win some support here. Stop being so emotional on a blog, i.e., stop faking your emotions. You are not going to win a medal here, that’s for sure.

  271. ibyea says

    Ah Rajkumar the coward, using your misoginy to cover your stupidity. That’s the only explanation, since otherwise, you would be actually trying to address the point the women here are making. You are such a failure.

  272. says

    no need, you insane fuckwit.

    OK. If you say so. Anyway, it’s your problem if you are trying to make people imagine that you are the greatest champion of female rights in the world. Tell you what, you are doing a very shitty job.

  273. says

    Misogyniraj:

    This works every time to activate all the emotional screaming and yelling.

    What screaming and yelling, little Pufftart? You are a misogynist with a brain that doesn’t work well at all. Those are facts, the evidence of which you have scattered all over the internet, where it will be in perpetuity, a testament to your fuckwittery.

    By the way, I’m having some tea, doing some work and laughing while I write this. Seems to me you’re the emotional one.

  274. ibyea says

    @rajkumar
    Oh, and faking emotions? Who do you think you are, moron? A mind reader?

  275. Amphiox says

    You are just trying to win some support here. Stop being so emotional on a blog,

    Someone who does NOT get emotional on a blog, or anywhere else, on this particular issue, is someone who is not ethically fit to be considered a human being.

    i.e., stop faking your emotions

    An accusation of this nature requires evidence.

    Produce it, NOW, or apologize, NOW, or admit that you are not fit to be considered an ethical human being.

  276. Esteleth, Who is Totally Not a Dog or Ferret says

    A.R.:
    Quetatyë ya yássen sámanya pá torogi ya tular sissë i horma-ostanna. Tevatyet! Cé autair!
    Literal: Say-you that which-in mind-my about troll-plural come-they-to the horde-homestead.
    Hate-them-I! May it be they-shall-leave!

  277. Amphiox says

    if you are trying to make people imagine that you are the greatest champion of female rights in the world.

    An accusation like this requires EVIDENCE.

    Produce it, NOW, or apologize, NOW, or admit that you are not fit to be considered an ethical human being.

  278. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Ah, I see the rajkumar is back for its dose of derision.

    —

    Specimen:

    You are not going to win a medal here, that’s for sure.

    Oh dear.

    That’s Ichthyic, OM to whom you retort, O blissfully unaware one.

  279. Ichthyic says

    Tell you what, you are doing a very shitty job.

    right, a demented fuckwit insane misogynist, telling me I’m doing poorly sticking up for egalitarianism.

    uh huh.

    makes perfect sense.

    were you always this dumb, or are you just trying to prove it to the world now?

  281. Amphiox says

    There is little point in engaging with the rajagreenaga now, anymore, discussing god or qualia or the definitional subjectiveness of greenness or whatever.

    Any future post from it that isn’t an abject apology for its rampant misogyny can and should be either ignored, or mocked.

  282. says

    Sorry people, it’s Sunday here today, and I have things to do. I just came back to give you all a very brief message: All of you suck at faking emotions. And just look at how easily females can still manipulate stupid ass males, in a so-called **male-dominated** society. All they have to do is yell a little, and all the stupid help is available from all the four corners. This is why, I still love the idea of addressing God as SHE…:) You know what I mean??

    Bye

    Have fun

  283. says

    Amphiox, oh I’ve been mocking* all along. There’s only so much one can do with a critter like Misogyniraj.

    *Of course, as we all know, wimmins seriously suck at the mocking and the sarcasm, so I need the practice. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

  284. John Morales says

    Specimen:

    You know what I mean??

    Yeah.

    You’re finding it hard to sustain the illusion that you are trolling us.

    (Sad specimen is sad)

  285. ibyea says

    Shorter Rajkumar: I am too stupid to make an intelligent point, so blah blah misoginy blah blah.

  286. Esteleth, Who is Totally Not a Dog or Ferret says

    Sorry people, it’s Sunday here today, and I have things to do.

    Random excuse: 0/5

    I just came back to give you all a very brief message: All of you suck at faking emotions.

    Non sequitur

    And just look at how easily females can still manipulate stupid ass males, in a so-called **male-dominated** society. All they have to do is yell a little, and all the stupid help is available from all the four corners. I’m a sexist moron

    Fixed that for you.

    This is why, I still love the idea of addressing God as SHE…:) You know what I mean??

    Random!

    Bye

    Have fun

    Flounce!

    I give it 1.5/5. Needs improvement.

  287. says

    John:

    You’re finding it hard to sustain the illusion that you are trolling us.

    It is seriously sad, that level of cluelessness.

    It’s too bad Dano wasn’t quarantined to TZT, a cage match would have been interesting.

  288. Hekuni Cat says

    Misogyniraj:

    This works every time to activate all the emotional screaming and yelling.

    No one has been “screaming and yelling”, you misogynist fuckwit. You have merely been called out on your misogyny and stupidity.

  289. says

    Esteleth:

    Flounce!

    Pfffft, Misogyniraj has flounced so many times I’ve lost count. Give him a day or two. Or even an hour or two. He just needs a while to lick his wounds and figure out a comeback.

  290. Hekuni Cat says

    Any future post from it that isn’t an abject apology for its rampant misogyny can and should be either ignored, or mocked.

    You’re right. *Sigh* This is like the first time I’ve been actually caught up on a thread like this when the discussion is taking place.

  292. Ichthyic says

    failed tag is fail.

    You know what I mean??

    no.

    only YOU know what you mean.

    …

    strike that.

  293. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    And just look at how easily females can still manipulate stupid ass males, in a so-called **male-dominated** society.

    Says the one trying to convince us that he is not a misogynist.

  294. John Morales says

    Hey Hekuni Cat, other opportunities to pounce will present, in time.

    (I think PZ likes TZT :) )

  295. says

    Ogvorbis:

    Says the one trying to convince us that he is not a misogynist.

    But, but, Oggie! Misogyniraj is just trying to wake you and the other Pharyngumen up – that you all should be yelling at us wimmins to get back into the kitchem and make you a sammich!

  296. chigau (副) says

    ♪M-I-S
    estimate the next occurance
    O-G-Y♬
    Why, because we know it will happen
    N-I-R-A-J♫
    (pathetic. help me out here!)

  297. 'Tis Himself says

    So the misogynist just came by to shit on the thread and now he’s off to hoggle somewhere. How trollish.

  299. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    Who cares. I think I can sort of guess why you did that. This works every time to activate all the emotional screaming and yelling. And you know what, it is, in the end, a very ‘feminine’ characteristic.

    I’m thinking this particular ghoul is starting to stink up the place.

    It’s one thing to cluelessly spout misogynist bullshit. Continuing to do so after people have told you in unsubtle ways why it’s wrong crosses in complete asshat territory.

  303. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    Women, however, get all sorts of diagnoses flung at us, the implication being that if we’re not “sweet and nice,” i.e. not coddling the egos of teh menz and otherwise performing femininity “properly,” we’re fucked up.

    QFT.

    So we’re “trying to be men” or some such bullshit (I’m looking at you raj) because “we live in a men’s society”, he ?

    Here are the facts:

    Not all of us swoon over Sex and the City or Twilight. Not all of us are little sweet things whose main occupation is trying to find a husband to protect us. Not all of us go crazy about shoes and clothes. Not all of us want to have children, or even like to be around children. Not all of us enjoyed playing with dolls as children.

    I know because I never played with dolls. Ever. Not because I was never gifted any but because they never interested me. When gifted with one, I would say thanks, put it in some corner and go back to my Lego set.

    I hated, and still hate to be forced into things I find excrutiatingly boring because of my gender. I am not my gender.

    I am a goddamn human being, and I fucking demand to be treated as such. Not as sweet little fragile and sensitive thing that needs to be protected. As a full member of the human race with human caracteristics, responsibilities and rights. There is no confusion about that.

  306. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Myeck Waters, The Cramps and The Replacements were two very different bands. The Cramps were not part of that album.

    And the oddest version would be by Yma Sumac.

  307. says

    Aiya! That sound you heard was my brain farting. Yeah, how I turned the ‘Mats into the Cramps is beyond me.

    I blame it all on the aftereffects of the dental work I had today.

  308. says

    All of you suck at faking emotions. And just look at how easily females can still manipulate stupid ass males, in a so-called **male-dominated** society.

    Oh, unholy fuck, now my opinions and responses are not my own. Yeah, I’ve always been known for faking emotions to impress women.
    Somebody must have really poked a big hole in this fucker; he’s leaking misogyny three lanes wide.

    Sorry people, it’s Sunday here today, and I have things to do.

    Yeah, go explain “green” to yourself, you stupid fuck.
    .
    .
    .
    Girls: did I do okay? Did that sound convincing? I just want you to like me.

  310. Ichthyic says

    Somebody must have really poked a big hole in this fucker; he’s leaking misogyny three lanes wide.

    Yeah, I think Sally stabbed him with a pitchfork a day back.

    been leakin’ ever since

  311. chigau (副) says

    Ohmy
    TZT we have arrived!
    Janine is posting song-links here!
    :):):):)
    —
    I like you feralboy12.
    I really, really like you.

  312. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Yeah, I think Sally stabbed him with a pitchfork a day back.

    been leakin’ ever since

    Yeah, that happens frequently.

  313. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    I did not plan on posting links to songs here. You linked to the Mickey Mouse March so I had to link to Aaron Neville doing a cover. And one thing lead to an other. And the songs are all connected.

  315. says

    Somebody must have really poked a big hole in this fucker; he’s leaking misogyny three lanes wide.

    You are very welcome, gentle-creatures and beings of the universe.

    Is it not satisfying to obtain evidence that one who is stupid is not just stupid but also a stupid bigot?

    Such is the way of the universe.

    Love and appreciation*,

    Sally

    *Excluding Raj

  316. Rey Fox says

    And just look at how easily females can still manipulate stupid ass males, in a so-called **male-dominated** society.

    Real deep thinker, this one.

  317. Amphiox says

    And just look at how easily females can still manipulate stupid ass males,

    I could make my standard quip here about the digging of holes steam-driven deep mantle power-drilling.

    But there’s really no need. This putrid specimen has already crushed itself into smulch in the solid iron core.

    Truly pathetic. Good riddance to filthy trash.

  318. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    We don’t need no stinking plan!

    What plan? Slowly reduce trolls to mindless masses of protoplasm, while having fun? That sounds like a plan worthy of a grog *sets out grog and swill for the posters*.

  324. KG says

    Sorry people, it’s Sunday here today, and I have things to do. – rajcluelessmisogynist

    Right, I’m sure you have. Important, significant, manly things to do. Chopping wood, watching football, wrestling with bears, opening beer bottles with your teeth – that sort of thing.

  325. says

    It’s like Raj was some kind of troll LP (dating myself), and once the needle had run out of meandering unguided philosophy noodling, it got stuck in the innermost ring of puffed up misogynist tropes.

  326. theophontes 777 says

    @ Strewth

    unguided philosophy noodling … puffed up misogynist tropes

    Teh interlerktshul dingleberries of such trolls tend to cluster in their craniums.

    This is the problem of trying to categorise them in the manner of A.R et al. Out of the vast number of prejudices and idiocies they hold, only a small number are expressed at one time. One must hold off pigeonholing as, given enough time, they will show each and every aspect of their family traits. A classification scheme for the family Trollus just won’t work.

    Rather see these aspects as so many mimetic diseases that the family Trollus is prone to. (Any troll can have any number of antisocial diseases, incuding: godbotting, misogyny, apologetics etc)

  327. mikmik says

    SallyStrange: bottom-feeding, work-shy peasant = Example: “That’s gay” as an insult.

    Do you get it?
    A little history. My mom left my dad because he wouldn’t let her pursue an education. She won a provincial award for math in grade 9 and was incredibly intelligent. She went to U of A and wouldn’t give up. She got her Doctorate of Ed Psych at 62. She Became director of the Rape Crisis Center here, and sometimes asked my opinions on what drug addiction does, and the roles it plays, in single mothers lives, and their abusive, violent, husbands.
    When she was initially in school, one of her friends would visit all the time. He was here best friend, and came over a lot. I loved it when he did, and I liked him more than any adult I think I’d ever met. He qwas gentle, sure of what is the compassionate way to view people, and filled me with genuine love of live and everyone in it. I had no idea he was gay until after he died, and it made exactly zero difference because that man showed me what gentle compassion was about, and that’s what he was – a beautiful friend and teacher that qenuinely loved me for what I was, a gentle and caring overly sensitive young boy.

    I fucking hate, with a passion you may understand as the most important passion, the strongest feeling of wright and wrong, when people are not treated as individuals unique to themselves with more that just basic human rights, but should have equal privilege and access to education, health care, shelter, freedom to express thenselves and live the way they want, and freedom from ridicule, prejudice, and class(which I have accomplished LOL) designation.

    My points and the words I chose were entirely intentional, every single one. I wasn’t trying to just defend myself against perceived injustices, I deliberately wanted to draw attention to the fact that it is not alright to belittle and just because you don’t use gendered language – and the degree of anger and upset people immediately shower on any use of that language creates that mountain out of a molehill by focusing on the word and perhaps overblown implication of it in that situation.

    Treating someone like they are a little child, and calling them one, are the same, but calling them one is more direct, and the former is passive aggressive in nature. I always try to get to the point quickly when it looks to me that communication is becoming fractured and vague because then it really does head of in myriad ways.

    I guess, the main thing I had in mind is that when you use explosive and powerful terms indiscriminately, it waters down their impact, but worst of all, it is a fucking grave insult to others that have suffered real damage and violence, emotionally, financially, physically,

    Women lose families, their mental health and ability to raise their kids and relate to adults, they live in terror, they commit suicide, they kill the men that terrorize them because they are so fucking trapped and alone and beaten down psychologically, and when you get in the habit of dispensing the term misogynist for every gendered insult, small and large, it either becomes a trite swear word insult, and then dilutes and steals the gravity of what women who have suffered the intense wrath of sick woman haters and their damage and terror.

    That is why I reacted strongly to chigau initially, because when insults are served solely to strip the humanity of the person and make them a dumb, or powerless object, I fucking hate that. It is lazy and sleazy, but I’m sure she wasn’t trying to really be nasty like that. I thank you, miss Daisy Cutter, really, for what you said.

    You have a problem with using ‘nyms? ‘Young lady’ is another that is used to silence women.

    LOL, it really silences the young lads! .. I use them both, it’s not a gender shot, it’s a maturity shot.

    There’s lots more good you people said to me, but it applies to many of us, and I hope what I said sinks in where it might be necessary. The point is, that you open the door to low blows by using character assaults, and in other situations, the same conventions don’t always apply smoothly to here.

    anyways, found this – contrast it with – take a midol –

    Misogynist: This is the term that is in question in this article. A very misunderstood concept for sure. Plain and simple, a misogynist is a man (or woman in some cases) who literally and passionately hates women. A misogynist does not like women, does not trust women, and would generally like to avoid any and all interaction with women, other than to insult them, torture them or even murder them. The notorious serial killer of women, Ted Bundy, would be a prime example of a legitimate misogynist. Same with the legendary Jack the Ripper.

    If there is one term related to male-female relationships that falls into this category, it is the popular hardcore feminist buzz word misogynist. Based on television talk shows I have watched, radio interviews I have heard, and articles that I have read, I have come to the conclusion that a good number of women (and even a good number of men) really have no true grasp on what a misogynist really is. There are many terms that men and women have a bad habit of using inappropriately and/or defining improperly.

    One last bit: Many people repeated why gendered insults are wrong, politely, etc, but repeatedly. Sigh, I thought that was a Christian thing – OUCH!

  328. consciousness razor says

    mikmik:

    Buried somewhere in your mountain of text:

    My points and the words I chose were entirely intentional, every single one. I wasn’t trying to just defend myself against perceived injustices, I deliberately wanted to draw attention to the fact that it is not alright to belittle and just because you don’t use gendered language – and the degree of anger and upset people immediately shower on any use of that language creates that mountain out of a molehill by focusing on the word and perhaps overblown implication of it in that situation.

    Hypocrisy and mansplaining aside, I notice this doesn’t say anything like “I’m sorry. I’ll try to learn from this.” So in response, fuck you.

  329. theophontes 777 says

    @ mikmik

    anyways, found this – contrast it with – take a midol –

    This comes across as a dearmuslima argument. Do you realise why this type of rationalisation is wrong, especially in the current context?

    One last bit: Many people repeated why gendered insults are wrong, politely, etc, but repeatedly.

    Education is repetition.

    (We are all here to learn. It is a slow process.)

    Sigh, I thought that was a Christian thing – OUCH!

    You see parallels between education and indoctrination?
    (An interesting conjecture.)

  330. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    Many people repeated why gendered insults are wrong, politely, etc, but repeatedly. Sigh, I thought that was a Christian thing – OUCH!

    I tried. I really did. And had all the effect of a mosquito hitting a Hummer. So, fuck you, mikmik.

    Hell, I even pointed out that there are better ways to achieve awareness of substance abuse triggers brought on by certain insults but that part of my comment is apparently worthless.

    You claim that ‘young lady’ was an attempt to silence using an agist, rather than sexist, insult. Why do you not get that either one is wrong?

    Anyway, fuck you. Sideways. With a Leica rangefinder.

  331. Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian says

    mikmik,

    I don’t think the source you linked to to explain the true meaning of misogyny deserves much credibility, especially when the “Verbal Seduction Artist” who authored it follows the section you quoted with a few paragraphs that actually blame misogyny on women. For example, in this paragraph:

    “When a man feels indefinitely ignored by women, blatantly disrespected by women, and feels like just about every man in society is receiving more flattering attention, more romantic attention and more sexual attention from women than himself, this is what potentially plants the seeds for genuine misogyny.”

    And he justifies this extraordinary claim solely with a rather pathetic example invoked from entertainment media:

    “(There was once an episode of Law & Order: SVU where a young man became a misogynist and a serial killer because he witnessed his mother verbally and physically abuse his more passive father)”

    I wish to also add that I’m yet to see a men who actively proclaims to be misogynist. Even notorious dungcake Dave Sim denies to be one.

  332. Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian says

    idiot me said:

    a men man

    Fixed that for me.

  333. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Mikmik using “young lady” reminds me of one of my favorite instance of a guy trying to treat me as an young waif. It was back when Alan Clarke was doing his part in starting the undead thread. At one point, Owlmirror and I were having a discussion with him. This was when Alan Clarke told me not to let Ownmirror lead me astray.

    I had to laugh at his clumsy attempt at patronizing me. While I do no know for sure, I am assuming that Owlmirror is in his mid to late twenties. If this is so, I was an atheist before he was born or when he was still a very young child. While I know that Owlmirror knows more about the Bible then I do, he did not influence me in anyway.

    But deluded Alan Clarke assumed that all I was doing was following Owlmirror’s lead. Because how could a mere female type person actually think for herself? She can only parrot the dominant male.

    Yes, Mikmik, there is a lot of toxic shit behind the use of “young lady”. Just because you might not have meant it does not mean that others will also view “young lady” in the same way.

    Intent is not fucking magic.

  334. KG says

    mikmik,

    So you think because the Ku Klux Klan burned black people alive, it’s wrong to call the casual use of ethnicised insults racist? If so, you’re as wrong as you are about misogyny. There’s a continuum of behaviour in both cases, but even that at the milder end contributes to and reinforces the racism, or misogyny, or homophobia, or transphobia, which is deeply ingrained in our culture, and which to a greater or lesser extent, infects us all. If you weren’t an arrogant, self-obsessed boor you would simply have pointed out how and why the language you found objectionable, and which you are using as an excuse for your stinking misogyny, was hurtful, and asked that it not be repeated. Instead we get your endless, tedious screeds of smug self-justification. Just. Fuck. Off.

  335. 'Tis Himself says

    My points and the words I chose were entirely intentional, every single one. I wasn’t trying to just defend myself against perceived injustices, I deliberately wanted to draw attention to the fact that it is not alright to belittle and just because you don’t use gendered language – and the degree of anger and upset people immediately shower on any use of that language creates that mountain out of a molehill by focusing on the word and perhaps overblown implication of it in that situation.

    In other words, you’re tone trolling. If you don’t like it here, then take your misogynist ass and go somewhere else. Remember, we didn’t invite you or demand you come, you came here of your own volition. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you read this website. You can go and, believe me, you won’t be missed.

    Please collect your decaying porcupine on your way out.

  336. says

    Ogvorbis:

    I tried. I really did.

    So did I. I was polite, informational and even provided a helpful link to some educational light reading. Nope, didn’t do any good.

    I say ‘mikmik’ can ride a rail of rotted porcupines right on outta town.

  337. Amphiox says

    Patient mikmik has expired of toxic unrecognized male privilege overdose, leading to multiple cognitive organ failure. A few early signs of potential recovery proved, alas, to be illusory.

    Multiple interventions were attempted both cooperative and confrontational. Small early signs of potential response were noted, but were not sustained. Subsequent efforts proved ineffective and care was finally withdrawn on grounds of clinical futility.

    Time of death: 29 April 2012, 12:44pm.

  338. mikmik says

    Use the word slutmisogynist and you’ve tried to bully others into adopting your values or submitting to them. Don’t (with unbelievable hypocrisy) hide behind some supposed right not to have others’ values imposed upon you. I have every moral right to use accurate and justifiable moral descriptors to express precisely why you are wrong and why your character is dubious. And I can also explain why your word is out of bounds for both its unmerited, intrinsically insulting character, and for the ways it participates in and perpetuates corrupt conceptions of morality and other unjust systems of social control.

    Ya fucking with me so far?

    What the fuck is your basic fucking problem, fuckhead? I asked yhuou to quite focusing exclusively on my transgression to the effect of ignoring what was said to me, how I was unfairly insulted. But, you bunch of narrow minded sheep have done exactly that, to thew fucking point that you are claiming I condone rascism and misogyny if the terms are not extremet.

    You fucking dolt’s, you are systematically and en masse participating in the very behavior that makes me sick anywhere, the behavior self righteous close minded defensive mobs partake.

    I have all but lost respect for most of you here. What I wanted to do and point out was shit that we all could learn from, and I fucking well did it first, myself, using my own fucking insight before anyone here even began to address what I’d said, FUCK!

    Then, when I try to point out that I am not the only the one doing wrong, I didn’t even fucking start it in the first place. I tried to show that the insult on my character was nasty and completely uncalled for, and that while what I replied was inappropriate, by now, slandering me with the term misogynist was not just an insult, but a grave accusation to be making.

    Yet, you motherfucker robots with your overcompensated for guilt for who knows what the fuck nightmares and impulses can’t get past the term misogynist, EXACTLY LIKE I SAID WOULD HAPPEN BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A HOT BUTTON WORD YOU LOSE THE ABILITY TO FUCKING THINK ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE, YOU BUNCH OF FUCKING SHEEP.

    I fucking said it is dangerous to ‘cry wolf’ to much, and lo and behold, you defend doing exactly that by doing exactly that.

    rajkumar says:


    28 April 2012 at 5:42 pm

    Sorry people, it’s Sunday here today, and I have things to do. I just came back to give you all a very brief message: All of you suck at faking emotions. And just look at how easily females can still manipulate stupid ass males, in a so-called **male-dominated** society. All they have to do is yell a little, and all the stupid help is available from all the four corners. This is why, I still love the idea of addressing God as SHE…:) You know what I mean??
    Bye
    Have fun

    —

    mikmik,

    I don’t think the source you linked to to explain the true meaning of misogyny deserves much credibility, especially when the “Verbal Seduction Artist” who authored it follows the section you quoted with a few paragraphs that actually blame misogyny on women. For example, in this paragraph:

    First, he doesn’t blame misogyny on women, he fucking contrasts the misogyny that psycho’s perpetrate for feeling slighted by women, through no fault of their own. He contrasts fake hysteria over trivialities with deserved abhorration with violence. Like I said yesterday, for fucks sake.
    Don’t fucking accuse me of not paying attention or taking responsibility whiler hypocritically doing the same fucking thing while wrongly accusing me of such.

    Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says:


    29 April 2012 at 1:59 pm

    Many people repeated why gendered insults are wrong, politely, etc, but repeatedly. Sigh, I thought that was a Christian thing – OUCH!

    I tried. I really did. And had all the effect of a mosquito hitting a Hummer. So, fuck you, mikmik.
    Hell, I even pointed out that there are better ways to achieve awareness of substance abuse triggers brought on by certain insults but that part of my comment is apparently worthless.
    You claim that ‘young lady’ was an attempt to silence using an agist, rather than sexist, insult. Why do you not get that either one is wrong?
    Anyway, fuck you. Sideways. With a Leica rangefinder.

    Yet, curiously, you think it was just fine to call me a misogynist. WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT USING ‘LITTLE GIRL’ ID FUCKING MISOGYNIST? I SAID I DO THE SAME WITH MEN (WHEN I CALL THEM SWEET LITTLE BOYS), ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE GOING TO ACT LIKE FUCKING CONDESCENDING LITTLE NANNIES TO ME FIRST, FUCKBREATH.

    Hell, I even pointed out that there are better ways to achieve awareness of substance abuse triggers brought on by certain insults but that part of my comment is apparently worthless. Ah, poor snubbed baby. Did it ever the fucking occur to you that there are better ways for the inquisition to FUCKING ADDRESS ME in the fucking first fucking place, because, YET A FUCKING GAIN, i’LL POINT OUT THAT I WAS RETURNING THE FAVOR TO THE INITIAL IGNORANCE?
    What the fuck is your problem??? Not only did you keep parotting the same shit over to me, you failed to acknowledge the initial transgressors, AS IF I AM THE ONLY RELEVANCE HERE! This further serves to exxacerbate the impression that I am way out of touch and disproportionately disruptive.
    It is you people that are facilitating that, not me, so don’t fucking bother with that shit, it is shallow and transparent. I expected much more, but I was curious just how genuine your people were with your insults and epithets towards the closed mindedness of the god bots.
    You have very badly been fed some rope, TOLD THAT THAT WAS WHAT WAS HAPPENING – AND STILL HUNG YOURSELVES!

    Now, that is fucking depraved, and it is very, very sad to me. It shows that you are not free thinkers, but rebelious fucks using a hard won banner by thinkers whose shite is worth more than your so called social awareness.

    Hell, I even pointed out that there are better ways to achieve awareness of substance abuse triggers brought on by certain insults but that part of my comment is apparently worthless.

    Where did I say anything about substance abuse triggers? I thought is was hilarious that I just spent 5 painful hours singing the praises of something I detest in public, for which I was doing it because heroin addiction and alcoholism led me there, LMAO! Here it is, a xian bashing thread, being bashed and accused of drinking. I’m not christian, and not drinking, so it was funny.
    But you sure the fuck got irate at me after explaining how I should act more politely/appropriately.
    Now, do you get my point about (semi)justified rewarding of ignorance with ignorance? I’ve tried to explain it enough times.

    Yes, Mikmik, there is a lot of toxic shit behind the use of “young lady”. Just because you might not have meant it does not mean that others will also view “young lady” in the same way.

    So? What toxic shit? You sure you don’t want to throw in carcinogenic and mutagenic also?
    There wasn’t toxic shite in the statement I was responding to(although many others will see it that way), but it was condescending and malicious, so what the fuck exactly is you point? My point is that you are mindless sharks on a feeding frenzy that smell blood, I mean misogyny, in the water and are foaming at the mouth at oil from a submerged transmission. Don’t hurt your teeth or bite one another, my goodness, we can’t have that. Being unsure of exactly what is wrong, and how much, the safest thing to do is go into autopilot and kill everything, no matter how many teeth you break.
    I like scifi and dh666 better than most of you right now. At least they tried to show some insight.

    I saved the fucking beyond belief hystaerically stupid comment for last:

    KG
    29 April 2012 at 3:21 pm

    mikmik,

    So you think because the Ku Klux Klan burned black people alive, it’s wrong to call the casual use of ethnicised insults racist? If so, you’re as wrong as you are about misogyny. There’s a continuum of behaviour in both cases, but even that at the milder end contributes to and reinforces the racism, or misogyny, or homophobia, or transphobia, which is deeply ingrained in our culture, and which to a greater or lesser extent, infects us all. If you weren’t an arrogant, self-obsessed boor you would simply have pointed out how and why the language you found objectionable, and which you are using as an excuse for your stinking misogyny, was hurtful, and asked that it not be repeated. Instead we get your endless, tedious screeds of smug self-justification. Just. Fuck. Off.

    No, I got your endless schreeching about me, and exaggeragations, and group hysteria for not taking 100% of the responsibility for any misunderstandings, misunderstandings that began when you fucking refused to slow down for two seconds band realize that you were all along acting exactly as I expressed I was worried about – that you all over react to the relatively insulting request to take a medication, forgetting the un called for and complete overboard insult delivered in the first place.
    Suddenly, a bunch of you started becoming condescending, repetitive, and drawing bizarre conclusions about me.
    In other words, it was all about my shortcomings and percieved crimes against humanity(exagerated for effect), and at no point was the defense allowed to be heard, let alone acknowledged.

    heophontes 777
    29 April 2012 at 1:25 pm

    @ mikmik

    anyways, found this – contrast it with – take a midol –

    This comes across as a dearmuslima argument. Do you realise why this type of rationalisation is wrong, especially in the current context?

    One last bit: Many people repeated why gendered insults are wrong, politely, etc, but repeatedly.

    Education is repetition.

    (We are all here to learn. It is a slow process.)

    Sigh, I thought that was a Christian thing – OUCH!

    You see parallels between education and indoctrination?
    (An interesting conjecture.)

    Actually, theo. I was not vindicating trivially using the word misogynist because it is really nasty business. The ones that use misogynist indiscriminately are the ones doing dearmuslima, which I think is extremely wrong. It’s also called crying wolf, and I first heard someone say it about 25 years ago at a feminist gathering with some bigwigs that my mom was involved in.
    That has always been part of my shtick when I post, to ridiculously over dramatize and overreact to slights and irrelevant points of contention.
    The article I quoted by the dude is not what I was looking for, I almost didn’t just because a guy wrote it anyways.
    And know, education is not repetition, indocrination and propaganda is repetition. There is the use of repetition in learning, I mean, I couldn’t niftly juggle the ball and strip Bobby Charlton’s jockstrap andd then nutmeg the lad without a few repeats against that has been Uwe Seelor.
    (An interesting conjecture.)

    I learned about dearmuslima from diane or someone quite venerable way back on a feminism thread – yet another time I embarrassed myself in a tizzy, a little. :0

    You guys, I don’t think any of us are fuckhead dolt’s, although we sometimes act it – especially I am not exempt from that.
    Moistly (hey, fruedian slip(x2)) it is very educational here, I mean very fucking much. I just want to say that never carry grudges or judgements, eccept against religion and west ham, so puh-leeeeeeze don’t tell PZ Uber boy(tee hee) on me!
    Shit, I forgot to use my line: Better undead than read! Both is good, though

  339. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    I like scifi and dh666 better than most of you right now. At least they tried to show some insight.

    I am stung and I shall not be able to recover.

  341. mikmik says

    Actually, theo. I was not vindicating trivially using the word misogynist because it is really nasty business. The ones that use misogynist indiscriminately are the ones doing dearmuslima, which I think is extremely wrong. It’s also called crying wolf, and I first heard someone say it about 25 years ago at a feminist gathering with some bigwigs that my mom was involved in.

    Fuck, I wonder how I make it across the street some days.

    I know what you meant, what it means, theo777, although sometimes when I feel sorry for myself, I remember that at least I’m not forgetting my burka in RD’s underwear drawer.

    chigau, I am touchy and I over reacted, sorry about that. No more chauvinist, sexist remarks. Can’t promise anything on the long posts, like, like the other day, you should have se…..
    See ya laters

  342. says

    mikmik, you’re simply too fuckwitted for Pharyngula. Take your idiocy, your capslock key and everything else and leave. You’ve won this wonderful, maggoty, decaying porcupine. Use in good health. Ta.

  343. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Actually, theo. I was not vindicating trivially using the word misogynist because it is really nasty business. The ones that use misogynist indiscriminately are the ones doing dearmuslima, which I think is extremely wrong. It’s also called crying wolf, and I first heard someone say it about 25 years ago at a feminist gathering with some bigwigs that my mom was involved in.

    Poor mikmik. He uses a misogynist insult and gets called on it.

    Will the persecution end or will he have to talk about his mother some more?

  345. says

    Ing:

    Dikdik

    This ^ is not at all helpful when we’ve been attempting to explain why gender-based insults and slurs are not okay and why they are not to be used here.

    Remember, you don’t know who might be reading.

  347. says

    Hmmm. It says here … TO ACTIVATE THE CLOWNS, PUSH A BUTTON.

    BUTTON 1:

    Janine: History’s Greatest Monster
    changes into
    Janine: History’s Greatest Clown

  348. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    No, chigau, this does not count as a starfart. Shortly after the infamous that turned the moniker into a verb, starfart posted a rather thorough thrashing of a creationist article. It was quite impressive and I wished that starfart stuck around.

  351. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    My, what a patronizing and smug little slime ball you are.

    Why would you say such a thing to a woman. I though that we were too emotional to learn.

  352. says

    BUTTON 2:

    QUESTIONS FOR SALLY:

    TRUE/FALSE: MOST WOMEN HAVE BREASTS AND MOST MEN DON’T?
    TRUE/FALSE: MOST WOMEN USUALLY CRY MORE THAN MOST MEN?

  356. chigau (副) says

    Janine
    re starfart
    (it was before my time)
    Thanks. Linky?
    I have read only the infamous, nothing after.

  357. 'Tis Himself says

    Misogyniraj, you’re back. We missed you like we missed a toothache. So, how are you doing? How’s the hating women business doing these days? Have you heard any new misogynist quips and putdowns or are you still trying to come up with your own dumb shit?

  358. says

    Misogyniraj, you’re back. We missed you like we missed a toothache. So, how are you doing? How’s the hating women business doing these days? Have you heard any new misogynist quips and putdowns or are you still trying to come up with your own dumb shit?

    I think I know who you are. You are the guy who couldn’t have sex with a **real** woman until you turned 40. Then finally you found yourself a **real** woman, who was at least 20 years older than you. At precisely that moment, you decided to become the greatest defender of the feminist movement by coming **under pressure** from you partner, because if you hadn’t, she would have left you, and then you would have gone back to blowing dolls again… right?

  359. says

    Hey Raj.

    Do you base your interactions with people based on what you “most” (i.e. 51% or more) people in their demographic category do?

    “Hey, sez here that 55% of female baby boomers like Bob Dylan. Hey, I guess I should get Nana a Bob Dylan album for her birthday.”

    Later…

    “Nana, what do you mean you don’t like it? I know for a fact that most women your age love Bob Dylan! What’s that? You prefer the Dead Kennedys? Well geez, how am I supposed to know that? What, you want me to just ask you? Nah, that would require treating you as an individual rather than a representative of your group, and that takes thinking. Thinking is hard work, I prefer not to do it. I don’t like the way it sounds when you say you don’t like Bob Dylan. It sounds better when you say you liked my gift. So I’m going to pretend that’s how it happened, okay? Cool, see you later!”

  360. cm's changeable moniker says

    Pebbles, tiny troll babies

    Will they tell me where the onions are?

    —

    More seriously, raj, did you answer my question?

  365. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Does someone have a link to that very odd and very long wall of text that one random troll left a couple of years ago?

    Chigau and other newish people should get a look at that monolith.

  367. chigau (副) says

    Janine
    re starfart’s last post
    I agree. Who knows, maybe xe’s actually still here.
    —
    Thanks, anyway, cm.
    *bacon hug*

  368. cm's changeable moniker says

    “from the dusk of time (trolls being nocturnal …” was always a winning line.

  371. Rey Fox says

    My understanding of “starfart” is that it’s an out-of-nowhere overreaction to a trivial slight. I don’t think it counts when it’s been building over the course of an argument.

  372. Amphiox says

    Postmortem activity observed from cadaver of subject mikmik. Close inspection reveals generalized incoherent spasms indicative of the onset of rigor mortis coupled with agonal discharges.

    Evidence for higher-level cerebral activity absent.

    Conclusion: observed activity inconsequential and irrelevant to original diagnosis of irreversible ethical death.

  373. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    You are the guy who couldn’t have sex with a **real** woman until you turned 40.

    Ah, yes, “real” women, those fragile and mysterious things who are too dumb to use logic and must use emotions and intuition instead.

    You know, those things who cry a lot, wear pink, and would never ever get angry except for PMS.

    We know raj, you like only women who know their places. Not those uppity confused ones who think they’re real people.

  374. Amphiox says

    I think I know who you are. You are the guy who couldn’t have sex with a **real** woman until you turned 40.

    Yep. Still buried irretrievably in the deep iron core.

  375. Amphiox says

    So the raja flounces for the evening, and comes back immediately with nothing but a barrage of pitiful, unimaginative insults.

    It must have tossed and turned ALL NIGHT in bed thinking them up.

    Truly pathetic.

  377. Amphiox says

    TRUE/FALSE: MOST WOMEN HAVE BREASTS AND MOST MEN DON’T?

    Hilarious the depths of pitiful ignorance this attempt at repartee reveals.

    (Hint: the answer is FALSE).

    TRUE/FALSE: MOST WOMEN USUALLY CRY MORE THAN MOST MEN?

    And this too.

    (Hint: the answer is FALSE, unless a very specific culture, place, and time is specified, in which case the answer is BOTH true and false, depending).

    Looks like this troll is depleted. It’s really not fit to remain even on the zombie thread.

  379. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    THE GODS ARE ASEXUAL. THEY HAVE NO SEX ORGANS NOR RECTUM.

    Thank you, Caine! That is it!

    Damn, that was four years ago?

  380. says

    TRUE/FALSE: MOST WOMEN HAVE BREASTS AND MOST MEN DON’T?

    False.

    TRUE/FALSE: MOST WOMEN USUALLY CRY MORE THAN MOST MEN?

    False.

    Anything else you want to know, fuckwitted Pufftart?

  381. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Sastra claimed to have read it twice. But I think she was trying to trick us into reading the entire thing.

    She is full of snark but because she is also kind and reasonable, she uses a very subtle but deadly form of snark.

  383. says

    Ah, yes, “real” women, those fragile and mysterious things who are too dumb to use logic and must use emotions and intuition instead.

    You know, those things who cry a lot, wear pink, and would never ever get angry except for PMS.

    We know raj, you like only women who know their places. Not those uppity confused ones who think they’re real people.

    Seriously, what are you trying to achieve here? You are the one who is making ’emotions’ look bad and making ‘logic’ look good. I am not doing this. I am saying we need both emotions and logic to function properly. Too much of either should create an imbalance.

    The way I see it, people like you are telling the women, stop using your emotions, and start using logic more, like MEN do… In other words, people like you are telling the women to become like men. Really? I am saying no such thing. If I am saying anything, I am saying men should start listening to their emotions more, and start mixing logic with emotions. Because, according to Jung, both males and females have male/female sides in them. The anima and animus. You are, each one of us, both a male/female at the deep unconscious… Yeah. The mysterious unconscious. Try doing a little reading first, before attempting to screw-up people’s mind with your fake emotionality.

    And I guess this is precisely why, your screwed-up perception of reality is giving you a very screwed-up interpretation of what I am writing here.

  384. chigau (副) says

    Why do you suppose the GODS have plural sex organs and singular rectum?
    I ♥ Sastra.

  385. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Shorter raj; how dare you criticize me for the sexist shit I write. It shows how sexist you are.

  386. Esteleth, Who is Totally Not a Dog or Ferret says

    I am attempting to unpack comment 14.

    This is what I have:
    Go to church! Any church! Worship god! Any god! Because exclamation points!

  388. Menyambal: Making sambal isn't exactly dragon magic. says

    rajkumar:

    your screwed-up perception of reality is giving you a very screwed-up interpretation of what I am writing here

    The projector is on. Who has the popcorn?

  389. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    The way I see it, people like you are telling the women, stop using your emotions, and start using logic more, like MEN real people do… In other words, people like you are telling the women to become like men real people.

    Fixed that for you.

  390. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    The projector is on. Who has the popcorn?

    In front of the projector.

    I figured the heat would make it pop.

  391. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Kemist, I am not sure how I was able to set up truth tables back when I took symbolic logic. All of my crying had to gotten in the way.

  393. says

    Shorter raj; how dare you criticize me for the sexist shit I write. It shows how sexist you are.

    No, it just shows how overly-obsessed with sexism you people are. And, plus, how some of you can effectively use it as your last line of defense, when everything else fails. This is, I guess, the only area of your expertise for which you deserve a pat on your back…

  395. chigau (副) says

    I spent some time on this …[ stripping out identifying stuff ]…
    a Guy I know finally found “the first real woman I’ve ever gone out with”.
    ( I knew several of the not-reals he kicked to the curb)
    He married The Real.
    About 1.5 years later The Real left him for the next-door neighbor (while Guy was out of town on business).
    The Real left her car parked in his driveway because it was convenient.

  396. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Once more, raj set me squarely in my place. His intellectual presence is monstrous.

  398. ibyea says

    @Raj
    Whether men or women cried more depends on the time and place. This stuff is culture sensitive.

  399. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    Kemist, I am not sure how I was able to set up truth tables back when I took symbolic logic. All of my crying had to gotten in the way.

    Ah, but you used your famous feminine intuition dontcha know.

    What’s that ? You want to become an engineer ? Ah, now, that won’t do.

    You see, feminine intuition and emotions are so superior to logic and science, it would be a waste of time for you to become an engineer. All these superior womanly qualities are best suited to care for children and cook for men.

    Besides, if you’re a real woman you’ll like that much better, plus you won’t have the stress of trying too hard to be a man. That is so stressful for fussy pink emotional lady brains.

  400. says

    Once more, raj set me squarely in my place. His intellectual presence is monstrous.

    Don’t think it was a one-way exchange, because I learned a lot from you, too. I used to be an extremely serious person before I knew you. Now, I know how to laugh…belly laugh.

    The person I used to be before I saw your posts here … these people could have spent many precious years of their lives and thousands of their hard-earned dollars in therapies, and still end-up being unable to learn how to laugh…

  401. ibyea says

    @rajkumar
    Your statememnts on gender is not only untrue, you used it to ignore Sally’s points. You are the one who is intellectually bankrupt here.

  402. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Raj tries so hard to use insults.

    And fails so pathetically.

  404. Amphiox says

    Try doing a little reading first

    This, coming from the raja, who outright refuses to read links to literature given directly to it.

    And a billion irony meters cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

    Utterly pitiful.

  406. Amphiox says

    We can, incidentally, add “overly”, “perception”, “exchange”, “interpretation” and “it” to the list of english language words that the raja is utterly incapable of defining.

  407. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    And a billion irony meters cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

    I have switched to a log-scaled one since my vaporisation incident last week with Dano and I barely felt that.

    *Sniffs*

    What’s that ozone smell ?

  411. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Rajkumar is like DH666. His attempts at insults and humor are pathetic attempts to sound mature, intellectual, and knowledgeable, but end up sounding incoherent, stoopid, and pathetic, as one expects from those without any humor or intellect.

  412. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    As I said before, even granting that I was confused about my gender, why would that make me wrong, or not worth responding to?

    Because you’re not a real woman, duh.

    Only real women are interesting. You know, those who are sensitive and emotional and intuitive and stuff. Those who make him sammiches and can give him sons.

    Not those uppity ones who think they’re real people and use logic like men.

  413. Menyambal: Making sambal isn't exactly dragon magic. says

    And a billion irony meters cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

    I did laugh out loud. (For the first time in weeks. Thanks.)

  414. says

    Sexism is subjective Raj, you can’t define/explain it!

    In that case, I should really be thanking you, because this message of yours should be for all those who’ve been calling me a sexist, and actually started this whole sexism thing here…

    Sally, do you agree with Ing? I guess this is going to be one of those rarest moments of your life when you attempted to disagree with a kin of your herd?

  415. says

    Raj tries so hard to use insults.

    And fails so pathetically.

    Me using insults? When was the last time you actually proofread your own posts? Do you wear some bullshit-cutting filter when you read your own crap, to make it shine like pure gold?

  416. says

    In that case, I should really be thanking you, because this message of yours should be for all those who’ve been calling me a sexist, and actually started this whole sexism thing here…

    Sally, do you agree with Ing? I guess this is going to be one of those rarest moments of your life when you attempted to disagree with a kin of your herd?

    Jesus fucking christ are you an absolute idiot.

  419. chigau (副) says

    rajkumar
    What is wrong with you?
    Seriously.
    Is there anything about yourself that you would like to improve?

  420. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    Me using insults? When was the last time you actually proofread your own posts? Do you wear some bullshit-cutting filter when you read your own crap, to make it shine like pure gold?

    Funny, this coming from a person who has been writing fiction and calling it truth.

    Raj, you are a fucking spleen weasel.

  421. 'Tis Himself says

    I think I know who you are. You are the guy who couldn’t have sex with a **real** woman until you turned 40. Then finally you found yourself a **real** woman, who was at least 20 years older than you. At precisely that moment, you decided to become the greatest defender of the feminist movement by coming **under pressure** from you partner, because if you hadn’t, she would have left you, and then you would have gone back to blowing dolls again… right?

    This is an insult? You need to work harder on insults if you’re going to survive in the real world.

  423. Just_A_Lurker says

    Damn, that was four years ago?

    Holy Shit, I’ve been here for over four years…

    I need to email the teacher who got me reading this blog to thank her. It was for an BioEthics class and she handed out the post about the 9 year old girl pregnant with twins from her rapist step-father.

    I love this place and you guys. Thank you!

  426. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    JAL, that was a rather interesting time to start reading this blog. We had a few catholic apologists trying to justify the idea of making that girl carry the fetuses to term.

  428. says

    Whoa, just got back from comment 14. Yumpin’ Yupiter.
    Could somebody tell me what year it is? Please tell me it’s still 2012. It was 2012 when I left…

  429. says

    rajkumar fucks goats

    Yeah, but that was in the past. I am doing weasels and hyenas these days … this is why I am here.

  430. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Dang, Crackergate was almost four years ago. Times flies with an AARP card.

  431. says

    This is an insult? You need to work harder on insults if you’re going to survive in the real world.

    No, that should actually translate into a compliment for a man like you. I did say you managed to find a **real** woman, didn’t I?

  432. 'Tis Himself says

    Please tell me it’s still 2012.

    It’s 2014. President Romney just abolished taxes for everyone making over a million dollars a year.

  435. 'Tis Himself says

    No, that should actually translate into a compliment for a man like you. I did say you managed to find a **real** woman, didn’t I?

    No, you’re still not getting it. You’re much too passive aggressive. You’ve got to get in my face so I’ll notice your feeble attempts at insult.

  436. Amphiox says

    I am doing weasels and hyenas these days …

    A transparent and pathetic lie.

    Weasels and hyenas have standards and would never sink that low.

  437. Amphiox says

    We can now add “actually”, “translate”, “man”, “like”, and “a” to the list of English language words that the raja clearly is unable to define.

  438. says

    A transparent and pathetic lie.

    Weasels and hyenas have standards and would never sink that low.

    Apparently they have. This is called evolution by Natural Selection, inverted.

  439. chigau (副) says

    What are the odds that rajkumar is also danielhaven?
    (seriously. can someone calculate that?)

  441. says

    No, you’re still not getting it. You’re much too passive aggressive. You’ve got to get in my face so I’ll notice your feeble attempts at insult.

    No, I won’t do that. This is because I have limits. Not that I can’t exceed these limits, I just do not exceed these limits on purpose. You did a crappy analysis on me, I did one on you too. But I never thought you were insulting me when you did your analysis. I just thought you didn’t know what you were saying. You are welcome to have the same thoughts about my analysis too, because that is the truth, by the way.

  442. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Yawn, Rajkumar still showing what a pathetic and incoherent person it is, without any resemblence of a sense of humor. The only way for the poor perverted creature to get out of the hole it has dug is to remember the first rule of holes. When in over your head, stop digging. It was in over its head before its first inane post, and has been digging itself deeper with fuckwittery ever since.

  443. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    Amphiox

    Apparently you would have to add “evolution” to your list.

    Unless it is already in there ?

  444. chigau (副) says

    rajkumar
    Isn’t this a bit late for you?
    Shouldn’t you have your warm milk and go beddie-bye?

  445. says

    Isn’t this a bit late for you?
    Shouldn’t you have your warm milk and go beddie-bye?

    Yeah it’s a bit late, but not late for warm milk and bed. Late for something else…

    So, it’s a goodbye this time. I hope…

    GOODbye

    Have fun!

  448. chigau (副) says

    So, it’s a goodbye this time. I hope…
    GOODbye

    I, for one, am convinced.
    (harhar)

  450. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    Holy Jesus on a stick. Rajgreen has gone full batshit misogynist.

    Didn’t it ?

    And it’s not the first one we’ve seen spectacularly degenerate this way.

    Apparently that feeling of peace the undefinable “god” gives you fills you with disdain for women as human beings.

    And so much hatred that you must come to vent on blogs, again and again, in some sort of pathetic attempt to enrage people.

    Well, it does not make me think very highly of this whole “god” thing whatever it is or isn’t.

  452. Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian says

    What is truly absurd about rajkumar is that he’s all too willing to believe the testimony of thousands upon thousands of Zen-Sunni monks when they say they have hit their foreheads against hardcover editions of the Ecumenical Orange Catholic Bible till their minds saw the one true image of Shai-Hulud, thus proving that there is fuzzy cuddly force that not only fills the entire universe but actually created everything that exists, but at the same time is unable to consider the possibility that his stereotyping is bigoted when people from all over the world say it is.

  454. says

    So, let’s make a bet on how long it will take for him to come back.

    Sorry, not taking any bets like that. What with the subjective nature of reality and all, and his higher consciousness, I’m pretty sure Raj can bend space and time. This not only means that his latest comments can appear anywhere along the timeline of this thread, it means that some of his older comments may not appear for weeks, months, or even centuries.
    I just hope he can’t change history with his profound abilities. That sort of Ultimate Edit Function really leaves us at a disadvantage, and I want to be able to trust my memories.

  455. Amphiox says

    Apparently you would have to add “evolution” to your list.

    Unless it is already in there ?

    That was one of the very first. Way back to before the raja completely melted down, even.

  456. Amphiox says

    The new word from that post we can add to the list of English language words that the raja lacks the competence to define is “this”.

  457. theophontes 777 says

    @ mikmik

    The ones that use misogynist indiscriminately are the ones doing dearmuslima, which I think is extremely wrong.

    No, here you are extremely wrong. If anything you are pulling yet another dearmuslima, by again claiming that misogyny only applies to extreme, and not to quotidian, cases.

    It’s also called crying wolf,

    Another dearmuslima. You really don’t get it. One can’t complain about sexist insults (midol) because one is not being physically abused? It is not a false claim of sexism but a very real one. Why do you refuse to see this? How real can your apology to chigau be, if you deny there is a problem in the first place?

    And know, education is not repetition, indocrination and propaganda is repetition.

    You have an eidetic memory?

    chigau, I am touchy and I over reacted, sorry about that. No more chauvinist, sexist remarks.

    The better you understand the problems of sexism, the better you will avoid using sexist remarks in the first place. We live in sexist societies, so one cannot avoid a lot of exposure to sexism. But we can learn to become sensitised to these problems – and refrain from them. And hopefully learn to outgrow them.

    @ rajgreen

    Yeah it’s a bit late, but not late for warm milk and bed. Late for something else…

    Compulsive hoggling? (Each to their own, you don’t need to answer this.)

  458. mikmik says

    #216 Ugh, upon further reflection I think my opinion is wrong regarding gendered insults. Embarrassingly so.

    I don’t know what it’s like to be anything other than white male, so even if men get stereotyped as thinking with their dick, or not asking directions, or any other sort of class put down, it does not carry the slightest weight of other stereotyping because it is not a threat or mechanism to repress me in any sense that applies to anyone else.
    I cannot know what it’s like to not have at least equal status and treatment as a default standing in our society, or appreciate the fucking insidiousness of a deeply ingrained class structure that represses or condones that repression at every fucking little turn.

    I’m sorry, I think I might be starting to get it why there is, actually, a real difference between most gendered and stereotyped insults.

    Luckily, this time, shooting my foot, stuffing it in my mouth while burying my head up my ass and then stumbling backwards and landing on my butt, has paradoxically sharpened my view.

    @226

    We are part of a global community on the internet. One that is in itself a reflection of the underlying sexist and discriminatory problems of its constituents in RL. Here on Pharyngula, at least, we should strive to create a little haven away from all that bullshit.

    From Salon:

    What seems to be completely overlooked when throwing around the word misogyny, is MOTIVE. If I kill a black guy, it’s not necessarily a hate crime. It depends on my MOTIVE. If I kill him to intimidate other blacks, then yes. But if I kill him because I catch him sleeping with my wife, then it’s not.

    Similarly, before labeling something misogyny we need to consider motives. Just because a guy yells at you or hits you or doesn’t give you a promotion, or in some other way makes you cry or wounds your inner child, it doesn’t mean he’s a woman-hater. It depends on his motives, and I’m guessing that in the vast majority of cases his anger or violence is NOT motivated by hatred toward women, specifically. Most likely, he’s just a jerk who hates a lot of things and a lot of types of people, including himself (but a discussion of self-loathing as a cause of antisocial behavior is beyond the scope of this post).

    Applying the word “misogyny” to so many things is misguided, over simplistic and perhaps even disengenuous. You may as well call taggers, “building-haters” or the person who keyed your car a “car-hater”. In reality, the overuse of the word “misogyny” is a PR move of sorts, because on some level it is used opportunistically to conjure up umbrage (in the service of one’s cause) by mischaracterizing, ignoring or oversimplifying the perp’s motives. And it’s done to constantly remind us guys that in nearly every scenario, we are the scum and women are the victims.

    The unfortunate downside to all of this is that by making a gender issue out of misbehavior that has its roots elsewhere, we inadvertently cast all women as victims and all men as potential victimizers, fueling an artificial divide. And I for one am a bit tired of hearing half of the world’s population shout “misogyny” every time a member of the other half treats them badly.

    I would have thought it obvious that accusations of misogyny are not to be made lightly, and that making baseless accusations of misogyny is a fairly seriously bad thing to do. But lately, I’ve seen bloggers here at Freethought Blogs saying things that suggest they think accusations of misogyny aren’t a big deal. So I want to talk about that.

    This has nothing to do with “tone” or anything like that. I have no trouble with anyone being harshly critical of anyone when they can back up their criticisms. The problem, rather, is with baseless attacks. The most basic reason I think baseless attacks are bad is because I’m generally pro-truth and pro-basing-your-beliefs-on-reason-and-evidence.

    That’s not the full story on why baseless attacks are bad, though. In some contexts, polite lies in particular, you can plausibly argue that other things are more important than truth. Maybe that’s not right–Sam Harris’ Lying makes a surprisingly strong case that even most polite lies do more harm than good–but at least with polite lies, there’s a sliver lining to straying from the rigorously pro-truth position: helping people get along, protecting others’ self-esteem, etc.

    With baseless attacks, however, there is no such silver lining. Their only side effects are to create ill-will, do unfair damage to someone’s reputation, and possibly discourage people from hearing out a valuable viewpoint. And the amount of harm done is going to be to some extent proportional to the seriousness of the accusation. In our society, misogyny is rightly regarded as a seriously bad thing, and this makes baseless accusations of misogyny at least somewhat seriously bad.

    Some light reading for the hysterically homophobic http://freethoughtblogs.com/hallq/2012/01/30/racism-misogyny-and-those-nasty-italian-fascists/

    http://open.salon.com/blog/rob_anderson_1/2010/01/05/open_call_misandry_and_man-haters_rampant_on_os

    .

    “TRUE/FALSE: MOST WOMEN USUALLY CRY MORE THAN MOST MEN?”

    False.

    Anything else you want to know, fuckwitted Pufftart?

    You kiss your mother with that mouth!
    My, such impudence for a fucking stunned cloud of halitosis!
    Crying is a normal physical reaction to a variety of emotions, and just about everybody cries at some point or another. But do women really cry more than men, as most people think? Up until puberty, boys and girls cry in equal amounts. When adolescence hits, the rise in testosterone in boys causes the crying to lessen, while rising estrogen levels in girls might bring them to tears more often. Researchers estimate that once they reach adulthood, women cry approximately four times as much as men — about 64 times a year for women as opposed to 17 for men [source: TheAge.com].

    Of course, it is far easier to belch like a recess bully than show some backbone with a fact or two. But, just stopped in to watch a few troglodytes jump up and down and pound their breasts.

    I took a shot at chigau specifically, but inappropriately, and I acknowledged that wasn’t the way to go.

    Then, I responded to kemist is a drippingly condescending way, and because she is female, used a female appropriate term. This had nothing to do with sexism, I would’ve used ‘young man’ for a guy, but the appearance of female designation while I addressed a female suddenly launches a barrage of condemnations of misogynist, and implications of racism, and vile, hateful insults.

    It’s was only a few, with another few working themselves into a braindead state of sever agitation, but the fucking level of stinking hatred that spewed forth doesn’t make me look bad, but some might question the level of overcompensation and disproportionately vicious escalation as that of a mob of thugs.
    In fact, that’s exactly how inner city gangs of thugs justify breaking buddy’s face and arms with baseball bats around here.

    What a bunch of chicken shit punks a few of you are, not mentioning any names, Caine, Fleur du mal, OM.
    OM? Really? What’s that stand for, Oobit Merkin?

  459. Ichthyic says

    mikmik, when you can separate privilege from motive, you’ll actually have achieved somethinant.

  461. Janine: History’s Greatest Monster says

    You kiss your mother with that mouth!

    What a clever, clever man you are.

    Because words typed on a screen magically becomes something nasty when you kiss you mother’s cheek.

    Fuckwit!

    Then, I responded to kemist is a drippingly condescending way, and because she is female, used a female appropriate term. This had nothing to do with sexism, I would’ve used ‘young man’ for a guy, but the appearance of female designation while I addressed a female suddenly launches a barrage of condemnations of misogynist, and implications of racism, and vile, hateful insults.

    Fuckface! Repeat after me.

    Intent!
    Is!
    Not!
    Magic!

    Big fucking deal that you would use “Young man”. (Though how would you know how old any of us are.) It is a well known sexist trope. None of us can reading your fucking mind. We can only read that as part of the same old bullshit that we all deal with.

    Now try it again, Fuckface.

    Intent!
    Is!
    Not!
    Magic!

  462. John Morales says

    I would have thought it obvious that accusations of misogyny are not to be made lightly, and that making baseless accusations of misogyny is a fairly seriously bad thing to do. But lately, I’ve seen bloggers here at Freethought Blogs saying things that suggest they think accusations of misogyny aren’t a big deal.

    Bah.

    Feeble rationalisation, that, relying on some magical significance threshold and ignoring that truly “baseless accusations” of any sort get called-out pretty quickly.

    (Actually, I would have thought it obvious that it’s this very type of vacuous apologetics and doubling-down that is the problem)

    —

    Back a bit:

    In other words, people like you are telling the women to become like men.

    Telling women to be people ≠ telling the [sic] women to become like men.

  463. mikmik says

    Because words typed on a screen magically becomes something nasty when you kiss you mother’s cheek.

    Fuckwit!

    Louder. Louder! That’s it! Mikmik mafe a joke that’s been around since christ was a cowboy, but he really thinks it’s literal! Fuckwit!

    Fuckface! Repeat after me.

    Intent!
    Is!
    Not!
    Magic!

    Big fucking deal that you would use “Young man”. (Though how would you know how old any of us are.) It is a well known sexist trope. None of us can reading your fucking mind. We can only read that as part of the same old bullshit that we all deal with.

    Now try it again, Fuckface.

    Intent!
    Is!
    Not!
    Magic!

    Settle the fuck down, already.

    Bah.

    Feeble rationalisation, that, relying on some magical significance threshold and ignoring that truly “baseless accusations” of any sort get called-out pretty quickly.

    C’mon, John, you mean like calling me a misogynist? But I do recognize bullying hate.

    Thanks for the laughs, everyone.

  464. John Morales says

    [meta]

    mikmik:

    C’mon, John, you mean like calling me a misogynist?

    Need I quote Forrest Gump’s mama?

    But I do recognize bullying hate.

    You are the one who has logged in and posted contentious comments; reaping the consequences is hardly being bullied.

    (Plenty of places on the internet, you know)

  465. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    C’mon, John, you mean like calling me a misogynist? But I do recognize bullying hate.

    You obviously don’t, or you wouldn’t keep spouting bullying hate. And you wouldn’t be such a flaming asshat.

  467. Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos says

    Settle the fuck down, already.

    And there goes my super-heavy-duty logarithmic irony meter. I wonder if the warranty covers mikmik?

    But I do recognize bullying hate.

    No, xe really does not. If xe did, xe would have realized that replying to a comment that him xir personally with a blatantly misogynist insult.

    Xe appears to have come here for the specific purpose of becoming a victim. Will xe now head off to one of the ‘PZizapoopyhead’ blogs with full Pharyngula victim credentials?

  468. KG says

    Because, according to Jung – rajkumar

    Ah, yes Jung: the well-known and respected racist, sexist, andtisemitic admirer of Nazism (until it bacame unfashionable), who pulled his “theories” out of his arse.