I would be very surprised if no Icelandic people read this blog. I know several Faroese people who do (myself included) and our population is way, way smaller than Iceland’s.
Soooo jealous. I really want to see Iceland someday.
janiceintorontosays
But, but think of the children! The poor little innocent Icelandic children!
Oh, wait a minute. I thought this was an ad for “Circle the Crocoduck” ministries.
p.s. I was impressed to see the AK-47 sling over PZ’s shoulder.
Looks like he’s gonna convert those damn evil socialists. Next stop, Canada…
Larrysays
Granted, my icelandic is a bit rusty, but I think it says
No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse
with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given
her by Svenge – her brother-in-law – an Oslo dentist and
star of many Norwegian møvies: “The Høt Hands of an Oslo
Dentist”, “Fillings of Passion”, “The Huge Mølars of Horst
Nordfink”.
“The biologist and popular scienceblogger at pharyngula.com
P.Z. Meyers on Iceland!
P.Z. Meyers is known for his criticism on intelligent design and creationism
Recipient of the international humanist award in 2011
P.Z. Meyers delivers a lecture about science and atheism (trúleysi literally means faithlessness) at Háskólatorg (a name of a building, means university square) HÍ (Háskóli Íslands = University of Iceland) the tuesday 29. of may at 19:30 in classrom HT-102
Entrance fee is 1000 krona
29. of may 19:30
Siðmennt (name of the local humanist organization, hard to translate but is closely related to words that mean ‘civilization’, ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’) – association of ethical humanists in Iceland”
@Pteryxx, Sea Shepherd is an organisation that will lie, swindle, propagandise, slander, and even endanger human lives to further their ideology. In short: they’re basically to animal rights activism what the Catholic Church is to religion. Even if you oppose whaling, you shouldn’t support Sea Sepherd. For those reasons and most of all because they’re completely ineffective. They haven’t stopped any whaling ever as far as I know, although, of course, they’ll tell you otherwise.
Pteryxxsays
@asajohannesen: I did watch the online debate between Paul Watson and Heri Joensen, and Heri’s follow-ups on Twitter. (which if anyone’s interested, is here: Twitter link @herijoensen) Heri did one heck of a job responding.
However, you’re right that it’ll probably start a huge flamewar here, and I should have thought of that. My questions have to do with the animal welfare authority that oversees the grind and the methods used, since I have euthanasia training. Can I ask (any of y’all) by email, or can you point me to a resource to contact? My email’s just my nym at gmail.
oskarkettlersays
Huzzah!!
there are more Icelanders than you think reading it, and I am one of them.
Looking forward to your talk
KGsays
Now why do I suspect that Faroese commenters might not be completely unbiased in their assessment of Sea Shepherd and Paul Watson?
@Pteryxx, Heri is a good guy. He used to blog for the Faroese atheist society at our website, though he’s been busy lately. I’ll promptly send you an e-mail.
@KG, is anyone completely unbiased? As an atheist I’m quite biased against religion. Doesn’t mean my reasoning is invalid.
Louissays
I am completely unbiased.
Anyone who says different is probably a Jewish, female, lesbian, handicapped, member of a Reptiloid global conspiracy responsible for 9/11.
And therefore wrong.
Louis
KGsays
sketch,
I haven’t seen any reasoning from you on this matter yet; just assertions.
ravensays
Entrance fee is 1000 krona
Convert USD to ISK using the currency converter with the latest foreign exchange rates. Latest Exchange Rates: 1 United States Dollar = 126.63499 Icelandic …
IIRC, Iceland devalued their currency after their banks failed at the start of the Great Recession.
1000 Krona looks to be about $8 USD. Quite a bargain.
So for any Icelanders out there, how far does the US dollar go these days? IIRC, at one time it didn’t go very far at all there.
Of course we dislike the man. He keeps telling lies about pilot whale hunting. It’s very frustrating. I should also point out that I care about animal welfare and don’t eat pilot whale (for health reasons, that stuff is poisoned with pollution. It would be stupid for a young woman such as myself to eat it – if I were to want children at some point). This in no way stops me supporting the hunt, especially with all these newfangled super quick killing tools. Now I just wish us people of the world could stop polluting so much.
@KG, sure, and you haven’t seen any reasoning to back up my atheism either. What’s your point?
Pteryxxsays
rofl – and I was going to link the video of Heri and Watson’s online debate, but Discovery yanked it from youtube. Oh well, as far as I can tell, the pieces are on their own site:
Right, there’s no particular reason to assume Watson’s unbiased about his own organization, either. I’d like to know if Sea Shepherd’s actually influential in Galapagos enforcement, say, or if the international whaling treaty really does permit enforcement by civilian operators like Sea Shepherd, as they claim. As far as I can tell, they’ve been accurate about the International Whaling Commission ignoring Japan’s so-called “research”.
IslandBrewersays
Iceland, really? I was under the impression that Iceland was orders of magnitude more secular than the US, and that they quietly put their Lutheranism on the shelf next to Odin and Thor.
KGsays
sketch,
My point is that if you want your assertions about Sea Shepherd to be taken seriously, it would be a good idea to provide some evidence for them.
asajohanessen,
The same applies to your assertions.
That he is a liar? If you like, I can find an article on the Sea Shepherd website and go through all the lies. Of course, most of the evidence is in Faroese, which is quite inconvenient for me, but I’m happy to give it a go if that’s what you’re after.
I guess what I’m saying is, what is it exactly that you want to know more about, because this is a pretty big subject. This is why I said in my first response to Pteryxx to go ahead and quiz me.
@KG, and if you want to have a discussion, you might simply start by requesting evidence before you petulantly and impolitely fault others for not having provided it pre-emptively. I’m under no obligation to withhold any opinion of mine that doesn’t come with an appendix of its underlying justifications. If you want to know the reasoning behind an opinion of mine, I’ll be glad to oblige if you simply ask. Politely.
KGsays
asajohannesen,
The assertions you’ve made, of course. You could start with evidence for the claims:
Paul Watson is an idiot, liar and a for-profit propagandist.
traustisays
@raven
The króna has dropped by half in value since the economic collapse so the dollar should go twice as far now.
“Idiot” is a subjective assessment based on his apparent incapability to understand that what he says about the Faroese pilot whale hunt is untrue, so it follows from the “liar and propagandist for profit” assertions. You’ll have to give me some time to collate the evidence for the other two.
Like sketch, I don’t understand why you just didn’t say “and why do you call Paul Watson a liar etc?”
“I was under the impression that Iceland was orders of magnitude more secular than the US, and that they quietly put their Lutheranism on the shelf next to Odin and Thor.”
Well, it is in all practicality. But not on paper.
What I mean is that it isn’t strange to be an atheist in Iceland, rather than most other parts of the Northern countries. You’re not considered ‘evil’ by default. For most people it’s simply not an issue. Few ever wonder if they believe what they were taught in childhood. It doesn’t effect one’s life very much.
Politicians almost never talk about god at all. This one time during the height of protests after all of the banks crashed the PM said “God bless Iceland” during a statement. It was considered very strange, and he was ridiculed for it on the internet and even in the media.
However, there’s nothing in the constitution about seperation of church and state. Actually, it’s the opposite. We have a state church. It is specifically mentioned in the constitution. We have a state sponsored religion. Priests in the state church are employees of the state and are paid by the state.
It is however also considered strange, and sometimes even aggressive and mean, to talk and write publicly about atheism, or rather when atheist protest when priests get to lecture students in public schools and even in kindergarden, when they protest that the Gideon-society gets to give the NT to children during school and so forth. Then the religious minority (as I said most people don’t think about religion and at best only consider themselves christian because of tradition) gets all angry and writes in the papers, claiming the familiar phrase that this is a ‘christan nation’ and that ‘most Icelanders are christian’ and that the state shouldn’t give into mean demands of a tiny minority.
Most Icelanders however do support the seperation of church and state, and have done so for decades.
Pteryxxsays
asajohannesen: Actually, if you’re willing to go to all the trouble of translating, I’d like to see one example of an article about the Faroese whale hunt that gives evidence contradicting a Sea Shepherd article about the same. From the Watson – Heri debate, I gather that the really intractable issues are mostly ethical judgment claims (and name-calling) and not facts per se. I can say that from watching the debate (I really hope there’s a transcript out there somewhere) I think Heri cleaned Watson’s clock with answers to his objections; Watson had to retreat basically to “all whaling is wrong” couched in emotional appeals. In that debate though, I don’t recall that Watson ever lied that I could tell – “all whaling is wrong” IS a valid argument, just not a factual one.
KGsays
asajohannesen,
“Idiot” is a subjective assessment based on his apparent incapability to understand that what he says about the Faroese pilot whale hunt is untrue, so it follows from the “liar and propagandist for profit” assertions
If he doesn’t understand that what he says is untrue, he’s not lying, so your charges appear to be mutually inconsistent.
PS. Will Wikipedia do? You can always look up what they reference yourself?
You made the assertions, so it’s for you to support them with evidence.
@KG, if you wanted evidence of Paul Watson lying, why didn’t you just ask politely? Can you acknowledge your petulance and entitlement before we proceed in our discussions?
In any case, as I said, I’ll gladly oblige. Paul Watson has claimed that there are Minamata victims on the Faroe Islands.
When pressed on this claim the chorused retort from him and his followers was “why don’t you simply ask your chief physician about it?” So much to their surprise I did. I e-mailed Dr. Pál Weihe and asked him if he had ever seen any cases of Faroese Minamata. The answer was a prompt negative. No, he hadn’t. I copy/pasted the exchange to the group. The response was that I must have faked it. I took a screenshot.
The response was that I must have faked that too. Because Heaven forbid that Paul Watson could ever have lied! So I made this video to prove that the e-mail is genuine:
The response to that? “Pál Weihe is probably not a proper doctor.” “Pál Weihe is in on a Faroese government conspiracy to cover up the negative effects of whale consumption.” “The video is probably faked too.” “Wait and see. You’ll see once Whale Wars is broadcast.”
Well, Whale Wars has almost finished broadcasting and as of yet there has still been no evidence of any Faroese Minamata victims, nor is it like that it will ever be forthcoming.
Paul Watson lied about it because he cares more about his ideology than he cares about truth. That’s just one example. I could easily mention many other examples of Paul Watson having lied.
Pteryxxsays
@sketch, thanks – there are some PubMed citations on Faroese Minimata, so with luck and time I can read into it. Your Facebook link’s only available to FB members, so you know.
@Pteryxx, since Facebook was the originating forum for Paul Watson’s claim, there’s not much I can do about it if people aren’t Facebook members. I’m linking directly to the originating thread. If someone isn’t a Facebook member, doesn’t want to be, and isn’t willing to take Facebook members on their word, I’ll take a screenshot if asked for it. Best I can do.
Pteryxxsays
sketch, I found this openly viewable version, is this correct?
@Pteryxx, that’s a thread I haven’t seen before. Apparently someone sharing my exchange with Dr. Weihe. It is not the thread in which Paul Watson made his original claim. (As you can see by the fact that Paul isn’t a participant in the thread you linked to.)
KGsays
sketch,
Can you acknowledge your petulance and entitlement before we proceed in our discussions?
I’ll acknowledge nothing of the kind. You made unsupported assertions and I called you on them.
I can’t access your first link, because I’m not on Facebook. Could you copy it here? Your second link does show that Dr. Pál Weihe denies there being any cases of Minamata disease due to consumption of whalemeat – although I note that Dr. Weihe says there has been more subtle damage due to it. At present, I can’t run the You-tube video, because I get the message:
This video is unavailable with Safety Mode enabled. To view this video, you will need to disable Safety Mode.
Any idea why?
Pteryxxsays
sketch, correct – I haven’t yet found a viewable cite for Watson’s original claim. I don’t recall either the Whale Wars show, or the live debate, mentioning Minimata specifically (though now I’ll definitely be watching for it).
Pteryxxsays
*MinAmata disease, scuse me. Too much skimming varied sources.
Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyossays
Er það bara ég, eða er að crocoduck líta út eins og það er að fá tilbúinn til að taka alvarlega skít á Bandaríkjunum?
@KG, I shared my opinions with Pteryxx. As I already explained I am under no obligation to you to prepackage my opinions with their underlying justifications before you’ve even bothered to ask me politely to provide them. If you cannot muster up a modicum of manners, you and I have nothing further to discuss.
I don’t think so. “Wisdom” is “viska”. “Vísindi” resembles the verb “(að) vísa” or “(to) show” in english.
“Torg means square!?! Did the Vikings import that word from Russia?!?”
I’m afraid I don’t know russian, but I think it’s unlikely. It could even be the other way around.
“Er það bara ég, eða er að crocoduck líta út eins og það er að fá tilbúinn til að taka alvarlega skít á Bandaríkjunum?”
Nice try :)
*”Er það bara ég, eða lítur crocoduck út fyrir að vera tilbúin að skíta illilega á Bandaríkin?” (we wouldn’t use the word serious in this context, “illilega” literally means “evilly”).
Pierce R. Butlersays
David Marjanović @ # 48: Did the Vikings import that word from Russia?!?
Didn’t the Vikings, um, export a lot of words (including “Rus”) when a group of them migrated southeast from Scandinavia for conquistadorial purposes?
KGsays
sketch,
If you intend to keep posting here, you’d do best to understand that tone trolls get scant respect, as do those who refuse to back up their assertions with evidence – indeed, failure to do so and whining about tone as an excuse not to do so are considered far more impolite than anything I’ve said to you.
Pteryxxsays
sketch: ooo, thankee! Not just the screenshot, but a follow-up comment in there has an actual research citation! From 1996, but here’s a more recent citation from Feb 2012:
But today in a statement to the islanders, chief medical officers Pál Weihe and Høgni Debes Joensen announced that pilot whale meat and blubber contains too much mercury, PCBs and DDT derivatives to be safe for human consumption.
“It is with great sadness that this recommendation is provided,” they said. “The pilot whale has kept many Faroese alive through the centuries.”
From the Faroese whaling information site: PDF link
On 26 November 2008, the Chief Medical Officer in the Faroes, Dr Høgni Debes Joensen, together with aforementioned medical researcher, Dr Pál Weihe of the Department of Public and Occupational Health, issued a joint press statement with a recommendation that the meat and blubber of pilot whales should no longer be used for human consumption. Their recommendation is based primarily on recently published research results which suggest a correlation between high levels of mercury and a comparatively high incidence of Parkinson’s disease in the Faroes, established through interviews with elderly subjects, assessed against a control group of the same age group. The main source of mercury in these findings is assumed to be from pilot whale meat in the local diet.
The Government of the Faroes has noted these conclusions and research findings with concern and is of the view that a broad and independent evaluation of these findings is required. The Faroese Food and Veterinary Agency has therefore been requested to evaluate the basis for the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendation, also drawing on appropriate external expertise.
In the meantime, Faroese consumers are advised to continue to be guided by the existing dietary recommendations from 1998 on precautionary limitations for the consumption of pilot whale meat and blubber.
—
sketch, since I don’t see examples of Watson doubling-down on that claim, I’m inclined to mark it as more of a screw-up than a propaganda move. All I found online was lots of outrage about Watson making the claim of Miramata cases in the Faroes, combined with *actual health risks from observed, lower doses*. If he didn’t retract that specific claim, then he’s being an ass, but the larger point seems valid; also that if the health risks are as notable as Weihe suggests, your government seems to be dragging its feet. I need to read that research article though.
KGsays
From sketch’s screen shot, Watson does appear to say there are victims of Minamata disease in the Faroes. His words are not quite unambiguous, as he says:
One of the consequences of Minamata disease is congenital deformity. There are cases in the Faroes and we have interviewed some victims.
– so he could be interpreted as saying merely that they have interviewed cases of congenital deformity which might be Minamata disease. But I admit this is a stretch.
But I note also that Dr. Pál Weihe, whom sketch evidently regards with respect, recommended in 2008 that the Faroese should stop eating whale meat because of the dangers of mercury poisoning. Since sketch has such respect for Dr. Weihe, he has no doubt been advising his fellow-Faroese they should stop eating whale meat. Which would make the hunt pretty pointless.
@KG, tone-trolling is disregarding the merits of valid argumentation for no other reason than a dislike of the harsh language in which it was made. (Which is obviously fallacious.) It is not a blanket exemption from being held accountable for one’s ill-mannered and petulant entitlement. You’re not entitled to a fully referenced appendix for each and every shared opinion made, without even bothering to ask politely first. How about trying to play nicely with people before going straight into asshole-mode? Also pretending that I’ve failed to back up my assertions with evidence and am now whining about quite simply makes you a despicable liar. I’d call you a liar for Jesus, but it’s obvious that your lies only serve to bolster your own ego. Regarding your assumptions to how long I’ve frequented Pharyngula and your orders on what I ought to do if I intend to keep posting her: you can go fuck yourself with your humongous entitlement. You have no jurisdiction to dictate what I ought or oughtn’t do. And now I’ll bid you farewell in the manner I should have from your very first comment: fuck off, asshole. Don’t come back until you’ve detached your head from your anus.
@Pteryxx, he didn’t retract the claim. I don’t think the larger point is valid. There’s a huge difference between acknowledging that whale consumption is detrimental to health and scaremongering people into believing that it leads to severe congenital deformities and death. Minamata disease is very serious and if someone wants to make a claim like that they better be able to back it up with evidence. Everything short of taking it seriously is to play with people’s lives and is completely disrespectful to actual Minamata victims.
Earlier today, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society’s crew aboard the fast interceptor vessel the Brigitte Bardot, investigated a massive underwater graveyard where pilot whale carcasses are discarded after grinds in Vestmanna and Leynar in the Faeroe Islands. The massive, secret underwater graveyard was first discovered during last year’s Operation Grind Stop campaign by Sea Shepherd France President Lamya Essemlali, currently onboard the Brigitte Bardot.
Lie: “secret underwater graveyard” – We don’t keep secret where the remains are placed after the edible parts are taken from the carcass. Their insinuation, that the carcasses are discarded whole I shall not bother to discuss further as it’s not an outright lie, just a false insinuation.
The Faroese claim that the grind is a beautiful, religious rite of passage. But at the same time, they discard the bodies of these beautiful creatures into a trash pit that also contains tractor and generator parts amongst other industrial waste
Lie: “…the grind is a beautiful, religious rite of passage” – granted not Paul himself, but it’s his organisation, and he doesn’t seem to mind if what is being said is untrue. Pilot whale hunting has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. It’s not even considered a rite of passage (this would be good old fashioned Christian confirmation).
Once spotted, these cetacean families are driven near shore where select men, assisted by children, are awaiting to methodologically sever the spine of each whale using a special knife, one by one, as they die a slow death and the water turns red with their innocent blood.
Lie: “where select men, assisted by children” – children obviously do not assist in the kill (though they attend and watch at a safe distance). Who would let a child near a live whale? It’s way too dangerous. I also find the contradiction between “methodologically sever the spine” and “die a slow death” quite funny. Do they not know what happens, when you sever the spine of an animal?
These days, these mass killings are not performed for any utilitarian purpose other than a so-called ‘cultural importance’ to the Faeroese community. After the locals have finished mutilating the whales, their bodies are mostly discarded into an underwater mass grave, with utter disregard for the value of life.
Lie: “their bodies are mostly discarded” – though considered unhealthy (due to pollution) and thus limited in both amount and age groups, pilot whale meat and blubber is considered precious food and is not wasted.
I’ve made some claims with no sources as it’s difficult to find reliable English language sources. I can refer you to
for some general information to back up my claims that whale meat is eaten, that children do not assist in killing the whales and that it is no secret where the skeletons, innards etc are discarded. Oh, and that this isn’t a religious rite of passage.
Consider the emotional language used to describe the pilot whale hunt and you’ll see it’s propaganda. For instance “After the locals have finished mutilating the whales”, “cetacean families” (they’re called pods), “water turns red with their innocent blood” and so on. This type of language abounds on the Sea Shepherd website.
Now I know lots of this can’t be attributed to Paul Watson directly. I’m happy to redact my claim and say that Sea Shepherd are idiots, liars and for profit propagandists. It’s just that I equate Paul Watson with Sea Shepherd.
As for me being contradictory in claiming that PW is a liar and an idiot, I suppose you’re right. He’s probably either a liar or an idiot or possibly just both.
Ása, it’s good you provided examples and evidence of Sea Sepherd lies, but I wouldn’t bother with KG any more. He has proven himself incapable of rational and civil discourse. Feeding trolls is pointless.
“Wisdom” is “viska”. “Vísindi” resembles the verb “(að) vísa” or “(to) show” in english.
The concepts of “vision” and “wisdom” are etymologically related in Indo-European.
KGsays
Also pretending that I’ve failed to back up my assertions with evidence and am now whining about quite simply makes you a despicable liar. – sketch
You evidently felt entitled to make unsupported assertions and have them accepted. You aren’t, particularly when they take the form of serious allegations against people not here to answer them. I was referring back to this initial behaviour; you have now provided evidence of one exaggerated claim by Paul Watson.
asajohannesen,
I accept that your extracts show that Sea Shepherd make unjustified claims. You haven’t shown that either they or Watson are “for-profit propagandists”.
Do they not know what happens, when you sever the spine of an animal?
Evidently, you don’t: it’s paralysed from the point of severance. Whether death would follow at all as an immediate consequence would depend on where this is. If it’s near the head but below the brainstem, the animal would suffocate through inability to breathe. Not a nice way to die. I don’t imagine the process of having the knife go through your flesh while you are fully conscious is particularly pleasant either.
Consider the emotional language used
You and sketch have of course been entirely unemotional in your language.
You’re not entitled to a fully referenced appendix for each and every shared opinion made, without even bothering to ask politely first.
You’re wrong. The issue is not whether or not your interlocutors are “entitled” to support for your claims, or whether or not they’re polite enough for you when demanding support. Your claims require support in order to be considered at all.
Asking politely has nothing to do with it. If you’re unable or unwilling to provide evidence for your allegations, then you’re the one with the problem, not anybody else.
In other words, citation needed. “Please” and “thank you” not required.
KGsays
You haven’t shown that either they or Watson are “for-profit propagandists”. – me
I should clarify this: of course I accept that Sea Shepherd appeals for donations, and uses its emotive appeals to that purpose. The natural interpretation of calling Watson a “for-profit propagandist” is that he is making a personal profit from them.
I worked for a not-for-profit for years. I drew a salary.
Pteryxxsays
heck, I’m spread too thin to respond quickly in this and email *and* background reading, so a few points:
Consider the emotional language used to describe the pilot whale hunt and you’ll see it’s propaganda. For instance “After the locals have finished mutilating the whales”, “cetacean families” (they’re called pods), “water turns red with their innocent blood” and so on. This type of language abounds on the Sea Shepherd website.
The point isn’t that completely unemotional language ought to be used in all arguments; considering how Pharyngula rolls that’s just silly. Using heavily slanted phrasing that appeals to emotion IS propaganda, designed to bias listeners toward a certain viewpoint.
Ása, that’s a good point – I’d gotten so used to discounting animal-rights emotional fluff that I forgot just how thick it was. Most of that is spin and bias but some of it, when taken literally, is lies.
I also find the contradiction between “methodologically sever the spine” and “die a slow death” quite funny. Do they not know what happens, when you sever the spine of an animal?
Yeah, as I’ve been trained in euthanasia. Killing something *quickly* by severing the spine is by no means a given – it only works at a high enough point and is very easy to get wrong, especially by anyone with insufficient training. Getting it wrong means the animal slowly suffocates while paralyzed and unable to show obvious signs of distress. As diving mammals have huge capacities to sustain oxygenation without breathing, I think this is an extremely serious risk compared to land mammals.
KG:
The natural interpretation of calling Watson a “for-profit propagandist” is that he is making a personal profit from them.
As Sea Shepherd’s an international non-profit organization, and as far as I know Paul Watson’s sole occupation is in an official capacity for it, it’s going to follow that he draws his salary or expenses from the organization’s funding. You basically have to claim that he’s making *excessive* personal profit from a non-profit organization.
@Brownian, you’re sharing opinions with me right now, which you haven’t provided any evidence for and I don’t fault you for it. That’s a reasonable and practical thing to do in any conversation or discussion. If we were required to provide full disclosure of each and every proposition as they were spoken, communication would be impossible. Each argument for a proposition rests on further propositions for its premises. Therefore, the proper decorum is simply to pick any statement with which you disagree or are unsure about and ask (preferably politely at first) why the claimant thinks it’s true. If no explanation is forthcoming, then you can decry it as a failure on their part. Not before.
Furthermore, obviously the amount of citation needed is context sensitive. If I asked you your opinion on which is better Christina Aguilera or Britney Spears, I’d expect you to simply inform me of your preference. If KG then suddenly jumped into the conversation while berating you for not having provided any evidence for why Christina/Britney is better, as a sane person, I’d expect you to think that just as odd and rude as I do KG’s behaviour.
KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance, in the context of me simply sharing my opinions on a subject with Pteryxx. Sharing opinions is quite commonly a precursor to a discussion and assessment of said opinions. Sure, citation might be needed, but all KG had to do was ask. Instead he just bumbled into the conversation full of snark and entitlement. That’s not a precursor to assessment or a discussion. That’s an invitation to a flamewar. When his socially deficient approach was pointed out to him, he refused to acknowledge or amend his assholery, hiding instead behind “tone-trolling” even though the concept is completely inapplicable in this context. Let me guess. His thinking most have been something like:
“PZ has pointed out the foolishness in caring more about how something is said than what is being said. Therefore it’s completely acceptable and proper for me to act like a complete asshole constantly regardless of whether people have made themselves deserving of my inflammatory behaviour. And if someone points out to me what a fucking moron I’m being then even if they actually also engage with the points I’m making, they’re obviously tone-trolls.”
Is that about the gist of it?
TL; DR: my opinions were made in the context of sharing them with Pteryxx. I’d have gladly provided justification if asked nicely. In fact, I did provide justifications nonetheless. I also reserve the right to point out that KG is a douchebag and needs to address people with basic manners. That’s not tone-trolling. KG is a fucktard. No one could possibly provide a full disclusure of all evidence. You’re a fucktard too if you think that’s possible or if you’re defending KG.
So you did it for profit, no? Your own personal profit. (and obviously because you believed in the cause, I’m sure)
I realise I tend to mix Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd and refer to them as one and the same, which is probably a mistake. However, the fact of the matter is that he is the driving force of the organisation. He invites media attention and rich supporters and so on. Basically, Sea Shepherd is his brain child and his livelihood. In order to earn a living, he needs to ensure that people donate to the organisation and people donate to the organisation because of the “information” (apparently, I’m also guilty of being a propagandist, so I shall refrain from calling it propaganda) he provides and all of the media attention, such as Whale Wars. Am I the only one who sees the problem in this?
(it should be noted that as an organisation, Sea Shepherd seems to be legit financially. I just doubt Paul’s motives, mainly because of all the lies and how he runs the thing almost like a one man show)
Obviously, if the spine is severed too low, their statement would make sense. Perhaps that is what they mean. Note that I didn’t point it out as a lie, just that I found it amusing (because of the stats saying that half the whales die within 20 seconds of the knife entering the whale and the vast majority are dead within a minute). This info is available on the websites I referred to earlier. But of course, it may be that they consider 20-55 seconds slow (lots of people would, myself included if I thought the animal was conscious for the duration of that time). And they obviously don’t bother to find out when the whale loses conciousness, which considering the blood supply to the brain is also cut off, will not be long.
Pteryxxsays
Ása: one reason I’m asking for research contacts is to find out how the heck one verifies rapid unconsciousness or death in a cetacean. In rodents, I can point to research monitoring brain activity, but somehow I don’t think that’s happened in a whale hunting context; and I’m not confident that land-mammal paradigms of oxygenation or loss of consciousness necessarily apply.
And then KG responded: “You and sketch have of course been entirely unemotional in your language.”
That’s a whole upper level of bullshit right there. Why was I included in that particular snark? Is KG implying that Ása is a hypocrite for something I do? What bearing does my use of language have to do with Ása’s point? What’s KG trying to imply? That for the sake of consistency Ása ought to think I’m a propagandist too? Well, for all KG knows maybe she does, and maybe I am. So fucking what?
That’s a prime example of very, very sloppy reasoning. I wish KG would become a theist. That’s the sort of idiocy that makes our side look bad.
David Marjanovićsays
@KG, I shared my opinions with Pteryxx. As I already explained I am under no obligation to you to prepackage my opinions with their underlying justifications before you’ve even bothered to ask me politely to provide them. If you cannot muster up a modicum of manners, you and I have nothing further to discuss.
You’re not familiar with scientists, are you?
I don’t think so. “Wisdom” is “viska”. “Vísindi” resembles the verb “(að) vísa” or “(to) show” in english.
Thanks.
“Torg means square!?! Did the Vikings import that word from Russia?!?”
I’m afraid I don’t know russian, but I think it’s unlikely. It could even be the other way around.
I ask because this word, meaning “market” (well, “trade” in modern Russian) is all over the Slavic languages. Many squares in Croatia and Serbia have “trg” (no vowel, but that’s normal) in their names.
The word cannot be inherited straight from Proto-Indo-European in both, because in that case it would begin with þ rather than t in Icelandic and would probably end in k rather than g.
He has proven himself incapable of rational and civil discourse.
@David: “You’re not familiar with scientists, are you?”
In fact, I am. Most of them also see the merit in not acting like an asshole, and none that I know of have to this day supported the absurd notion that one ought not to share any opinions whatever without appending a full disclosure of their supporting evidence. (Something that’s patently impossible in any case, as I’ve shown.) The proper decorum in civil discourse, even as pertaining to science, is that you don’t start berating people for withholding evidence until you’ve at least given them a chance to do so. Besides it’s just common sense too. The police wouldn’t arrest you for a failure to comply with an order before the order was even issued. Or, well, maybe they would, but you know, that would make them assholes.
KGsays
KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance, in the context of me simply sharing my opinions on a subject with Pteryxx. – sketch
You’re posting on a public blog, not having a private conversation; that means you’re addressing everyone, and everyone is entitled to address you. And here, as has already been pointed out to you, people are expected to be able to support their claims with evidence: in your case, those claims were serious allegations about an organisation, which you presented as fact, not your opinion as to whether one popular entertainer was better than another. Grow up.
asajohannesen,
Taking a salary from a campaigning organisation would not normally be described as “profiting”, unless that salary was excessive.
And yes, you’re right that rational ≠ civil. I never said they were the same. You might want to don your reading glasses the next time before you respond. ;)
@KG, fuck off asshole. I’ve no time for your dishonest strawmen.
KGsays
I should note that I have not accused asajohannesen of being either a propagandist, or a hypocrite; merely pointed out that emotive language is not confined to one side of the argument.
Scientists can be assholes too; and frankly I’m impressed this thread’s held together as well as it has, especially since it’s my fault for mentioning whaling in the first place.
This is a quote from Dr Weihe, from a 2007 PBS interview about his long-term research:
For some people, the decision to eat or not is absolute. It’s yes or no in a religious way. That is not our message. Our message is, “Please take care of how large your mercury or PCB intake is,” and to remind them that one of the major sources [of mercury] is the pilot whale and how that can be managed. I have never asked people to come to a full stop. I have always asked them to reduce or to abstain temporarily. To me, it has been important in the public health message not to be absolutist. It is about communicating risks and how to manage risks.
I think it’s pretty clear that “religious” in this context means “absolutist” or “dogmatic” and not actually associated with a religious belief. If that quote got thrown around a lot, though, I can see where Sea Shepherd’s English-speaking writers get off repeating it – and they shouldn’t be implying an actual religious basis.
Incidentally, it’s a very good interview about Weihe’s findings over many years as his cohorts of children age.
About that wisdom-science thing, you should probably read comment 66.
About the russian origins of the word ‘torg’. You are obviously know a lot more about linguistics then me. You could easily be right. I don’t know. I was in doubt because there really hasn’t been any contact between Iceland and Russia in the past. ‘Torg’ is an old word. The only contact Northerners had was through the Swedish Væringjar – equivalent of vikings – who sailed on the rivers in modern day Russia and Ukraine. The word ‘Rus’ comes from them I believe and the city of Kiev is still known in Icelandic as ‘Kænugarður’ – the Old-Norse name.
Interestingly the only northern-germnaic language that also uses the word ‘torg’ for square is Swedish.
But Icelanders don’t come from the Swedes. They don’t come from the væringjar. They mostly come from West-Norway and Ireland.
There were however some Icelandic men who went east as væringjar. That of course wasn’t a problem since Old-Norse was spoken everywhere in Scandinavia and in Iceland and the Faroe-islands at the time.
@KG: “If you can point to any strawmen I have attacked, do so.”
Let’s count.
“You’re posting on a public blog, not having a private conversation;”
1 strawman.
“that means you’re addressing everyone, and everyone is entitled to address you.”
2 strawmen
“And here, as has already been pointed out to you, people are expected to be able to support their claims with evidence:”
3 strawmen.
“in your case, those claims were serious allegations about an organisation, which you presented as fact, not your opinion as to whether one popular entertainer was better than another.”
4 strawmen.
“Grow up.”
So I can become alike the pinnacle of adult integrity that is you?
@Rev. BigDumbChimp, precisely. That is indeed the link to the Wikipedia entry for the fallacy to which I referred. Well done.
KGsays
sketch,
You very clearly don’t understand what “strawman” means. It’s an attack on a position the attacker attributes to someone who has not taken that position. The only one of your 4 that could possibly even be a candidate for a strawman is (4), and I am content to leave it to others to judge whether your #21 was presented as fact or as opinion.
Browniansays
@Brownian, you’re sharing opinions with me right now, which you haven’t provided any evidence for and I don’t fault you for it. That’s a reasonable and practical thing to do in any conversation or discussion. If we were required to provide full disclosure of each and every proposition as they were spoken, communication would be impossible. Each argument for a proposition rests on further propositions for its premises. Therefore, the proper decorum is simply to pick any statement with which you disagree or are unsure about and ask (preferably politely at first) why the claimant thinks it’s true. If no explanation is forthcoming, then you can decry it as a failure on their part. Not before.
Furthermore, obviously the amount of citation needed is context sensitive. If I asked you your opinion on which is better Christina Aguilera or Britney Spears, I’d expect you to simply inform me of your preference.
That’s a load of shit. There’s a gulf of difference between “I prefer the music of Christina Aguilera to Britney Spears” and “Paul Watson is an idiot, liar and a for-profit propagandist.”
One is clearly a matter of personal preference. The other (besides being an example of well-poisoning) is a claim about reality.
Hell, even if someone had said “Christina Aguilera is a better musician than Britney Spears”, it would be incumbent upon the claimant to provide some sort of evidence for the claim.
If you want to argue like this is YouTube, then go to fucking YouTube.
KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance, in the context of me simply sharing my opinions on a subject with Pteryxx.
First of all, deciding something is “an opinion” does not absolve you for having to provide evidence for it. As noted above, calling someone a liar is actually a claim about reality, which means it’s subject to fact.
The onus is on the claimant to support the allegation. Whining that someone didn’t give you a handjob while asking you to support your allegation makes you the assholes here.
TL; DR: my opinions were made in the context of sharing them with Pteryxx. I’d have gladly provided justification if asked nicely. In fact, I did provide justifications nonetheless
What, you want a fucking cookie for doing the basic minimum to support an allegation?
petrandersays
“Torg means square!?! Did the Vikings import that word from Russia?!?”
I’m afraid I don’t know russian, but I think it’s unlikely. It could even be the other way around.
From Old Russian торгъ (torgu).[1] Cognate with Danish torv and Swedish torg (“a city square”).
However:
From Old Norse torg, maybe from Old East Slavic tǔrgǔ (“marketplace”).
This strikes me as less certain and I personally have my doubts. I do know that some vikings went up the Russians rivers and had settlements deep into modern day Russia and Ukraine. Before them there were the Goths. So it would seem more likely to me that this word was introduced to the Slavs from the West rather than the other way around.
Also the Finnish word of ‘Turku’ seems to be a cognate too. This is more evidence of the flow of this word from Germanic origins to Slavic and Finnic languages.
Interesting… I will delve deeper into this!
Browniansays
Sketch, none of those claims in 93 are strawmen. If you don’t know what the term is, don’t fucking use it.
@KG: “You very clearly don’t understand what “strawman” means. It’s an attack on a position the attacker attributes to someone who has not taken that position.”
No, we agree on what a strawman is. Let’s go through it again.
“You’re posting on a public blog, not having a private conversation;”
You’re attributing to me the position that I was not posting on a public blog and was having a private conversation. I have never once claimed this. Therefore, you’re engaging in a strawman fallacy by your own definition.
“that means you’re addressing everyone, and everyone is entitled to address you.”
You’re attributing to me the position that I wasn’t addressing everyone, and that not everyone is entitled to address me. I have never once claimed this. Therefore, you’re engaging in a strawman fallacy by your own definition.
“And here, as has already been pointed out to you, people are expected to be able to support their claims with evidence:”
You’re attributing to me the position that people aren’t expected to be able to support their claims with evidence. I have never once claimed this. Therefore, you’re engaging in a strawman fallacy by your own definition.
“in your case, those claims were serious allegations about an organisation, which you presented as fact, not your opinion as to whether one popular entertainer was better than another.”
You’re attributing to me the position that my original claim was akin to an opinion on whether one popular entertainer is better than another. I’ve never once claimed this. Therefore, you’re engaging in a strawman fallacy by your own definition.
Will you go the fuck away now?
Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyossays
Sketch:
‘Strawman’. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
KG has not been polite. KG has not been civil. KG has not been strawmanning you.
Your jump, however, from reducing PCB and mercury intake by limiting pilot whale meat over to eliminating all harvesting of pilot whales could be considered a strawman argument.
petrandersays
Well, there is apparently a big linguistic on the origin of this word that I cannot really tackle. However, I do understand from it that it is too much said to claim that it originates from Slavic (or Germanic) for that matter. It appears to be of some misty Eastern European / Central European origin.
@Brownian: “That’s a load of shit. There’s a gulf of difference between “I prefer the music of Christina Aguilera to Britney Spears” and “Paul Watson is an idiot, liar and a for-profit propagandist.””
That was Ása’s claim. Not mine. If you can’t keep track of who said what, you’re opinion will be duly ignored.
“Sketch, none of those claims in 93 are strawmen. If you don’t know what the term is, don’t fucking use it.”
And if you don’t know what you’re talking about don’t fucking argue with me. KG knows what a strawman is and every single claim of his that I listed as a strawman accords with his own definition. Clearly you don’t know what a strawman is.
“And I’m not defending KG; I’m attacking you.”
Pardon the mistake. It’s just that you’re doing such a very, very bad job of it.
Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyossays
You’re attributing to me the position that I was not posting on a public blog and was having a private conversation. I have never once claimed this. Therefore, you’re engaging in a strawman fallacy by your own definition.
Did you, or did you not, state that your comment was for, or in response to, Pteryxx? Oh, here it is:
KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance, in the context of me simply sharing my opinions on a subject with Pteryxx.
.
You’re attributing to me the position that I wasn’t addressing everyone
Did you, or did you not, state that your comment was for, or in response to, Pteryxx? Oh, here it is:
KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance, in the context of me simply sharing my opinions on a subject with Pteryxx.
.
You’re attributing to me the position that my original claim was akin to an opinion on whether one popular entertainer is better than another.
Then how did C. Aquilera or B. Spears enter the thread? Oh, here it is:
If I asked you your opinion on which is better Christina Aguilera or Britney Spears, I’d expect you to simply inform me of your preference. If KG then suddenly jumped into the conversation while berating you for not having provided any evidence for why Christina/Britney is better, as a sane person, I’d expect you to think that just as odd and rude as I do KG’s behaviour.
Which also harkens back to you claiming that this was you ‘simiply sharing [your] opinions on a subject with Pteryxx.’
Disagreeing with the commenters and asking for evidence to support claims is normal around here.
Browniansays
You’re attributing to me the position that I wasn’t addressing everyone, and that not everyone is entitled to address me.
Actually, that quite clearly seemed to be the implication of your repeated insistences that your comments were meant for Pteryxx, and that other people, notably KG, were to ask politely for evidence to support your claims:
@KG, I shared my opinions with Pteryxx.
KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance, in the context of me simply sharing my opinions on a subject with Pteryxx
TL; DR: my opinions were made in the context of sharing them with Pteryxx
Three times you insisted that you shared your claims with Pteryxx. What was the point of that if not to insist that somehow, KG was out of line in responding to these claims?
It’s not a strawman if someone misrepresents your argument because you implied it, rather than stated it clearly.
@Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos: So a strawman is not attributing a position to your opponent, which your opponent doesn’t subscribe, and then attack that instead of your opponent’s actual position? News to me. If that’s your position, I don’t think strawman means what you think it means.
“KG has not been polite. KG has not been civil. KG has not been strawmanning you.”
KG has not been polite. KG has not been civil. KG has been strawmanning me, even by his own definition of what a strawman is, as detailed in my previous post.
“Your jump, however, from reducing PCB and mercury intake by limiting pilot whale meat over to eliminating all harvesting of pilot whales could be considered a strawman argument.”
Is that even English? It doesn’t look like any “jump” I’ve ever made, whatever it means, so that in itself is quite possibly a strawman.
Browniansays
That was Ása’s claim. Not mine. If you can’t keep track of who said what, you’re opinion will be duly ignored.
Oh, it’s pretty clear you ignore people for all sorts of reasons. Pardon me if I don’t give a fuck, asshole.
And if you don’t know what you’re talking about don’t fucking argue with me.
Duly noted, you sack of stupid.
KG knows what a strawman is and every single claim of his that I listed as a strawman accords with his own definition. Clearly you don’t know what a strawman is.
That’s one hypothesis, that I and pretty much everyone else on this thread don’t know to which the term ‘strawman’ refers.
There’s of course another hypothesis: that I and pretty much everyone else here are pretty fucking clear on what a strawman is, and it’s in fact you that’s the moron.
Which is the most parsimonious explanation, fuckwit?
Browniansays
So a strawman is not attributing a position to your opponent, which your opponent doesn’t subscribe, and then attack that instead of your opponent’s actual position?
No, not if your opponent is so fucking unclear that at least three interlocutors interpret a repeated claim to mean that position. It may just be that the opponent is a moron or a liar.
Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos: “Did you, or did you not, state that your comment was for, or in response to, Pteryxx?”
Is or isn’t the statement that a comment was in response to Pteryxx the same as the statement that it’s a private conversation not held on a public blog?
“Then how did C. Aquilera or B. Spears enter the thread?”
Yes, and if you had any reading comprehension whatever, you’d see that I was making an analogy to illustrate the contextual sensitivity of the need for citation. I never claimed the map was the territory. An analogy is analogous to its analogue in some cases and disanalogous in others. I can’t believe I actually have to spell out such an obvious point to you.
“Which also harkens back to you claiming that this was you ‘simiply sharing [your] opinions on a subject with Pteryxx.’”
And is that or is that not the same as claiming to not be on a public forum but in a private conversation where nobody else is entitled to address me?
“It’s not a strawman if someone misrepresents your argument because you implied it, rather than stated it clearly.”
That’s yet another strawman. I never claimed it was. I have neither claimed nor implied any of the position which KG attributed to me.
Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyossays
Sketch:
I apologize. The bit about the PCBs and mercury, coupled with a reduction in whalemeat consumption, came later. Chalk it up to the fact that I multitask about as well as DOS 2.12.
Browniansays
What fuckhead wrote:
You’re attributing to me the position that I wasn’t addressing everyone
You fucking wrote three fucking times that you were fucking addressing Pteryxx, you fucking moron:
@KG, I shared my opinions with Pteryxx.
KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance, in the context of me simply sharing my opinions on a subject with Pteryxx
TL; DR: my opinions were made in the context of sharing them with Pteryxx
Does ‘Pteryxx’ mean ‘everyone’ in Faroese? It doesn’t in English.
You’re attributing to me the position that I was not posting on a public blog and was having a private conversation. I have never once claimed this.
Earlier in the thread:
KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance, in the context of me simply sharing my opinions on a subject with Pteryxx. – sketch
Yeah, you did claim that.
And I think you’ll need to gnaw off a leg or something to get out of that trap.
Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyossays
“It’s not a strawman if someone misrepresents your argument because you implied it, rather than stated it clearly.”
That’s yet another strawman. I never claimed it was. I have neither claimed nor implied any of the position which KG attributed to me.
Much as I agree with the initial comment up there, that was not me.
You did, repeatedly (and we can all read it up above) state that your opinions were for Pteryxx and implied that for anyone to ask for actual, y’know, evidence was out of line.
Browniansays
“It’s not a strawman if someone misrepresents your argument because you implied it, rather than stated it clearly.”
That’s yet another strawman.
Seriously, you’re a fucking moron.
KGsays
KG has been strawmanning me, even by his own definition of what a strawman is, as detailed in my previous post. – sketch
You’re clearly delusional, as others have noted. Perhaps you’ve been eating too much whale meat?
@Brownian: “Actually, that quite clearly seemed to be the implication of your repeated insistences that your comments were meant for Pteryxx, and that other people, notably KG, were to ask politely for evidence to support your claims”
If it seemed that way to you, your reading comprehension is sub-par. In any case you may take my word for it now, that it isn’t my position. I should know. I’m me after all. In any case saying that my comments were meant for Pteryxx and that people (not other people. Pteryxx is included) are to ask politely for the evidence is not the same as saying that “I’m not addressing everyone, and that not everyone is entitled to address me.” Reading comprehension again and all that.
“Three times you insisted that you shared your claims with Pteryxx. What was the point of that if not to insist that somehow, KG was out of line in responding to these claims?”
Strawman again. You’re attributing to me the position that KG was out of line in responding to my claims. I never once said this. I said he was out of line in his entitlement that I should have included the evidence in advance and in his subsequent inability to ask for the evidence politely. Reading comprehension, you know?
“It’s not a strawman if someone misrepresents your argument because you implied it, rather than stated it clearly.”
I accidentally attributed this to Brother, and already responded to it. I’m sorry. See how an honest admission of wrongdoing works when you discover that you made a mistake?
“Oh, it’s pretty clear you ignore people for all sorts of reasons. Pardon me if I don’t give a fuck, asshole.”
It’s pretty clear I’m not ignoring you, fucktard.
“Duly noted, you sack of stupid.”
Being called a sack of stupid by a guy with no reading comprehension whatsoever. Oh, the irony.
“That’s one hypothesis, that I and pretty much everyone else on this thread don’t know to which the term ‘strawman’ refers.”
Except KG apparently. Look, it’s not a difficult concept. Look it up on Wikipedia. The link was already provided.
“There’s of course another hypothesis: that I and pretty much everyone else here are pretty fucking clear on what a strawman is, and it’s in fact you that’s the moron.”
In that case KG is also a moron, since he and I agree on what a strawman is. You’re the one who seems to be struggling.
“Which is the most parsimonious explanation, fuckwit?”
Given your lack of reading comprehension in general, it’s very parsimonious to assume that it also extends to your research on strawmen, and that you therefore don’t know what they are.
“No, not if your opponent is so fucking unclear that at least three interlocutors interpret a repeated claim to mean that position. It may just be that the opponent is a moron or a liar.”
Argumentum ad populum. Look it up, asshole. You should be familiar with it. It’s used by theists a lot.
@feralboy12: “Yeah, you did claim that. And I think you’ll need to gnaw off a leg or something to get out of that trap.”
Yet another idiot with no reading comprehension. Are you sincerely willing to defend the position that “I made claim x specifically in response to person y” is the very same sentence as “I made claim x in a private conversation and not on a public blog?”
Because if you are, it does not bode well for your reasoning skills, mate.
@Brother: “You did, repeatedly (and we can all read it up above) state that your opinions were for Pteryxx and implied that for anyone to ask for actual, y’know, evidence was out of line.”
No, I did not state nor imply that. I said that my opinions were issued in response to Pteryxx and that you’re unreasonable if you feel entitled to a full disclosure of their supporting evidence in advance of being asked for it and an asshole if you simply assume they won’t be forthcoming before you’ve even tried asking politely. Why is that so hard to understand even after I’ve said it repeatedly?
@Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos, that’s true. An ad hominem is dismissing a person’s arguments or claims on the basis of that person’s personal characteristics. In this instance KG is dismissing my arguments against him as delusional by speculating about my dietary choices. Therefore, a classic ad hominem. I guess he couldn’t figure out what to say to my arguments. Poor sod.
Would you care to actually put your arguments where your snark is? I’ll gladly tear you to shreds as I have done KG, Brownian, feralboy12, and Brother. Their arguments are weak. Their reasoning weaker. Their reading comprehension non-existent.
Rumtopfsays
My boyfriend looked over at the poster and exclaimed, “Yay! PZ Myers Island!”.
Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyossays
sketch, what the fuck is your point? Are you here to win? Is that it? If I write, “sketch has won,” will you go away? You feel you were misunderstood and, rather than attempting to correct that misunderstanding, you have decided to play games — a game in which you get to make up the rules, the definitions, and the scoring.
My reading comprehension is fine (and, when I made a mistake, I freely admitted it and apologized). My arguments, meh. Could be better (but, as I admitted before, I do not multitask well and am reading and writing while a graphics programme takes its own sweet time). You, however, seem (to me) to have a hellishly big chip on your shoulder and have a desperate desire to win.
Win what? An argument with strangers? Strangers whom you have insulted and alienated both implicitly and explicitly? Seriously, what the fuck do you want here? If you wanted to have a discussion about whaling, you fucked it up. If you wanted to exchange views about the ethics of whaling, or the ethics of anti-whaling, you fucked it up.
So, if you are willing to answer a question, please do so: what the fuck are you trying to do here?
Yet another idiot with no reading comprehension. Are you sincerely willing to defend the position that “I made claim x specifically in response to person y” is the very same sentence as “I made claim x in a private conversation and not on a public blog?”
Because if you are, it does not bode well for your reasoning skills, mate.
Your quotes speak for themselves, asswipe.
Not only did you get caught in a trap of your own making, you gnawed off the wrong fucking leg in your attempt to escape.
David Marjanovićsays
You’re posting on a public blog, not having a private conversation; that means you’re addressing everyone, and everyone is entitled to address you. And here, as has already been pointed out to you, people are expected to be able to support their claims with evidence: in your case, those claims were serious allegations about an organisation, which you presented as fact, not your opinion as to whether one popular entertainer was better than another.
Seconded.
And yes, you’re right that rational ≠ civil. I never said they were the same. You might want to don your reading glasses the next time before you respond. ;)
You switched back and forth between them so often, giving them the same importance, that it really looked like you were using the words interchangeably.
About that wisdom-science thing, you should probably read comment 66.
Sure; I was asking because I don’t know if the words are still connected in Icelandic.
The only contact Northerners had was through the Swedish Væringjar – equivalent of vikings – who sailed on the rivers in modern day Russia and Ukraine. The word ‘Rus’ comes from them I believe
It does! It’s from róð- – the Væringjar rowed across the Baltic Sea, where there isn’t a lot of wind. In the process, they left the word Ruotsi in Finnish; it means “Sweden”.
I do know that some vikings went up the Russians rivers and had settlements deep into modern day Russia and Ukraine. Before them there were the Goths. So it would seem more likely to me that this word was introduced to the Slavs from the West rather than the other way around.
But, again, it’s not just Russian. I just checked on Wikipedia: it goes all the way to Czech and Slovene and Serbian. So, if it’s a loan from any kind of Germanic, it must have come much earlier than the Vikings. I don’t think I can easily find out if Gothic had that word… and if it did, there’s still the Venetic -terg- to deal with.
Wait! The -o- hints specifically at Not Too Old Russian… or… maybe not… Wikipedia doesn’t really tell.
Also the Finnish word of ‘Turku’ seems to be a cognate too.
That’s interesting, because it has -u- instead of -o-.
My point is that KG is an asshole, whom I gave the chance of redemption and subsequent productive discussion, but who threw it back in my face. This issue was compounded by other unreasonable assholes joining in, where they should have just shrugged and gone “Yeah, that KG sure was an unreasonable asshole.” Nerd of Redhead had a good point about digging. Good advice but it should have been heeded by KG, Brownian, and you.
“Are you here to win?”
I was here to have a friendly chat with Pteryxx and whosoever wanted to join in while, of course, behaving as an adult. However, now? Now I’m just taking you blowholes down a notch or two as you deserve.
“Is that it? If I write, “sketch has won,” will you go away?”
Depends on whether your concession is honest and whether the other idiots will join in. I have no qualms with people who can admit it when they make a mistake. If they don’t I have no qualms with taking them to task over their mistakes.
“You feel you were misunderstood and, rather than attempting to correct that misunderstanding, you have decided to play games — a game in which you get to make up the rules, the definitions, and the scoring.”
I don’t “feel” I was misunderstood. It should be patently obvious to anyone with some basic reading comprehension. Not to mention that I’ve repeatedly corrected the misunderstanding, but expecting morons to take notice is evidently unrealistic. I didn’t make up any rules. The rules are simple: use valid arguments, don’t be an asshole, acknowledge any mistakes you might make. Basic and universal rules of conduct for rational discourse. You all get failing marks, by the way.
“My reading comprehension is fine (and, when I made a mistake, I freely admitted it and apologized).”
You admitted one of your mistakes. Kudos for that. You didn’t admit all of them.
“You, however, seem (to me) to have a hellishly big chip on your shoulder and have a desperate desire to win.”
Naw. I just dislike bullying behaviour and will come down hard on it whenever I encounter it. Assholes need to be put in the corner consistently. Think of what I’m doing as human conditioning. You’ll see a better world only by giving assholes a consistent and immediate negative reaction to their wrongdoings.
“Win what? An argument with strangers? Strangers whom you have insulted and alienated both implicitly and explicitly?”
Need I remind you that I did not start this? KG could have apologised and behaved himself. Nobody asked Brownian and you to join in on the insults.
“Seriously, what the fuck do you want here?”
Candyfloss, obviously.
“If you wanted to have a discussion about whaling, you fucked it up. If you wanted to exchange views about the ethics of whaling, or the ethics of anti-whaling, you fucked it up.”
I don’t give a fuck. I wouldn’t have minded a discussion initially but that’s not what it’s about now. I can tell by your frustration that you’re vexed at my persistence. That means it’s working. Maybe next time you’ll be kinder to people. If not, well they might turn out to be someone like me and they might mop the floor with you as I have done, mightn’t they?
“So, if you are willing to answer a question, please do so: what the fuck are you trying to do here?”
I’m trying to hold KG, Brownian, and you accountable for your behaviour and idiocy. Evidently I’m succeeding.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that KG, Brownian, and Brother are coming out on top argument-wise. Let me clue you in. They’re not. Their collective flailing about is a painful sight.
'Tis Himselfsays
sketch,
You don’t seem to understand something about the Pharyngula community. If you make an unsupported statement, it’s acceptable here for anyone to ask for evidence. Asking doesn’t require saying “please,” it just means “what’s your evidence for that claim?”
KG and anyone else is not required to say please and thank you, he’s just required to say “what’s your evidence.” Which is basically what he did.
What you seconded has already been addressed. Do yourself a favour don’t second fallacies. It doesn’t make you look good.
“You switched back and forth between them so often, giving them the same importance, that it really looked like you were using the words interchangeably.”
I’ve argued successfully for both. I say successfully. By that I mean nobody has as of yet been able to contest my arguments. Nobody’s even tried. I just get paltry appeals to the majority and ad hominems about my dietary habits. If all you have to resort to is fallacies, then you’ve pretty much lost the argument by any rational standard.
Lo’ and behold! Another practitioner of the standard Pharyngula strawman with an complete lack of reading comprehension joins the fray! Welcome, young grasshopper. I’m afraid I can’t offer you much. You’re a bit late to the party, and I’ve already addressed your utter idiocy elsewhere. I suggest you simply reread the thread and then go bury yourself out of embarrassment.
Whaling – not a fan. Not against it either. I don’t give much credit to arguments like “they’re innocent” or “they’re smart” or any other on that line. Arguments on the other side like “it’s traditional” or “Watson is a douche” aren’t any better IMO. I’m not saying anyone here said any of those things. There ARE good argument for and against whaling.
I personally dislike Paul Watson. I don’t know him, but I’ve seen his work and attitude on TV and I judge accordingly. I’d describe my feelings like that if he were a fictional character he would be a character I’d hate. I do however believe that he believes he’s fighting a good fight.
Weed Monkeysays
Also the Finnish word of ‘Turku’ seems to be a cognate too.
That’s interesting, because it has -u- instead of -o-.
It’s at least plausible that Turku comes from Old East Slavic tǔrgǔ, and the modern word tori from Swedish torg. Both mean ‘marketplace’, but turku survives only in a few dialects, a few sayings and in the name of a city.
Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyossays
I can tell by your frustration that you’re vexed at my persistence.
No frustration, just flummoxed by you. You admit that this is all about you. You were misunderstood. KG was uncivil to you. I (and others) have repeatedly pointed out what you wrote and you insist you did not write it. You want to hold strangers accountable for behaviour that you find unacceptable. It really is all about you and I am flummoxed trying to understand why.
You don’t seem to understand something about the Pharyngula community. If you make an unsupported statement, it’s acceptable here for anyone to ask for evidence. Asking doesn’t require saying “please,” it just means “what’s your evidence for that claim?”
sketch has ignored this before. What do you suppose are the odds sketch will continue to ignore it?
Gentlemen, thank you for an interesting and civil discussion on the linguistic background of the word ‘torg’. I’m really learning a lot.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐsays
We’re all assholes here, but I have never seen KG be unreasonable.
Brother Ogvorbis is the most vocal proponent of his own alleged idiocy, so I trust that he is able to hold himself accountable for such, if ever it should arise. I’ve still never seen it, but I believe him since he’s an honest person.
And while nobody asked Brownian to join in on the insults in this particular thread, it’s generally understood that’s how he earns his keep, insofar as he makes us lol.
Nothing personal, sketch. I think I noticed you being not-an-idiot on some other thread recently. I (certainly ought to) understand there are some topics which some people just can’t discuss without intermittently lashing out and spiraling into tedium.
Nobody actually uses “it’s traditional” as an argument. It’s a strawman made up by Sea Sepherd. As to Watson being a douche, that’s not used as an argument to support whaling either, although it is a broadly agreed upon sentiment.
I agree with you though, that they wouldn’t be good arguments. I’m just pointing out that they’re not actually used. I also agree with you that there are good reasons both for and against whaling.
I’m not so sure whether I believe that Paul Watson really believes in what he’s doing. I believe that he believes whaling is wrong. I just don’t believe that he believes it’s quite as wrong as he says he does. His actions betray his words. If he were truly that concerned about the well-being of whales he’d focus on an activity that has more utility for his supposed goal – e.g. fighting pollution instead of just sailing around while trying to anger people because it looks entertaining on TV.
Therrinsays
Sketch,
Being that you’re apparently the only person on this thread with “reading comprehension”, I’d like to invite you to continue your conversation over here. PZ will thank you for it.
@Brother: “No frustration, just flummoxed by you. You admit that this is all about you. You were misunderstood. KG was uncivil to you. I (and others) have repeatedly pointed out what you wrote and you insist you did not write it. ”
You’ve repeatedly quoted me while dishonestly claiming that I said something else entirely. In other words you’ve repeatedly engaged in strawmen. I don’t believe I was misunderstood. Call it charity. I don’t believe that the three of you could possibly be that stupid. I believe, however, that you’re liars out of some misplaced loyalty for one another.
“You want to hold strangers accountable for behaviour that you find unacceptable. It really is all about you and I am flummoxed trying to understand why.”
I’m an atheist because I care about truth. Therefore, I also care about people shitting on it for the sake of their own agenda. That included KG, Brownian, you, and to a lesser extent others. You’re obviously not atheists out of any concern for what is actually true or because you value validity in your reasoning, so I’m equally flummoxed by you as you are by me. In any case I’m not going to let someone walk all over me simply because I’m outnumbered.
“sketch has ignored this before. What do you suppose are the odds sketch will continue to ignore it?”
I haven’t ignored it, you vile liar. I’ve addressed it. As anyone can see if they care to scroll up.
I wasn’t refering to anything Watson has ever said. My point is that there are terrible arguments used which I don’t find convincing. I should have been more clear on that.
“I just don’t believe that he believes it’s quite as wrong as he says he does.”
Interesting point. I’m inclined to believe that, but that could just be my prejudice. I admit, I don’t think or read half as much about Watson or the SSCS as you probably do, or even the average Faroese. Whaling isn’t any longer a big industry here. Kristján Loftsson, the owner of the Hvalur whaling company is generally considered an eccentric character (or just plainly a weirdo).
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that KG, Brownian, and Brother are coming out on top argument-wise.
STRAWMAN! I NEVER SAID THAT!
Yes, you’re just absolutely shredding everone here. Our heads are crushed like grapes.
Seriously, you don’t see the contradiction in the two quotes I provided? Let’s review:
You’re attributing to me the position that I was not posting on a public blog and was having a private conversation. I have never once claimed this.
Earlier in the thread:
KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance, in the context of me simply sharing my opinions on a subject with Pteryxx. – sketch
So you never claimed to be attempting to have a private conversation, just insisted that the “context” was a sharing of opinions with one specific poster. Yeah. Big difference.
“What trap? I don’t see any trap. Anyway, it was you that put my leg in that clamp. (Gnaws arm off). I’m not stuck.”
@life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ: “We’re all assholes here, but I have never seen KG be unreasonable.”
So engaging in strawmen and ad hominems is not unreasonable in your book? Then what is?
“Brother Ogvorbis is the most vocal proponent of his own alleged idiocy, so I trust that he is able to hold himself accountable for such, if ever it should arise. I’ve still never seen it, but I believe him since he’s an honest person.”
All evidence to the contrary.
“And while nobody asked Brownian to join in on the insults in this particular thread, it’s generally understood that’s how he earns his keep, insofar as he makes us lol.”
In this instance, if you have any sense, he should have made you cringe. His performance has been an embarrassment to himself.
“Nothing personal, sketch. I think I noticed you being not-an-idiot on some other thread recently.”
I’m seldom an idiot in any thread. This one included. However, your compliment is duly noted and appreciated even despite its slight backhanded slant.
“I (certainly ought to) understand there are some topics which some people just can’t discuss without intermittently lashing out and spiraling into tedium.”
Given that the topic under discussion is basic reasoning and conduct in discussions, that worries me. I should hope that people on an atheist community were more capable in the rational department.
“Yes, you’re just absolutely shredding everone here. Our heads are crushed like grapes.”
A lot of truth is said in jest.
“Seriously, you don’t see the contradiction in the two quotes I provided?”
So we’re back to you claiming that “I made claim x specifically in response to person y” is the very same sentence as “I made claim x in a private conversation and not on a public blog?”
Was the comment to which I’m responding now a direct response to me? Yes or no?
If you say “no,” you’re at a disadvantage in explaining why, then, you’re quoting what I’ve said and seemingly addressing it.
If you say “yes,” then you must concede by your own reasoning that you yourself now think that your previous comment was not made on a public blog but in a private conversation to me.
Which one is it? I’ll give you time to dig.
consciousness razorsays
This thread is no longer about PZ going to Iceland, right? Nor is it about whaling, I guess, except maybe euphemistically. Is this some kind of virtual booth for sketch to masturbate in so we can all watch?
O_O yipes, you folks. Should I even bother trying to keep talking about actual whaling in here?
If he were truly that concerned about the well-being of whales he’d focus on an activity that has more utility for his supposed goal – e.g. fighting pollution instead of just sailing around while trying to anger people because it looks entertaining on TV.
What does help stop whaling, historically, is public pressure; and THAT comes from media attention that’s hard to ignore, aimed at the general public, not just folks willing to do the research on their own. Heck, it takes public pressure just to make conservation laws and hold governments to enforcing them; and there’s a long history of protection laws being flouted in the case of whaling and fishing. I think it’s obvious that Watson’s trying to maximize public pressure, but that doesn’t necessarily mean public pressure isn’t effective in protecting whales.
(Whether that attention is warranted in the case of Faroe Islands whaling specifically is another set of arguments.)
—
As far as the method of killing goes: The Faroe Islands official site on whaling and animal welfare is here:
It references a 1999 NAMMCO paper on killing techniques, but the linked version is incomplete. However, what appears to be a complete version is web-archived here:
Short version: what the paper references as “time to kill”, which appears to be the basis for the assertions that the whales lose consciousness and die in less than a minute, is based on 1) severing of the spinal cord leading to complete paralysis, and 2) assertion that severing of the MAJOR blood supply to the brain, namely the vertebral arteries instead of the lesser-used carotids, leads to rapid unconsciousness. Since there is evidence in lab animals that exsanguination alone is not necessarily sufficient to cause rapid unconsciousness or end brain activity quickly, I don’t think that’s sufficient justification for the claim. There’s no actual evidence so far distinguishing a quickly-dead whale from one that’s just paralyzed and unable to show distress. This was a concern in lab animal euthanasia also, recently addressed by stress hormone and brain activity monitoring.
That’s as much as I’d planned to go into here. I’m also following up by email, but I have lots more reading to do.
My main reference for lab animal research: AVMA euthanasia guidelines 2007, PDF link here.
Therrinsays
My comfort has nothing to do with whether a poster is derailing.
Pteryxx, I was making the point that pollution is a greater risk to the well being of pilot whales than is whaling. Public pressure and media attention on whaling has, I assume, little to no effect in stopping pollution. Therefore, Paul Watson is not focusing on the endeavor that has the maximal utility for his supposed goal. Therefore, I can only conclude that Paul Watson is either ignorant of the danger posed by pollution, an irrational decision maker, or that he doesn’t actually care as much about his supposed goal as he would have us believe. Heri even mentioned this as a point in the aforementioned aftershow. The standard Sea Shepherd response? “The Faroe Islands also share part of the responsibility for pollution.” Right. That’s a red herring.
Again, I did not start this. At each turn I’ve merely responded to people’s abuse of me. As I am now responding to your false allegation that I’m derailing. KG started this. Other compounded the issue by joining in support of the moron. The only post in this thread I’ve made that wasn’t in direct response to someone else’s post was the very first.
d(thunk) over d(MQ) = SQRRAWK!says
Bah. I’m still trying to figure out how arguments work here.
I live a sheltered life; so i don’t know about whaling or its moral implications.
But sketch’s continued insistence that ze’s winning makes them seem like the Black Knight.
“I’m invincible!”
Browniansays
KG started this.
By asking you to support your claims.
Keep on exposing that idiocy, O seeker of truth.
Browniansays
Bah. I’m still trying to figure out how arguments work here.
If you’re Faroese, you simply assert that people who don’t agree with you are liars.
Can you mentioned any evidence to the contrary? When all my detractors have offered up as counterarguments are strawmen and appeals to majority, am I not entitled to make a fat underline of how badly they’re faring? Especially when I’m besieged by idiots who evidently aren’t comprehending the simple fact that an argument is not settled against in favour of an unreasonable majority simply because they’re the majority? Arguments are settled in favour of the most reasonable, not the most numerous. That should be self-evident to an atheist community, because otherwise…they’d have to convert to theism now, wouldn’t they?
Pteryxxsays
sketch:
Public pressure and media attention on whaling has, I assume, little to no effect in stopping pollution. Therefore, Paul Watson is not focusing on the endeavor that has the maximal utility for his supposed goal.
First off (second sentence) you don’t get to claim that everyone’s efforts must be addressed solely to the issue that you think has maximal utility or is the most important. (See: Dear Muslima.) Much less impugn someone’s motivations because their priorities don’t match yours. Second off (first sentence) you don’t get to claim that the issues are unrelated. Public concern for wildlife, including charismatic megafauna, is a major factor for public support of pollution regulations.
Third: remember where I said that justifying Watson’s attention to Faroe Islands whaling specifically was a separate set of arguments? If you’re going to defend Faroe Islands whaling, make it distinct from your global claims.
consciousness razorsays
I did not start this.
You’ve perfected the art of not finishing it.
Maybe it’s just my poor reading comprehension, but I don’t know when I said anything about who started what or that I gave a fuck about it.
Browniansays
Arguments are settled in favour of the most reasonable, not the most numerous.
This of course, needs to be adjusted when the issue at hand is the interpretation of written text. Of course the author is the final arbiter of what he/she meant, but when a number of people make the same interpretation of someone’s words, even if erroneous, it is not strawmanning.
Of course, if the author is a fucking piece of shit, he’ll simply assert the same thing over and over again, by virtue of him being a fucking piece of shit.
Browniansays
Maybe it’s just my poor reading comprehension, but I don’t know when I said anything about who started what or that I gave a fuck about it.
Well, he does have a stake in claiming the moral high ground. It’s all a distraction to make up for the fact that he simply asserts those he disagrees with are liars.
That’s truth-seeking, apparently.
'Tis Himselfsays
Hey asshole sketch, my reading comprehension is just fine. You fucked up and you’re too proud to admit it.
Here at Pharyngula we are not required to be polite to anyone, let alone assholes like you. If you want politeness, talk to some Mormon missionaries about how you want to join their church. If you want to survive here, grow a thicker skin.
Now that we’ve got that sorted out, why don’t you fuck yourself?
Browniansays
Especially when I’m besieged by idiots who evidently aren’t comprehending the simple fact that an argument is not settled against in favour of an unreasonable majority simply because they’re the majority?
Provide evidence for ‘unreasonable’, or go get fucking whale-hooked in the face, you fucking cum-dribble.
Browniansays
Oh, sorry:
‘Please’, you fucking cum-dribble. And ‘thank you’, now please go get whale-hooked in the fucking face.
@Brownian: “By asking you to support your claims. Keep on exposing that idiocy, O seeker of truth.”
No, by feeling entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance of having asked for it and being an asshole about it.
We’ve been over this. Numerous times. You can’t be possibly be this stupid.
“If you’re Faroese, you simply assert that people who don’t agree with you are liars.”
Wow. I haven’t heard that one in a while. It’s quite common among theists who can’t provide any supporting arguments for their position. Are you sure you’re an atheist? You’re certainly ticking all the right boxes for dogmatic religionism.
No, you’re not a liar for not agreeing with me. You’re a liar for deliberate untruthfullness about what I’ve said. Case in point claiming that I’ve called you a liar for no other reason than that you disagree with me despite the fact that I’ve provided an abundance of evidence of deceitfulness in this thread. As is even evident for anyone who cares to scroll up.
Well, if I’m merely defending myself, then this isn’t as much masturbatory material for me as for those who attack me, now is it?
@Brownian
“This of course, needs to be adjusted when the issue at hand is the interpretation of written text.”
This is patently nonsense. Especially considering I’ve given you numerous clarifications of what I did and didn’t say and you lot persistently insist in misconstruing it.
“Of course the author is the final arbiter of what he/she meant, but when a number of people make the same interpretation of someone’s words, even if erroneous, it is not strawmanning.”
It is if it’s been pointed out and clarified time and again and is nevertheless still interpreted erroneously.
“Of course, if the author is a fucking piece of shit, he’ll simply assert the same thing over and over again, by virtue of him being a fucking piece of shit.”
And, of course, if the reader is a piece of shit he’ll heed no clarification but simply reassert the same strawmen over and over again, by virtue of being a fucking piece of shit.
“Well, he does have a stake in claiming the moral high ground. It’s all a distraction to make up for the fact that he simply asserts those he disagrees with are liars.”
Case in point, piece of shit.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐsays
Here’s an interesting example of fractally fallacious reasoning:
I’m not so sure whether I believe that Paul Watson really believes in what he’s doing. I believe that he believes whaling is wrong. I just don’t believe that he believes it’s quite as wrong as he says he does. His actions betray his words. If he were truly that concerned about the well-being of whales he’d focus on an activity that has more utility for his supposed goal – e.g. fighting pollution instead of just sailing around while trying to anger people because it looks entertaining on TV.
1) It assumes that Paul Watson’s hypothetical efforts at reducing pollution, though these efforts would almost certainly garner less public support, would have a higher whales’-utility/his-cost ratio than his efforts at reducing hunting. But nothing is quantified here, and people familiar with these kinds of questions know they’re extremely difficult to quantify.
2) Nevertheless, taking #1 for granted, it assumes that he is fully aware of and understands these utility/cost ratios. This is in fact extremely unlikely, given the incredible difficulty of calculation.
3) So far we haven’t accounted for liquidity, or lack thereof. Hypothetically, again assuming #1, he may only have become aware of these initial ratios well after having invested in this enterprise of anti-whaling. If he liquidated all the assets of Sea Shepherd right now and started up an anti-pollution campaign instead, he wouldn’t be able to achieve the ratio that he would have been able to achieve if he had been doing anti-pollution since the beginning. It’s possible that the most efficient is to keep on with anti-whaling until his ships wear out or are destroyed.
4) It’s particularly difficult to calculate the utility to the whales. It’s hard to know how much pollution reduces their lifespans, or causes them pain, suffering and trauma during their lives. It’s pretty easy to know how much hunting reduces their lifespans but hard to know how much it causes them pain, suffering and trauma. Moreover, the suffering and trauma is of a different quality. I do know that I am slowly being poisoned by pollution, and I think I prefer this to being hunted and murdered, but this is a strange and unclear comparison even regarding my own life where I have the most insight.
Should I go on?
This reminds me of people who say that because automobile accidents cause more deaths than guns, everyone should focus all their attention on cars instead of guns. Or since cancer causes more deaths than cars and guns combined, let’s not worry about either speed limits or guns, but only about cancer. And that’s not even taking into account the inevitable fact that different people will perceive different threats differently.
I’m not going to call you an idiot, sketch, because I don’t believe that (for the record I simply know for a fact that none of the people you’re calling idiots actually are, and I really don’t want to compound your tedium). But it’s apparent to me that you are not being nearly so rational as you like to imagine yourself.
Browniansays
No, by feeling entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance of having asked for it and being an asshole about it.
We’ve been over this. Numerous times. You can’t be possibly be this stupid.
Look, you fucking little puke, the fact that you’ve asserted this multiple times does not make you correct. You’re a whiny piece of shit who got pissy when asked to support his claims.
The fact that you think you’re entitled to your little tantrum just makes you an idiot.
Jesus, I don’t know why you keep bringing this point up as if it were relevant, when you’ve been told repeatedly that no one gives a fuck.
Case in point claiming that I’ve called you a liar for no other reason than that you disagree with me despite the fact that I’ve provided an abundance of evidence of deceitfulness in this thread.
Actually, I’ve provided evidence that you’re the liar, when you accused KG of strawmanning your position, and I quoted you numerous times to support it.
The fact that you simply denied that what you wrote meant what you wrote isn’t evidence, doucheface.
Hey, asshole ‘Tis! Your reading comprehension is poor. KG, Brownian, Brother, Feral, and you fucked up again and again but are simply too proud to admit it.
“Here at Pharyngula we are not required to be polite to anyone, let alone assholes like you.”
Yay! More strawmen. Goodie. Keep them coming.
“If you want politeness, talk to some Mormon missionaries about how you want to join their church. If you want to survive here, grow a thicker skin.”
My skin is sufficiently thick to hold my own against you lot, thank you much. How about if you can’t take criticism, you grow a thicker skin? Or is it required here on Pharyngula that I not criticise any of my fellow commenters whether they’re deserving or not?
“Now that we’ve got that sorted out, why don’t you fuck yourself?”
I love you too, mate.
Browniansays
It is if it’s been pointed out and clarified time and again and is nevertheless still interpreted erroneously.
No, you fucking lying fuckwad. What you did was originally claim that KG strawmanned you. When I and several others claimed that no, KG’s interpretation was in fact what we all interpreted your words to mean, you then claimed you meant something else.
What you didn’t do was drop your original strawman claim. At this point, the only conclusion is that you’re a lying piece of shit who now wants to claim misinterpretation because it’s in your self-interest to lie.
@Brownian: “Provide evidence for ‘unreasonable’, or go get fucking whale-hooked in the face, you fucking cum-dribble.”
Strawmen are unreasonable. So are ad hominems. Keep up or go lick GK’s smegma.
'Tis Himselfsays
sketch, here’s a friendly word of advice. Bail out of this thread and stay out. Right now you’re just an asshole whining about how mean and stupid everyone else is. Guess what, we don’t agree. You’ve made your case and it’s been soundly rejected by everyone else.
And you can collect your decaying porcupine on your way out.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐsays
I see Pteryxx also noticed that same bag of assumptions, and quickly saw it’s easy pickin’s. Oh well, I should have predicted that. The low cost and high payoff was easier to figure in this case. ;)
Pteryxxsays
Therefore, Paul Watson is not focusing on the endeavor that has the maximal utility for his supposed goal.
sketch: So you’re devoting all this effort to counterattacking folks who insulted you, instead of talking about whaling, becaaaaause…
@Brownian: “Look, you fucking little puke, the fact that you’ve asserted this multiple times does not make you correct. You’re a whiny piece of shit who got pissy when asked to support his claims.”
No, but the fact that you haven’t been able to argue against it but simply rely on appeals to the majority and insults, does mean that I’m correct.
“The fact that you think you’re entitled to your little tantrum just makes you an idiot.”
Asserting that I’m throwing a tantrum that I’m not entitled to without any argument whatsoever doesn’t make it true.
“Jesus, I don’t know why you keep bringing this point up as if it were relevant, when you’ve been told repeatedly that no one gives a fuck.”
You don’t understand why I correct you on your lies every time you lie? Gee. I wonder why…?
“Actually, I’ve provided evidence that you’re the liar, when you accused KG of strawmanning your position, and I quoted you numerous times to support it.”
You merely asserted that I must not understand what a strawman is even though I used GK’s own understanding of a strawman to show that what he was doing was strawmanning. Blank aassertions and appeals to majority don’t constitute evidence, so now you’re lying about having provided evidence.
“The fact that you simply denied that what you wrote meant what you wrote isn’t evidence, doucheface.”
I’ve not denied a single thing I’ve written, moron. I’ve denied GK’s strawmen of what I’ve written. I’ve clarified why they were strawmen. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t force a fucking idiot to think.
Amphioxsays
Oh, and sketch? On your way out, at least try to learn what ad hominem actually is?
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐsays
Nobody actually uses “it’s traditional” as an argument. It’s a strawman made up by Sea Sepherd.
“The Grindedrab is merely a way of keeping traditions alive while providing the local population with a fourth of their food supply.”
Browniansays
Strawmen are unreasonable.
It’s all arguments from assertion with you.
Asshole, the claim of strawmen is one that you have to demonstrate. You haven’t.
You can’t just keep asserting so and claiming that you’re arguing using any semblance of rationality. It’s like calling someone a liar.
Jesus Christ, you fucking loser, seven fucking people misinterpreted your writing in the exact same way, and you washed that away by simply declaring everyone to be liars.
Whether we are or not, what the fuck is your point in being here? We’re liars, we’re strawmanning you, and you and you alone are reasonable. Fine, then. Find somewhere where people are smart enough to appreciate your genius.
But by remaining here and calling people liars when an even more plausible hypothesis exists—that multiple people honestly misinterpreted your writing because it wasn’t clear—you’re just being a petulant fuck.
And isn’t that what you got all pissed off a KG for in the first place? He acted entitled to evidence for your assertions, which was, according to you, acting like an asshole?
Amphioxsays
“Argue against it”, sketch?
Brownian’s blown you out of the water. Without even trying. You’re like the Black Knight from Monty Python, right now, except you’ve lost more than just four limbs. You’re a disembodied tongue sans limbs, neck, face, or brain.
@Brownian: “No, you fucking lying fuckwad. What you did was originally claim that KG strawmanned you.”
Yes, you dishonest piece of shit. That’s what he did. I’ve provided argument for this. You haven’t even bothered to engage with it.
“When I and several others claimed that no, KG’s interpretation was in fact what we all interpreted your words to mean, you then claimed you meant something else.”
Falsifying the history of this thread now, are we? Could you possibly stoop any lower? No matter. Anyone who cares can scroll up and see what a despicable liar you are.
“What you didn’t do was drop your original strawman claim. At this point, the only conclusion is that you’re a lying piece of shit who now wants to claim misinterpretation because it’s in your self-interest to lie.”
I haven’t dropped by strawman claim because nobody has as of yet argued against it. Feralboy12 has even gotten himself in the amusing conundrum of either admitting that he’s not, in fact, talking to me even though he’s quoting me and seemingly responding to what I’m saying, or admitting that he believes that his responses to me are not made on a public blog but in a private conversation. You’re welcome to take up the challenge of solving this conundrum since you keep insisting that what GK said wasn’t a strawman. Logic’s a bitch, when you’re an idiot, isn’t it?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
whom I gave the chance of redemption and subsequent productive discussion, but who threw it back in my face.
And who the fuck are you to make such a decision, and think you speak for the regulars. You don’t.
I can tell by your frustration that you’re vexed at my persistence. That means it’s working. Maybe next time you’ll be kinder to people
NOPE, this is a rude blog, and we respond to your rudeness. If you don’t like rudeness, YOU FIND ANOTHER BLOG. To quote PZ in his standards and practices:
This is a rude blog. We like to argue — heck, we like a loud angry brawl. Don’t waste time whining at anyone that they’re not nice, because this gang will take pride in that and rhetorically hand you a rotting porcupine and tell you to stuff it up your nether orifice. If you intrude here and violate any of the previous three mores, people won’t like you, and they won’t hold back—they’ll tell you so, probably in colorful terms.
I suggest you simply reread the thread and then go bury yourself out of embarrassment.
You’ve embarrassed yourself enough. Typical of fuckwitted trolls who think they know better than we do. All ego, not one citation to back up an argument.
Browniansays
No, but the fact that you haven’t been able to argue against it but simply rely on appeals to the majority and insults, does mean that I’m correct.
No, it doesn’t, any more than the poor reasoning of Muslims makes Christianity correct. Is atheism correct because Christians make poor arguments, including appeals to the majority and insults, against it, or because it’s the conclusion the evidence leads to.
I could be the biggest fucking moron on the planet and point to my League of Moron pals and how they all agree with me, and that would not make you correct by default.
I mean, how does someone who claims to understand rational thinking even make this kind of claim?
@’Tis Himself: “sketch, here’s a friendly word of advice. Bail out of this thread and stay out.”
Fuck you. How about you leave?
“Right now you’re just an asshole whining about how mean and stupid everyone else is.”
No, everyone else is whining at me and insulting me because they can’t muster any proper arguments against me. I’m not whining. I’m butchering you fuckers, and you know it.
“Guess what, we don’t agree.”
That’s because apparently you’re all fucking morons.
“You’ve made your case and it’s been soundly rejected by everyone else.”
Nobody’s rejected anything that I’ve said. Fallacious reasoning and blunt insults don’t constitute rejection.
“And you can collect your decaying porcupine on your way out.”
You can ram it up your arse.
Browniansays
You haven’t even bothered to engage with it.
Of course I have, you lying sack of blubber. In comments 108, 110, 111, and 114.
You can argue that I’ve not engaged with it successfully, shit-for-brains, but you can take this little fucking lie and shove it into your temple until the mercury runs out.
@Amphiox: “Oh, and sketch? On your way out, at least try to learn what ad hominem actually is?”
How about you learn how a scroll button works or actually tell me why you think I’m wrong about what I previously stated as my understanding of ad hominem? I can only conclude that either you’re too lazy to scroll or that you don’t know what an ad hominem is.
Browniansays
I’m butchering you fuckers, and you know it.
With your repeated assertions, right.
Browniansays
How about you learn how a scroll button works or actually tell me why you think I’m wrong about what I previously stated as my understanding of ad hominem?
Ask nicely, fuck-for-brains. Ask fucking nicely, you piece of shit.
Browniansays
I can only conclude that either you’re too lazy to scroll or that you don’t know what an ad hominem is.
Of course, an actual rationalist would also entertain the hypothesis that he himself doesn’t understand the term.
“I can only conclude”
You’re a fucking shitty excuse for a truth-seeker.
Browniansays
“Geez, everybody here thinks I’m incorrect. Without considering anything else, they must be morons.”
That’s indeed how science works.
jasonspacemansays
Supposedly they are debating whether to adopt the Canadian dollar as their currency.
Be sure to try the Hakarl while you are there. ;-)
@Nerd or Redhead: “And who the fuck are you to make such a decision, and think you speak for the regulars. You don’t.”
And who the fuck are the regulars to tell me what I can and cannot do? And who the fuck are you to say I’m not a regular? For the record, I’ve never claimed to speak for anyone but myself.
“NOPE, this is a rude blog, and we respond to your rudeness.”
I haven’t been rude. But there’s nothing wrong with rudeness in and of itself.
“If you don’t like rudeness, YOU FIND ANOTHER BLOG.”
If you don’t like me being here, you find another blog.
“To quote PZ in his standards and practices:”
Are you telling me I’m not keeping with the standards and practices? Psh. Coward. It takes no skill or effort to brawl on the side that outnumbers everyone else. How about if you really want to practice what you preach you come over on my side and argue against the other morons? They’re in the wrong after all.
“You’ve embarrassed yourself enough.”
I’m not the one engaging in fallacious reasoning and resorting to insults in lieu of being able to respond properly. I’m not the one unable to admit mistakes.
“Typical of fuckwitted trolls who think they know better than we do.”
I do know better than you do if you think strawmen and ad hominems are valid reasoning. Simple fact of life. Deal with it or turn off your computer and have a cry.
“All ego, not one citation to back up an argument.”
Ho, ho, ho. This comes from the side that has yet to back up any of their false allegations against me nor provided any tangible argument that isn’t fallacious? Don’t make me laugh. That’s adorable. Do you want a ‘Baby’s First Debating Kit’ for Christmas? I’ll buy you one, if you want. It comes with a pacifier for comfort when you poop yourself in public as you have just done.
evadersays
Hehe PZ you need to hire a photographer for some “badass” photos of yourself!
You always look too nice and approachable. Is that allowable for atheists? ^^
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐsays
Nobody actually uses “it’s traditional” as an argument. It’s a strawman made up by Sea Sepherd.
@Brownian: “No, it doesn’t, any more than the poor reasoning of Muslims makes Christianity correct.”
But appeals to majority, strawmen, and insults make you correct? That delusion of yours sure must be comforting.
I provided valid arguments and evidence to back up my claims. You didn’t. Deal with it.
“I could be the biggest fucking moron on the planet and point to my League of Moron pals and how they all agree with me, and that would not make you correct by default.”
Uh…that’s precisely what you’ve already done. And now you’re just going nuclear.
Fact of the matter is, Brownie-boy. You can’t simply appeal to the off-chance that I might be wrong even if I have the arguments and evidence to back up my claim and you haven’t brought anything to the table. You’re not a fan of Pascal’s wager, are you? Because that’s fucking horrible reasoning.
“I mean, how does someone who claims to understand rational thinking even make this kind of claim?”
@Brownian: “Of course I have, you lying sack of blubber. In comments 108, 110, 111, and 114.”
Liar. I’ve already addressed all of your idiocy. Scroll up, you idiot and you’ll see.
“You can argue that I’ve not engaged with it successfully, shit-for-brains, but you can take this little fucking lie and shove it into your temple until the mercury runs out.”
I say the same about your lie that you have. You’ve provided no argument whatsoever in any of the posts you mentioned.
Browniansays
But appeals to majority, strawmen, and insults make you correct? That delusion of yours sure must be comforting.
Now that’s a strawman.
You can’t simply appeal to the off-chance that I might be wrong even if I have the arguments and evidence to back up my claim and you haven’t brought anything to the table.
And that’s also a strawman.
You’re not a fan of Pascal’s wager, are you? Because that’s fucking horrible reasoning.
And that’s a non sequitur.
I simply dealt with a single claim of yours:
the fact that you haven’t been able to argue against it but simply rely on appeals to the majority and insults, does mean that I’m correct.
@Brownian: “With your repeated assertions, right.”
Repeating arguments is all you can do when your detractor refuses to engage with them and simply keeps asserting they’re untrue by fallacious reasoning and insults. Repetition is all that is needed until you fucking get it or actually start to engage with arguments with actual fucking arguments.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
And who the fuck are the regulars to tell me what I can and cannot do?
The folks you unwisely thought you could intimidate with your bullshit. Still no citations to back up your claims. Nothing. Can’t even blockquote, and that is shown above the entry box. Typical non-thinking liberturd type. All you have is attitude and repetitious lies.
@Brownian: “Ask nicely, fuck-for-brains. Ask fucking nicely, you piece of shit.”
Why should I?
Browniansays
Liar. I’ve already addressed all of your idiocy.
Again, half-wit, you can claim that I haven’t successfully argued against your claims, but you cannot say that I did not bother.
Stay focussed.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Sketch, either you can cite the literature or you can’t. If you can, do so. If you can’t, and can’t shut the fuck up, you prove to us you are nothing but a liar and bullshitter. Easy to tell those with real arguments from those with nothing but attitude like you.
@Brownian: “Of course, an actual rationalist would also entertain the hypothesis that he himself doesn’t understand the term.”
Only after being provided with an actual rational reason to do so. Idiots having a circle-wank does not constitute a rational reason.
““I can only conclude”
You’re a fucking shitty excuse for a truth-seeker.”
Says a man who thinks strawmen and ad hominems are valid inferences. I’m sorry, but I don’t accept your authority in the matter. You have proven yourself insufficiently capable.
@Brownian in 193. To whom are you even talking now?
Browniansays
Repetition is all that is needed until you fucking get it or actually start to engage with arguments with actual fucking arguments.
Oh, fuck, like you’re competent to evaluate.
I argued completely on point in 186. And you filled my claim with straw.
Amphioxsays
We need a new entry into the troll taxon;
Trollus itsallaboutmememeus
Whereas other Trollus species will typically derail threads with preferred topics, dishonest, uninformed or otherwise, these topics do nevertheless seed relevant and sometimes interesting discussion, thus fostering a secondary ecosystem that can sustain the thread. itsallaboutmememeus, however, will only derail threads to talk entirely about itself, and the myriad ways in which it has been unjustly maligned by others (alternative name: iampersecutedacus). It is a ‘black hole’ species that only destroys, and never fosters anything constructive.
Type specimen: sketch
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Why do I keep getting the feeling sketch is an out of work liberturd? Oh, the excess attitude, egotism, wrongness, and inability to back anything it says. Nothing but hot air and OPINION. To quote Christopher Hitchens:
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
How is it a strawman to say that you’re defending strawmen when you’re defending GK’s strawmen? Oh, wait. That’s right. You have no idea what a strawman is.
“And that’s also a strawman.”
Again, you evidently have no idea what a strawman is.
“And that’s a non sequitur.”
Aaaand we can now add “non sequitur” to the list of victims of your abhorrently poor reading comprehension.
“I simply dealt with a single claim of yours: And demonstrated why it’s wrong.”
‘Demonstration’ also bites the dust.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐsays
Nobody actually uses “it’s traditional” as an argument. It’s a strawman made up by Sea Sepherd.
“I’m Faroese. I grew up in the Faroe Islands where people have been killing pilot whales for food for at least 1200 years[….] Some people probably get the connotation ‘ritual’ and ‘tribe’ when they hear the word ‘tradition’, and forget that their own habit of eating turkey for Christmas dinner is also a ‘tradition’. […] They [Faroese] feel very strongly about this because they are proud of their old traditions that helped them survive for so long. […] The point I’m trying to make is this: The more people outside the Faroes condemn the Faroese, and the more they punish the Faroese by not buying their export goods or by not travelling to the islands, the more isolated will the Faroese be from the rest of the world, and the more they will tend to stick to their old traditions – which in the end means that more pilot whales will be killed! And here at last – if you have managed to read this far – I want to tell you about a very good source, if you want to get the facts right. There is a website where you can find all the facts about pilot whaling – about the tradition […]”
Amphioxsays
Come now, Nerd, sketchy can’t even wrap its mind, such as it is, around the simple rhetorical concept as ad hominem. And you’re asking it to perform as advanced an argumentation function as citing the literature?
That’s not fair, not fair at all! Come right down to it, that’s plain mean!
@Brownian: “Oh, fuck, like you’re competent to evaluate.”
I am, in fact.
“I argued completely on point in 186. And you filled my claim with straw.”
Liar.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
That’s not fair, not fair at all! Come right down to it, that’s plain mean!
You meanie, you.
What? Me mean? Don’t tell the Pullet Patrol™. They’re looking for another excuse to try a gang tackle….
*Wanders off to make today’s batch of grog*
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
I see sketchy still has nothing but OPINION. POOF, dismissed without evidence.
antepreprosays
Well, we had ryanwilkinson over in the God Mode thread turning a small disagreement into a 100 comment-long ego-wank masquerading as an “argument”. And now we have sketch, doing the same fucking thing, except far more long-winded. Trollus itsallaboutmememeus, indeed.
Liar. I haven’t derailed this thread. GK and Brownian deserve all the dubious credit for that.
@Nerd of Redhead: “Why do I keep getting the feeling sketch is an out of work liberturd? Oh, the excess attitude, egotism, wrongness, and inability to back anything it says.”
What haven’t I backed? Name. One. Fucking. Thing.
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Notice citation. Try to keep up.”
Indeed. That goes for everything everyone else has written and nothing that I’ve written. Try to keep up.
There’s some Iceland economist guy visiting here making the case for it. Personally I hope they do adopt the loonie. I was in Iceland last month and I would really like to go back and not have to worry about the exchange rate.
There’s a nice fish & chip place in Reykjavik called Icelandic Fish & Chips.
“Come now, Nerd, sketchy can’t even wrap its mind, such as it is, around the simple rhetorical concept as ad hominem. And you’re asking it to perform as advanced an argumentation function as citing the literature?
That’s not fair, not fair at all! Come right down to it, that’s plain mean!
You meanie, you.”
Hey, asshole! Fix your fucking scroll button or make use of ctrl+f. I’ve told you what a fucking ad hominem is. You’ve not cited anything to suggest that my understanding is wrong.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls: “I see sketchy still has nothing but OPINION. POOF, dismissed without evidence.”
As opposed to your false, unargued for opinion, that I’ve nothing but opinion? Despite the fact that I’ve backed all my claims in this thread with evidence and argument, and you’ve backed up…oh! None whatsoever! You simply keep asserting without evidence that I have no evidence. POOF!
@anteprepro: “Well, we had ryanwilkinson over in the God Mode thread turning a small disagreement into a 100 comment-long ego-wank masquerading as an “argument”. And now we have sketch, doing the same fucking thing, except far more long-winded. Trollus itsallaboutmememeus, indeed.”
Name one. One. Fucking post I’ve made in this thread that wasn’t a direct response to someone else. One. (Except for the very first, that is.)
If you can’t have a porcupine for not backing up your claims with evidence.
Yeah I know. I also know that foreign media is blowing this out of proportion (understandable, it is a peculiar idea). The Icelandic government is not considering adopting the loonie.
I ask because this word, meaning “market” (well, “trade” in modern Russian) is all over the Slavic languages. Many squares in Croatia and Serbia have “trg” (no vowel, but that’s normal) in their names.
And then there’s “-terg-” in Venetic place names, apparently meaning “market” again.
also “targ” in Polish
consciousness razorsays
By my count, sketch has only made 67 out of the first 226 comments, approximately 29.6% saturation. Clearly there’s much more work to be done. He’s only been going at it for eleven hours, but I thought you were supposed to call your doctor if it lasts longer than four.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
POOF, Sketchy dismissed without evidence. Nothing but OPINION.
consciousness razorsays
My mistake — ten hours. Big difference.
John Moralessays
[recapitulation]
— begin recap —
sketch@21: @Pteryxx, Sea Shepherd is an organisation that will lie, swindle, propagandise, slander, and even endanger human lives to further their ideology. In short: they’re basically to animal rights activism what the Catholic Church is to religion. Even if you oppose whaling, you shouldn’t support Sea Sepherd. For those reasons and most of all because they’re completely ineffective. They haven’t stopped any whaling ever as far as I know, although, of course, they’ll tell you otherwise.
KG@24: Now why do I suspect that Faroese commenters might not be completely unbiased in their assessment of Sea Shepherd and Paul Watson?
sketch@26: @KG, is anyone completely unbiased? As an atheist I’m quite biased against religion. Doesn’t mean my reasoning is invalid.
KG@28: I haven’t seen any reasoning from you on this matter yet; just assertions.
sketch@31: @KG, sure, and you haven’t seen any reasoning to back up my atheism either. What’s your point?
KG#34: My point is that if you want your assertions about Sea Shepherd to be taken seriously, it would be a good idea to provide some evidence for them.
sketch@36: @KG, and if you want to have a discussion, you might simply start by requesting evidence before you petulantly and impolitely fault others for not having provided it pre-emptively. I’m under no obligation to withhold any opinion of mine that doesn’t come with an appendix of its underlying justifications. If you want to know the reasoning behind an opinion of mine, I’ll be glad to oblige if you simply ask. Politely.
sketch@44: @KG, if you wanted evidence of Paul Watson lying, why didn’t you just ask politely? Can you acknowledge your petulance and entitlement before we proceed in our discussions?
— end recap —
Et cetera.
Amphioxsays
Trollus itsallaboutmememeus is closely allied to Trollus liberturdiens, sharing many behavioral characters in common. The latter is generally considered ancestral to the former.
The two species can be distinguished in that, in liberturdiens these characters often vary between implicit and explicit expression, in itsallaboutmememeus, the relevant characters are always explicit, and always fixed.
There is a minority group, mostly consisting of liberturdiens specialists, that insists that itsallaboutmememeus is not descended from liberturdiens despite all the shared characteristics and cladistic analyses supporting this like. These self-styled mavericks prefer an alternative hypothesis, known as HNATL (he is not a TRUE libertarian), proposes that the apparent similarities between itsallaboutmememeus and liberturdiens are convergent, and that itsallaboutmemememus descends instead from a hypothetical, as yet to be classified, species of ancient stem-troll, known by the placeholder name of Homo mendacitor.
The implicit assumption of an ancient link between Homo and Trollus, however, remains in dispute.
Browniansays
How is it a strawman to say that you’re defending strawmen when you’re defending GK’s strawmen?
Because I wasn’t.
I’ll quote 186 again, since your scroll button appears to be broken:
No, but the fact that you haven’t been able to argue against it but simply rely on appeals to the majority and insults, does mean that I’m correct.
No, it doesn’t, any more than the poor reasoning of Muslims makes Christianity correct. Is atheism correct because Christians make poor arguments, including appeals to the majority and insults, against it, or because it’s the conclusion the evidence leads to.
I could be the biggest fucking moron on the planet and point to my League of Moron pals and how they all agree with me, and that would not make you correct by default.
I mean, how does someone who claims to understand rational thinking even make this kind of claim?
See how I did not defend any argument of mine, or anyone else’s, but only dealt with one, specific claim of yours?
That claim was this:
No, but the fact that you haven’t been able to argue against it but simply rely on appeals to the majority and insults, does mean that I’m correct.
Which you then responded to with “But appeals to majority, strawmen, and insults make you correct? That delusion of yours sure must be comforting.”
That wasn’t my claim. My claim, again, was that your reasoning, the one I quoted in 186, is demonstrably false.
And a note about appeals to majority: they’re not always fallacious.
You see, claims regarding lies, and to a lesser degree strawmanning, are claims that include intent, especially if you then resort to claims of ‘strawman’ in order to claim that your opponent is not arguing in good faith.
If your opponent argues that s/he did not intend to strawman, but instead argued in good faith given a reasonable interpretation of an argument or claim, it is not a fallacy to note that others interpreted the argument or claim in a similar fashion, thus showing that the interpretation, even if wrong, was reasonable, and to argue against it was indeed arguing in good faith.
It may be technically a strawman, but it is incorrect to then continue to argue that the strawman is an indication that your opponent is then not arguing in good faith.
I share this for the benefit of others, as sketch is clearly unable to appreciate nuance.
As for you, sketch, life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ has responded to your claim that:
Nobody actually uses “it’s traditional” as an argument. It’s a strawman made up by Sea Sepherd.
in multiple comments, with citations: 181, 197, and 214.
Deal with those.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐsays
Nobody actually uses “it’s traditional” as an argument. It’s a strawman made up by Sea Sepherd.
x-rejser.dk/lande/Faeroeerne.html
Der ligger en stærk tradition bag grindedrab, og man gør som turist klogt i at vise forståelse for begivenheden fremfor afsky, selvom Færingerne sagtens kan diskutere visse aspekter af denne handling.
Google translation: “There is a strong tradition behind the grind kills, and you as a tourist do wise to display understanding of the event rather than disgust, although Faroese can certainly discuss some aspects of this operation.”
'Tis Himselfsays
sketch #187
Fuck you. How about you leave?
Why should I? I’m having fun watching you make an idiot of yourself.
No, everyone else is whining at me and insulting me because they can’t muster any proper arguments against me. I’m not whining. I’m butchering you fuckers, and you know it.
The delusion is strong in this one.
That’s because apparently you’re all fucking morons.
If everyone else is saying one thing and you’re the only one saying the opposite, it’s quite possible we’re not fucking morons.
I made a recommendation and your response was to whine at me. You really are a fucking idiot. Everyone else sees this but you’re too much of a fucking idiot to realize what’s going on.
@John Morales. That about sums it up. If you want to truly complete the recap throw in a bunch of fucking idiot, hypocrite trolls who feel entitled to a lower standard than what they demand of everyone else because they’re the regulars of thees herr blog, dagnabbit! Nevermind that I’m also a regular.
@Brownian, I realise that pitbull with lipstick has responded to that comment, but I’ve been kinda’ busy responding to this shitstorm of entitlement that hath been summoned upon he who dareth gainsay One of Us!
Nevermind the contradictory lamentations from various frothing individuals of this blindly loyal ingroup that I simultaneously respond too much and too little. Seriously, animosity aside. Don’t you see the absurdity in this situation? And not to be a tone-troll, but don’t you think this whole idiotic affair would have been more productive if we’d discussed it without all the needless anger? It’s not as if most of the people who have been smearing me did it for any other reason than ingroup mentality. Zomg! We must come to the rescue of GK and Brownian regardless of whether what makes sense, since they’re the Good Guys and are fighting Sketch, who must therefore be the Bad Guy, amiright?
oy.
none of these words are going to earn you anything other than laughter, pointing, and derision on this blog. just FYI.
My point is that KG is an asshole, whom I gave the chance of redemption and subsequent productive discussion, but who threw it back in my face.
1)being an asshole is not inherently a barrier to productive discussion. tone trolling on the other hand is.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that KG, Brownian, and Brother are coming out on top argument-wise. Let me clue you in. They’re not. Their collective flailing about is a painful sight.
of course. must be the pharyngula echo-chamber at work again, making us all thing you’re behaving idiotically.
I’ve argued successfully for both.
“successfully” seems to be another one of those words you don’t quite understand the meaning of.
ad hominems about my dietary habits.
an insult is not an ad hominem; another term you’re unfamiliar with, I see.
You’ve repeatedly quoted me while dishonestly claiming that I said something else entirely. In other words you’ve repeatedly engaged in strawmen.
right now it is you who is engaging in strawmen. just FYI
I don’t believe I was misunderstood. Call it charity. I don’t believe that the three of you could possibly be that stupid.
if you are being misunderstood in exactly the same way by a number of people, it is not because they are stupid, it is because you’re not expressing yourself clearly. thi is (or should be) something that every scientists should have drilled into their head from their very first writing assignment. and it should apply to every rational thinker who wants to have written discussions.
Feeling uncomfortable that I’m exposing their idiocy?
the size of your ego is embarrasing
Again, I did not start this.
incorrect. your getting pissy at KG demanding that you support your claims is what started this, not KG’s entirely warranted demands for evidence.
Repeating arguments is all you can do when your detractor refuses to engage with them
incorrect. you can 1)stop engaging, if you think an arguemnt is futile; 2)provide evidence; 3)rephrase your argument more precisely; 4)concede that you’re wrong
And who the fuck are the regulars to tell me what I can and cannot do?
says the person who started a massive thread derail because someone demanded they support their claims, and did so impolitely.
I haven’t derailed this thread.
you have. or pterryx has, for asking in the first place, but you’ve derailed that potentially useful conversation too, by refusing to provide the necessary evidence that KG asked for.
What haven’t I backed? Name. One. Fucking. Thing.
you haven’t backed up any of your claims up with evidence yet, but if you’d start with some evidence for your original claim, that would be splendid.
If everyone else is saying one thing and you’re the only one saying the opposite, it’s quite possible we’re not fucking morons.
Yay! The return of the appeal to majority. You do realise that “everyone else” is saying the God exists, right? By your reasoning I should put as much stock in their opinion as I do in yours.
Yay! The return of the appeal to majority. You do realise that “everyone else” is saying the God exists, right? By your reasoning I should put as much stock in their opinion as I do in yours.
honeycakes, are you aware that we’re discussing subjective interpretation of a written text? because Argumentum ad Pupulum is only fallacious when what is under discussion is not a matter of perception.
And I’m sorry to inform you, but communication is all about perception.
when a large number of people interpret your writing in a consistent manner different from what you meant to write, your intention does not override perception. communication simply doesn’t work like that.
Pteryxxsays
you have. or pterryx has, for asking in the first place,
Er, sorry about that. I must say though, I expected any pointless flame war that resulted to actually have something to do with whaling. *bemused shrug*
don’t be sorry. an actual, evidence-based conversation about whaling would have been far more interesting that either the original topic (but I’m biased, not being icelandic) or this petulant derail into just how pissy sketch can get about being asked to provide said evidence.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐsays
@John Morales. That about sums it up.
don’t you think this whole idiotic affair would have been more productive if we’d discussed it without all the needless anger?
I’m not whining. I’m butchering you fuckers, and you know it.
Just like any liberturd, the egotism, arrogance, and ignorance are strong is this Luke. For some reason I won’t take its word for anything other than lies and bullshit. Oh, that’s right, it needs third party citations to show it is anything other than a bloviating fuckwit….
adamgordonsays
So, sketchy, it seems you’re not quite as ‘busy’ now given the length of your recent comments. Care to address lipstick’s refutations now?
@adamgordon, most of the examples weren’t made by Faroese defenders of whaling and are therefore, in my mind, inadmissible, but I’m not wedded to the claim, so I’m happy to forfeit it, and admit I was proven wrong.
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
You’re merely rehashing points I’ve already addressed earlier in this thread ad nauseam. If you have any original, not already-addressed points, that is if you have anything of substance to say to me, I’ll be happy to have a discussion with you. A discussion, though, requires that both participants actually listen (or read, as the case may be) what the other party is saying. You haven’t fulfilled this criterion so all you get is a citation to what I’ve previously posted.
Would you care to have an actual conversation or are you just harmonising the sheeple-choir? If the latter. Carry on. You don’t really need me for that, do you?
John Moralessays
[meta]
Jadehawk,
says the person who started a massive thread derail because someone demanded they support their claims, and did so impolitely.
There was no such demand: see KG’s #28 and #34.
—
sketch:
If you want to truly complete the recap throw in a bunch of fucking idiot, hypocrite trolls who feel entitled to a lower standard than what they demand of everyone else because they’re the regulars of thees herr blog, dagnabbit! Nevermind that I’m also a regular.
Fact: That “bunch of fucking idiot, hypocrite trolls” are all OMs — i.e. those commenters the commentariat nominated and voted for as the best and most interesting and most deserving of acknowledgment (to paraphrase PZ).
and because why the fuck not, let’s take apart the conveniently provided timeline of the beginning of this derail
sketch@21: @Pteryxx, Sea Shepherd is an organisation that will lie, swindle, propagandise, slander,* and even endanger human lives** to further their ideology. In short: they’re basically to animal rights activism what the Catholic Church is to religion. Even if you oppose whaling, you shouldn’t support Sea Sepherd. For those reasons and most of all because they’re completely ineffective***. They haven’t stopped any whaling ever as far as I know, although, of course, they’ll tell you otherwise.
response to pteryxx; makes at least 3 factual claims, without evidential support.
KG@24: Now why do I suspect that Faroese commenters might not be completely unbiased in their assessment of Sea Shepherd and Paul Watson?
snarky but harmless comment
sketch@26: @KG, is anyone completely unbiased? As an atheist I’m quite biased against religion. Doesn’t mean my reasoning is invalid.
snarky response to KG, makes claim of reasoning being present in previous posts
KG@28: I haven’t seen any reasoning from you on this matter yet; just assertions.
matter-of-fact response, pointing out the lack of reasoning (both in terms of logical reasoning and evidential support)
sketch@31: @KG, sure, and you haven’t seen any reasoning to back up my atheism either. What’s your point?
snarky, content-free response
KG#34: My point is that if you want your assertions about Sea Shepherd to be taken seriously, it would be a good idea to provide some evidence for them.
matter-of-fact response with accurate assessment of how controversial, not previously discussed positions tend to be treated on Pharyngula.
sketch@36: @KG, and if you want to have a discussion, you might simply start by requesting evidence before you petulantly and impolitely fault others for not having provided it pre-emptively. I’m under no obligation to withhold any opinion of mine that doesn’t come with an appendix of its underlying justifications. If you want to know the reasoning behind an opinion of mine, I’ll be glad to oblige if you simply ask. Politely.
pissy tonetrollingand the begin of the complete derail
I wasn’t going for condescension toward women, although I’m sorry if it came off like that. I was just tired of responding angrily to people addressing me angrily and decided to switch it up. It’s not as if he or she was saying anything worthwhile anyway. Just the repetitive mindless bashing. I find it amusing that now you’re worried about condescension all of a sudden, by the way.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
I love you to, dear. Go back to sleep.
Ah, tepid and inane attempt at comedic fuckwittery. Sorry dearie, I’ll be dancing on your over inflated ego for a couple more hours.
Still no citation from you to back up any claim, required to be seen as anything other than a liberturdian troll…
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐsays
Nobody actually uses “it’s traditional” as an argument. It’s a strawman made up by Sea Sepherd.
Mrs Raki hails from the Faroes, here are her thoughts………..
My mother was from the Faroe Islands. My grandfather died a few days after a ‘grindadrap’, as his finger got cut off in the frenzy and he developed blood poisoning. There were no medical facilities whatsoever on their village.
‘Grindadrap’ is a 1000 old year tradition, earlier generations would not have survived without it. The meat is shared among all the participants and citizens old and young. Everything is eaten, and it is not allowed to be traded.
Now wait a minute, pitbull, is this a defense or merely a description?
Defense:
I think you will find that pigs, cows, lambs and goats are frightened and scream when they die. If you think of killing for pleasure, think of ‘sports’ hunters of any kind, bull fighting, cock fighting and dog fighting.
adamgordonsays
I’m not wedded to the claim, so I’m happy to forfeit it, and admit I was proven wrong.
So then why the fuck did you descend into an idiotic egostorm when someone asked you for evidence for this claim?
you haven’t actually. you tried, but you haven’t. and in any case, I’m providing another perspective on them, which you may ignore, but it doesn’t actually make you look good when you do.
If you have any original, not already-addressed points, that is if you have anything of substance to say to me, I’ll be happy to have a discussion with you.
considering your complete lack of a response to my explanations of communication, I am going to have to say that you’re either lying or deluding yourself about this.
You haven’t fulfilled this criterion so all you get is a citation to what I’ve previously posted.
you’re right, as noted in #256. KG only pointed out that “reasoning” would require some evidence, which had not been provided at that point. which makes this derail even stupider
If these are the best I fear to encounter the worst.
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
Do you have anything to say to me that I haven’t already addressed? Or do you simply like talking at me without saying anything?
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐsays
I wasn’t going for condescension toward women, although I’m sorry if it came off like that.
Plausibly, English not being your first language, you don’t get how that use of “dear” comes off.
I find it amusing that now you’re worried about condescension all of a sudden, by the way.
To be clear, I should have been more specific. What I object to is the sexism: condescension to women qua women, or — had you been aware that Nerd is a man — condescension to men qua women.
I shall refrain from using ‘dear’ like that in the future unless talking to a straight man. So which term of endearment wouldn’t you object to? I don’t know whether you’re male or female (and I don’t need to know) so pick something I can call you the next time you call me an asshole.
Why should I counter your description of how communication works? I agree with it. I simply don’t agree with its applicability to this shitstorm for the above-mentioned reasons. I don’t particularly care to repeat those reasons, since I’m unconvinced you’d care to listen. You’re simply using me as a punching bag to prove yourself as a member of the ingroup.
Also “stop talking to you?” Seriously? I didn’t ask you to initiate a conversation to me. Is it so disconcerting when punching bags talk back that you feel a need to ask them to stop?
John Moralessays
[meta + OT + opinion + final]
Sketch, I see you as a quite intelligent, well-informed person with an excellent grasp of English and with whose general views I concur.
I also think you have let your ego get the better of you, here.
My unsolicited advice is to take a real break, and only then come back. If you are a regular (your nym rings no bells for me), then you know you will again be engaged if you do so.
(I know, I know! It’s very hard (requires much self-discipline) to walk away and lose the immediacy of the situation. And people will write things to which you are tempted to self-righteously, self-defensively retort. But, if nothing else, you need to sleep ;) )
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Let me refer you to post #216. Let me know when the penny drops, [insert acceptable non-gender term of endearment here].
It dropped, *Poof*, dismissed as OPINION WITHOUT EVIDENCE, you lose of course, Hitchens and all. Typical of egotistical maniacs who can’t show any bona fides other than attitude. I’m still waiting for your showing you know how to cite the literature to back up your fuckwittery…like any intelligent skeptic…Again, that leaves you out…
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐsays
I shall refrain from using ‘dear’ like that in the future unless talking to a straight man.
Nur, this doesn’t really help. It is then condescending to men qua women, you see? The insult is that he is to be condescended to in the way that one would normally condescend to a woman; this relies on using a comparison with women as the insult.
So which term of endearment wouldn’t you object to?
I guess “buddy” is always incredibly annoying but not a group identity insult. Also “friend” and “pal”.
I simply don’t agree with its applicability to this shitstorm[1] for the above-mentioned reasons[2]. I don’t particularly care to repeat those reasons, since I’m unconvinced you’d care to listen[3]. You’re simply using me as a punching bag to prove yourself as a member of the ingroup[4].
1)so you agree that intent doesn’t override perception, but your intent still overrides the perception of the readers?
2)no such reasons for why your intent overrides perception have been provided. “you’re stupid” and “you’re sheeple” are not reasons.
3)assertion and projection will get you nowhere
4)strawmanning me isn’t going to get you anywhere either. I have no problem pissing off any of the other posters here when I think they’re wrong, and have done so on multiple occasions,but right now, they aren’t. As I’ve pointed out in my analysis of the beginning of this derail.
And on a side-note, are you going to ever admit that an insult is notan ad hominem, or are you just hoping people will forget that you made that mistake?
@John Morales, I’ve only recently started using this pseudonym for Pharyngula comments, although admittedly I mostly lurk. I’ve been following (and intermittently commenting) Pharyngula since…hmm. Since crackergate I think.
Regarding my ego, maybe. I think it was a case of arguing with idiots while letting them drag me down to their level and beat me, if not with experience, then with the share amount of their inanity.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
Glad I could be your punching bag. Hope I’ve earned you streetcred for the ingroup. Unfortunately at this point I’m too tired to play any more. Let me know if you’d actually like to have a conversation. I’m sure it’s not going to devalue their acceptance of you now that you’ve proven yourself a good little soldier that can bark with the rest of them.
Wowbagger, Madman of Insleyfarnesays
sketch wrote:
I’ve only recently started using this pseudonym for Pharyngula comments, although admittedly I mostly lurk. I’ve been following (and intermittently commenting) Pharyngula since…hmm. Since crackergate I think.
And yet, in all that time, you”ve failed to notice that anyone making a claim will be expected to back that claim up with evidence?
Buddy, friend, and pal are more annoying than asshole, dumbwad, moron etc.?
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
Look, I don’t know if you want an actual conversation with me. On the one hand you do seem to make a little bit of effort, but on the other hand you’re repeating claims about me, which I’ve already addressed. Yes, I’ll gladly admit that an insult isn’t an ad hominem. I’ve never claimed it is. Scroll up and you’ll see my statement of understanding for what an ad hominem is. I realise it might be daunting to read every single comment in this thread, but then again a lot of your fellow commenters have repeated lies about me even when I know for a fact they’ve read the refutations. You give me no reason to think you’re not of the same ilk, so you need to show me some good will here.
Now I’ve admitted that an insult is not an ad hominem. Will you now admit that I never said it was in the first place?
If you can’t do that, then communication is one-way and therefore pointless.
Let me see if one can spontaneously turn into a trollus itsallaboutmememeus. Ahem…
fapfapfap
PAY ATTENTION TO ME!
You’re all wrong, with your groupthink and ad populums which you aren’t actually making, and your strawmen which I am totally not also guilty of doing, and I will go on and on and on at length about how wrong you guys are until this thread is nothing but me insulting people for daring to insult me because I insulted you because they insulted you. I will find anything, desperately scrounging for the tiniest response that might seem like a rebuttal, to everything said that even indirectly might be about me, in order to insure that the next hundred comments will be about what an obtuse asshole I am being. I NEED to turn this entire thread into a long, misguided attempt to defend my “honor” and will REFUSE to read any post, even my own, correctly if it helps me further whatever petty sub-argument I am making at the moment.
fapfapfapfapfapfap
Why does no-one love me!? Why does no-one uncritically accept everything I say!? This is all you fault, you evidence-requiring assholes!
fapfapfap *splooge*
Well, shit. I don’t think I could ever make the transformation. It takes more than one comment to properly turn a thread into a sideshow act about myself.
But seriously, though, sketch. Can you fucking read at all? You “rebutted” my observation that you were turning this entire thread into a giant egowank by saying that you address other people. You sure do. Excessively. Because they are talking about you and you can’t let a single piece of snark sit without responding to it with your counter-snark. Look at your fucking self. You have around 80 comments on a page with 280 comments total. Over a quarter of this thread is just you, talking. When the topic of the thread was PZ going to Iceland. PZ GOING TO ICELAND. How the fuck do you justify spewing out just south of a hundred comments on an “argument” when the topic of the thread is something as offensive and controversial as PZ going to Iceland. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Either multi-task with each individual comment more, start talking about something other than the meanness and stupidity of those who hurt your fee-fees, or SHUT THE FUCK UP. Please.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐsays
Buddy, friend, and pal are more annoying than asshole, dumbwad, moron etc.?
I dunno. But you asked for terms of endearment, which the latter three are not.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Unfortunately at this point I’m too tired to play any more.
Who the fuck cares? I will go to bed without needing your permission.
Let me know if you’d actually like to have a conversation.
Why would I want a “conversation” with someone who must define everything, and tell everybody what they must think? Conversation implies the possibility you could be wrong. Given you performance today, I seriously doubt your ability to carry out a conversation. And you performance today also means that you would have to cite the literature for every claim you make. Get it? You are considered a liar and bullshitter until you prove yourself otherwise with third party evidence.
Why do you think I’m any different than any other regular about the need for evidence? If you have lurked, you haven’t been paying attention. I am at the forefront of “show the evidence.”
Why do you think I’m not aware of the need for evidence? I’d respect your anger toward me more if it weren’t directed at a strawman. As is all I see is you (and your fellow anger-spewers) keep justifying your anger toward me by pointing out how you’re part of the Regulars and I’m a dirty Outsider, who needs to know his place and admit to all of your accusations against me regardless of whether I’m guilty of them or not if I know what’s good for me.
Well, I’m sorry. Is your faux ingroup-privelege not paying out as expected? That must be stressful for you. Join a Church. I hear they’re pretty good at finding people, who can’t defend themselves, to ostracise.
It’s a Latin abbreviation of ibidem meaning ‘the same place’ or something that has already been mentioned before. It’s my way of telling you that your question is a loaded question, which I cannot therefore answer either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to since I don’t accept its underlying assumption, and that I’ve already addressed it before in this thread in any case.
@’Tis Himself
I don’t care what gender people are.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
I’d respect your anger toward me more if it weren’t directed at a strawman.
It isn’t if you can produce your evidence that KG asked for, or shut the fuck up as a liar and bullshitter. There is no middle ground. Either you cited something, or you expected us to take your word for it. And nobody here takes a strangers word for anything without evidence. Question Everything.
, but on the other hand you’re repeating claims about me, which I’ve already addressed
you can repeat this endlessly, it’s not going to become any truer.
Yes, I’ll gladly admit that an insult isn’t an ad hominem. I’ve never claimed it is.
incorrect, at least in terms of the way you apply that term:
@KG: “You’re clearly delusional, as others have noted. Perhaps you’ve been eating too much whale meat?”
Ad hominem. Want to try again?
in this instance, you’re taking an insult by KG and claiming it’s an ad hominem.
In this instance KG is dismissing my arguments against him as delusional by speculating about my dietary choices. Therefore, a classic ad hominem.
this is an assertion on your part, and an incorrect interpretation of the comment, since KG didn’t say or imply that he’s dismissing you comment because of you food-habits; he made a snarky “conclusion” that what he perceived as the very low quality of your arguments might stem from your food-habits.
or in short: you have the causality of this comment reversed, and thus incorrectly claimed that what is an insult is an ad hominem.
I realise it might be daunting to read every single comment in this thread, but then again a lot of your fellow commenters have repeated lies about me even when I know for a fact they’ve read the refutations
stop assuming things about me for your convenience of not having to have a serious conversation about your mistakes. I have read every single comment in this thread. And no one has lied about you. No actual refutations have been provided by you for anything either, with the sole instance of the inconsequential “refutation” of a comment by someone else being used in a conversation with you in such a way that you interpreted it as an attribution of that comment to yourself.
You give me no reason to think you’re not of the same ilk, so you need to show me some good will here.
no, i really don’t. you can argue based on content, or you can complain.
Now I’ve admitted that an insult is not an ad hominem.
you admit that KG’s comment about your food-habits was an insult, not an ad hominem? great.
Will you now admit that I never said it was in the first place?
why would I do such a thing, when it is clearly and obviously incorrect?
If you can’t do that, then communication is one-way and therefore pointless.
you want me to lie and admit to incopetency where I have not committed any, to establish two-way communication? I don’t think this is reasonable.
'Tis Himselfsays
As is all I see is you (and your fellow anger-spewers) keep justifying your anger toward me
Don’t give yourself airs. We’re not angry at you. You’re nowhere near annoying enough to cause anger. We’re playing with you, watching you wriggle and squirm and show your stupidity. As a supposed “long time lurker” you should know we love to play with trolls.
Now continue to dance, troll.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Inability to stick a flounce, certain proof of a troll, liar and bullshitter. Right Sketchy???
Scroll up. Post #44 and #65 Evidence has already been provided. Haven’t we been over this already several times?
It’s amusing to be called a liar and bullshitter by someone lying and bullshitting about the existence of the provided evidence.
“Question Everything.”
Why?
Ogvorbis: Illogical and Incompetant Liar (OM)says
an incorrect interpretation of the comment
If sketch misunderstands, that is acceptable (though sketch’s interpretation will stand (in hir mind)). If I, or any other of the Seven Pharyngula Liars misunderstand a comment, we are, by definition, now, and forever, liars. I guess double standards are acceptable.
Wowbagger, Madman of Insleyfarnesays
sketch wrote:
It’s a Latin abbreviation of ibidem meaning ‘the same place’ or something that has already been mentioned before. It’s my way of telling you that your question is a loaded question, which I cannot therefore answer either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to since I don’t accept its underlying assumption, and that I’ve already addressed it before in this thread in any case.
I know what it means – hence the second part of my comment, “Because what it means in English usage makes no sense as an answer to my question…” – the part where I wrote ‘what it means’ should have been a giveaway.
But, given how much that has confused you, I’m starting to understand why you’re struggling here.
And it still doesn’t explain why you chose to not respond to KG’s request for evidence to support your claim and instead derail the thread; if you had genuinely been reading posts here for that long, you’d not have been so offended by what is a standard reaction.
Then again, as you’ve demonstrated with my post, reading ain’t necessarily comprehending.
Scroll up. Post #44 and #65 Evidence has already been provided. Haven’t we been over this already several times?
you have made 3 claims in your comment: that Watson is a liar (evidence provided that he has lied once… which is a bit essantializing, but ok; it’s evidence at least); that his actions endanger human lives (no evidence provided); that his actions are ineffective (no evidence provided)
You’re flip-flopping and contradicting your own previous claim. Either I made a correct identification of an ad hominem in an incorrect interpretation, or I made an incorrect identification of an ad hominem in a correct interpretation.
You asserted that I claimed that an insult is an ad hominem. Are you now forfeiting this claim in favour of the claim that I correctly identified an ad hominem but that the problem was in the incorrectness of the interpretation?
If you’re willing to admit you’ve amended your position and that you were wrong in accusing me of claiming that an insult is an ad hominem, as you seem to know I didn’t, then I’ll respect your intellectual integrity and we may talk properly.
Until then you seem just as cavalier about honesty and truth as KG, Brownian et. al.
antepreprosays
It’s my way of telling you that your question is a loaded question, which I cannot therefore answer either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to since I don’t accept its underlying assumption, and that I’ve already addressed it before in this thread in any case.
Which is wrong, by the way. Ibid is used in the way you imply it is used in your first sentence: To reference that something is “the same thing” as something previously stated. It is sort of like saying “ditto”, and is often used in citations immediately after the source “that was already mentioned before”. It is not used to say “neither yes or no” all on its lonesome. If you want a word that is actually used for such a purpose, try mu. Per the Pfft:
The word features prominently with a similar meaning in Douglas Hofstadter’s 1979 book, Gödel, Escher, Bach, where it is used fancifully in discussions of symbolic logic, particularly Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, to indicate a question whose “answer” is to un-ask the question, indicate the question is fundamentally flawed, or reject the premise that a dualistic answer can or will be given.[16]
In the same vein, according to the Jargon File (a collection of hacker jargon and culture) mu is considered by Discordians to be the correct answer to the classic logical fallacy of the loaded question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”[17] Assuming that you have no wife or you have never beaten your wife, the answer “yes” is wrong because it implies that you used to beat your wife and then stopped, but “no” is worse because it suggests that you have one and are still beating her. As a result, some Discordians proposed “mu” as the correct answer, which to them means, “Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions.”[17] For the same reason, “mu” may be used similarly to “N/A” or “not applicable,” a term often used to indicate the question cannot be answered because the conditions of the question do not match the reality.
If Sketch makes a mistake, Sketch is willing to own up to it and has already done so several times throughout this thread. Others haven’t been as honest.
@Wowbagger, Madman of Insleyfarne
KG never actually requested evidence he just acted indignant that it hadn’t been provided in advance of his request. Also there seems to be a lot of revisionism going about. I did provide evidence. You lot lying about that fact doesn’t help your case.
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
Right, so now you’re amending your position from “Sketch hasn’t provided any evidence” to “Sketch has provided evidence but not for every claim?” Are you then willing to admit that a lot of people here have been lying about me in their claims that I haven’t provided any evidence whatsoever?
If not, then, again, you aren’t really trustworthy, are you?
Regarding not having provided evidence about the commenters here, now you’re lying again. The evidence of KG engaging in strawmen against me can be found in post #103.
You’re flip-flopping and contradicting your own previous claim. Either I made a correct identification of an ad hominem in an incorrect interpretation
yes, this is my claim.
or I made an incorrect identification of an ad hominem in a correct interpretation.
this is not my claim. which comment of mine are your interpreting to mean this?
You asserted that I claimed that an insult is an ad hominem.
you did. you took an insult, and you made the claim that it was an ad hominem. are you having trouble parsing this? if so, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
If you’re willing to admit you’ve amended your position
insufficiently clear communication on my part or misreading on your part does not constitute a change of mind on my part.
that you were wrong in accusing me of claiming that an insult is an ad hominem, as you seem to know I didn’t
I understand now that we’re having a communications-problem based on the ambiguous meaning of the phrase in question. you should now stop imputing incorrect intent and incorrect motives to me, because it makes you look like an idiot when you do so
Until then you seem just as cavalier about honesty and truth as KG, Brownian et. al.
your tendency to jump to conclusions of ill intent is noted and dismissed as really fucking stupid and annoying.
Browniansays
And not to be a tone-troll, but don’t you think this whole idiotic affair would have been more productive if we’d discussed it without all the needless anger?
Yeah, you could have provided some citations for your claim.
Browniansays
Are you then willing to admit that a lot of people here have been lying about me in their claims that I haven’t provided any evidence whatsoever?
@anteprepro, as far as I can see I’ve used the word correctly in accordance to what you think it means. I think you’re getting the meaning of the word mixed up with my explanation of intent in making use of that meaning. Although I admit I might have been clearer in separating the two, I think you’ll that the distinction is present in my post.
Simply saying “that was already mentioned” is my way of refusing to respond to a loaded question, which I’ve already addressed. Is that clearer?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
The evidence of KG engaging in strawmen against me can be found in post #103.
There is no citation in #103. You lie and bullshit. Your word is not evidence, it is OPINION. And evidenceless OPINION, POOF, CAN AND WILL BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
If Sketch makes a mistake, Sketch is willing to own up to it and has already done so several times throughout this thread.
you’re still imputing ill intent in KG’s comments, as well as imputing stupidity and/or ill intent in people interpreting you comment about responding to pteryxx differently from how you meant it.
neither of those incorrect acts have been corrected by you so far.
Right, so now you’re amending your position from “Sketch hasn’t provided any evidence” to “Sketch has provided evidence but not for every claim?”
you have not provided evidence for your claims; you have provided partial evidence for one of your claims. there’s a difference. and, in regard to the beginning of the derail, you had not provided any evidence yet when KG pointed this out to you.
If not, then, again, you aren’t really trustworthy, are you?
you’re once again insisting that I make incorrect claims to prove something to you. this is unreasonable.
Regarding not having provided evidence about the commenters here, now you’re lying again. The evidence of KG engaging in strawmen against me can be found in post #103.
incorrect. as has been noted by me, and supposedly agreed with by you, intent does not override perception in communication.
to call a perception at odds with an intent a “strawman” is incorrect unless evidence can be provided that perception was in fact in accord with intent, but is being purposefully misrepresenting those comments.
if you had claimed that KG was misunderstanding, or even simply wrong, you’d be correct. you are not correct that those were strawmen, and your comment 103 is not evidence of strawmen, but of miscommunication.
i apologize for the egregious amount of typos in my comments in this thread
Browniansays
The evidence of KG engaging in strawmen against me can be found in post #103.
And evidence that KG simply responded to what you wrote was provided by me in comments 108, 110, 111, and 114.
Others have made the same claim. I explained why in this case, it’s not a fallacy to invoke others’ opinions in 233. You sidestepped it, of course, with some about how this all could have been avoided if you’d simply provided support for your claims in good faith, instead of being the piece of shit who calls himself sketch.
antepreprosays
<blockquote cite=""? Simply saying “that was already mentioned” is my way of refusing to respond to a loaded question, which I’ve already addressed. Is that clearer?
That’s clearer, but I don’t think it helps. “That was already mentioned” is not the correct way to respond to “loaded questions”. There are many other ways to address it, including saying “the question is moot,” or actually pointing out how it is loaded. Referencing something the last thing you previously stated (which is what ibid does in the vast majority of cases when people use it) does not make it clear that you think the question is loaded. Implying that you have already answered something is not the same thing as implying that you can’t possibly answer something (and that this is the fault of the question).
Your clarification is accepted. It’s a matter of scope. I took “an insult” to mean an insult in general. You took it to mean a specific insult. Am I right? Sorry, I didn’t catch it before.
So our disagreement comes down to interpretation of what KG said. You take him to have said “your argument is delusional, and furthermore I speculate that it’s due to your diet.” I took him to say “your diet – as I speculate it to be – has made you delusional and therefore your arguments are inadmissible.”
I concede that your interpretation is merely an insult and an illicit speculation on my personal dietary habits, not an ad hominem. (Hey, where’s the evidence that I eat whale or that I’m delusional? Should KG get away with that?) I trust you concede that if my interpretation were correct, then it would be an example of ad hominem. I further concede that my interpretation might be incorrect. Could I do other? I can’t read KG’s mind, and neither, I surmise, can you. I still think mine is a plausible interpretation of what he said, though, of course, you might disagree.
To everyone else, I’ll only be responding to Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe from now on. She, (sorry for the assumption. It’s the “Jade” and the “féministe” that give me the association)unlike the rest of you, has proven herself capable of intellectual integrity. I’ll respond to you to if you follow her example.
chigau (違う)says
Jadehawk
You must be so proud.
*guffaw*
Pteryxxsays
To everyone else, I’ll only be responding to Jadehawk,
To everyone else, I’ll only be responding to Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe from now on. She, (sorry for the assumption. It’s the “Jade” and the “féministe” that give me the association)unlike the rest of you, has proven herself capable of intellectual integrity. I’ll respond to you to if you follow her example.
sketch, if you don’t stop confusing lack of insults with intellectual integrity, I will lose any hope that this conversation can be had intelligently. Just because I’m being ridiculously patient and ignore your constant accusations of ill intent and spend a ridiculous amount of time holding your hand through meticulous explanations of how your accusations of fallacies and ill intent are unevidenced, doesn’t mean that similar has not already been pointed out to you previously by others.
it does not reflect well on you when you only take seriously the claims of a person you find sufficiently polite to yourself (while not at all returning the favor, I shall note), and then only when you’re carefully and patiently guided through the argument.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
unlike the rest of you {including me}, has proven herself capable of intellectual integrity.
Fixed that for you egotistical loser. You don’t have intellectual integrity. I’m a scientist, and I recognize it. You fail…
anyhow; I patiently await the supply of further evidence for Watson’s lies, as well as for him endangering people and his organization being ineffective.
As to imputing ill intent in KG’s comments, I think he proved ill intent right off the bat. But if you’re not just talking about his general behaviour but specifically about ill intent in what I take to be fallacies levied against me, I’ve conceded that your interpretation of what I take to be an ad hominem might be right and mine wrong. Nevertheless I think he’s proven ill intent in his strawmen by never conceding that what he burdened me with wasn’t my position. If he has misunderstood or misconstrued my position inadvertently, he should have no issue with amending what he took it to be once I corrected him. He never did. That, to me, says ill intent and that he does not possess the same intellectual integrity you do.
I provided the first piece of evidence while simultaneously asking KG if he were willing to own up to his petulant entitlement. He declined to do so. The rest has been fallout from that. If he’d just said “Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. I came on a bit strong because I assumed you were one of those people not willing to back up their claims. I see now that I was wrong.” That would have showed good will. Instead he opted for ill intent. Hence I never bothered to provide any subsequent evidence because by then the shitstorm had already started.
Regarding intent or perception, if KG had amended his understanding of what he took my position to after corrected and conceded that he’d misunderstood it or inadvertently misconstrued it. Then you’d have a point. Since neither he nor anyone else in this thread has done so, that is a clear (if not conclusive) indication of deliberate intent of purposeful misrepresentation.
By the way, a strawman is simply misrepresentation. It doesn’t have to be deliberate. Informing someone that they’re attacking a strawman is well in order in the context of an argument and a signal for them to take stock and consider that “Oh, hey. Maybe I misunderstood something here.” It’s only when they continue to hold fast to the incorrect position that it becomes a matter of deliberate ill-will. But the initial inadvertent strawman is a strawman nonetheless. Just a particularly innocuous member of its species.
consciousness razorsays
Past the twelve-hour mark and still nothing. Too busy gutting whales? I mean, is it even possible to do that, masturbate and troll a blog all at the same time?
Which, I believe, PZ has linked to in the past, if memory serves me right. You might be right that something worthwhile has been said by some of your follow commenters. I might have missed it among all the shit that has been hailed down upon me. It’s just that I haven’t noticed much else than blank unargued-for assertions repeating lies about me. A person who can’t amend their position, which no-one here has shown themselves capable of, might have some good points, but it’s useless to argue those points with them since those points aren’t amenable to rational argument. It’s not a matter of only taking seriously politeness. After all, you’re not particularly polite either, but you do same capable of rational discourse.
antepreprosays
So, wait, sketch is claiming that he is refusing to respond to the rest of us because we insult him? And that he will start responding to people when they stop insulting him? Not buying it. The only reason the thread is where it is right now is because he is constitutionally incapable of withholding a response when his ego is slighted. Besides, what conversation would we possibly want to have with sketch at this point that isn’t just pointing out that he is an incompetent blowhard?
And here he is, 300 comments in, refusing to talk to anyone but Jadehawk, and still BAAAAAAWing at length about KG, who hasn’t actually been here for at least 200 comments. What a heroic stand he has made here, on the subject of *mumble*mumble*mumble*. Truly, if he were to perish on this day, he would be considered a courageous martyr for his cause. That noble cause of *mumble*mumble*mumble*.
Wowbagger, Madman of Insleyfarnesays
sketch wrote:
I provided the first piece of evidence while simultaneously asking KG if he were willing to own up to his petulant entitlement. He declined to do so.
[best read as if it were being delivered by Stephen Fry]
Oh, the utter beast! Well, who can blame you for your subsequent meltdown and post after post of pissant whining and bleating after you were dealt such a blow? The cad. The bounder. I simply must collapse upon my fainting couch.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Funny how his complain about KG comes when KG used a link sketchythinker provided to refute him. Typical of trolls, typical of liberturds, and typical of tone trolls. No matter what they provide as evidence, they are always right, even if said evidence doesn’t back their claims. And sketchythinker, wonder why we don’t your word for anything other than lies and bullshit. All behavior that is familiar to us…
Well, and the flowchart says, under “You cheated”:
This discussion is terminated.
Nothing about hours of repetition, if you’re going by the flowchart.
Besides, making a concession is not required for integrity. There’s no concession to be made if 1) the assertion is correct, or 2) there’s insufficient evidence to prove the assertion either way (or it’s a bad assertion).
It’s attested to by the fact that you were willing to make a concession.
are you confused?
none of the people you’ve talked to are unwilling to make a concession, they’ve just had no reason to. neither have I. so why the fuck are you making this distinction? based on what evidence?
As to imputing ill intent in KG’s comments, I think he proved ill intent right off the bat.
either “I think”, or “he proved”; not both.
we’re all quite aware that you think there was ill intent. as my deconstruction of that part of this thread shows, it’s not at all obvious or “proven” that this wast the case.
But if you’re not just talking about his general behaviour
his behavior is not, nor has ever been, in dispute; he was rude, snarky, and impolite in his first comment but matter-of-factly (though certainly no more polite) when pointing out lack of reasoning and lack of evidence. intent is a matter different from behavior however.
Nevertheless I think he’s proven ill intent in his strawmen
no. you do not get to just ignore my response about those purported strawmen. you will have to address it and show it to be incorrect, before you can go back to claiming there were any strawmen.
If he has misunderstood or misconstrued my position inadvertently
he and a bunch of others have a different interpretation of what you said, but you jumped to accusations of strawmanning which they have every right to defend themselves against. and please be consistent: you impute ill intent at the drop of a hat, but accuse others of strawmanning when they incorrectly interpret what you write.
it should be also noted that you’ve never explained how responding to pteryxx was supposed to explain why you don’t think KG was right to say that you’ve provided assertions rather than reasoning and evidence at that point in the conversation. thus, it is not yet at all clear that what you meant to communicate was something significantly different than what you ended up communicating. you’re welcome to provide that explanation now, though at this point I doubt KG is going to bother reading this thread anymore.
asking KG if he were willing to own up to his petulant entitlement. He declined to do so.
of course he did. pointing out correctly that your comments so far had not been “reasoning” as you said, but rather unevidenced assertions, is not a symptom of entitlement. As John Morales correctly stated, KG didn’t strictly speaking demand that you provide evidence; rather he pointed out (accurately) that you did not reason but assert, and that in order to have your assertions taken seriously, you’d have to provide evidence. please explain the entitlement in either of those.
If he’d just said “Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. I came on a bit strong because I assumed you were one of those people not willing to back up their claims. I see now that I was wrong.”
why do you claim that he assumed you were that kind of person? no evidence from that part of the conversation suggests that to be the case, since he only pointed out that you hadn’t yet provided it, and that you’d need to to be able to have your assertions taken seriously.
That would have showed good will. Instead he opted for ill intent.
I’m not wholly sure if you’re aware that “good will” vs. “ill intent” is a false dichotomy. nor that you’re not, strictly speaking, owed any good will here.
It’s only when they continue to hold fast to the incorrect position
again, you’re going to have to show their position to be incorrect. what was the point of you saying you had only responded to pteryxx? how is your intent in making that comment significantly different from the interpretation of multiple readers? (for that matter, do you understand that interpretation well enough to be able to make the claim that it is incorrect? because you’ve shown a tendency for misinterpretation in this thread. just sayin’).
By the way, a strawman is simply misrepresentation.
no. a strawman is “to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position”
the ambiguous comment in question was neither a position, nor was an illusion created that it was being refuted by replacing it with another position. at most, a comment (the purpose and intended meaning of which I hope you’re going to finally explain) was misconstrued, and then re-misconstrued as having been turned into a position that wasn’t expressed originally.
Also, I see no evidence that inadvertently misunderstanding is synonymous with misrepresenting, since the latter does carry a connotation of dishonesty, which misunderstanding does in fact not.
You might be right that something worthwhile has been said by some of your follow commenters. I might have missed it among all the shit that has been hailed down upon me.
this, after you snottily tell me to read everything in this thread?
So, wait, sketch is claiming that he is refusing to respond to the rest of us because we insult him?
no. apparently it’s because he feels that I’d concede if I were wrong, but others here would not. what he bases this distinction on is entirely unclear to me.
well fuck. now I’ve lost my concentration enough to just randomly refer to sketch as “he”; a habit I’ve been really trying to wean myself of, with evidently no success.
I’m also getting sick of talking about talking about this conversation. I’ve listed a number of things I’d like to see sketch finally address, but I think I have to refuse to address any more extraneous stuff, because I haven’t yet read any of the articles accumulating in my other window, and I’d actually like to do that, since that would be more informative than this conversation is likely to be. unless we can maybe return to actually talking about whaling.
Pteryxxsays
Et tu, Pteryxx?
Now I’m wondering if that was a) an assertion, b) an opinion, c) a strawperson, d) an insult, e) an ad hominem, f) a concession, or g) really addressed to Jadehawk. I’m tempted to start a betting pool.
Based on the endless repetition that the issue over which we disagree is whether it’s in order to require evidence of claims, even when I’ve repeatedly and unequivocally said it isn’t.
Based on the endless repetition that I’ve derailed this thread, when it’s entirely the self-proclaimed “Regulars,” who are at fault.
Based on the endless repetition that KG’s strawmen were accurate even when I’ve repeatedly and unequivocally stated that they’re not representative of my actual position, and have repeatedly clarified what my position is.
Based on the endless repetition that no evidence has been provided for my original claims, when that’s clearly not the case for anyone who bothers to look.
Based on the endless repetition that I’ve not provided any arguments for various things and only make unargued-for assertions, when on the contrary that’s a precisely accurate description of most of the self-proclaimed “Regulars.”
Based on the endless repetition that I’m whining, when in fact I’ve merely responded to and refuted the attacks of my detractors.
Based on the endless repetition that I’m a liar and bullshitter for claiming that my detractors are lying about me, despite the fact that I’ve provide ample arguments, reasons, an examples of their endlessly repeated lies.
Based on the endless repetition that I’m a tone-troll, when that is at worst a deliberate misuse of the concept and at best an egregious misunderstanding, and despite the fact that I’ve already refuted that claim and no-one has as of yet engaged with my argument against it.
Need I go on? These people have not only had ample reasons to make concessions, they’ve been dutybound to do so by basic honesty. The fact that they’re unwilling or unable displays a completely callous disregard for truth and fair play. The complete opposite of what I would associate with rationalists or skeptics.
That last comment was a response to #326 by the way. In case it wasn’t obvious.
antepreprosays
no. apparently it’s because he feels that I’d concede if I were wrong, but others here would not.
Right. Because if there is anything that this thread shows, it is that sketch would concede an argument if he was wrong. Wait. No. I think that was the version of this thread that I saw in Bizarro World. Damn. Forgetful me.
(Does this post count as a concession?)
Also, on strawmen:
Dealing with logical implications of statements or slight rewordings of statements that don’t change meanings are not strawmen. Desperate people who love to whine endlessly about how they are so misunderstood love to conjure up The Cry of the Strawperson when they are backed into a corner, but they will rarely ever shoot themselves into the foot by daring to point HOW they were misrepresented. Because it would make clear to everyone that there was no straw on the premises or within a five mile radius.
For an example, see 93, where all “four strawmen” were direct responses to “KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance, in the context of me simply sharing my opinions on a subject with Pteryxx.” KG’s responses were:
1. This is a public blog, so you don’t get a right to chat with one person uninterrupted (a clear rebuttal to “simply sharing my opinions..with Pteryxx”).
2. He says people are expected to back up claims with evidence, which rebuts “KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence.”
3. He makes the bold claim that sketch’s original post was presented as facts, and not just “opinion” which he suggests in the quote.
If this was a strawman at all, it could only have possible been due to being a quote mine. But sketch was far too brilliant to arse himself to make such a claim, and simply presented KG’s argument as four separate strawmen without bothering to show WHY they were inaccurate. Without bothering to realize that every one of these “strawmen” directly addressed the quote.
What was that about concessions, again, sketchy? Why don’t you just concede that this is all pointless nonsense, walk away, go punch a few pedestrians, cry into your pillow, and leave us without the privilege of listening to you whine about the same thing, ad nauseam?
Based on the endless repetition that the issue over which we disagree is whether it’s in order to require evidence of claims, even when I’ve repeatedly and unequivocally said it isn’t.
you’ve said that. how nice. that’s just an assertion though.
In this particular social space, in the instance of contentious claims not previously discussed here, it is in fact in order to require evidence of claims. it is absurd of you to demand that we deny the existence of the social rules we made ourselves.
and the rest of your “based on”s is just as baseless. and more to the point, I’ve argued against you on moste of them, yet you perceive me as having conceded, or being willing to concede, any of them? why?
These people have not only had ample reasons to make concessions, they’ve been dutybound to do so by basic honesty.
hardly, since they’ve not actually been incorrect on any of them (I’ll except NoR from this, because I don’t actually know what he said. I admit to kinda skipping those based on experience)
The fact that they’re unwilling or unable displays a completely callous disregard for truth and fair play. The complete opposite of what I would associate with rationalists or skeptics.
this, unfortunately, looks like pure projection
now, unless you’re going to address the points I’ve asked you to, I’m going to leave this conversation, since it’s entirely pointless. You seem to have made up your mind that your idiosyncratic interpretation of this conversation is correct, and that everyone else therefore is wrong. I see nothing fruitful in further wallowing in minutiae to maybe eventually have you concede all these if I just hold your hand through them sufficiently.
If this was a strawman at all, it could only have possible been due to being a quote mine.
well no. it could also be that 1)KG interpreted these comments in accordance to the as yet undisclosed meaning intended by sketch, and chose instead to respond as if sketch had made comments that 2)meant the things that sketch enumerates in #103
I don’t see that there’s evidence for either 1) or 2), so… yeah.
Alright, anteprepro. To show what a despicable liar you are in claiming I never bothered to explain why KG’s strawmen were inaccurate, I’ll repeat myself for your and everyone’s benefit.
1. This is a public blog, so you don’t get a right to chat with one person uninterrupted (a clear rebuttal to “simply sharing my opinions..with Pteryxx”).</blockquote
My position was that what I said was a direct response to Pteryxx the purpose of which was the share my opinions. I have shown why the strawman that my position was that I wasn't talking on a public blog but in a private conversation is inaccurate. Numerous times. Mostly in response to feralboy.
"Claim x was made in response to person y" is not equivalent to “claim x was made in a private conversation and not on a public blog.” Unless, of course, you’re willing to claim that it’s impossible to publicly make direct responses to a specific person among a group.
Is that what you’re claiming? No? Then concede that I have explained why this representation of my position was inaccurate, and that it is. Otherwise have the honesty that feralboy didn’t have to own up to the fact that you actually do think it’s impossible to publicly make a direst response to a specific person among a group.
2. He says people are expected to back up claims with evidence, which rebuts “KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence.”
Quotemining. You left out the crucial addition of in advance. KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance of having asked for it.
I’ve also both addressed and made that point numerous times. Mostly in my responses to Brownian.
Concede that it’s a misrepresentation of my position and that I have, contrary to your lie, already explained why it is or shut the fuck up.
3. He makes the bold claim that sketch’s original post was presented as facts, and not just “opinion” which he suggests in the quote.
His specific claim was: “in your case, those claims were serious allegations about an organisation, which you presented as fact, not your opinion as to whether one popular entertainer was better than another.”
I explained why this is a misrepresentation in #112. Concede that you lied about me not having provided the reasons for why KG’s representations of my position were inaccurate and concede that they were inaccurate now that I’ve reiterated the reasons, you lying piece of shit.
antepreprosays
Indeed. You were spot on at the end of 335. Get the hell outta here. Spare yourself the chore of trying to teach trollus itsallaboutmememeus how to see things that are clearly square in an emotional blindspot. It’s just not worth it, and you are under no obligation to go through it simply because he said that you’re his favorite.
Based on the endless repetition that the issue over which we disagree is whether it’s in order to require evidence of claims, even when I’ve repeatedly and unequivocally said it isn’t.
To which you responded:
you’ve said that. how nice. that’s just an assertion though.
In this particular social space, in the instance of contentious claims not previously discussed here, it is in fact in order to require evidence of claims. it is absurd of you to demand that we deny the existence of the social rules we made ourselves.
Are you fucking kidding me?! I just unequivocally told you that I do not deny that it’s in order to require evidence for claims, and you respond that it’s absurd of me to demand the denial of it being in order to require evidence for claims?
I evidently had too high hopes for you. You’re just as bad as the rest of the liars. Nobody here cares what I actually say my position is, just what they want it to be.
you’re once again impute ill intent to make your argumentation easier. when all I’ve done is misread that one part of your comment.
you are not arguing in good faith.
I’d like you to quote what your claim to the core of this disagreement is, though. because as far as I can tell, it’s entirely about how mean KG has been to you.
you once again ask someone to concede to something that is not true. they have not lied, but rather they find your weak argumentation in 103 insufficient, as they explain in the comment which you impute to be a lie
and you still haven’t said what the intent of that comment about pteryxx was, so that we can actually see whether it was misinterpreted.
It’s hard to believe people are arguing in good faith when they continually repeat things, which I’ve repeatedly and unequivocally corrected them on. I would be more convinced that you were arguing in good faith, if it wasn’t because you simply repeated a misrepresentation of my position, that several others have also repeated ad nauseam throughout this thread, and which I’ve corrected them on time again, even after you claimed to have read this entire thread. Come now. You have no excuse at this point.
You’re right that this disagreement started with KG, but it was only compounded by everyone ganging up on me and continually spreading and defending lies. Yes, I say lies, because after the nth repetition and subsequent correction I have no reason whatsoever to believe that any of you are arguing in good faith. You’re simply lying through your teeth. It’s despicable.
antepreprosays
To show what a despicable liar you are in claiming I never bothered to explain why KG’s strawmen were inaccurate, I’ll repeat myself for your and everyone’s benefit.
Which you do by referencing zero of your actual posts. Great work. You really know how to present evidence.
“Claim x was made in response to person y” is not equivalent to “claim x was made in a private conversation and not on a public blog.” Unless, of course, you’re willing to claim that it’s impossible to publicly make direct responses to a specific person among a group.
Yeah, except that KG also mentioned that the fact that this is a “public blog” means that it isn’t a faux pas for person z to respond to something that was “in response to person y”. Your whine about KG butting in is still wrong, and your Cry of the Strawperson still worng.
Quotemining. You left out the crucial addition of in advance. KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance of having asked for it.
And now who’s strawmanning, you dishonest fuck? Did you really think KG was asking you to be a fucking time-traveller? Do you think you are arguing honestly right now? And quotemining? Obviously, if this is what you meant by “in advance”, I did you a fucking favor by omitting it.
As for the opinion thing: Here is your only statement on the matter in 112.
And is that or is that not the same as claiming to not be on a public forum but in a private conversation where nobody else is entitled to address me?
My response? Ibid, fuckwit.
Concede that you lied about me not having provided the reasons for why KG’s representations of my position were inaccurate and concede that they were inaccurate now that I’ve reiterated the reasons, you lying piece of shit.
If you projected any harder, you’d be considered an asset by the accounting department of the nearest IMAX. And if you jumped to conclusions any faster, you would have the patent on faster than light travel.
Seriously, just fucking stop this. The hole you’ve dug for yourself is starting to rival the Grand Canyon. You should look back on this thread tomorrow morning and hang your head in shame.
you once again ask someone to concede to something that is not true. they have not lied, but rather they find your weak argumentation in 103 insufficient, as they explain in the comment which you impute to be a lie
anteprepro claimed that I had provided no explanation whatsoever for why the representations of my position were inaccurate. This is clearly false, as I’ve shown, even if anteprepro meant to say that I had, in fact, provided explanations but that anteprepro believed them to be insufficient.
anteprepro lied. Concede it. Save face. Stop moving the goal posts.
Browniansays
It’s hard to believe people are arguing in good faith when they continually repeat things
I know the fucking feeling. You, of course, have shown yourself to be an utter piece of shit.
If you were killed in the street by a hit ‘n’ run driver, I’d slap your parents for crying.
Quotemining. Yet another example of dishonesty. Thanks for proving my point, guys.
Well, you’re fucking incapable of proving a point, so you need all the help you can get.
So, you’re welcome, fuckface. Can I do anything else for you? Punch you in the throat? Toss you in front of a car? Hold your head under water until the honesty seeps into all your sinuses?
antepreprosays
Correction: My last post stated that sketchy didn’t reference his previous posts specifically, but that’s inaccurate. I wrote that before I finished his post, and he vaguely alluded to previous posts while specifically mentioning one at the very bottom. A thousand apologies. Sketchy is still stupid, obstinate, and wrong.
@anteprepro Concede that you’ve lied.
Fuck off, you simpering asswelt. Go take a fucking nap. You are starting to sound like fucking M@bus right now.
well fuck. now I am going to have to go through them one by one. fuck fuckedy fuck.
Based on the endless repetition that the issue over which we disagree is whether it’s in order to require evidence of claims, even when I’ve repeatedly and unequivocally said it isn’t.
aside from me just misreading this as a restatement of your first claim that you are not obligated to provide evidence, the only such claims are from the very beginning of the conversation. After that, most people decided that you seem to be complaining about KGs behavior. if that’s still not it, I’m sorry to say that your communication is awful because then it’s not clear at all from any of your comments what your fucking point of contention is.
Based on the endless repetition that I’ve derailed this thread, when it’s entirely the self-proclaimed “Regulars,” who are at fault.
pteryxx derailed the thread; you’ve derailed the potential conversation about whaling seemingly because you took offense at KGs (and brownians) tone.
Based on the endless repetition that KG’s strawmen were accurate even when I’ve repeatedly and unequivocally stated that they’re not representative of my actual position, and have repeatedly clarified what my position is.
you’re still insisting these are strawmen, when multiple people have taken this assertion apart as incorrect. it’s not even entirely clear that KG actually thought you meant the things you ascribe to him in 103, since his comments address the pteryxx-comment accurately while explaining why he jumped in, but with no direct indication that these are meant as direct refutations of perceived intent in the comment.
because the extent of the perceived intent seems to be only “I was talking to pteryxx (not to you)”, nothing more, nothing less. since you’ve still not explained what the intent actually was, we have no way of knowing if the commenters were wrong to interpret it that way.
Based on the endless repetition that no evidence has been provided for my original claims, when that’s clearly not the case for anyone who bothers to look.
but it is the case. you’ve provided partial evidence for a single claim in a thread full of claims.
Based on the endless repetition that I’ve not provided any arguments for various things and only make unargued-for assertions, when on the contrary that’s a precisely accurate description of most of the self-proclaimed “Regulars.”
you have made a lot of unsupported assertions, by virtue of having provided evidence for only one of your claims so far.
Based on the endless repetition that I’m whining, when in fact I’ve merely responded to and refuted the attacks of my detractors.
“whining” is not a fact-claim, it’s a subjective opinion, thus there’s nothing to refute there. besides, you could be both responding and even, theoretically, refuting things, and doing so in a whiny manner. not mutually exclusive things.
Based on the endless repetition that I’m a liar and bullshitter for claiming that my detractors are lying about me, despite the fact that I’ve provide ample arguments, reasons, an examples of their endlessly repeated lies.
you are definitely a bullshitter, constantly assuming that people have the most negative intent when making comments. whether you’re actively a liar, I can’t judge.
Based on the endless repetition that I’m a tone-troll, when that is at worst a deliberate misuse of the concept and at best an egregious misunderstanding, and despite the fact that I’ve already refuted that claim and no-one has as of yet engaged with my argument against it.
you are absolutely a tone troll, since you’ve been complaining about KG’s “entitlement” and “petulance” and asking why he didn’t politely ask you for evidence (If you want to know the reasoning behind an opinion of mine, I’ll be glad to oblige if you simply ask. Politely.); and you’ve actually used the phrase “proper decorum”
Before you leave, lying coward, why don’t you address how life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ countered your lie about Watson in 181, 197, 214, and 234?
What’s the matter, coward. You too fucking hypocritical to admit you’re a liar in the same way you accuse us of?
I forfeited a claim after being provided evidence to the contrary. That’s called intellectual integrity, not deceitfulness. Although if you think the true hallmark of honesty is to adamantly clutch onto a claim even after it’s been proven wrong, I can finally understand why we don’t see eye-to-eye.
You’re a dogmatic. I’ll happily concede I was wrong, if it’s been shown to me.
Browniansays
Look no further than the last few comments by anteprepro and Brownian for examples of ill intent.
Not much different than yours when you claimed Watson was strawmanning in order to poison the well.
Or was that a misinterpretation of what he’s claimed, since we have actual fucking evidence that such claims of tradition exist?
Well, coward?
antepreprosays
Sketchy, I’ll have you know I AM THE ONE TRUE TRUTH TELLER HERE! You DARE to suggest that I tell A LIE! You are the one who bathes in distortions and falsehoods much like an infant would bathe in their own feces if not given timely diaper changes! I WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED! Every word from mouth is as true as the sun rising and as the most tautological of tautologies. I WILL CRUSH YOU UNDER MY HEEL LIKE A PARTICULARLY SMALL USED CARS SALESMAN FOR DARING TO QUESTION ME WHILE SPEWING NOTHING BUT FILTH AND FALSEHOOD FROM YOUR OWN DISCONNECTED JAW! Oh, you will see. Oh my, will you see. Much seeing will be done. It will be seen in thirty to forty more comments virtually identical to this one! /sketchiness
(The most disturbing thing is that sketchy fancies seems to quite a philosophy fanboy. Logic goes out the window though when HULK MUST SMASH! I guess using logic while feeling passionately is a talent that is much rarer outside of Pharyngula)
anteprepro claimed that I had provided no explanation whatsoever for why the representations of my position were inaccurate
incorrect. anteprepro said that you’ve not explained HOW KG’s response to the pteryxx-comment is a strawman. which indeed you haven’t. you’ve only said that it was so based upon your interpretation of KG’s intent as seen in 103. since you’ve not explained what the intent of that comment was, we indeed do not know how these are misrepresentations. and secondly, anterepro specifically points out that you haven’t shown KGs comments to be strawmen (i.e. misrepresentations), not merely inaccuracies, as you claim now.
Stop moving the goal posts.
precious
@Brownian in 346.
Quotemining.
how so? not all partial quotes are quotemines, you know. plus, he’s not even claiming anything with that quote. you’re confused again.
I’ve proven you lot liars.
you’ve done no such thing.
Browniansays
I forfeited a claim after being provided evidence to the contrary. That’s called intellectual integrity, not deceitfulness. Although if you think the true hallmark of honesty is to adamantly clutch onto a claim even after it’s been proven wrong, I can finally understand why we don’t see eye-to-eye.
Oh, fuck yourself. You wrote, way back in 85:
@KG, fuck off asshole. I’ve no time for your dishonest strawmen.
That you won’t admit that KG wasn’t being dishonest, but in fact misread your shitty, shitty writing, and then you clung to that claim and impugned everyone else.
I know you think that’s somehow integrity on your part. But that’s because you’re a fucking scumbag.
If you’d admitted that, way back when, this whole shitstorm would have blown over.
Pteryxxsays
Holy shit. He’s gotta be pulling our legs, right? No-one could lack self-awareness to this degree. Right?
What was that fallacy again, with the big name? Fundamental Attribution Error?
Look no further than the last few comments by anteprepro and Brownian for examples of ill intent.
you want me to use the end of this thread to prove the beginning of it?
what are you, unglued in time?
I wouldn’t be surprised if, at this point, almost everyone you’ve shat on is bearing you ill intent. but you’ve been imputing it into almost all comments since the beginning of the conversation, including into many of the comments by me.
Well, you guys have succeeded in demolishing my faith in humanity. If that was your intention, congratulations. Until this day, I had hoped people valued truth, honesty, intellectual integrity, and charitability. That hope has been forever shattered by you vile demagogues. Good night, I suppose.
Browniansays
you want me to use the end of this thread to prove the beginning of it?
Yes, because that’s what this shitweasel thinks is argument.
And again, this is all because KG did not ask him to produce evidence for his claim nicely, when he was addressing Pteryxx.
Or whatever the fucking slimeball now wants to pretend he actually meant.
@KG, fuck off asshole. I’ve no time for your dishonest strawmen.
jesus fuck. I actually got confused by the stupid fuck into actually believing he really just said it was a mistake on KG’s part. serves me right to take anything he says at face value. of course he said it was a dishonest strawman, and then moved the goalposts to claiming it was a misunderstanding and that the dishonesty was in not admitting it later.
*sigh*
Browniansays
Well, you guys have succeeded in demolishing my faith in humanity.
Liar.
If that was your intention, congratulations.
Oh, now you’re all of a sudden unclear on our intentions, when all along you just knew we were all liars?
Until this day, I had hoped people valued truth, honesty, intellectual integrity, and charitability. That hope has been forever shattered by you vile demagogues.
Honestly, if you can’t hack life anymore knowing this is the case, call me. I’ll be happy to help you end your life devoid of hope.
Good night, I suppose.
If I wake in the morning to find you’ve died in your sleep, it will have been.
Browniansays
I actually got confused by the stupid fuck into actually believing he really just said it was a mistake on KG’s part.
Like Rove, whenever he calls someone a liar, he’s talking about himself.
Until this day, I had hoped people valued truth, honesty, intellectual integrity, and charitability.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
this, from the fucker who instantly assumes the worst interpretation of any possible or real mistake.
antepreprosays
you want me to use the end of this thread to prove the beginning of it?
what are you, unglued in time?
Well, that might explain why he interpreted KG’s request for evidence as requesting that sketchy provide evidence before the point in time that KG asks for evidence. I mean, surely, that would look like a blatant strawman interpretation to us mere mortals. But not to sketchy. To sketchy, it was a blatantly offensive request. Not because it is impossible. But because sketchy can’t be expected to violate the laws of causality and bend the flow of time at KG’s beck and call. Time-travelling is hard fucking work. Just look at the mental toll it has obviously had on sketchy. It’s obviously not for your average Joe.
Browniansays
this, from the fucker who instantly assumes the worst interpretation of any possible or real mistake.
On charity:
When multiple people supported KG’s interpretation of the “I was talking to Pteryxx” comments, he said this:
You’ve repeatedly quoted me while dishonestly claiming that I said something else entirely. In other words you’ve repeatedly engaged in strawmen. I don’t believe I was misunderstood. Call it charity. I don’t believe that the three of you could possibly be that stupid. I believe, however, that you’re liars out of some misplaced loyalty for one another.
That’s this slimy fucker’s version of charity. And reason.
He’s one of the worst people I’ve ever encountered on this blog. I hope I never encounter him in real life.
John Moralessays
[meta]
Brownian:
If I wake in the morning to find you’ve died in your sleep, it will have been.
No. Just… no.
(Please, save that sentiment for the true monsters)
1)still have no evidence that Walton is a liar (I am going to assume we’re all clear that “a liar” is someone who tells lies, plural; not someone who said one incorrect thing); that he endangers people’s lives; and that he’s ineffective
2)what the fuck it was that sketch actually meant with the “I’m talking to pteryxx” comment.
*sigh*
this conversation was entirely futile; shouldn’t surprise me, but it disappoints me.
Looking forward to the insincere, bashful apology when you wake up in the morning, when your hours-long barbarian’s rage is long-since over, and you finally realize the degree to which you were a tremendous irrational asshole in this thread. Hopefully the fact that you value “concessions” wasn’t just a blatant lie, like it seemed to be to anyone who was paying slightly more attention to your comments than you were (Hint: Apparently not very hard). Because you’ll have a hell of a “concession” to make if you come back here after having found the tiniest shreds of the rationality you slowly tore to pieces over the course of these comments.
John Moralessays
[OT + meta]
Watson, Jadehawk.
(The Walton would be most unimpressed with my weaksauce response to Brownian just above, I reckon)
right. fuck. i give up, this thread has sapped my brain of all functionality.
Pteryxxsays
(I am going to assume we’re all clear that “a liar” is someone who tells lies, plural; not someone who said one incorrect thing);
All of us that aren’t sketchy, probably.
that he endangers people’s lives;
For what it’s worth, that rather vague and broad claim’s trivial to prove. Watson and Sea Shepherd do things like run risky small-craft missions in Antarctic waters and threaten collision with whaling ships. Obviously, they’re risking their own lives at the very least. This is well documented on their own site, in many episodes of Whale Wars, on the wiki… it would’ve taken no effort whatsoever for sketchy to back that up. It still says nothing about whether that risk’s voluntary, rational or justified; but considering the trouble sketchy has with words like “proof” I’m not confident we’d ever get to that level of discourse.
antepreprosays
He’s one of the worst people I’ve ever encountered on this blog. I hope I never encounter him in real life.
I said originally that he reminded me of the very recent troll, ryanwilkinson. I now think a much better comparison is “chris,” that troll who clogged up a thread about the Pharyngula Shop opening up by getting into programmer skillz pissing match and then ranting and raving about nothing in particular. Also an atheist, also derailed an innocuous thread topic entirely due to ego, also became increasingly and disturbingly irrational as time went on. Also seemed to spend his entire day on the thread. Amazing, the things that some people can get worked up about.
be careful; you’re falling for sketch’s trix. KD didn’t request, demand, or otherwise implied want for evidence; he pointed out that assertions would have to be supported by evidence to become believable (he also said sketch wasn’t reasoning, he was asserting)
Well, you guys have succeeded in demolishing my faith in humanity.
No, that’s just you projecting your own pitiful moral failings, as evidently, you are too much of a coward to recognize the ethical emptiness in your own character.
That hope has been forever shattered by you vile demagogues.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh what a privileged, sheltered life the sketchy has lived, to even think it appropriate to compare what happens here to demagoguery of any sort.
Amazing, the things that some people can get worked up about.
As it turns out, I get worked up about sorghum beer.
Not that that has anything to do with sketch or ryanwilkinson or chris (that Python programmer with the maddest skillz). I just thought I’d throw that out there.
Because really. I’ve dealt with ryanwilkinson in the last 48 hours. Y’all can’t expect that much more of me.
These “holier-than-thou” atheists are so fucking tedious.
That hope has been forever shattered by you vile demagogues.
In a the great Pharyngula tradition, I now have changed my nym (the title part at least) to match this particularly hilarious insult.
John Moralessays
[meta]
I note Wowbagger’s claim is self-evidential. ;)
theophontes 777says
@ sketch # 381
I had hoped people valued truth, honesty, intellectual integrity, and charitability. That hope has been forever shattered by you vile demagogues.
Hi sketch, I understand exactly how you feel. There are many who feel the same way.
As a way to let us all tell our stories without getting shot down continually, PZ has created a thread for people who feel harangued by the vile demagogues on Pharangula. A place where we can express ourselves without the sniping and harassment – or the fear of the banhammer making us hold ourselves back.
Link to TZT – the demagoguery free zone.
theophontes – acting 2IC in chief
theophontes 777says
er… have a “y”
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐsays
If I hadn’t already understood why the Faroese get so excited about their bloodsport, this here mass rhetorical slaughter of a defenseless animal would do.
I wonder if Sketch will slap the bloody water with his tail a few more times for our amusement.
Forøvrigt kan jeg ikke rigtig forarges over Grinde-drab.
Det er jo en enorm gammel tradition, som stammer fra den tid, hvor folk dræbte, for at overleve.
Google translation: “Besides, I can not really feel offended by grind killing.
It’s a huge tradition, which dates from the time when people killed in order to survive.”
Louissays
What’s worrying me now is that even after reading this thread and totting up the scores, I’m still not sure who has the biggest pee-pee. Therefore I can only conclude that after all the willy waggling and man meat measuring that I, in fact, am possessed of the most mighty member here.*
BOW BEFORE MY ENORMOUS COCK! BOW BEFORE IT! GOOOOOD! GOOOOOOOD!
Now tickle the balls.
Louis
* Dispute or denial of this will hurt my MAN FEE-FEES. Which are IMPORTANT and must not be questioned EVAR.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trollssays
Well, over 14 hours of a temper tantrum. No other way to describe that extended diatribe by Sketchy.
Hey PZ, why not bring up whaling at your talk? Seems to get the locals going alright.
KGsays
We’re all assholes here, but I have never seen KG be unreasonable. – LILAPWL
You’re too kind. I could certainly have been less snarky at the outset, but what the hell – it’s clear someone would sooner or later have trodden on some outlying province of sketch’s enormous ego and produced a similar starfart. I notice sketch’s favourite tactic is that of simultaneously insulting someone and demanding an apology from them. Looks to me like a way of trying to assert dominance. I’d hate to be his partner or colleague. Oddly enough, given his history of serial fallings-out with people he’s worked with, I suspect Paul Watson is a rather similar personality.
Hey PZ, why not bring up whaling at your talk? Seems to get the locals going alright.
Doubtful. PZ’s talk is in Iceland. Sketch is from the Faroe Islands. Although both are whaling countries it’s not nearly as big an issue in Iceland. Also, the grindadráp of pilot whales is unique for the Faroe Islands.
Oddly enough, given his history of serial fallings-out with people he’s worked with, I suspect Paul Watson is a rather similar personality.
Ouch ;)
KGsays
Oh yes – source for my last sentence in #414 is wikipedia’s article on Watson, which mentions:
1) His falling out with Greenpeace, which he left early on in a dispute about strategy. He claims to have been a founder, which Greenpeace denies.
2) His falling out with The former member of Sea Shepherd and captain of the Ady Gil Pete Bethune, over who ordered the ship to be scuttled.
3)His dispute with the Sierra Club board, of which he was a member from 2003-6.
4)His falling out with the Costa Rican authorities – which has just led to his arrest in Germany.
Obviously, these could all have nothing to do with Watson’s ego.
Ogvorbis: Illogical and Incompetant Liar (OM)says
Wow. An actual Trollus estdeegoegoi which remained engaged for 14 hours. I do hope the species remains endangered. Or at least rare. We should count ourselves lucky to have had one stay in view for that long.
Ogvorbis: Illogical and Incompetant Liar (OM)says
Obviously, these could all have nothing to do with Watson’s ego.
Oh, no. Those were all completely independent cases. There is no correlation.
Actually, I have a vision of sketch or Watson saying, totally without irony, “I have no problem. For some reason, everyone has a problem with me!”
Seven (or more) people misunderstood the same statement. But it is I, and others, who are the liars. Weird.
Louissays
Oh for fuck’s sake, why won’t ANYONE acknowledge the important thing about all this thread is how gargantuan my cock is?
P.S. A local musician sang this to me at my 18th birthday party. Both party and the singing of the song were arranged by my father. It’s a wonder I turned out as well as I did.
Louissays
Oh and Ogvorbis and Brownian,
You are both strawmanning me, ad hominemininininining me and committing the fallacy of masturbare post factum, you lying liars who like lies.
So hence, a song for you all. But especially for Sketch.
Louis
Ogvorbis: strawmadhominemsays
You are both strawmanning me, ad hominemininininining me
Mmmm. I love me some adhominy. Specially with some subtractbacon and some divisor black eyed peas.
theophontes 777says
Trollus estdeegoegoi
What would that be as a pizza topping?
Ogvorbis: strawmadhominemsays
estdeegoegoi = Est de ego ego = It’s all about me me! I guess that tentative species may need to be redescribed by someone with a clue.
Pteryxxsays
(tangent…?)
Well, Watson being an egotistical douche, even playing the media, still doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong or ineffective. Anybody that favors direct confrontation over protest gets hated on and called names; and considering how corrupt the whaling and fishing industries actually are, all the way up to the governments and international regulatory agencies, being a raging militant asshole might be a realistic approach.
I’m interested in the Faroe Islands campaign specifically because most of the usual arguments don’t apply: it’s legal, local, there’s no industry or profit, minimal waste* and reasonable necessity*, the whale species they take aren’t endangered or at risk*, the killing’s supposedly quick and humane*, and there’s community regulation, discussion, open recordkeeping, and concern for all these things, plus willingness to debate it with outsiders. (Not talking about sketch here; Heri Joensen for one, Asa for another.) Some of these (*) need further verification IMHO, but if everything held up, basically it would be as close to an ideal fishery as it’s possible to get.
Yet Watson and Sea Shepherd are still willing to break laws and go to disturbing lengths to actively interfere, because shorn of all the emotional kerfuffle, they believe all whaling is wrong. The Faroese generally disagree.
Anyway, that’s why I’m nosing into it. Sorry about the mess.
ChasCPetersonsays
it would be as close to an ideal fishery as it’s possible to get
well, except for the obvious lack of any, y’know, fish being involved.
Which is of course why it’s controversial at all. These are ceteceans, our intelligent holy sentient sea-brethren. Nobody would care if the Faroese were clubbing a bunch of catfish to death.
A. Rsays
I hereby describe the species Trollodon estdeegoegoi as observed on this thread by Ogvorbis.
Familia: Trollus (Amphipox)
Subfamilia: Trollii (A. R)
Genus: Trollodon (Ogvorbis)
Species: estdeegoegoi (Ogvorbis)
Browniansays
Which is of course why it’s controversial at all. These are ceteceans, our intelligent holy sentient sea-brethren. Nobody would care if the Faroese were clubbing a bunch of catfish to death.
Wow, with insight like that…just, wow.
So, I haven’t been following Days of our Chas lately. Did it turn out this little dramatic display was just that: another performance art plea for attention, or what’s the deal? Why are you still here?
Note to self: If I want more comments, just remember to post more articles in Icelandic. It’s the ðs and þs, isn’t it? They just provoke you.
KGsays
Which is of course why it’s controversial at all. These are ceteceans, our intelligent holy sentient sea-brethren. Nobody would care if the Faroese were clubbing a bunch of catfish to death. – ChasCPeterson
Right. I mean, no-one gives a shit about sharks being de-finned and thrown back to die, do they?
Nobody actually uses “it’s traditional” as an argument. It’s a strawman made up by Sea Sepherd.
What? Uhm, yes, this argument is used. Maybe not in the Faroe islands, but certainly elsewhere. Sea Shepherd certainly didn’t pull that out of their ass completely.
Browniansays
Note to self: If I want more comments, just remember to post more articles in Icelandic. It’s the ðs and þs, isn’t it? They just provoke you.
Well, it’s all about the uptick in page hits, or whatever it is that the culture-commenters pat themselves on the back for pointing out.
Right. I mean, no-one gives a shit about sharks being de-finned and thrown back to die, do they?
Thanks, KG, I was about to bring that up. Looks like I don’t have to.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐsays
and reasonable necessity*,
As you noted, the Faroese medical chiefs say it’s just plain not safe to eat anymore. So it will be necessary to replace this portion of the Faroese diet with something else, ASAP, like yesterday.
the killing’s supposedly quick and humane*,
This leaves out any mention of the hunt, chasing them by boat into shallow waters where they are stranded and surrounded by people — all of which must be terrifying — and then dragging them by their blowholes onto land while they are still alive.
IIRC, you’re familiar with Grandin’s efforts to somewhat reduce trauma in cattle immediately prior to slaughter by constructing an elaborate system of corridors, because the calm or horror of the last minutes of life is important too.
There is nothing humane about the hunt itself. It is torment.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick,
>/blockquote>This leaves out any mention of the hunt, chasing them by boat into shallow waters where they are stranded and surrounded by people — all of which must be terrifying — and then dragging them by their blowholes onto land while they are still alive.
IIRC, you’re familiar with Grandin’s efforts to somewhat reduce trauma in cattle immediately prior to slaughter by constructing an elaborate system of corridors, because the calm or horror of the last minutes of life is important too.
There is nothing humane about the hunt itself. It is torment.
Woops… (Looks at can of beer. How strong is this stuff anyway?) You know what I meant.
A. Rsays
Og: Has been changed in the official Taxonomy. Though for some reason, Amphipox used the Family name instead of the genus name.
Pteryxxsays
As you noted, the Faroese medical chiefs say it’s just plain not safe to eat anymore.
Dr Weihe does, yes. Part of my reading stack now is his research papers, and whatever I can find to verify mercury contamination levels in Faroese whale meat specifically. That one statement from the health department sounds suspiciously like “Nothing to see here folks, further study further study.”
IIRC, you’re familiar with Grandin’s efforts to somewhat reduce trauma in cattle immediately prior to slaughter by constructing an elaborate system of corridors, because the calm or horror of the last minutes of life is important too.
*nod* that’s actually what I’m discussing over email now – I’m not convinced that the driving process is either humane enough, or as humane as it could be. The explanation given to me is that as long as the whales are just swimming away from the boats, they think they’re successfully escaping and thus aren’t too upset. There’s *some* discussion of the use of blowhole hooks in the 1999 paper I linked way back when. I’m trying to read up on what signs of distress in small cetaceans actually look like.
The finale of Whale Wars, when they actually try to interfere with the Faroese hunt, is tomorrow night; so I’m going to be watching specifically for signs of distress. I know it’ll be biased footage but it’s probably also the only footage readily accessible.
edit: Holy crap, they’re going to show “The Cove” beforehand. Wow.
Brownian: old habits die hard, I guess. Just backsliding; don’t mind me. Have a nice day.
KG: good point. I see from your link that Watson/Sea Shepherd are involved in that as well, which I think is commendable.
(As far as I can tell, though, opposition to shark-finning and opposition to the Faroese grind have few if any rational arguments in common.)
But I only commented because I was amused by that use of the word ‘fishery’ in this context. As always, feel free to ignore me–I’m not going to argue with anybody. And for the record, I disapprove of catfish-clubbing.
What a Maroon, Applied Linguist of Slight Forebodingsays
Torg means square!?! Did the Vikings import that word from Russia?!?
Evidently. There’s nothing there about how or when it happened, but given that there are cognates in Swedish and Danish, I’d expect that it’s an old borrowing.
The concepts of “vision” and “wisdom” are etymologically related in Indo-European.
I see.
Amphioxsays
Did I screw up the taxonomy back there?
Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor, not a Cladist!
However, have we ruled out the possibility that the putative type specimen for estdeegoegoi isn’t actually a new species, but a juvenile (very juvenile) member of another Trollodon species?
A. Rsays
Amphipox: That is a definite possibility, however, further study would require TZT containment.
d(thunk) over d(MQ) = SQRRAWK!says
Amphiox: there you go again, blaming juveniles :p. I’m in favor of making it a new species.
birgerjohanssonsays
“It’s from róð”
A stretch of the Swedish coast north of Stockholm is still called Roslagen, literaly “rowing teams”.
BTW while most of the language transfer went East, some DNA went West. The vikings stole slaves from the areas adjacent to the Russian rivers. Some of them ended up in Sweden, so as Aardvarchaeology (at scienceblogs) has pointed out, all blog readers are by now descended from slaves (and quite a lot of them Russian).
Ogvorbis: strawmadhominemsays
However, have we ruled out the possibility that the putative type specimen for estdeegoegoi isn’t actually a new species, but a juvenile (very juvenile) member of another Trollodon species?
Damnable lumper!
I’m in favor of making it a new species.
Damnable splitter!
Ogvorbis: strawmadhominemsays
Then again, we may be lucky and Trollodon estdeegoegoi may be a one-off mutation. If there is a sustainable gene pool of this species, we are up shit creek without a flat water pushing thingie.
petrandersays
Now that the bitching about who’s the biggest bitch is more or less over, we can perhaps finally continue our interesting discussion of etymology.
Torg means square!?! Did the Vikings import that word from Russia?!?
Evidently. There’s nothing there about how or when it happened, but given that there are cognates in Swedish and Danish, I’d expect that it’s an old borrowing.
I wouldn’t put too much faith into that Wiktionary entry. The source it references for this claim is not really scientific. When I google on “etymology torg torv” I can observe a big scientific discussion on the origin of the word.
Even if the word has been borrowed from the early Slavs, they themselves may have gotten from another source again. As David already alluded to, the root can also be found in place names of Venetic origin; Venetic being an early Indo-European language that is usually grouped with in close allegiance with Italic languages, but also shows some common characteristics with Germanic languages. A missing link?
Anyway, from what I can glimpse from the scientific literature, there seems to be some suggestion that it is one of these Wanderwörter of obscure Central-Asian origin. Some suggest that it comes from a Turkic language originally, others Mongolian.
Anyway, it’s quite a bit of a mystery, but it sounds like a word that has travelled really far!
David Marjanovićsays
sketch, your comment 31 is based on a false premise: reasoning that has led people to atheism is explained on this blog on a daily basis. (It’s hard to imagine that a regular could have missed that, BTW.) Thus, there is no double standard in saying you should have provided the reasoning behind your claim, and I still don’t understand why you didn’t provide it when KG pointed out that you should have in comment 28.
also “targ” in Polish
Oh, so it does exist. :-) I’m quite surprised that it has -a-, but that should mean that the form with -o- can’t have come into Slavic from a Germanic neighbor on the western side… unless I’m wrong again about the annoying ъ (can it only come from u, or can it also come from o – Wikipedia doesn’t really tell).
BTW, what does it mean? In modern Russian, торг is “trade”, but that can’t be it in Polish, because you imported handel, right?
honeycakes, are you aware that we’re discussing subjective interpretation of a written text? because Argumentum ad P[o]pulum is only fallacious when what is under discussion is not a matter of perception.
And I’m sorry to inform you, but communication is all about perception.
when a large number of people interpret your writing in a consistent manner different from what you meant to write, your intention does not override perception. communication simply doesn’t work like that.
QFT.
Would you care to have an actual conversation or are you just harmonising the sheeple-choir?
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
“Question Everything.”
Why?
:-D
Took me way too long to get that joke.
As to imputing ill intent in KG’s comments, I think he proved ill intent right off the bat.
No, he was just being an asshole in general, not in specific. :-)
I mean, is it even possible to do that, masturbate and troll a blog all at the same time?
If you use both hands to type and the edge of the desk to stimulate yourself (male anatomy to the rescue!), you can probably type right through the orgasm. I’ve never tried, though. :-)
well fuck. now I’ve lost my concentration enough to just randomly refer to sketch as “he”; a habit I’ve been really trying to wean myself of, with evidently no success.
Well, I suppose the photo counts as evidence, even though (see Josh) it’s not proof.
Now I’m wondering if that was a) an assertion, b) an opinion, c) a strawperson, d) an insult, e) an ad hominem, f) a concession, or g) really addressed to Jadehawk. I’m tempted to start a betting pool.
+ 1
Based on the endless repetition that the issue over which we disagree is whether it’s in order to require evidence of claims, even when I’ve repeatedly and unequivocally said it isn’t.
…Oh… so… “it isn’t” does not refer to “whether it’s in order”, but to “the issue over which we disagree”?
Without comment 339, I would never have guessed. Really, you must learn to express yourself more clearly, or you’ll be misunderstood throughout the rest of your consequently angry life.
I’m not being sarcastic here, in case that’s unclear.
what are you, unglued in time?
:-D
Well, over 14 hours of a temper tantrum.
Most of that during the night.
de ego
Actually, no: de me. I’d also put est at the end by default.
I hereby describe the species Trollodon estdeegoegoi as observed on this thread by Ogvorbis.
The family and subfamily names must be Trollodontidae and Trollodontinae, respectively. There are rules about this.
Amphipox
Amphiox.
Browniansays
Damnable lumper!
Damnable splitter!
I’m a splumper, myself.
At least, ‘splumper’ sounds like something I might be. Or be into.
“Hey, Brownie, whatcha doin’ this weekend?”
“I’m gettin’ together with my splumper group, and we’re goin’ splumping. I can’t wait to try out my new splumping shoes. They’re guaranteed not to nemrail while telting, which can put you out of commission for weeks, nevermind getting you fleired by underranking splumpers.
So, all that, I guess. You?”
Also, petrander, bitch is not the preferred nomenclature. Whin(g)er, please.
David Marjanovićsays
Venetic being an early Indo-European language that is usually grouped with in close allegiance with Italic languages, but also shows some common characteristics with Germanic languages. A missing link?
Possible. Germanic and Italic are fairly closely related to each other (according to the few cladistic analyses that have been done)… but that doesn’t help us with this word, because if Germanic had inherited it from any common ancestor with Venetic, it would begin with þ in Icelandic (and its complete absence from West Germanic would be a bit strange).
Anyway, from what I can glimpse from the scientific literature, there seems to be some suggestion that it is one of these Wanderwörter of obscure Central-Asian origin. Some suggest that it comes from a Turkic language originally, others Mongolian.
Huh. But that doesn’t work with Venetian; Venetian probably died out before Proto-Turkic acquired its loanwords from Middle Chinese!
Can you help me with the origin of ъ?
David Marjanovićsays
“Hey, Brownie, whatcha doin’ this weekend?” […]
Thread won.
What a Maroon, Applied Linguist of Slight Forebodingsays
I wouldn’t put too much faith into that Wiktionary entry. The source it references for this claim is not really scientific. When I google on “etymology torg torv” I can observe a big scientific discussion on the origin of the word.
Thanks for schooling me. This is what I get for doing research when I should be working. In my defense, I’m not a historical linguist.
BTW, what does it mean? In modern Russian, торг is “trade”, but that can’t be it in Polish, because you imported handel, right?
it means market (usually of the outdoor variety, but “Hala Targowa” also exists), but as a verb it also means haggling
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe
ooooh… :-)
petrandersays
Also, petrander, bitch is not the preferred nomenclature. Whin(g)er, please.
I stand corrected! I apologize for my male-chauvinistic slip-up.
Can you help me with the origin of ъ?
Sorry. I am not really a linguist, just an interested layman with a very basic, cursorial knowledge of these matters. For me, I have reached an end with this question. There is a point where there is just too little evidence for my (natural science background) taste, so then I’d rather thrown it on the “we just don’t really know!”.
It seems in linguistic history, a lot of things that seem certain start crumbling away on closer inspection. Take for example the original language of the Angles and the Jutes. One may take for granted that these spoke a West Germanic and North Germanic dialect respectively, but when starts looking into it, we do not actually know for certain. I am mentioning this, because I am involved in another discussion about just this topic.
What a Maroon, Applied Linguist of Slight Forebodingsays
I found this discussion on Google books (actually starts on p. 64). It’s from Polomé 1966. (As an aside I notice that one of my old professors, Eric Hamp, has a paper in that collection. I can still hear him saying, “You have to account for everything.”)
petrandersays
Thanks for schooling me. This is what I get for doing research when I should be working. In my defense, I’m not a historical linguist.
Well, it isn’t all bad. The text referred to itself looks like it at least is written by a professor in linguistics. :-)
David Marjanovićsays
In Lithuanian, “outdoor market” is “turgus.” :)
:-) :-) :-)
That’s compatible with inheritance from Proto-Balto-Slavic.
David Marjanovićsays
it means market (usually of the outdoor variety, but “Hala Targowa” also exists), but as a verb it also means haggling
:-)
ooooh… :-)
^_^
It seems in linguistic history, a lot of things that seem certain start crumbling away on closer inspection.
Oh, definitely. As usual in science, everything becomes complicated when you look at details.
Take for example the original language of the Angles and the Jutes. One may take for granted that these spoke a West Germanic and North Germanic dialect respectively, but when starts looking into it, we do not actually know for certain.
I suppose we don’t, but textbook wisdom is that the Jutes spoke West Germanic, too, and North Germanic was really confined to the Scandinavian peninsula.
I found this discussion on Google books
Awesome! Says the Lithuanian version is borrowed from Sufficiently Old Russian, but mentions Albanian treg “market, marketplace; contract, agreement”!
A. Rsays
David:
I’m a virologist, I see pox everywhere! Also, I have posted our current classification, please review if you wish:
Famillia: Trollus (Amphiox)
Subfamillia: Trollii (A. R)
• Genus: Trollodon (Ogvorbis)
o Species: assholicus (Ogvorbis)
– racistii
o Species: estdeegoegoi (Amphiox)
o Species: libertardia (Ogvorbis)
o Species: menzii (A. R)
– defensor
– privilegiata
– mysognyistus
o Species: mystikus (Ogvorbis)
– stultus
– mysognyistus
o Species: soni (Ogvorbis)
• Genus: Accommodare (A. R)
o Species: incommodus (A. R)
– atheistii
o Species: stultus (A. R)
– agnosticus
– athestii
– pseudoagnosticus
Subfamillia: Fundamentalis (A. R)
• Genus: Creationistii (A. R)
o delugionistii (A. R)
– hamii
o complexionem (A. R)
o hovindii (A. R)
• Genus: Godbotticus (Ogvorbis)
o repetita (A. R)
o defensor (A. R)
o mysognyistus (A. R)
• denotes genus, o denotes species, – denotes subspecies.
David Marjanovićsays
Classification: later. I might even log in at the wiki to fix it.
Angles and Jutes: it has, of course, been speculated that the fairly large gap between the attested West and North Germanic languages is only due to the fact that the Angles and especially the Jutes absconded before their languages were ever recorded and left a geographic gap that was then filled from both sides. – I know Old English had a large dialect diversity, but its existence is pretty much all I know about it.
What also interests me, as an Icelander without any training in linguistics, is that the word ‘torg’ probably wasn’t used in Icelandic for a long time. I mean, today it means ‘square’ (and ‘hringtorg’ means traffic circle) and ‘market’ or ‘trade’ in other languages – but there weren’t any markets or squares in Iceland for centuries.
I think I’ll look it up, and maybe send an email to the linguistics department at UI.
theophontes 777says
@ KG
Right. I mean, no-one gives a shit about sharks being de-finned and thrown back to die, do they?
Sadly there are many shark fin merchants in my neighbourhood. They have the windows covered and signs saying “no pictures”, so I guess the message is actually getting through. In Shenzhen it is a different story. Shark fins on proud display.
@ lilapwl ॐ
As you noted, the Faroese medical chiefs say it’s just plain not safe to eat anymore.
Perhaps it is time to go around injecting sharks fins and rhino horns with low doses (non-lethal) of radiation/poison(an almighty laxative would seem particularly apt). That would guarantee they are illegal, dangerous to eat and easy to trace if smuggled. The Schrodinger effect will mean people don’t take their chances. (Too extreme? The battle for the protection of rhino is currently being fought with automatic weapons. Addressing demand is the only way to stop the problem.)
Amphioxsays
Perhaps it is time to go around injecting sharks fins and rhino horns with low doses (non-lethal) of radiation/poison(an almighty laxative would seem particularly apt).
First you would have to figure out a way to do this without having the track down and capture (with risk of harm) the animals in the first place.
Second, shark fin is a prestige food. It is not eaten for its taste, or texture, or nutrition. It is used as a status symbol for wealth, position, etc. Radioactive/poisonous but non-lethal shark fins would, in all likelihood, be even more prized.
Similarly, rhino horn is typically used as an aphrodisiac/sex aid/erectile dysfunction. It is doubtful that a little bit of poison would be a deterrent here, either.
Amphioxsays
The family and subfamily names must be Trollodontidae and Trollodontinae, respectively. There are rules about this.
Screw the rules, David. We have funny!
theophontes 777says
@ Amphiox
It is doubtful that a little bit of poison
Up the dose!
(Yes, tardigrades have complete disdain for Homo sapiens idiotu and would be happy to see them go the way of Homo sapiens idaltu)
A. Rsays
{A. R whips around in his chair} Poison? Harrumph! I can do better. How about inoculating with something a little more… interesting. Some Mayinga Strain Zaire ebolavirus, perhaps?
Pteryxxsays
It is used as a status symbol for wealth, position, etc. Radioactive/poisonous but non-lethal shark fins would, in all likelihood, be even more prized.
Considering the popularity of fugu as an edible status symbol, making shark fins toxic wouldn’t help at all.
How high could we go before it becomes harmful to the animal in question.
Now we all know that sharks are nigh invincible, with magic cancer resistant cartilage and all, but the poor rhino, for all its bluster and thick skin, is just a weak fragile mammal.
As for the shark, seeing as shark fin in its natural state is virtual inedible anyways, and requires near-epic levels of preparation already, I suspect they’d just add on a leeching-out-the-poison step (which would make the fins even more prized as status symbols).
theophontes 777says
@ A.R
Zaire ebolavirus
Aah, my distant cousins. No, that would be to much of a shotgun approach. We just need to shrivel up the testicles of whoever ingests the stuff.
@ Pteryxx
They don’t (intentionally) eat the poisonous parts of fugu. If the entire fugu was poisonous (and glowed in the dark) we would have a better comparison.
A. Rsays
theophontes: That can be done. {A. R gets up, puts on bio-containment suit, walks into lab airlock}.
Pteryxxsays
They don’t (intentionally) eat the poisonous parts of fugu.
Actually, as far as I can tell, some do.
The most famous victim was Mitsugoro Bando, a Kabuki actor so revered that the government had designated him a Living National Treasure.
In January 1975, Bando swaggered into his favorite fugu restaurant in Kyoto and demanded a serving of sliced raw fugu liver. If the liver is washed and eaten in small quantities, the remnant toxin “produces a delightful sense of numbness of the mouth and extremities,“ according to a food column that appeared in the Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan`s largest newspaper.
By this year, Mr. Noguchi had tested more than 7,000 fugu in seven prefectures in Japan that had been given only feed free of the tetrodotoxin-laden bacteria. Not one was poisonous.
“When it wasn’t known where fugu’s poison came from, the mystery made for better conversation,” Mr. Noguchi said. “So, in effect, we took the romance out of fugu.”
The root terg exists in Latin too: in French there is the verb tergiverser, meaning something like “to equivocate”. People who do that can be infuriating: they do not stick to the point under discussion but sidestep it, bring up other, barely related or unrelated points, etc.
The French verb tergiverser must be from Latin tergiversare, a compound with two verbal roots, terg cognate with torg etc, and ver meaning ‘turn, turn around’, hence ‘change’. So tergiverssare refers more or less to changing one’s thinking, a potential weapon for a skilled negotiator.
It seems so applicable to so much on the internet.
I’m with David, actually, when it comes to the troll taxonomy: we must uphold the rules of the ICZN!!! There must be no srewing of rules when it comes to taxonomy! Of course, this is assuming that trolls are animals, and not plants or fungi or something else, because then a different set of rules would apply.
petrandersays
I found this discussion on Google books (actually starts on p. 64). It’s from Polomé 1966.
Yes, that is the same that I stumbled upon, and which led me to the remark that the origin of this root is all but certain, that it may not be (Proto-Balto-)Slavic at all, and may have wandered across the Central-Asian plains until it reached Western Europe. Imagine that… Perhaps all the way from Mongolia to Iceland!
What also interests me, as an Icelander without any training in linguistics, is that the word ‘torg’ probably wasn’t used in Icelandic for a long time. I mean, today it means ‘square’ (and ‘hringtorg’ means traffic circle) and ‘market’ or ‘trade’ in other languages – but there weren’t any markets or squares in Iceland for centuries.
You raise an interesting point. Assuming that nothing like ‘torg’ for market place or similar wasn’t used in Icelandic for centuries and the language really was isolated from other influences during that period, it is entirely plausible that the word was artificially dragged out from the linguistic past to be introduced to the modern language, Icelandic being really puristic. That sentence was way too long…
Angles and Jutes: it has, of course, been speculated that the fairly large gap between the attested West and North Germanic languages is only due to the fact that the Angles and especially the Jutes absconded before their languages were ever recorded and left a geographic gap that was then filled from both sides.
Interesting. It could very well be that Anglic and Jutic were missing links between North and West-Germanic that perhaps formed a dialect continuum at the time over Denmark.
The argument that I have been presented for is the masculine noun suffix -R (or ‘-Z’) supposedly being diagnostic of North Germanic languages. And there is one inscription on the Golden Horns of Gallehus that were found and dated to the Anglic sphere of influence that apparently has this characteristic. However, I am sceptical and have tons of question marks about that.
Pteryxxsays
For anyone still interested in reading up on allegations against Paul Watson, here’s what I’ve been able to find so far.
First the financial stuff:
– One 2005 financial expose by a freelancer, suggesting questionable handling of small real-estate assets between Watson, close contacts, and Sea Shepherd. The other articles I’ve found have been citing this one, with no primary documents.
This includes Sea Shepherd’s reported revenue ($9,911,301), expenses ($9,625,392), and assets ($5,681,669) for fiscal year 2010. Also, Paul Watson’s reported compensation as Executive Director ($121,601) which is 1.26% of the organization’s expenses.
julianburgossays
Excellent!!! I live in Reykavik. I will be there for sure!
Pteryxxsays
As to whether Paul Watson routinely lies and to what degree… frankly there’s so much spin, exaggeration, oversimplification and quote-mining going on that I’m having trouble parsing it all, much less giving the proper names to it. Some claims are also a matter of interpretation and/or what side one’s on.
For instance, Japanese “research” whaling. From the front page of seashepherdlies.com:
THE LIE:
“They [Japanese whalers] haven’t produced a single peer-reviewed international scientific paper in 23 years.”
– Paul Watson in a radio interview with FSRN.
THE TRUTH:
The Australian news program “Catalyst” addressed this very issue in 2006. The show, with a clear anti-whaling stance, actually had enough regard for the truth to report the actual facts. “We’ve divided them now into the unrefereed papers and the papers that have been through a peer review process. And there’s 55 of those.” and this quote comes from Dr. Nick Gales a renouned anti-whaling critic. So how do two vehemently anti-whaling people come to such vastly different conclusions? Well, Watson lies and Dr. Gales has the decency to be truthful. A more detailed transcript can be found here.
However, in the actual transcript quoting Dr. Gales:
Nick Gales: I’ve finished mine guys.
Well we’ve divided them now into the unrefereed papers and the papers that have been through a peer review process. And there’s 55 of those. We’ve been fairly generous. Where we’re not sure we’ve given them peer review status
Dr Jonica Newby, reprter Well this project took 18 years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, how does that publishing output rate?
Nick Gales: Well it’s poor.
Further in the transcript:
Prof Archer: Alright, that’s it. And from that whole pile of papers we’ve got a total of one, two, three, four papers that can be said to be peer reviewed, that have some relevance to developing or managing a whaling industry and also would require lethal sampling of whales to get that information. Just four papers.
Nick Gales: So with the eighteen year program and sixty eight hundred whales divided by four papers – that means 1700 whales killed for each one of those four papers.
Mike Archer: Extremely depressing. Nick Gales: It wouldn’t pass an ethics committee. Archer: No it would not.
So yeah, the claim “hasn’t produced a single peer-reviewed paper” is incorrect. However, “has produced 55 peer-reviewed papers, generously speaking” while more accurate, fails as a justification of Japanese whaling being necessary for scientific research, as noted in the same transcript. So my interpretation is that the inaccurate statement’s trivial compared to the failure of scientific justification.
This quote’s from a 2009 Telegraph article, which looks very good:
‘People say I manipulate the media,’ says Watson, who speaks calmly with an undertone of anger and lofty scorn for anyone who doubts or opposes him. ‘Well, duh. We live in a media culture so why on earth wouldn’t I? What we do is provide the media with the kind of stories they can’t resist, even if they really try, and this is how we bring attention to what’s happening to the whales, the seals, the sharks and the other marine conservation campaigns we’re involved in. The oceans are dying in our lifetime and it’s not for want of laws and regulations. The problem is enforcement. Governments are not enforcing the laws, so we have to.’
Linguistic bonus: A recent article by Paul Watson claiming that the word for the pilot whale killing in Faroese, “Grindadráp”, literally translates to “pilot whale murder”.
Assuming that nothing like ‘torg’ for market place or similar wasn’t used in Icelandic for centuries and the language really was isolated from other influences during that period, it is entirely plausible that the word was artificially dragged out from the linguistic past to be introduced to the modern language, Icelandic being really puristic.
True, wouldn’t be the first time…
Plus, Icelandic wasn’t of course isolated from other influences. It was a part of the Danish kingdom for centuries. One wonders when the Danes started using the word ‘plads’ (probably related to the Icelandic word ‘pláss’ and the english word ‘place’) for squares rather than the word ‘torv’.
I do however doubt that ‘torg’ comes straight from the Danish ‘torv’ when Icelanders finally started living in villages in the 19th century since there is already another word in Icelandic that would sound very similar (Icelandic words don’t end with an -rv sound, or a -v sound for that matter) and was definitely used at the time: ‘torf’ (probably similar to the English ‘turf’). It’s a noun describing the topmost layer of grass which was cut and used as building material.
But then again what do I know, I’m way out of my specialty.
Ogvorbis: strawmadhominemsays
re: the discussion of torg (and all the permutations)
I keep reading it as ‘torq’ rather than ‘torg’ and have caught myself, three times so far, wondering how a name for a piece of jewelry became a town square.
Plus, Icelandic wasn’t of course isolated from other influences. It was a part of the Danish kingdom for centuries. One wonders when the Danes started using the word ‘plads’ (probably related to the Icelandic word ‘pláss’ and the english word ‘place’) for squares rather than the word ‘torv’.
I think that probably happened under Low-German influence during the Hansa era. An influence that Icelandic missed out on which is why it is so wonderfully conserved.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐsays
Linguistic bonus: A recent article by Paul Watson claiming that the word for the pilot whale killing in Faroese, “Grindadráp”, literally translates to “pilot whale murder”.
How grindadráp is conceptualized by the average Faroese speaker, whether it calls to mind connotations of homicide or whether that has to be pointed out like we point out the connotations of mankind versus humankind, I don’t know. There can be other translations, but this one is not “wrong”.
Actually ‘dráp’ probably just means ‘killing’ (that’s the case in Icelandic). ‘Murder’ is ‘morð’ both in Icelandic and in Faroese. ‘Mord’ is the Danish and Norwegian word for the same.
What a Maroon, Applied Linguist of Slight Forebodingsays
Linguistic bonus: A recent article by Paul Watson claiming that the word for the pilot whale killing in Faroese, “Grindadráp”, literally translates to “pilot whale murder”.
He wasn’t the first to notice; there’s this from last September.
Translating “drepa” as murder seems a bit tendentious; from what I can find online (e.g., here) a better translation would be “slaughter” or “kill”.
Browniansays
Unrelated to the linguistic conversation, sveinnthorhallsson’s link reminded me of the sod houses used on the North American prairies, often as temporary shelters while a more permanent wood structure was being constructed. My maternal grandfather, a homesteader, built one when he first arrived on his quarter section, and the family’s icehouse remained made of sod until they sold the farm in the late 70s.
Browniansays
Wait, I have no idea how long the sod ice house remained. My mother remembers storing food there when she was a girl, back in the fifties.
ChasCPetersonsays
yeah, I was going to speculate that dráp might be better translated as ‘killing’ in some contexts (i.e. this one). Of course, Watson’s purpose is rhetorical, not linguistic.
Cool. In your link there are photos of such houses both from the North American Prairies and Iceland, so yeah – definitely similar :D
Pteryxxsays
What a Maroon: the author of that HuffPo article is a Sea Shepherd volunteer who worked the anti-grind campaign. Maybe it’s a case of failure to credit specifically whose idea it was? (Though, again, that’s my science training talking.)
I would be very surprised if no Icelandic people read this blog. I know several Faroese people who do (myself included) and our population is way, way smaller than Iceland’s.
You are travelling to Discworld?
I do like ‘trúleysi’ for atheism.
From now on I’m gonna be a trúleysingi.
It’s almost like you are singing about the true?
Aww shit, I thought you were there early July. Now my volcano-squeeing will be uninterrupted by pharyngulation and I’m sad
ZOMG MOON LANGUAGE!!!!!!
Louis
P.S. Have fun PZ, have a pickled something and a strong liquor of unspeakable strongness for me.
Do you speak Oingy-Boingy?
Are you giving the talk in Icelandic?
My Icelandic is a little rusty but I think it says something about you giving a lecture on the care and feeding of pet crocoducks……..
Soooo jealous. I really want to see Iceland someday.
But, but think of the children! The poor little innocent Icelandic children!
Oh, wait a minute. I thought this was an ad for “Circle the Crocoduck” ministries.
p.s. I was impressed to see the AK-47 sling over PZ’s shoulder.
Looks like he’s gonna convert those damn evil socialists. Next stop, Canada…
Granted, my icelandic is a bit rusty, but I think it says
Aw, you’re so close to us now! We need to somehow get you to come to the Faroe Islands too.
I like how the crocoduck looks like it’s about to bite God’s finger.
(off topic) ooh, y’all are Faroese? Now I’m tempted to quiz you about the Sea Shepherds’ anti-whaling campaign.
@Pteryxx: I have one comment (which will probably start a flame war): Paul Watson is an idiot, liar and a for-profit propagandist.
But please do quiz. I also have the capability to present actual arguments :P
Icelandic reader here. Looking forward to this!
I’ll translate this poster for yah guys:
“The biologist and popular scienceblogger at pharyngula.com
P.Z. Meyers on Iceland!
P.Z. Meyers is known for his criticism on intelligent design and creationism
Recipient of the international humanist award in 2011
P.Z. Meyers delivers a lecture about science and atheism (trúleysi literally means faithlessness) at Háskólatorg (a name of a building, means university square) HÍ (Háskóli Íslands = University of Iceland) the tuesday 29. of may at 19:30 in classrom HT-102
Entrance fee is 1000 krona
29. of may 19:30
Siðmennt (name of the local humanist organization, hard to translate but is closely related to words that mean ‘civilization’, ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’) – association of ethical humanists in Iceland”
No man is a island
Pssst! Sveinn! It’s “Myers” not “Meyers”
Asa – not in Icelandic herpderp
…my bad, a little excited that’s all
I Don’t blame you. These are exciting news indeed ;)
@Pteryxx, Sea Shepherd is an organisation that will lie, swindle, propagandise, slander, and even endanger human lives to further their ideology. In short: they’re basically to animal rights activism what the Catholic Church is to religion. Even if you oppose whaling, you shouldn’t support Sea Sepherd. For those reasons and most of all because they’re completely ineffective. They haven’t stopped any whaling ever as far as I know, although, of course, they’ll tell you otherwise.
@asajohannesen: I did watch the online debate between Paul Watson and Heri Joensen, and Heri’s follow-ups on Twitter. (which if anyone’s interested, is here: Twitter link @herijoensen) Heri did one heck of a job responding.
However, you’re right that it’ll probably start a huge flamewar here, and I should have thought of that. My questions have to do with the animal welfare authority that oversees the grind and the methods used, since I have euthanasia training. Can I ask (any of y’all) by email, or can you point me to a resource to contact? My email’s just my nym at gmail.
Huzzah!!
there are more Icelanders than you think reading it, and I am one of them.
Looking forward to your talk
Now why do I suspect that Faroese commenters might not be completely unbiased in their assessment of Sea Shepherd and Paul Watson?
@Pteryxx, Heri is a good guy. He used to blog for the Faroese atheist society at our website, though he’s been busy lately. I’ll promptly send you an e-mail.
@KG, is anyone completely unbiased? As an atheist I’m quite biased against religion. Doesn’t mean my reasoning is invalid.
I am completely unbiased.
Anyone who says different is probably a Jewish, female, lesbian, handicapped, member of a Reptiloid global conspiracy responsible for 9/11.
And therefore wrong.
Louis
sketch,
I haven’t seen any reasoning from you on this matter yet; just assertions.
IIRC, Iceland devalued their currency after their banks failed at the start of the Great Recession.
1000 Krona looks to be about $8 USD. Quite a bargain.
So for any Icelanders out there, how far does the US dollar go these days? IIRC, at one time it didn’t go very far at all there.
@KG What gave you that impression?? :P
Of course we dislike the man. He keeps telling lies about pilot whale hunting. It’s very frustrating. I should also point out that I care about animal welfare and don’t eat pilot whale (for health reasons, that stuff is poisoned with pollution. It would be stupid for a young woman such as myself to eat it – if I were to want children at some point). This in no way stops me supporting the hunt, especially with all these newfangled super quick killing tools. Now I just wish us people of the world could stop polluting so much.
@KG, sure, and you haven’t seen any reasoning to back up my atheism either. What’s your point?
rofl – and I was going to link the video of Heri and Watson’s online debate, but Discovery yanked it from youtube. Oh well, as far as I can tell, the pieces are on their own site:
http://animal.discovery.com/videos/whale-wars-viking-shores-live-aftershow/
Right, there’s no particular reason to assume Watson’s unbiased about his own organization, either. I’d like to know if Sea Shepherd’s actually influential in Galapagos enforcement, say, or if the international whaling treaty really does permit enforcement by civilian operators like Sea Shepherd, as they claim. As far as I can tell, they’ve been accurate about the International Whaling Commission ignoring Japan’s so-called “research”.
Iceland, really? I was under the impression that Iceland was orders of magnitude more secular than the US, and that they quietly put their Lutheranism on the shelf next to Odin and Thor.
sketch,
My point is that if you want your assertions about Sea Shepherd to be taken seriously, it would be a good idea to provide some evidence for them.
asajohanessen,
The same applies to your assertions.
Which assertions? What is it, you don’t agree on?
That he is a liar? If you like, I can find an article on the Sea Shepherd website and go through all the lies. Of course, most of the evidence is in Faroese, which is quite inconvenient for me, but I’m happy to give it a go if that’s what you’re after.
I guess what I’m saying is, what is it exactly that you want to know more about, because this is a pretty big subject. This is why I said in my first response to Pteryxx to go ahead and quiz me.
@KG, and if you want to have a discussion, you might simply start by requesting evidence before you petulantly and impolitely fault others for not having provided it pre-emptively. I’m under no obligation to withhold any opinion of mine that doesn’t come with an appendix of its underlying justifications. If you want to know the reasoning behind an opinion of mine, I’ll be glad to oblige if you simply ask. Politely.
asajohannesen,
The assertions you’ve made, of course. You could start with evidence for the claims:
@raven
The króna has dropped by half in value since the economic collapse so the dollar should go twice as far now.
“Idiot” is a subjective assessment based on his apparent incapability to understand that what he says about the Faroese pilot whale hunt is untrue, so it follows from the “liar and propagandist for profit” assertions. You’ll have to give me some time to collate the evidence for the other two.
Like sketch, I don’t understand why you just didn’t say “and why do you call Paul Watson a liar etc?”
PS. Will Wikipedia do? You can always look up what they reference yourself?
Please….?
“I was under the impression that Iceland was orders of magnitude more secular than the US, and that they quietly put their Lutheranism on the shelf next to Odin and Thor.”
Well, it is in all practicality. But not on paper.
What I mean is that it isn’t strange to be an atheist in Iceland, rather than most other parts of the Northern countries. You’re not considered ‘evil’ by default. For most people it’s simply not an issue. Few ever wonder if they believe what they were taught in childhood. It doesn’t effect one’s life very much.
Politicians almost never talk about god at all. This one time during the height of protests after all of the banks crashed the PM said “God bless Iceland” during a statement. It was considered very strange, and he was ridiculed for it on the internet and even in the media.
However, there’s nothing in the constitution about seperation of church and state. Actually, it’s the opposite. We have a state church. It is specifically mentioned in the constitution. We have a state sponsored religion. Priests in the state church are employees of the state and are paid by the state.
It is however also considered strange, and sometimes even aggressive and mean, to talk and write publicly about atheism, or rather when atheist protest when priests get to lecture students in public schools and even in kindergarden, when they protest that the Gideon-society gets to give the NT to children during school and so forth. Then the religious minority (as I said most people don’t think about religion and at best only consider themselves christian because of tradition) gets all angry and writes in the papers, claiming the familiar phrase that this is a ‘christan nation’ and that ‘most Icelanders are christian’ and that the state shouldn’t give into mean demands of a tiny minority.
Most Icelanders however do support the seperation of church and state, and have done so for decades.
asajohannesen: Actually, if you’re willing to go to all the trouble of translating, I’d like to see one example of an article about the Faroese whale hunt that gives evidence contradicting a Sea Shepherd article about the same. From the Watson – Heri debate, I gather that the really intractable issues are mostly ethical judgment claims (and name-calling) and not facts per se. I can say that from watching the debate (I really hope there’s a transcript out there somewhere) I think Heri cleaned Watson’s clock with answers to his objections; Watson had to retreat basically to “all whaling is wrong” couched in emotional appeals. In that debate though, I don’t recall that Watson ever lied that I could tell – “all whaling is wrong” IS a valid argument, just not a factual one.
asajohannesen,
If he doesn’t understand that what he says is untrue, he’s not lying, so your charges appear to be mutually inconsistent.
You made the assertions, so it’s for you to support them with evidence.
@KG, if you wanted evidence of Paul Watson lying, why didn’t you just ask politely? Can you acknowledge your petulance and entitlement before we proceed in our discussions?
In any case, as I said, I’ll gladly oblige. Paul Watson has claimed that there are Minamata victims on the Faroe Islands.
http://tinyurl.com/butoa95
When pressed on this claim the chorused retort from him and his followers was “why don’t you simply ask your chief physician about it?” So much to their surprise I did. I e-mailed Dr. Pál Weihe and asked him if he had ever seen any cases of Faroese Minamata. The answer was a prompt negative. No, he hadn’t. I copy/pasted the exchange to the group. The response was that I must have faked it. I took a screenshot.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/41/proofik.png/
The response was that I must have faked that too. Because Heaven forbid that Paul Watson could ever have lied! So I made this video to prove that the e-mail is genuine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMsUXbMcUM&feature=plcp
The response to that? “Pál Weihe is probably not a proper doctor.” “Pál Weihe is in on a Faroese government conspiracy to cover up the negative effects of whale consumption.” “The video is probably faked too.” “Wait and see. You’ll see once Whale Wars is broadcast.”
Well, Whale Wars has almost finished broadcasting and as of yet there has still been no evidence of any Faroese Minamata victims, nor is it like that it will ever be forthcoming.
Paul Watson lied about it because he cares more about his ideology than he cares about truth. That’s just one example. I could easily mention many other examples of Paul Watson having lied.
@sketch, thanks – there are some PubMed citations on Faroese Minimata, so with luck and time I can read into it. Your Facebook link’s only available to FB members, so you know.
@Pteryxx, since Facebook was the originating forum for Paul Watson’s claim, there’s not much I can do about it if people aren’t Facebook members. I’m linking directly to the originating thread. If someone isn’t a Facebook member, doesn’t want to be, and isn’t willing to take Facebook members on their word, I’ll take a screenshot if asked for it. Best I can do.
sketch, I found this openly viewable version, is this correct?
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=237054833012724&id=174686955916179
Is there “wisdom” in vísindi?
*blink*
Torg means square!?! Did the Vikings import that word from Russia?!?
@Pteryxx, that’s a thread I haven’t seen before. Apparently someone sharing my exchange with Dr. Weihe. It is not the thread in which Paul Watson made his original claim. (As you can see by the fact that Paul isn’t a participant in the thread you linked to.)
sketch,
I’ll acknowledge nothing of the kind. You made unsupported assertions and I called you on them.
I can’t access your first link, because I’m not on Facebook. Could you copy it here? Your second link does show that Dr. Pál Weihe denies there being any cases of Minamata disease due to consumption of whalemeat – although I note that Dr. Weihe says there has been more subtle damage due to it. At present, I can’t run the You-tube video, because I get the message:
Any idea why?
sketch, correct – I haven’t yet found a viewable cite for Watson’s original claim. I don’t recall either the Whale Wars show, or the live debate, mentioning Minimata specifically (though now I’ll definitely be watching for it).
*MinAmata disease, scuse me. Too much skimming varied sources.
Er það bara ég, eða er að crocoduck líta út eins og það er að fá tilbúinn til að taka alvarlega skít á Bandaríkjunum?
@KG, I shared my opinions with Pteryxx. As I already explained I am under no obligation to you to prepackage my opinions with their underlying justifications before you’ve even bothered to ask me politely to provide them. If you cannot muster up a modicum of manners, you and I have nothing further to discuss.
@Pteryxx, I uploaded a screenshot here:
http://imgur.com/ZBZAa
I’m a regular reader (and a biologist, at least by training) and I’m looking forward to your visit.
Perhaps I’ll say hello too.
“Is there “wisdom” in vísindi?”
I don’t think so. “Wisdom” is “viska”. “Vísindi” resembles the verb “(að) vísa” or “(to) show” in english.
“Torg means square!?! Did the Vikings import that word from Russia?!?”
I’m afraid I don’t know russian, but I think it’s unlikely. It could even be the other way around.
“Er það bara ég, eða er að crocoduck líta út eins og það er að fá tilbúinn til að taka alvarlega skít á Bandaríkjunum?”
Nice try :)
*”Er það bara ég, eða lítur crocoduck út fyrir að vera tilbúin að skíta illilega á Bandaríkin?” (we wouldn’t use the word serious in this context, “illilega” literally means “evilly”).
David Marjanović @ # 48: Did the Vikings import that word from Russia?!?
Didn’t the Vikings, um, export a lot of words (including “Rus”) when a group of them migrated southeast from Scandinavia for conquistadorial purposes?
sketch,
If you intend to keep posting here, you’d do best to understand that tone trolls get scant respect, as do those who refuse to back up their assertions with evidence – indeed, failure to do so and whining about tone as an excuse not to do so are considered far more impolite than anything I’ve said to you.
sketch: ooo, thankee! Not just the screenshot, but a follow-up comment in there has an actual research citation! From 1996, but here’s a more recent citation from Feb 2012:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3305740/
(which I’m now going to read in depth.)
Following up on Weihe’s statements about mercury in Faroese whale meat, this is from 2008:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16159-faroe-islanders-told-to-stop-eating-toxic-whales.html
From the Faroese whaling information site: PDF link
—
sketch, since I don’t see examples of Watson doubling-down on that claim, I’m inclined to mark it as more of a screw-up than a propaganda move. All I found online was lots of outrage about Watson making the claim of Miramata cases in the Faroes, combined with *actual health risks from observed, lower doses*. If he didn’t retract that specific claim, then he’s being an ass, but the larger point seems valid; also that if the health risks are as notable as Weihe suggests, your government seems to be dragging its feet. I need to read that research article though.
From sketch’s screen shot, Watson does appear to say there are victims of Minamata disease in the Faroes. His words are not quite unambiguous, as he says:
– so he could be interpreted as saying merely that they have interviewed cases of congenital deformity which might be Minamata disease. But I admit this is a stretch.
But I note also that Dr. Pál Weihe, whom sketch evidently regards with respect, recommended in 2008 that the Faroese should stop eating whale meat because of the dangers of mercury poisoning. Since sketch has such respect for Dr. Weihe, he has no doubt been advising his fellow-Faroese they should stop eating whale meat. Which would make the hunt pretty pointless.
@KG, tone-trolling is disregarding the merits of valid argumentation for no other reason than a dislike of the harsh language in which it was made. (Which is obviously fallacious.) It is not a blanket exemption from being held accountable for one’s ill-mannered and petulant entitlement. You’re not entitled to a fully referenced appendix for each and every shared opinion made, without even bothering to ask politely first. How about trying to play nicely with people before going straight into asshole-mode? Also pretending that I’ve failed to back up my assertions with evidence and am now whining about quite simply makes you a despicable liar. I’d call you a liar for Jesus, but it’s obvious that your lies only serve to bolster your own ego. Regarding your assumptions to how long I’ve frequented Pharyngula and your orders on what I ought to do if I intend to keep posting her: you can go fuck yourself with your humongous entitlement. You have no jurisdiction to dictate what I ought or oughtn’t do. And now I’ll bid you farewell in the manner I should have from your very first comment: fuck off, asshole. Don’t come back until you’ve detached your head from your anus.
@Pteryxx, he didn’t retract the claim. I don’t think the larger point is valid. There’s a huge difference between acknowledging that whale consumption is detrimental to health and scaremongering people into believing that it leads to severe congenital deformities and death. Minamata disease is very serious and if someone wants to make a claim like that they better be able to back it up with evidence. Everything short of taking it seriously is to play with people’s lives and is completely disrespectful to actual Minamata victims.
From: http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/2011/07/21/sea-shepherd-investigates-secret-underwater-pilot-whale-graveyard-1265
Lie: “secret underwater graveyard” – We don’t keep secret where the remains are placed after the edible parts are taken from the carcass. Their insinuation, that the carcasses are discarded whole I shall not bother to discuss further as it’s not an outright lie, just a false insinuation.
Lie: “…the grind is a beautiful, religious rite of passage” – granted not Paul himself, but it’s his organisation, and he doesn’t seem to mind if what is being said is untrue. Pilot whale hunting has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. It’s not even considered a rite of passage (this would be good old fashioned Christian confirmation).
From: http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/2011/07/06/operation-ferocious-isles-defending-the-rights-of-whales-in-the-faeroe-islands-1
Lie: “where select men, assisted by children” – children obviously do not assist in the kill (though they attend and watch at a safe distance). Who would let a child near a live whale? It’s way too dangerous. I also find the contradiction between “methodologically sever the spine” and “die a slow death” quite funny. Do they not know what happens, when you sever the spine of an animal?
Lie: “their bodies are mostly discarded” – though considered unhealthy (due to pollution) and thus limited in both amount and age groups, pilot whale meat and blubber is considered precious food and is not wasted.
I’ve made some claims with no sources as it’s difficult to find reliable English language sources. I can refer you to
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grindadr%C3%A1p
And this site run by the Faroese government: http://www.whaling.fo/
for some general information to back up my claims that whale meat is eaten, that children do not assist in killing the whales and that it is no secret where the skeletons, innards etc are discarded. Oh, and that this isn’t a religious rite of passage.
Consider the emotional language used to describe the pilot whale hunt and you’ll see it’s propaganda. For instance “After the locals have finished mutilating the whales”, “cetacean families” (they’re called pods), “water turns red with their innocent blood” and so on. This type of language abounds on the Sea Shepherd website.
For profit: http://www.seashepherd.org/support-us/
Now I know lots of this can’t be attributed to Paul Watson directly. I’m happy to redact my claim and say that Sea Shepherd are idiots, liars and for profit propagandists. It’s just that I equate Paul Watson with Sea Shepherd.
As for me being contradictory in claiming that PW is a liar and an idiot, I suppose you’re right. He’s probably either a liar or an idiot or possibly just both.
Sorry, wall of text…
Ása, it’s good you provided examples and evidence of Sea Sepherd lies, but I wouldn’t bother with KG any more. He has proven himself incapable of rational and civil discourse. Feeding trolls is pointless.
Also, maybe the BBC can be considered unbiased? After all, people think of the British as animal lovers…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3104494.stm
Sveinn:
The concepts of “vision” and “wisdom” are etymologically related in Indo-European.
You evidently felt entitled to make unsupported assertions and have them accepted. You aren’t, particularly when they take the form of serious allegations against people not here to answer them. I was referring back to this initial behaviour; you have now provided evidence of one exaggerated claim by Paul Watson.
asajohannesen,
I accept that your extracts show that Sea Shepherd make unjustified claims. You haven’t shown that either they or Watson are “for-profit propagandists”.
Evidently, you don’t: it’s paralysed from the point of severance. Whether death would follow at all as an immediate consequence would depend on where this is. If it’s near the head but below the brainstem, the animal would suffocate through inability to breathe. Not a nice way to die. I don’t imagine the process of having the knife go through your flesh while you are fully conscious is particularly pleasant either.
You and sketch have of course been entirely unemotional in your language.
“The concepts of “vision” and “wisdom” are etymologically related in Indo-European.”
Well then, there you have it :)
Oh, never mind. This is winding me up too much. Think what you like.
@KG, fuck off, asshole.
You’re wrong. The issue is not whether or not your interlocutors are “entitled” to support for your claims, or whether or not they’re polite enough for you when demanding support. Your claims require support in order to be considered at all.
Asking politely has nothing to do with it. If you’re unable or unwilling to provide evidence for your allegations, then you’re the one with the problem, not anybody else.
In other words, citation needed. “Please” and “thank you” not required.
I should clarify this: of course I accept that Sea Shepherd appeals for donations, and uses its emotive appeals to that purpose. The natural interpretation of calling Watson a “for-profit propagandist” is that he is making a personal profit from them.
Apart from his salary?
I worked for a not-for-profit for years. I drew a salary.
heck, I’m spread too thin to respond quickly in this and email *and* background reading, so a few points:
The point isn’t that completely unemotional language ought to be used in all arguments; considering how Pharyngula rolls that’s just silly. Using heavily slanted phrasing that appeals to emotion IS propaganda, designed to bias listeners toward a certain viewpoint.
Ása, that’s a good point – I’d gotten so used to discounting animal-rights emotional fluff that I forgot just how thick it was. Most of that is spin and bias but some of it, when taken literally, is lies.
Yeah, as I’ve been trained in euthanasia. Killing something *quickly* by severing the spine is by no means a given – it only works at a high enough point and is very easy to get wrong, especially by anyone with insufficient training. Getting it wrong means the animal slowly suffocates while paralyzed and unable to show obvious signs of distress. As diving mammals have huge capacities to sustain oxygenation without breathing, I think this is an extremely serious risk compared to land mammals.
KG:
As Sea Shepherd’s an international non-profit organization, and as far as I know Paul Watson’s sole occupation is in an official capacity for it, it’s going to follow that he draws his salary or expenses from the organization’s funding. You basically have to claim that he’s making *excessive* personal profit from a non-profit organization.
Charters here: http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/
(no I haven’t read *everything* yet)
@Brownian, you’re sharing opinions with me right now, which you haven’t provided any evidence for and I don’t fault you for it. That’s a reasonable and practical thing to do in any conversation or discussion. If we were required to provide full disclosure of each and every proposition as they were spoken, communication would be impossible. Each argument for a proposition rests on further propositions for its premises. Therefore, the proper decorum is simply to pick any statement with which you disagree or are unsure about and ask (preferably politely at first) why the claimant thinks it’s true. If no explanation is forthcoming, then you can decry it as a failure on their part. Not before.
Furthermore, obviously the amount of citation needed is context sensitive. If I asked you your opinion on which is better Christina Aguilera or Britney Spears, I’d expect you to simply inform me of your preference. If KG then suddenly jumped into the conversation while berating you for not having provided any evidence for why Christina/Britney is better, as a sane person, I’d expect you to think that just as odd and rude as I do KG’s behaviour.
KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance, in the context of me simply sharing my opinions on a subject with Pteryxx. Sharing opinions is quite commonly a precursor to a discussion and assessment of said opinions. Sure, citation might be needed, but all KG had to do was ask. Instead he just bumbled into the conversation full of snark and entitlement. That’s not a precursor to assessment or a discussion. That’s an invitation to a flamewar. When his socially deficient approach was pointed out to him, he refused to acknowledge or amend his assholery, hiding instead behind “tone-trolling” even though the concept is completely inapplicable in this context. Let me guess. His thinking most have been something like:
“PZ has pointed out the foolishness in caring more about how something is said than what is being said. Therefore it’s completely acceptable and proper for me to act like a complete asshole constantly regardless of whether people have made themselves deserving of my inflammatory behaviour. And if someone points out to me what a fucking moron I’m being then even if they actually also engage with the points I’m making, they’re obviously tone-trolls.”
Is that about the gist of it?
TL; DR: my opinions were made in the context of sharing them with Pteryxx. I’d have gladly provided justification if asked nicely. In fact, I did provide justifications nonetheless. I also reserve the right to point out that KG is a douchebag and needs to address people with basic manners. That’s not tone-trolling. KG is a fucktard. No one could possibly provide a full disclusure of all evidence. You’re a fucktard too if you think that’s possible or if you’re defending KG.
Is that clear?
So you did it for profit, no? Your own personal profit. (and obviously because you believed in the cause, I’m sure)
I realise I tend to mix Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd and refer to them as one and the same, which is probably a mistake. However, the fact of the matter is that he is the driving force of the organisation. He invites media attention and rich supporters and so on. Basically, Sea Shepherd is his brain child and his livelihood. In order to earn a living, he needs to ensure that people donate to the organisation and people donate to the organisation because of the “information” (apparently, I’m also guilty of being a propagandist, so I shall refrain from calling it propaganda) he provides and all of the media attention, such as Whale Wars. Am I the only one who sees the problem in this?
(it should be noted that as an organisation, Sea Shepherd seems to be legit financially. I just doubt Paul’s motives, mainly because of all the lies and how he runs the thing almost like a one man show)
Obviously, if the spine is severed too low, their statement would make sense. Perhaps that is what they mean. Note that I didn’t point it out as a lie, just that I found it amusing (because of the stats saying that half the whales die within 20 seconds of the knife entering the whale and the vast majority are dead within a minute). This info is available on the websites I referred to earlier. But of course, it may be that they consider 20-55 seconds slow (lots of people would, myself included if I thought the animal was conscious for the duration of that time). And they obviously don’t bother to find out when the whale loses conciousness, which considering the blood supply to the brain is also cut off, will not be long.
Ása: one reason I’m asking for research contacts is to find out how the heck one verifies rapid unconsciousness or death in a cetacean. In rodents, I can point to research monitoring brain activity, but somehow I don’t think that’s happened in a whale hunting context; and I’m not confident that land-mammal paradigms of oxygenation or loss of consciousness necessarily apply.
Oh, and by the way.
Ása said: “Consider the emotional language used.”
And then KG responded: “You and sketch have of course been entirely unemotional in your language.”
That’s a whole upper level of bullshit right there. Why was I included in that particular snark? Is KG implying that Ása is a hypocrite for something I do? What bearing does my use of language have to do with Ása’s point? What’s KG trying to imply? That for the sake of consistency Ása ought to think I’m a propagandist too? Well, for all KG knows maybe she does, and maybe I am. So fucking what?
That’s a prime example of very, very sloppy reasoning. I wish KG would become a theist. That’s the sort of idiocy that makes our side look bad.
You’re not familiar with scientists, are you?
Thanks.
I ask because this word, meaning “market” (well, “trade” in modern Russian) is all over the Slavic languages. Many squares in Croatia and Serbia have “trg” (no vowel, but that’s normal) in their names.
And then there’s “-terg-” in Venetic place names, apparently meaning “market” again.
The word cannot be inherited straight from Proto-Indo-European in both, because in that case it would begin with þ rather than t in Icelandic and would probably end in k rather than g.
Rational ≠ civil.
@David: “You’re not familiar with scientists, are you?”
In fact, I am. Most of them also see the merit in not acting like an asshole, and none that I know of have to this day supported the absurd notion that one ought not to share any opinions whatever without appending a full disclosure of their supporting evidence. (Something that’s patently impossible in any case, as I’ve shown.) The proper decorum in civil discourse, even as pertaining to science, is that you don’t start berating people for withholding evidence until you’ve at least given them a chance to do so. Besides it’s just common sense too. The police wouldn’t arrest you for a failure to comply with an order before the order was even issued. Or, well, maybe they would, but you know, that would make them assholes.
You’re posting on a public blog, not having a private conversation; that means you’re addressing everyone, and everyone is entitled to address you. And here, as has already been pointed out to you, people are expected to be able to support their claims with evidence: in your case, those claims were serious allegations about an organisation, which you presented as fact, not your opinion as to whether one popular entertainer was better than another. Grow up.
asajohannesen,
Taking a salary from a campaigning organisation would not normally be described as “profiting”, unless that salary was excessive.
And yes, you’re right that rational ≠ civil. I never said they were the same. You might want to don your reading glasses the next time before you respond. ;)
@KG, fuck off asshole. I’ve no time for your dishonest strawmen.
I should note that I have not accused asajohannesen of being either a propagandist, or a hypocrite; merely pointed out that emotive language is not confined to one side of the argument.
Fuck off, asshole.
Scientists can be assholes too; and frankly I’m impressed this thread’s held together as well as it has, especially since it’s my fault for mentioning whaling in the first place.
This is a quote from Dr Weihe, from a 2007 PBS interview about his long-term research:
I think it’s pretty clear that “religious” in this context means “absolutist” or “dogmatic” and not actually associated with a religious belief. If that quote got thrown around a lot, though, I can see where Sea Shepherd’s English-speaking writers get off repeating it – and they shouldn’t be implying an actual religious basis.
Incidentally, it’s a very good interview about Weihe’s findings over many years as his cohorts of children age.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/faroe605/interview_weihe.html
@Pteryxx, you’re absolutely right in your exegesis.
sketch,
If you can point to any strawmen I have attacked, do so.
I’ll save you the trouble of your next response:
@David Marjanović
About that wisdom-science thing, you should probably read comment 66.
About the russian origins of the word ‘torg’. You are obviously know a lot more about linguistics then me. You could easily be right. I don’t know. I was in doubt because there really hasn’t been any contact between Iceland and Russia in the past. ‘Torg’ is an old word. The only contact Northerners had was through the Swedish Væringjar – equivalent of vikings – who sailed on the rivers in modern day Russia and Ukraine. The word ‘Rus’ comes from them I believe and the city of Kiev is still known in Icelandic as ‘Kænugarður’ – the Old-Norse name.
Interestingly the only northern-germnaic language that also uses the word ‘torg’ for square is Swedish.
But Icelanders don’t come from the Swedes. They don’t come from the væringjar. They mostly come from West-Norway and Ireland.
There were however some Icelandic men who went east as væringjar. That of course wasn’t a problem since Old-Norse was spoken everywhere in Scandinavia and in Iceland and the Faroe-islands at the time.
So the word ‘torg’ might have come from slavic.
It may be evident that I kind of changed my mind on that ‘torg’ thing as I was writing the last comment :P
@KG: “If you can point to any strawmen I have attacked, do so.”
Let’s count.
“You’re posting on a public blog, not having a private conversation;”
1 strawman.
“that means you’re addressing everyone, and everyone is entitled to address you.”
2 strawmen
“And here, as has already been pointed out to you, people are expected to be able to support their claims with evidence:”
3 strawmen.
“in your case, those claims were serious allegations about an organisation, which you presented as fact, not your opinion as to whether one popular entertainer was better than another.”
4 strawmen.
“Grow up.”
So I can become alike the pinnacle of adult integrity that is you?
uh
strawman
@Rev. BigDumbChimp, precisely. That is indeed the link to the Wikipedia entry for the fallacy to which I referred. Well done.
sketch,
You very clearly don’t understand what “strawman” means. It’s an attack on a position the attacker attributes to someone who has not taken that position. The only one of your 4 that could possibly even be a candidate for a strawman is (4), and I am content to leave it to others to judge whether your #21 was presented as fact or as opinion.
That’s a load of shit. There’s a gulf of difference between “I prefer the music of Christina Aguilera to Britney Spears” and “Paul Watson is an idiot, liar and a for-profit propagandist.”
One is clearly a matter of personal preference. The other (besides being an example of well-poisoning) is a claim about reality.
Hell, even if someone had said “Christina Aguilera is a better musician than Britney Spears”, it would be incumbent upon the claimant to provide some sort of evidence for the claim.
If you want to argue like this is YouTube, then go to fucking YouTube.
First of all, deciding something is “an opinion” does not absolve you for having to provide evidence for it. As noted above, calling someone a liar is actually a claim about reality, which means it’s subject to fact.
The onus is on the claimant to support the allegation. Whining that someone didn’t give you a handjob while asking you to support your allegation makes you the assholes here.
What, you want a fucking cookie for doing the basic minimum to support an allegation?
From Wiktionary:
However:
This strikes me as less certain and I personally have my doubts. I do know that some vikings went up the Russians rivers and had settlements deep into modern day Russia and Ukraine. Before them there were the Goths. So it would seem more likely to me that this word was introduced to the Slavs from the West rather than the other way around.
Also the Finnish word of ‘Turku’ seems to be a cognate too. This is more evidence of the flow of this word from Germanic origins to Slavic and Finnic languages.
Interesting… I will delve deeper into this!
Sketch, none of those claims in 93 are strawmen. If you don’t know what the term is, don’t fucking use it.
And I’m not defending KG; I’m attacking you.
I must also admit, I can’t see where the strawman is.
Man, I wish this discussion would be taking place somewhere else.
Then read it, fucktard.
*strange whistling sound far above your head
@KG: “You very clearly don’t understand what “strawman” means. It’s an attack on a position the attacker attributes to someone who has not taken that position.”
No, we agree on what a strawman is. Let’s go through it again.
“You’re posting on a public blog, not having a private conversation;”
You’re attributing to me the position that I was not posting on a public blog and was having a private conversation. I have never once claimed this. Therefore, you’re engaging in a strawman fallacy by your own definition.
“that means you’re addressing everyone, and everyone is entitled to address you.”
You’re attributing to me the position that I wasn’t addressing everyone, and that not everyone is entitled to address me. I have never once claimed this. Therefore, you’re engaging in a strawman fallacy by your own definition.
“And here, as has already been pointed out to you, people are expected to be able to support their claims with evidence:”
You’re attributing to me the position that people aren’t expected to be able to support their claims with evidence. I have never once claimed this. Therefore, you’re engaging in a strawman fallacy by your own definition.
“in your case, those claims were serious allegations about an organisation, which you presented as fact, not your opinion as to whether one popular entertainer was better than another.”
You’re attributing to me the position that my original claim was akin to an opinion on whether one popular entertainer is better than another. I’ve never once claimed this. Therefore, you’re engaging in a strawman fallacy by your own definition.
Will you go the fuck away now?
Sketch:
‘Strawman’. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
KG has not been polite. KG has not been civil. KG has not been strawmanning you.
Your jump, however, from reducing PCB and mercury intake by limiting pilot whale meat over to eliminating all harvesting of pilot whales could be considered a strawman argument.
Well, there is apparently a big linguistic on the origin of this word that I cannot really tackle. However, I do understand from it that it is too much said to claim that it originates from Slavic (or Germanic) for that matter. It appears to be of some misty Eastern European / Central European origin.
I feel like fixing Wiktionary, ‘though!
@Brownian: “That’s a load of shit. There’s a gulf of difference between “I prefer the music of Christina Aguilera to Britney Spears” and “Paul Watson is an idiot, liar and a for-profit propagandist.””
That was Ása’s claim. Not mine. If you can’t keep track of who said what, you’re opinion will be duly ignored.
“Sketch, none of those claims in 93 are strawmen. If you don’t know what the term is, don’t fucking use it.”
And if you don’t know what you’re talking about don’t fucking argue with me. KG knows what a strawman is and every single claim of his that I listed as a strawman accords with his own definition. Clearly you don’t know what a strawman is.
“And I’m not defending KG; I’m attacking you.”
Pardon the mistake. It’s just that you’re doing such a very, very bad job of it.
Did you, or did you not, state that your comment was for, or in response to, Pteryxx? Oh, here it is:
.
Did you, or did you not, state that your comment was for, or in response to, Pteryxx? Oh, here it is:
.
Then how did C. Aquilera or B. Spears enter the thread? Oh, here it is:
Which also harkens back to you claiming that this was you ‘simiply sharing [your] opinions on a subject with Pteryxx.’
Disagreeing with the commenters and asking for evidence to support claims is normal around here.
Actually, that quite clearly seemed to be the implication of your repeated insistences that your comments were meant for Pteryxx, and that other people, notably KG, were to ask politely for evidence to support your claims:
Three times you insisted that you shared your claims with Pteryxx. What was the point of that if not to insist that somehow, KG was out of line in responding to these claims?
It’s not a strawman if someone misrepresents your argument because you implied it, rather than stated it clearly.
@Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos: So a strawman is not attributing a position to your opponent, which your opponent doesn’t subscribe, and then attack that instead of your opponent’s actual position? News to me. If that’s your position, I don’t think strawman means what you think it means.
“KG has not been polite. KG has not been civil. KG has not been strawmanning you.”
KG has not been polite. KG has not been civil. KG has been strawmanning me, even by his own definition of what a strawman is, as detailed in my previous post.
“Your jump, however, from reducing PCB and mercury intake by limiting pilot whale meat over to eliminating all harvesting of pilot whales could be considered a strawman argument.”
Is that even English? It doesn’t look like any “jump” I’ve ever made, whatever it means, so that in itself is quite possibly a strawman.
Oh, it’s pretty clear you ignore people for all sorts of reasons. Pardon me if I don’t give a fuck, asshole.
Duly noted, you sack of stupid.
That’s one hypothesis, that I and pretty much everyone else on this thread don’t know to which the term ‘strawman’ refers.
There’s of course another hypothesis: that I and pretty much everyone else here are pretty fucking clear on what a strawman is, and it’s in fact you that’s the moron.
Which is the most parsimonious explanation, fuckwit?
No, not if your opponent is so fucking unclear that at least three interlocutors interpret a repeated claim to mean that position. It may just be that the opponent is a moron or a liar.
Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos: “Did you, or did you not, state that your comment was for, or in response to, Pteryxx?”
Is or isn’t the statement that a comment was in response to Pteryxx the same as the statement that it’s a private conversation not held on a public blog?
“Then how did C. Aquilera or B. Spears enter the thread?”
Yes, and if you had any reading comprehension whatever, you’d see that I was making an analogy to illustrate the contextual sensitivity of the need for citation. I never claimed the map was the territory. An analogy is analogous to its analogue in some cases and disanalogous in others. I can’t believe I actually have to spell out such an obvious point to you.
“Which also harkens back to you claiming that this was you ‘simiply sharing [your] opinions on a subject with Pteryxx.’”
And is that or is that not the same as claiming to not be on a public forum but in a private conversation where nobody else is entitled to address me?
“It’s not a strawman if someone misrepresents your argument because you implied it, rather than stated it clearly.”
That’s yet another strawman. I never claimed it was. I have neither claimed nor implied any of the position which KG attributed to me.
Sketch:
I apologize. The bit about the PCBs and mercury, coupled with a reduction in whalemeat consumption, came later. Chalk it up to the fact that I multitask about as well as DOS 2.12.
What fuckhead wrote:
You fucking wrote three fucking times that you were fucking addressing Pteryxx, you fucking moron:
Does ‘Pteryxx’ mean ‘everyone’ in Faroese? It doesn’t in English.
Earlier in the thread:
Yeah, you did claim that.
And I think you’ll need to gnaw off a leg or something to get out of that trap.
Much as I agree with the initial comment up there, that was not me.
You did, repeatedly (and we can all read it up above) state that your opinions were for Pteryxx and implied that for anyone to ask for actual, y’know, evidence was out of line.
Seriously, you’re a fucking moron.
You’re clearly delusional, as others have noted. Perhaps you’ve been eating too much whale meat?
@Brownian: “Actually, that quite clearly seemed to be the implication of your repeated insistences that your comments were meant for Pteryxx, and that other people, notably KG, were to ask politely for evidence to support your claims”
If it seemed that way to you, your reading comprehension is sub-par. In any case you may take my word for it now, that it isn’t my position. I should know. I’m me after all. In any case saying that my comments were meant for Pteryxx and that people (not other people. Pteryxx is included) are to ask politely for the evidence is not the same as saying that “I’m not addressing everyone, and that not everyone is entitled to address me.” Reading comprehension again and all that.
“Three times you insisted that you shared your claims with Pteryxx. What was the point of that if not to insist that somehow, KG was out of line in responding to these claims?”
Strawman again. You’re attributing to me the position that KG was out of line in responding to my claims. I never once said this. I said he was out of line in his entitlement that I should have included the evidence in advance and in his subsequent inability to ask for the evidence politely. Reading comprehension, you know?
“It’s not a strawman if someone misrepresents your argument because you implied it, rather than stated it clearly.”
I accidentally attributed this to Brother, and already responded to it. I’m sorry. See how an honest admission of wrongdoing works when you discover that you made a mistake?
“Oh, it’s pretty clear you ignore people for all sorts of reasons. Pardon me if I don’t give a fuck, asshole.”
It’s pretty clear I’m not ignoring you, fucktard.
“Duly noted, you sack of stupid.”
Being called a sack of stupid by a guy with no reading comprehension whatsoever. Oh, the irony.
“That’s one hypothesis, that I and pretty much everyone else on this thread don’t know to which the term ‘strawman’ refers.”
Except KG apparently. Look, it’s not a difficult concept. Look it up on Wikipedia. The link was already provided.
“There’s of course another hypothesis: that I and pretty much everyone else here are pretty fucking clear on what a strawman is, and it’s in fact you that’s the moron.”
In that case KG is also a moron, since he and I agree on what a strawman is. You’re the one who seems to be struggling.
“Which is the most parsimonious explanation, fuckwit?”
Given your lack of reading comprehension in general, it’s very parsimonious to assume that it also extends to your research on strawmen, and that you therefore don’t know what they are.
“No, not if your opponent is so fucking unclear that at least three interlocutors interpret a repeated claim to mean that position. It may just be that the opponent is a moron or a liar.”
Argumentum ad populum. Look it up, asshole. You should be familiar with it. It’s used by theists a lot.
Strawman!
@petrander
I agree. This is very interesting. Please keep me posted on what you find.
@feralboy12: “Yeah, you did claim that. And I think you’ll need to gnaw off a leg or something to get out of that trap.”
Yet another idiot with no reading comprehension. Are you sincerely willing to defend the position that “I made claim x specifically in response to person y” is the very same sentence as “I made claim x in a private conversation and not on a public blog?”
Because if you are, it does not bode well for your reasoning skills, mate.
@Brother: “You did, repeatedly (and we can all read it up above) state that your opinions were for Pteryxx and implied that for anyone to ask for actual, y’know, evidence was out of line.”
No, I did not state nor imply that. I said that my opinions were issued in response to Pteryxx and that you’re unreasonable if you feel entitled to a full disclosure of their supporting evidence in advance of being asked for it and an asshole if you simply assume they won’t be forthcoming before you’ve even tried asking politely. Why is that so hard to understand even after I’ve said it repeatedly?
@Brownian: “Seriously, you’re a fucking moron.”
Yet again, this from the man with no fucking reading comprehension whatsoever.
@KG: “You’re clearly delusional, as others have noted. Perhaps you’ve been eating too much whale meat?”
Ad hominem. Want to try again?
Insults are not ad hominem fallacies. Never have been, never will be.
I see Sketch has forgotten the first rule of holes. It keeps on digging.
@Brother Ogvorbis: Advanced Accolyte of Tpyos, that’s true. An ad hominem is dismissing a person’s arguments or claims on the basis of that person’s personal characteristics. In this instance KG is dismissing my arguments against him as delusional by speculating about my dietary choices. Therefore, a classic ad hominem. I guess he couldn’t figure out what to say to my arguments. Poor sod.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
Would you care to actually put your arguments where your snark is? I’ll gladly tear you to shreds as I have done KG, Brownian, feralboy12, and Brother. Their arguments are weak. Their reasoning weaker. Their reading comprehension non-existent.
My boyfriend looked over at the poster and exclaimed, “Yay! PZ Myers Island!”.
sketch, what the fuck is your point? Are you here to win? Is that it? If I write, “sketch has won,” will you go away? You feel you were misunderstood and, rather than attempting to correct that misunderstanding, you have decided to play games — a game in which you get to make up the rules, the definitions, and the scoring.
My reading comprehension is fine (and, when I made a mistake, I freely admitted it and apologized). My arguments, meh. Could be better (but, as I admitted before, I do not multitask well and am reading and writing while a graphics programme takes its own sweet time). You, however, seem (to me) to have a hellishly big chip on your shoulder and have a desperate desire to win.
Win what? An argument with strangers? Strangers whom you have insulted and alienated both implicitly and explicitly? Seriously, what the fuck do you want here? If you wanted to have a discussion about whaling, you fucked it up. If you wanted to exchange views about the ethics of whaling, or the ethics of anti-whaling, you fucked it up.
So, if you are willing to answer a question, please do so: what the fuck are you trying to do here?
Your quotes speak for themselves, asswipe.
Not only did you get caught in a trap of your own making, you gnawed off the wrong fucking leg in your attempt to escape.
Seconded.
You switched back and forth between them so often, giving them the same importance, that it really looked like you were using the words interchangeably.
Sure; I was asking because I don’t know if the words are still connected in Icelandic.
It does! It’s from róð- – the Væringjar rowed across the Baltic Sea, where there isn’t a lot of wind. In the process, they left the word Ruotsi in Finnish; it means “Sweden”.
But, again, it’s not just Russian. I just checked on Wikipedia: it goes all the way to Czech and Slovene and Serbian. So, if it’s a loan from any kind of Germanic, it must have come much earlier than the Vikings. I don’t think I can easily find out if Gothic had that word… and if it did, there’s still the Venetic -terg- to deal with.
Wait! The -o- hints specifically at Not Too Old Russian… or… maybe not… Wikipedia doesn’t really tell.
That’s interesting, because it has -u- instead of -o-.
@Brother: “what the fuck is your point?”
My point is that KG is an asshole, whom I gave the chance of redemption and subsequent productive discussion, but who threw it back in my face. This issue was compounded by other unreasonable assholes joining in, where they should have just shrugged and gone “Yeah, that KG sure was an unreasonable asshole.” Nerd of Redhead had a good point about digging. Good advice but it should have been heeded by KG, Brownian, and you.
“Are you here to win?”
I was here to have a friendly chat with Pteryxx and whosoever wanted to join in while, of course, behaving as an adult. However, now? Now I’m just taking you blowholes down a notch or two as you deserve.
“Is that it? If I write, “sketch has won,” will you go away?”
Depends on whether your concession is honest and whether the other idiots will join in. I have no qualms with people who can admit it when they make a mistake. If they don’t I have no qualms with taking them to task over their mistakes.
“You feel you were misunderstood and, rather than attempting to correct that misunderstanding, you have decided to play games — a game in which you get to make up the rules, the definitions, and the scoring.”
I don’t “feel” I was misunderstood. It should be patently obvious to anyone with some basic reading comprehension. Not to mention that I’ve repeatedly corrected the misunderstanding, but expecting morons to take notice is evidently unrealistic. I didn’t make up any rules. The rules are simple: use valid arguments, don’t be an asshole, acknowledge any mistakes you might make. Basic and universal rules of conduct for rational discourse. You all get failing marks, by the way.
“My reading comprehension is fine (and, when I made a mistake, I freely admitted it and apologized).”
You admitted one of your mistakes. Kudos for that. You didn’t admit all of them.
“You, however, seem (to me) to have a hellishly big chip on your shoulder and have a desperate desire to win.”
Naw. I just dislike bullying behaviour and will come down hard on it whenever I encounter it. Assholes need to be put in the corner consistently. Think of what I’m doing as human conditioning. You’ll see a better world only by giving assholes a consistent and immediate negative reaction to their wrongdoings.
“Win what? An argument with strangers? Strangers whom you have insulted and alienated both implicitly and explicitly?”
Need I remind you that I did not start this? KG could have apologised and behaved himself. Nobody asked Brownian and you to join in on the insults.
“Seriously, what the fuck do you want here?”
Candyfloss, obviously.
“If you wanted to have a discussion about whaling, you fucked it up. If you wanted to exchange views about the ethics of whaling, or the ethics of anti-whaling, you fucked it up.”
I don’t give a fuck. I wouldn’t have minded a discussion initially but that’s not what it’s about now. I can tell by your frustration that you’re vexed at my persistence. That means it’s working. Maybe next time you’ll be kinder to people. If not, well they might turn out to be someone like me and they might mop the floor with you as I have done, mightn’t they?
“So, if you are willing to answer a question, please do so: what the fuck are you trying to do here?”
I’m trying to hold KG, Brownian, and you accountable for your behaviour and idiocy. Evidently I’m succeeding.
@feralboy12
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that KG, Brownian, and Brother are coming out on top argument-wise. Let me clue you in. They’re not. Their collective flailing about is a painful sight.
sketch,
You don’t seem to understand something about the Pharyngula community. If you make an unsupported statement, it’s acceptable here for anyone to ask for evidence. Asking doesn’t require saying “please,” it just means “what’s your evidence for that claim?”
KG and anyone else is not required to say please and thank you, he’s just required to say “what’s your evidence.” Which is basically what he did.
@David Marjanović
What you seconded has already been addressed. Do yourself a favour don’t second fallacies. It doesn’t make you look good.
“You switched back and forth between them so often, giving them the same importance, that it really looked like you were using the words interchangeably.”
I’ve argued successfully for both. I say successfully. By that I mean nobody has as of yet been able to contest my arguments. Nobody’s even tried. I just get paltry appeals to the majority and ad hominems about my dietary habits. If all you have to resort to is fallacies, then you’ve pretty much lost the argument by any rational standard.
@’Tis Himself
Lo’ and behold! Another practitioner of the standard Pharyngula strawman with an complete lack of reading comprehension joins the fray! Welcome, young grasshopper. I’m afraid I can’t offer you much. You’re a bit late to the party, and I’ve already addressed your utter idiocy elsewhere. I suggest you simply reread the thread and then go bury yourself out of embarrassment.
My 2 cents:
Whaling – not a fan. Not against it either. I don’t give much credit to arguments like “they’re innocent” or “they’re smart” or any other on that line. Arguments on the other side like “it’s traditional” or “Watson is a douche” aren’t any better IMO. I’m not saying anyone here said any of those things. There ARE good argument for and against whaling.
I personally dislike Paul Watson. I don’t know him, but I’ve seen his work and attitude on TV and I judge accordingly. I’d describe my feelings like that if he were a fictional character he would be a character I’d hate. I do however believe that he believes he’s fighting a good fight.
It’s at least plausible that Turku comes from Old East Slavic tǔrgǔ, and the modern word tori from Swedish torg. Both mean ‘marketplace’, but turku survives only in a few dialects, a few sayings and in the name of a city.
No frustration, just flummoxed by you. You admit that this is all about you. You were misunderstood. KG was uncivil to you. I (and others) have repeatedly pointed out what you wrote and you insist you did not write it. You want to hold strangers accountable for behaviour that you find unacceptable. It really is all about you and I am flummoxed trying to understand why.
sketch has ignored this before. What do you suppose are the odds sketch will continue to ignore it?
Gentlemen, thank you for an interesting and civil discussion on the linguistic background of the word ‘torg’. I’m really learning a lot.
We’re all assholes here, but I have never seen KG be unreasonable.
Brother Ogvorbis is the most vocal proponent of his own alleged idiocy, so I trust that he is able to hold himself accountable for such, if ever it should arise. I’ve still never seen it, but I believe him since he’s an honest person.
And while nobody asked Brownian to join in on the insults in this particular thread, it’s generally understood that’s how he earns his keep, insofar as he makes us lol.
Nothing personal, sketch. I think I noticed you being not-an-idiot on some other thread recently. I (certainly ought to) understand there are some topics which some people just can’t discuss without intermittently lashing out and spiraling into tedium.
@sveinnthorhallsson
Nobody actually uses “it’s traditional” as an argument. It’s a strawman made up by Sea Sepherd. As to Watson being a douche, that’s not used as an argument to support whaling either, although it is a broadly agreed upon sentiment.
I agree with you though, that they wouldn’t be good arguments. I’m just pointing out that they’re not actually used. I also agree with you that there are good reasons both for and against whaling.
I’m not so sure whether I believe that Paul Watson really believes in what he’s doing. I believe that he believes whaling is wrong. I just don’t believe that he believes it’s quite as wrong as he says he does. His actions betray his words. If he were truly that concerned about the well-being of whales he’d focus on an activity that has more utility for his supposed goal – e.g. fighting pollution instead of just sailing around while trying to anger people because it looks entertaining on TV.
Sketch,
Being that you’re apparently the only person on this thread with “reading comprehension”, I’d like to invite you to continue your conversation over here. PZ will thank you for it.
@Brother: “No frustration, just flummoxed by you. You admit that this is all about you. You were misunderstood. KG was uncivil to you. I (and others) have repeatedly pointed out what you wrote and you insist you did not write it. ”
You’ve repeatedly quoted me while dishonestly claiming that I said something else entirely. In other words you’ve repeatedly engaged in strawmen. I don’t believe I was misunderstood. Call it charity. I don’t believe that the three of you could possibly be that stupid. I believe, however, that you’re liars out of some misplaced loyalty for one another.
“You want to hold strangers accountable for behaviour that you find unacceptable. It really is all about you and I am flummoxed trying to understand why.”
I’m an atheist because I care about truth. Therefore, I also care about people shitting on it for the sake of their own agenda. That included KG, Brownian, you, and to a lesser extent others. You’re obviously not atheists out of any concern for what is actually true or because you value validity in your reasoning, so I’m equally flummoxed by you as you are by me. In any case I’m not going to let someone walk all over me simply because I’m outnumbered.
“sketch has ignored this before. What do you suppose are the odds sketch will continue to ignore it?”
I haven’t ignored it, you vile liar. I’ve addressed it. As anyone can see if they care to scroll up.
@sketch
I wasn’t refering to anything Watson has ever said. My point is that there are terrible arguments used which I don’t find convincing. I should have been more clear on that.
“I just don’t believe that he believes it’s quite as wrong as he says he does.”
Interesting point. I’m inclined to believe that, but that could just be my prejudice. I admit, I don’t think or read half as much about Watson or the SSCS as you probably do, or even the average Faroese. Whaling isn’t any longer a big industry here. Kristján Loftsson, the owner of the Hvalur whaling company is generally considered an eccentric character (or just plainly a weirdo).
STRAWMAN! I NEVER SAID THAT!
Yes, you’re just absolutely shredding everone here. Our heads are crushed like grapes.
Seriously, you don’t see the contradiction in the two quotes I provided? Let’s review:
Earlier in the thread:
So you never claimed to be attempting to have a private conversation, just insisted that the “context” was a sharing of opinions with one specific poster. Yeah. Big difference.
“What trap? I don’t see any trap. Anyway, it was you that put my leg in that clamp. (Gnaws arm off). I’m not stuck.”
@life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ: “We’re all assholes here, but I have never seen KG be unreasonable.”
So engaging in strawmen and ad hominems is not unreasonable in your book? Then what is?
“Brother Ogvorbis is the most vocal proponent of his own alleged idiocy, so I trust that he is able to hold himself accountable for such, if ever it should arise. I’ve still never seen it, but I believe him since he’s an honest person.”
All evidence to the contrary.
“And while nobody asked Brownian to join in on the insults in this particular thread, it’s generally understood that’s how he earns his keep, insofar as he makes us lol.”
In this instance, if you have any sense, he should have made you cringe. His performance has been an embarrassment to himself.
“Nothing personal, sketch. I think I noticed you being not-an-idiot on some other thread recently.”
I’m seldom an idiot in any thread. This one included. However, your compliment is duly noted and appreciated even despite its slight backhanded slant.
“I (certainly ought to) understand there are some topics which some people just can’t discuss without intermittently lashing out and spiraling into tedium.”
Given that the topic under discussion is basic reasoning and conduct in discussions, that worries me. I should hope that people on an atheist community were more capable in the rational department.
@feralboy12: “STRAWMAN! I NEVER SAID THAT!”
Daww! Aren’t you just adorable?
“Yes, you’re just absolutely shredding everone here. Our heads are crushed like grapes.”
A lot of truth is said in jest.
“Seriously, you don’t see the contradiction in the two quotes I provided?”
So we’re back to you claiming that “I made claim x specifically in response to person y” is the very same sentence as “I made claim x in a private conversation and not on a public blog?”
Was the comment to which I’m responding now a direct response to me? Yes or no?
If you say “no,” you’re at a disadvantage in explaining why, then, you’re quoting what I’ve said and seemingly addressing it.
If you say “yes,” then you must concede by your own reasoning that you yourself now think that your previous comment was not made on a public blog but in a private conversation to me.
Which one is it? I’ll give you time to dig.
This thread is no longer about PZ going to Iceland, right? Nor is it about whaling, I guess, except maybe euphemistically. Is this some kind of virtual booth for sketch to masturbate in so we can all watch?
@Therrin
What’s the matter? Feeling uncomfortable that I’m exposing their idiocy?
@consciousness razor
I did not start this.
O_O yipes, you folks. Should I even bother trying to keep talking about actual whaling in here?
What does help stop whaling, historically, is public pressure; and THAT comes from media attention that’s hard to ignore, aimed at the general public, not just folks willing to do the research on their own. Heck, it takes public pressure just to make conservation laws and hold governments to enforcing them; and there’s a long history of protection laws being flouted in the case of whaling and fishing. I think it’s obvious that Watson’s trying to maximize public pressure, but that doesn’t necessarily mean public pressure isn’t effective in protecting whales.
(Whether that attention is warranted in the case of Faroe Islands whaling specifically is another set of arguments.)
—
As far as the method of killing goes: The Faroe Islands official site on whaling and animal welfare is here:
http://www.whaling.fo/Default.aspx?ID=6770
It references a 1999 NAMMCO paper on killing techniques, but the linked version is incomplete. However, what appears to be a complete version is web-archived here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080614224523/http://www.whaling.fo/nammco99whalingandanimal.htm
Short version: what the paper references as “time to kill”, which appears to be the basis for the assertions that the whales lose consciousness and die in less than a minute, is based on 1) severing of the spinal cord leading to complete paralysis, and 2) assertion that severing of the MAJOR blood supply to the brain, namely the vertebral arteries instead of the lesser-used carotids, leads to rapid unconsciousness. Since there is evidence in lab animals that exsanguination alone is not necessarily sufficient to cause rapid unconsciousness or end brain activity quickly, I don’t think that’s sufficient justification for the claim. There’s no actual evidence so far distinguishing a quickly-dead whale from one that’s just paralyzed and unable to show distress. This was a concern in lab animal euthanasia also, recently addressed by stress hormone and brain activity monitoring.
That’s as much as I’d planned to go into here. I’m also following up by email, but I have lots more reading to do.
My main reference for lab animal research: AVMA euthanasia guidelines 2007, PDF link here.
My comfort has nothing to do with whether a poster is derailing.
Pteryxx, I was making the point that pollution is a greater risk to the well being of pilot whales than is whaling. Public pressure and media attention on whaling has, I assume, little to no effect in stopping pollution. Therefore, Paul Watson is not focusing on the endeavor that has the maximal utility for his supposed goal. Therefore, I can only conclude that Paul Watson is either ignorant of the danger posed by pollution, an irrational decision maker, or that he doesn’t actually care as much about his supposed goal as he would have us believe. Heri even mentioned this as a point in the aforementioned aftershow. The standard Sea Shepherd response? “The Faroe Islands also share part of the responsibility for pollution.” Right. That’s a red herring.
@Therrin
Again, I did not start this. At each turn I’ve merely responded to people’s abuse of me. As I am now responding to your false allegation that I’m derailing. KG started this. Other compounded the issue by joining in support of the moron. The only post in this thread I’ve made that wasn’t in direct response to someone else’s post was the very first.
Bah. I’m still trying to figure out how arguments work here.
I live a sheltered life; so i don’t know about whaling or its moral implications.
But sketch’s continued insistence that ze’s winning makes them seem like the Black Knight.
“I’m invincible!”
By asking you to support your claims.
Keep on exposing that idiocy, O seeker of truth.
If you’re Faroese, you simply assert that people who don’t agree with you are liars.
@d(thunk)
Can you mentioned any evidence to the contrary? When all my detractors have offered up as counterarguments are strawmen and appeals to majority, am I not entitled to make a fat underline of how badly they’re faring? Especially when I’m besieged by idiots who evidently aren’t comprehending the simple fact that an argument is not settled against in favour of an unreasonable majority simply because they’re the majority? Arguments are settled in favour of the most reasonable, not the most numerous. That should be self-evident to an atheist community, because otherwise…they’d have to convert to theism now, wouldn’t they?
sketch:
First off (second sentence) you don’t get to claim that everyone’s efforts must be addressed solely to the issue that you think has maximal utility or is the most important. (See: Dear Muslima.) Much less impugn someone’s motivations because their priorities don’t match yours. Second off (first sentence) you don’t get to claim that the issues are unrelated. Public concern for wildlife, including charismatic megafauna, is a major factor for public support of pollution regulations.
Third: remember where I said that justifying Watson’s attention to Faroe Islands whaling specifically was a separate set of arguments? If you’re going to defend Faroe Islands whaling, make it distinct from your global claims.
You’ve perfected the art of not finishing it.
Maybe it’s just my poor reading comprehension, but I don’t know when I said anything about who started what or that I gave a fuck about it.
This of course, needs to be adjusted when the issue at hand is the interpretation of written text. Of course the author is the final arbiter of what he/she meant, but when a number of people make the same interpretation of someone’s words, even if erroneous, it is not strawmanning.
Of course, if the author is a fucking piece of shit, he’ll simply assert the same thing over and over again, by virtue of him being a fucking piece of shit.
Well, he does have a stake in claiming the moral high ground. It’s all a distraction to make up for the fact that he simply asserts those he disagrees with are liars.
That’s truth-seeking, apparently.
Hey asshole sketch, my reading comprehension is just fine. You fucked up and you’re too proud to admit it.
Here at Pharyngula we are not required to be polite to anyone, let alone assholes like you. If you want politeness, talk to some Mormon missionaries about how you want to join their church. If you want to survive here, grow a thicker skin.
Now that we’ve got that sorted out, why don’t you fuck yourself?
Provide evidence for ‘unreasonable’, or go get fucking whale-hooked in the face, you fucking cum-dribble.
Oh, sorry:
‘Please’, you fucking cum-dribble. And ‘thank you’, now please go get whale-hooked in the fucking face.
@Brownian: “By asking you to support your claims. Keep on exposing that idiocy, O seeker of truth.”
No, by feeling entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance of having asked for it and being an asshole about it.
We’ve been over this. Numerous times. You can’t be possibly be this stupid.
“If you’re Faroese, you simply assert that people who don’t agree with you are liars.”
Wow. I haven’t heard that one in a while. It’s quite common among theists who can’t provide any supporting arguments for their position. Are you sure you’re an atheist? You’re certainly ticking all the right boxes for dogmatic religionism.
No, you’re not a liar for not agreeing with me. You’re a liar for deliberate untruthfullness about what I’ve said. Case in point claiming that I’ve called you a liar for no other reason than that you disagree with me despite the fact that I’ve provided an abundance of evidence of deceitfulness in this thread. As is even evident for anyone who cares to scroll up.
Keep exposing yourself, liar.
@consciousness razor
Well, if I’m merely defending myself, then this isn’t as much masturbatory material for me as for those who attack me, now is it?
@Brownian
“This of course, needs to be adjusted when the issue at hand is the interpretation of written text.”
This is patently nonsense. Especially considering I’ve given you numerous clarifications of what I did and didn’t say and you lot persistently insist in misconstruing it.
“Of course the author is the final arbiter of what he/she meant, but when a number of people make the same interpretation of someone’s words, even if erroneous, it is not strawmanning.”
It is if it’s been pointed out and clarified time and again and is nevertheless still interpreted erroneously.
“Of course, if the author is a fucking piece of shit, he’ll simply assert the same thing over and over again, by virtue of him being a fucking piece of shit.”
And, of course, if the reader is a piece of shit he’ll heed no clarification but simply reassert the same strawmen over and over again, by virtue of being a fucking piece of shit.
“Well, he does have a stake in claiming the moral high ground. It’s all a distraction to make up for the fact that he simply asserts those he disagrees with are liars.”
Case in point, piece of shit.
Here’s an interesting example of fractally fallacious reasoning:
1) It assumes that Paul Watson’s hypothetical efforts at reducing pollution, though these efforts would almost certainly garner less public support, would have a higher whales’-utility/his-cost ratio than his efforts at reducing hunting. But nothing is quantified here, and people familiar with these kinds of questions know they’re extremely difficult to quantify.
2) Nevertheless, taking #1 for granted, it assumes that he is fully aware of and understands these utility/cost ratios. This is in fact extremely unlikely, given the incredible difficulty of calculation.
3) So far we haven’t accounted for liquidity, or lack thereof. Hypothetically, again assuming #1, he may only have become aware of these initial ratios well after having invested in this enterprise of anti-whaling. If he liquidated all the assets of Sea Shepherd right now and started up an anti-pollution campaign instead, he wouldn’t be able to achieve the ratio that he would have been able to achieve if he had been doing anti-pollution since the beginning. It’s possible that the most efficient is to keep on with anti-whaling until his ships wear out or are destroyed.
4) It’s particularly difficult to calculate the utility to the whales. It’s hard to know how much pollution reduces their lifespans, or causes them pain, suffering and trauma during their lives. It’s pretty easy to know how much hunting reduces their lifespans but hard to know how much it causes them pain, suffering and trauma. Moreover, the suffering and trauma is of a different quality. I do know that I am slowly being poisoned by pollution, and I think I prefer this to being hunted and murdered, but this is a strange and unclear comparison even regarding my own life where I have the most insight.
Should I go on?
This reminds me of people who say that because automobile accidents cause more deaths than guns, everyone should focus all their attention on cars instead of guns. Or since cancer causes more deaths than cars and guns combined, let’s not worry about either speed limits or guns, but only about cancer. And that’s not even taking into account the inevitable fact that different people will perceive different threats differently.
I’m not going to call you an idiot, sketch, because I don’t believe that (for the record I simply know for a fact that none of the people you’re calling idiots actually are, and I really don’t want to compound your tedium). But it’s apparent to me that you are not being nearly so rational as you like to imagine yourself.
Look, you fucking little puke, the fact that you’ve asserted this multiple times does not make you correct. You’re a whiny piece of shit who got pissy when asked to support his claims.
The fact that you think you’re entitled to your little tantrum just makes you an idiot.
Jesus, I don’t know why you keep bringing this point up as if it were relevant, when you’ve been told repeatedly that no one gives a fuck.
Actually, I’ve provided evidence that you’re the liar, when you accused KG of strawmanning your position, and I quoted you numerous times to support it.
The fact that you simply denied that what you wrote meant what you wrote isn’t evidence, doucheface.
@’Tis Himself
Hey, asshole ‘Tis! Your reading comprehension is poor. KG, Brownian, Brother, Feral, and you fucked up again and again but are simply too proud to admit it.
“Here at Pharyngula we are not required to be polite to anyone, let alone assholes like you.”
Yay! More strawmen. Goodie. Keep them coming.
“If you want politeness, talk to some Mormon missionaries about how you want to join their church. If you want to survive here, grow a thicker skin.”
My skin is sufficiently thick to hold my own against you lot, thank you much. How about if you can’t take criticism, you grow a thicker skin? Or is it required here on Pharyngula that I not criticise any of my fellow commenters whether they’re deserving or not?
“Now that we’ve got that sorted out, why don’t you fuck yourself?”
I love you too, mate.
No, you fucking lying fuckwad. What you did was originally claim that KG strawmanned you. When I and several others claimed that no, KG’s interpretation was in fact what we all interpreted your words to mean, you then claimed you meant something else.
What you didn’t do was drop your original strawman claim. At this point, the only conclusion is that you’re a lying piece of shit who now wants to claim misinterpretation because it’s in your self-interest to lie.
@Brownian: “Provide evidence for ‘unreasonable’, or go get fucking whale-hooked in the face, you fucking cum-dribble.”
Strawmen are unreasonable. So are ad hominems. Keep up or go lick GK’s smegma.
sketch, here’s a friendly word of advice. Bail out of this thread and stay out. Right now you’re just an asshole whining about how mean and stupid everyone else is. Guess what, we don’t agree. You’ve made your case and it’s been soundly rejected by everyone else.
And you can collect your decaying porcupine on your way out.
I see Pteryxx also noticed that same bag of assumptions, and quickly saw it’s easy pickin’s. Oh well, I should have predicted that. The low cost and high payoff was easier to figure in this case. ;)
sketch: So you’re devoting all this effort to counterattacking folks who insulted you, instead of talking about whaling, becaaaaause…
@Brownian: “Look, you fucking little puke, the fact that you’ve asserted this multiple times does not make you correct. You’re a whiny piece of shit who got pissy when asked to support his claims.”
No, but the fact that you haven’t been able to argue against it but simply rely on appeals to the majority and insults, does mean that I’m correct.
“The fact that you think you’re entitled to your little tantrum just makes you an idiot.”
Asserting that I’m throwing a tantrum that I’m not entitled to without any argument whatsoever doesn’t make it true.
“Jesus, I don’t know why you keep bringing this point up as if it were relevant, when you’ve been told repeatedly that no one gives a fuck.”
You don’t understand why I correct you on your lies every time you lie? Gee. I wonder why…?
“Actually, I’ve provided evidence that you’re the liar, when you accused KG of strawmanning your position, and I quoted you numerous times to support it.”
You merely asserted that I must not understand what a strawman is even though I used GK’s own understanding of a strawman to show that what he was doing was strawmanning. Blank aassertions and appeals to majority don’t constitute evidence, so now you’re lying about having provided evidence.
“The fact that you simply denied that what you wrote meant what you wrote isn’t evidence, doucheface.”
I’ve not denied a single thing I’ve written, moron. I’ve denied GK’s strawmen of what I’ve written. I’ve clarified why they were strawmen. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t force a fucking idiot to think.
Oh, and sketch? On your way out, at least try to learn what ad hominem actually is?
Evidently not true:
“The Grindedrab is merely a way of keeping traditions alive while providing the local population with a fourth of their food supply.”
It’s all arguments from assertion with you.
Asshole, the claim of strawmen is one that you have to demonstrate. You haven’t.
You can’t just keep asserting so and claiming that you’re arguing using any semblance of rationality. It’s like calling someone a liar.
Jesus Christ, you fucking loser, seven fucking people misinterpreted your writing in the exact same way, and you washed that away by simply declaring everyone to be liars.
Whether we are or not, what the fuck is your point in being here? We’re liars, we’re strawmanning you, and you and you alone are reasonable. Fine, then. Find somewhere where people are smart enough to appreciate your genius.
But by remaining here and calling people liars when an even more plausible hypothesis exists—that multiple people honestly misinterpreted your writing because it wasn’t clear—you’re just being a petulant fuck.
And isn’t that what you got all pissed off a KG for in the first place? He acted entitled to evidence for your assertions, which was, according to you, acting like an asshole?
“Argue against it”, sketch?
Brownian’s blown you out of the water. Without even trying. You’re like the Black Knight from Monty Python, right now, except you’ve lost more than just four limbs. You’re a disembodied tongue sans limbs, neck, face, or brain.
@Brownian: “No, you fucking lying fuckwad. What you did was originally claim that KG strawmanned you.”
Yes, you dishonest piece of shit. That’s what he did. I’ve provided argument for this. You haven’t even bothered to engage with it.
“When I and several others claimed that no, KG’s interpretation was in fact what we all interpreted your words to mean, you then claimed you meant something else.”
Falsifying the history of this thread now, are we? Could you possibly stoop any lower? No matter. Anyone who cares can scroll up and see what a despicable liar you are.
“What you didn’t do was drop your original strawman claim. At this point, the only conclusion is that you’re a lying piece of shit who now wants to claim misinterpretation because it’s in your self-interest to lie.”
I haven’t dropped by strawman claim because nobody has as of yet argued against it. Feralboy12 has even gotten himself in the amusing conundrum of either admitting that he’s not, in fact, talking to me even though he’s quoting me and seemingly responding to what I’m saying, or admitting that he believes that his responses to me are not made on a public blog but in a private conversation. You’re welcome to take up the challenge of solving this conundrum since you keep insisting that what GK said wasn’t a strawman. Logic’s a bitch, when you’re an idiot, isn’t it?
And who the fuck are you to make such a decision, and think you speak for the regulars. You don’t.
NOPE, this is a rude blog, and we respond to your rudeness. If you don’t like rudeness, YOU FIND ANOTHER BLOG. To quote PZ in his standards and practices:
You’ve embarrassed yourself enough. Typical of fuckwitted trolls who think they know better than we do. All ego, not one citation to back up an argument.
No, it doesn’t, any more than the poor reasoning of Muslims makes Christianity correct. Is atheism correct because Christians make poor arguments, including appeals to the majority and insults, against it, or because it’s the conclusion the evidence leads to.
I could be the biggest fucking moron on the planet and point to my League of Moron pals and how they all agree with me, and that would not make you correct by default.
I mean, how does someone who claims to understand rational thinking even make this kind of claim?
@’Tis Himself: “sketch, here’s a friendly word of advice. Bail out of this thread and stay out.”
Fuck you. How about you leave?
“Right now you’re just an asshole whining about how mean and stupid everyone else is.”
No, everyone else is whining at me and insulting me because they can’t muster any proper arguments against me. I’m not whining. I’m butchering you fuckers, and you know it.
“Guess what, we don’t agree.”
That’s because apparently you’re all fucking morons.
“You’ve made your case and it’s been soundly rejected by everyone else.”
Nobody’s rejected anything that I’ve said. Fallacious reasoning and blunt insults don’t constitute rejection.
“And you can collect your decaying porcupine on your way out.”
You can ram it up your arse.
Of course I have, you lying sack of blubber. In comments 108, 110, 111, and 114.
You can argue that I’ve not engaged with it successfully, shit-for-brains, but you can take this little fucking lie and shove it into your temple until the mercury runs out.
@Amphiox: “Oh, and sketch? On your way out, at least try to learn what ad hominem actually is?”
How about you learn how a scroll button works or actually tell me why you think I’m wrong about what I previously stated as my understanding of ad hominem? I can only conclude that either you’re too lazy to scroll or that you don’t know what an ad hominem is.
With your repeated assertions, right.
Ask nicely, fuck-for-brains. Ask fucking nicely, you piece of shit.
Of course, an actual rationalist would also entertain the hypothesis that he himself doesn’t understand the term.
“I can only conclude”
You’re a fucking shitty excuse for a truth-seeker.
“Geez, everybody here thinks I’m incorrect. Without considering anything else, they must be morons.”
That’s indeed how science works.
Supposedly they are debating whether to adopt the Canadian dollar as their currency.
Be sure to try the Hakarl while you are there. ;-)
@Nerd or Redhead: “And who the fuck are you to make such a decision, and think you speak for the regulars. You don’t.”
And who the fuck are the regulars to tell me what I can and cannot do? And who the fuck are you to say I’m not a regular? For the record, I’ve never claimed to speak for anyone but myself.
“NOPE, this is a rude blog, and we respond to your rudeness.”
I haven’t been rude. But there’s nothing wrong with rudeness in and of itself.
“If you don’t like rudeness, YOU FIND ANOTHER BLOG.”
If you don’t like me being here, you find another blog.
“To quote PZ in his standards and practices:”
Are you telling me I’m not keeping with the standards and practices? Psh. Coward. It takes no skill or effort to brawl on the side that outnumbers everyone else. How about if you really want to practice what you preach you come over on my side and argue against the other morons? They’re in the wrong after all.
“You’ve embarrassed yourself enough.”
I’m not the one engaging in fallacious reasoning and resorting to insults in lieu of being able to respond properly. I’m not the one unable to admit mistakes.
“Typical of fuckwitted trolls who think they know better than we do.”
I do know better than you do if you think strawmen and ad hominems are valid reasoning. Simple fact of life. Deal with it or turn off your computer and have a cry.
“All ego, not one citation to back up an argument.”
Ho, ho, ho. This comes from the side that has yet to back up any of their false allegations against me nor provided any tangible argument that isn’t fallacious? Don’t make me laugh. That’s adorable. Do you want a ‘Baby’s First Debating Kit’ for Christmas? I’ll buy you one, if you want. It comes with a pacifier for comfort when you poop yourself in public as you have just done.
Hehe PZ you need to hire a photographer for some “badass” photos of yourself!
You always look too nice and approachable. Is that allowable for atheists? ^^
rejseavisen.dk/faeroeerne-sejltur-bytur-kultur-og-fugletur.html
Google translation: “It looks formidable when the sea is stained red with blood, but for the Faroese it has been a natural thing for centuries.”
OMG PZ, you have to share the details of your trip! I’ve wanted to go to Iceland for years.
*sees posts about how far US dollar would go . . . starts calculating costs for trip*
@Brownian: “No, it doesn’t, any more than the poor reasoning of Muslims makes Christianity correct.”
But appeals to majority, strawmen, and insults make you correct? That delusion of yours sure must be comforting.
I provided valid arguments and evidence to back up my claims. You didn’t. Deal with it.
“I could be the biggest fucking moron on the planet and point to my League of Moron pals and how they all agree with me, and that would not make you correct by default.”
Uh…that’s precisely what you’ve already done. And now you’re just going nuclear.
Fact of the matter is, Brownie-boy. You can’t simply appeal to the off-chance that I might be wrong even if I have the arguments and evidence to back up my claim and you haven’t brought anything to the table. You’re not a fan of Pascal’s wager, are you? Because that’s fucking horrible reasoning.
“I mean, how does someone who claims to understand rational thinking even make this kind of claim?”
I’m truly wondering the same about you.
@Brownian: “Of course I have, you lying sack of blubber. In comments 108, 110, 111, and 114.”
Liar. I’ve already addressed all of your idiocy. Scroll up, you idiot and you’ll see.
“You can argue that I’ve not engaged with it successfully, shit-for-brains, but you can take this little fucking lie and shove it into your temple until the mercury runs out.”
I say the same about your lie that you have. You’ve provided no argument whatsoever in any of the posts you mentioned.
Now that’s a strawman.
And that’s also a strawman.
And that’s a non sequitur.
I simply dealt with a single claim of yours:
And demonstrated why it’s wrong.
@Brownian: “With your repeated assertions, right.”
Repeating arguments is all you can do when your detractor refuses to engage with them and simply keeps asserting they’re untrue by fallacious reasoning and insults. Repetition is all that is needed until you fucking get it or actually start to engage with arguments with actual fucking arguments.
The folks you unwisely thought you could intimidate with your bullshit. Still no citations to back up your claims. Nothing. Can’t even blockquote, and that is shown above the entry box. Typical non-thinking liberturd type. All you have is attitude and repetitious lies.
@Brownian: “Ask nicely, fuck-for-brains. Ask fucking nicely, you piece of shit.”
Why should I?
Again, half-wit, you can claim that I haven’t successfully argued against your claims, but you cannot say that I did not bother.
Stay focussed.
Sketch, either you can cite the literature or you can’t. If you can, do so. If you can’t, and can’t shut the fuck up, you prove to us you are nothing but a liar and bullshitter. Easy to tell those with real arguments from those with nothing but attitude like you.
@Brownian: “Of course, an actual rationalist would also entertain the hypothesis that he himself doesn’t understand the term.”
Only after being provided with an actual rational reason to do so. Idiots having a circle-wank does not constitute a rational reason.
““I can only conclude”
You’re a fucking shitty excuse for a truth-seeker.”
Says a man who thinks strawmen and ad hominems are valid inferences. I’m sorry, but I don’t accept your authority in the matter. You have proven yourself insufficiently capable.
@jasonspaceman
“Supposedly they are debating whether to adopt the Canadian dollar as their currency.”
Haha, no :)
“Be sure to try the Hakarl while you are there. ;-)”
With Brennivín of course!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenniv%C3%ADn
@Brownian in 193. To whom are you even talking now?
Oh, fuck, like you’re competent to evaluate.
I argued completely on point in 186. And you filled my claim with straw.
We need a new entry into the troll taxon;
Trollus itsallaboutmememeus
Whereas other Trollus species will typically derail threads with preferred topics, dishonest, uninformed or otherwise, these topics do nevertheless seed relevant and sometimes interesting discussion, thus fostering a secondary ecosystem that can sustain the thread. itsallaboutmememeus, however, will only derail threads to talk entirely about itself, and the myriad ways in which it has been unjustly maligned by others (alternative name: iampersecutedacus). It is a ‘black hole’ species that only destroys, and never fosters anything constructive.
Type specimen: sketch
Why do I keep getting the feeling sketch is an out of work liberturd? Oh, the excess attitude, egotism, wrongness, and inability to back anything it says. Nothing but hot air and OPINION. To quote Christopher Hitchens:
Notice citation. Try to keep up.
@Brownian: “Now that’s a strawman.”
How is it a strawman to say that you’re defending strawmen when you’re defending GK’s strawmen? Oh, wait. That’s right. You have no idea what a strawman is.
“And that’s also a strawman.”
Again, you evidently have no idea what a strawman is.
“And that’s a non sequitur.”
Aaaand we can now add “non sequitur” to the list of victims of your abhorrently poor reading comprehension.
“I simply dealt with a single claim of yours: And demonstrated why it’s wrong.”
‘Demonstration’ also bites the dust.
gaasedal.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/are-the-faroese-people-senseless-terrorizing-murderous-dolphin-killers/
“I’m Faroese. I grew up in the Faroe Islands where people have been killing pilot whales for food for at least 1200 years[….] Some people probably get the connotation ‘ritual’ and ‘tribe’ when they hear the word ‘tradition’, and forget that their own habit of eating turkey for Christmas dinner is also a ‘tradition’. […] They [Faroese] feel very strongly about this because they are proud of their old traditions that helped them survive for so long. […] The point I’m trying to make is this: The more people outside the Faroes condemn the Faroese, and the more they punish the Faroese by not buying their export goods or by not travelling to the islands, the more isolated will the Faroese be from the rest of the world, and the more they will tend to stick to their old traditions – which in the end means that more pilot whales will be killed! And here at last – if you have managed to read this far – I want to tell you about a very good source, if you want to get the facts right. There is a website where you can find all the facts about pilot whaling – about the tradition […]”
Come now, Nerd, sketchy can’t even wrap its mind, such as it is, around the simple rhetorical concept as ad hominem. And you’re asking it to perform as advanced an argumentation function as citing the literature?
That’s not fair, not fair at all! Come right down to it, that’s plain mean!
You meanie, you.
Nerd of Redhead:
You mean the folks who unwisely thought they could intimidate me with their bullshit and pisspoor reasoning? Those folks?
And yet another one joins the rank of the liars. Use. The. Fucking. Scrollbutton.
The pot calling the kettle black?
@Brownian: “Oh, fuck, like you’re competent to evaluate.”
I am, in fact.
“I argued completely on point in 186. And you filled my claim with straw.”
Liar.
What? Me mean? Don’t tell the Pullet Patrol™. They’re looking for another excuse to try a gang tackle….
*Wanders off to make today’s batch of grog*
I see sketchy still has nothing but OPINION. POOF, dismissed without evidence.
Well, we had ryanwilkinson over in the God Mode thread turning a small disagreement into a 100 comment-long ego-wank masquerading as an “argument”. And now we have sketch, doing the same fucking thing, except far more long-winded. Trollus itsallaboutmememeus, indeed.
@Amphiox
Liar. I haven’t derailed this thread. GK and Brownian deserve all the dubious credit for that.
@Nerd of Redhead: “Why do I keep getting the feeling sketch is an out of work liberturd? Oh, the excess attitude, egotism, wrongness, and inability to back anything it says.”
What haven’t I backed? Name. One. Fucking. Thing.
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Notice citation. Try to keep up.”
Indeed. That goes for everything everyone else has written and nothing that I’ve written. Try to keep up.
There was a story in the National Pest today about Iceland considering the loonie –> http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/15/iceland-canadian-loonie/
There’s some Iceland economist guy visiting here making the case for it. Personally I hope they do adopt the loonie. I was in Iceland last month and I would really like to go back and not have to worry about the exchange rate.
There’s a nice fish & chip place in Reykjavik called Icelandic Fish & Chips.
@Amphiox
“Come now, Nerd, sketchy can’t even wrap its mind, such as it is, around the simple rhetorical concept as ad hominem. And you’re asking it to perform as advanced an argumentation function as citing the literature?
That’s not fair, not fair at all! Come right down to it, that’s plain mean!
You meanie, you.”
Hey, asshole! Fix your fucking scroll button or make use of ctrl+f. I’ve told you what a fucking ad hominem is. You’ve not cited anything to suggest that my understanding is wrong.
Talk about hypocrisy! Geez!
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls: “I see sketchy still has nothing but OPINION. POOF, dismissed without evidence.”
As opposed to your false, unargued for opinion, that I’ve nothing but opinion? Despite the fact that I’ve backed all my claims in this thread with evidence and argument, and you’ve backed up…oh! None whatsoever! You simply keep asserting without evidence that I have no evidence. POOF!
@anteprepro: “Well, we had ryanwilkinson over in the God Mode thread turning a small disagreement into a 100 comment-long ego-wank masquerading as an “argument”. And now we have sketch, doing the same fucking thing, except far more long-winded. Trollus itsallaboutmememeus, indeed.”
Name one. One. Fucking post I’ve made in this thread that wasn’t a direct response to someone else. One. (Except for the very first, that is.)
If you can’t have a porcupine for not backing up your claims with evidence.
@jasonspaceman
Yeah I know. I also know that foreign media is blowing this out of proportion (understandable, it is a peculiar idea). The Icelandic government is not considering adopting the loonie.
also “targ” in Polish
By my count, sketch has only made 67 out of the first 226 comments, approximately 29.6% saturation. Clearly there’s much more work to be done. He’s only been going at it for eleven hours, but I thought you were supposed to call your doctor if it lasts longer than four.
POOF, Sketchy dismissed without evidence. Nothing but OPINION.
My mistake — ten hours. Big difference.
[recapitulation]
— begin recap —
sketch@21: @Pteryxx, Sea Shepherd is an organisation that will lie, swindle, propagandise, slander, and even endanger human lives to further their ideology. In short: they’re basically to animal rights activism what the Catholic Church is to religion. Even if you oppose whaling, you shouldn’t support Sea Sepherd. For those reasons and most of all because they’re completely ineffective. They haven’t stopped any whaling ever as far as I know, although, of course, they’ll tell you otherwise.
KG@24: Now why do I suspect that Faroese commenters might not be completely unbiased in their assessment of Sea Shepherd and Paul Watson?
sketch@26: @KG, is anyone completely unbiased? As an atheist I’m quite biased against religion. Doesn’t mean my reasoning is invalid.
KG@28: I haven’t seen any reasoning from you on this matter yet; just assertions.
sketch@31: @KG, sure, and you haven’t seen any reasoning to back up my atheism either. What’s your point?
KG#34: My point is that if you want your assertions about Sea Shepherd to be taken seriously, it would be a good idea to provide some evidence for them.
sketch@36: @KG, and if you want to have a discussion, you might simply start by requesting evidence before you petulantly and impolitely fault others for not having provided it pre-emptively. I’m under no obligation to withhold any opinion of mine that doesn’t come with an appendix of its underlying justifications. If you want to know the reasoning behind an opinion of mine, I’ll be glad to oblige if you simply ask. Politely.
sketch@44: @KG, if you wanted evidence of Paul Watson lying, why didn’t you just ask politely? Can you acknowledge your petulance and entitlement before we proceed in our discussions?
— end recap —
Et cetera.
Trollus itsallaboutmememeus is closely allied to Trollus liberturdiens, sharing many behavioral characters in common. The latter is generally considered ancestral to the former.
The two species can be distinguished in that, in liberturdiens these characters often vary between implicit and explicit expression, in itsallaboutmememeus, the relevant characters are always explicit, and always fixed.
There is a minority group, mostly consisting of liberturdiens specialists, that insists that itsallaboutmememeus is not descended from liberturdiens despite all the shared characteristics and cladistic analyses supporting this like. These self-styled mavericks prefer an alternative hypothesis, known as HNATL (he is not a TRUE libertarian), proposes that the apparent similarities between itsallaboutmememeus and liberturdiens are convergent, and that itsallaboutmemememus descends instead from a hypothetical, as yet to be classified, species of ancient stem-troll, known by the placeholder name of Homo mendacitor.
The implicit assumption of an ancient link between Homo and Trollus, however, remains in dispute.
Because I wasn’t.
I’ll quote 186 again, since your scroll button appears to be broken:
See how I did not defend any argument of mine, or anyone else’s, but only dealt with one, specific claim of yours?
That claim was this:
Which you then responded to with “But appeals to majority, strawmen, and insults make you correct? That delusion of yours sure must be comforting.”
That wasn’t my claim. My claim, again, was that your reasoning, the one I quoted in 186, is demonstrably false.
And a note about appeals to majority: they’re not always fallacious.
You see, claims regarding lies, and to a lesser degree strawmanning, are claims that include intent, especially if you then resort to claims of ‘strawman’ in order to claim that your opponent is not arguing in good faith.
If your opponent argues that s/he did not intend to strawman, but instead argued in good faith given a reasonable interpretation of an argument or claim, it is not a fallacy to note that others interpreted the argument or claim in a similar fashion, thus showing that the interpretation, even if wrong, was reasonable, and to argue against it was indeed arguing in good faith.
It may be technically a strawman, but it is incorrect to then continue to argue that the strawman is an indication that your opponent is then not arguing in good faith.
I share this for the benefit of others, as sketch is clearly unable to appreciate nuance.
As for you, sketch, life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ has responded to your claim that:
in multiple comments, with citations: 181, 197, and 214.
Deal with those.
x-rejser.dk/lande/Faeroeerne.html
Google translation: “There is a strong tradition behind the grind kills, and you as a tourist do wise to display understanding of the event rather than disgust, although Faroese can certainly discuss some aspects of this operation.”
sketch #187
Why should I? I’m having fun watching you make an idiot of yourself.
The delusion is strong in this one.
If everyone else is saying one thing and you’re the only one saying the opposite, it’s quite possible we’re not fucking morons.
I made a recommendation and your response was to whine at me. You really are a fucking idiot. Everyone else sees this but you’re too much of a fucking idiot to realize what’s going on.
@John Morales. That about sums it up. If you want to truly complete the recap throw in a bunch of fucking idiot, hypocrite trolls who feel entitled to a lower standard than what they demand of everyone else because they’re the regulars of thees herr blog, dagnabbit! Nevermind that I’m also a regular.
@Brownian, I realise that pitbull with lipstick has responded to that comment, but I’ve been kinda’ busy responding to this shitstorm of entitlement that hath been summoned upon he who dareth gainsay One of Us!
Nevermind the contradictory lamentations from various frothing individuals of this blindly loyal ingroup that I simultaneously respond too much and too little. Seriously, animosity aside. Don’t you see the absurdity in this situation? And not to be a tone-troll, but don’t you think this whole idiotic affair would have been more productive if we’d discussed it without all the needless anger? It’s not as if most of the people who have been smearing me did it for any other reason than ingroup mentality. Zomg! We must come to the rescue of GK and Brownian regardless of whether what makes sense, since they’re the Good Guys and are fighting Sketch, who must therefore be the Bad Guy, amiright?
oy.
none of these words are going to earn you anything other than laughter, pointing, and derision on this blog. just FYI.
1)being an asshole is not inherently a barrier to productive discussion. tone trolling on the other hand is.
of course. must be the pharyngula echo-chamber at work again, making us all thing you’re behaving idiotically.
“successfully” seems to be another one of those words you don’t quite understand the meaning of.
an insult is not an ad hominem; another term you’re unfamiliar with, I see.
right now it is you who is engaging in strawmen. just FYI
if you are being misunderstood in exactly the same way by a number of people, it is not because they are stupid, it is because you’re not expressing yourself clearly. thi is (or should be) something that every scientists should have drilled into their head from their very first writing assignment. and it should apply to every rational thinker who wants to have written discussions.
the size of your ego is embarrasing
incorrect. your getting pissy at KG demanding that you support your claims is what started this, not KG’s entirely warranted demands for evidence.
incorrect. you can 1)stop engaging, if you think an arguemnt is futile; 2)provide evidence; 3)rephrase your argument more precisely; 4)concede that you’re wrong
says the person who started a massive thread derail because someone demanded they support their claims, and did so impolitely.
you have. or pterryx has, for asking in the first place, but you’ve derailed that potentially useful conversation too, by refusing to provide the necessary evidence that KG asked for.
you haven’t backed up any of your claims up with evidence yet, but if you’d start with some evidence for your original claim, that would be splendid.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
no.
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
Ibid.
actually that’s called signal-to-noise ratio.
I LOL’d.
honeycakes, are you aware that we’re discussing subjective interpretation of a written text? because Argumentum ad Pupulum is only fallacious when what is under discussion is not a matter of perception.
And I’m sorry to inform you, but communication is all about perception.
when a large number of people interpret your writing in a consistent manner different from what you meant to write, your intention does not override perception. communication simply doesn’t work like that.
Er, sorry about that. I must say though, I expected any pointless flame war that resulted to actually have something to do with whaling. *bemused shrug*
in fact, there’s an xkcd for that: http://xkcd.com/1028/
don’t be sorry. an actual, evidence-based conversation about whaling would have been far more interesting that either the original topic (but I’m biased, not being icelandic) or this petulant derail into just how pissy sketch can get about being asked to provide said evidence.
Huh.
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
Loc. cit.
Just like any liberturd, the egotism, arrogance, and ignorance are strong is this Luke. For some reason I won’t take its word for anything other than lies and bullshit. Oh, that’s right, it needs third party citations to show it is anything other than a bloviating fuckwit….
So, sketchy, it seems you’re not quite as ‘busy’ now given the length of your recent comments. Care to address lipstick’s refutations now?
oh look. it’s trying to look clever without providing any substance.
@Nerd of Redhead
I love you to, dear. Go back to sleep.
Oh, I wish this kind of talk would be avoided.
This is probably (taking Nerd to be a woman) condescension to women, but it’s not really any better if there’s no misunderstanding.
@adamgordon, most of the examples weren’t made by Faroese defenders of whaling and are therefore, in my mind, inadmissible, but I’m not wedded to the claim, so I’m happy to forfeit it, and admit I was proven wrong.
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
You’re merely rehashing points I’ve already addressed earlier in this thread ad nauseam. If you have any original, not already-addressed points, that is if you have anything of substance to say to me, I’ll be happy to have a discussion with you. A discussion, though, requires that both participants actually listen (or read, as the case may be) what the other party is saying. You haven’t fulfilled this criterion so all you get is a citation to what I’ve previously posted.
Would you care to have an actual conversation or are you just harmonising the sheeple-choir? If the latter. Carry on. You don’t really need me for that, do you?
[meta]
Jadehawk,
There was no such demand: see KG’s #28 and #34.
—
sketch:
Fact: That “bunch of fucking idiot, hypocrite trolls” are all OMs — i.e. those commenters the commentariat nominated and voted for as the best and most interesting and most deserving of acknowledgment (to paraphrase PZ).
and because why the fuck not, let’s take apart the conveniently provided timeline of the beginning of this derail
response to pteryxx; makes at least 3 factual claims, without evidential support.
snarky but harmless comment
snarky response to KG, makes claim of reasoning being present in previous posts
matter-of-fact response, pointing out the lack of reasoning (both in terms of logical reasoning and evidential support)
snarky, content-free response
matter-of-fact response with accurate assessment of how controversial, not previously discussed positions tend to be treated on Pharyngula.
pissy tonetrollingand the begin of the complete derail
@life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ
I wasn’t going for condescension toward women, although I’m sorry if it came off like that. I was just tired of responding angrily to people addressing me angrily and decided to switch it up. It’s not as if he or she was saying anything worthwhile anyway. Just the repetitive mindless bashing. I find it amusing that now you’re worried about condescension all of a sudden, by the way.
Ah, tepid and inane attempt at comedic fuckwittery. Sorry dearie, I’ll be dancing on your over inflated ego for a couple more hours.
Still no citation from you to back up any claim, required to be seen as anything other than a liberturdian troll…
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/thread.jspa?threadID=2035765
Now wait a minute, pitbull, is this a defense or merely a description?
Defense:
So then why the fuck did you descend into an idiotic egostorm when someone asked you for evidence for this claim?
Asshole.
you haven’t actually. you tried, but you haven’t. and in any case, I’m providing another perspective on them, which you may ignore, but it doesn’t actually make you look good when you do.
considering your complete lack of a response to my explanations of communication, I am going to have to say that you’re either lying or deluding yourself about this.
don’t project, please.
HAHAHAHAHA
you’re right, as noted in #256. KG only pointed out that “reasoning” would require some evidence, which had not been provided at that point. which makes this derail even stupider
@John Morales
If these are the best I fear to encounter the worst.
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
Do you have anything to say to me that I haven’t already addressed? Or do you simply like talking at me without saying anything?
Plausibly, English not being your first language, you don’t get how that use of “dear” comes off.
To be clear, I should have been more specific. What I object to is the sexism: condescension to women qua women, or — had you been aware that Nerd is a man — condescension to men qua women.
projecting your own emotional state on others is also not making you look good.
@adamgordon
That’s not the claim this argument has been about. That was a tangential claim.
And I love you too.
Oh, and Sketchy, <blockquote>text to be quoted</blockquote> will give:
For citations, <a href = “url”>description</a>
Dunning-Kruger, typical of liberturd egotists.
Simple html tags any semi-intelligent poster knows. Which leaves you out…
counter my description of how communication works, accept that I’m correct in that description, or stop talking to me.
@life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ
I shall refrain from using ‘dear’ like that in the future unless talking to a straight man. So which term of endearment wouldn’t you object to? I don’t know whether you’re male or female (and I don’t need to know) so pick something I can call you the next time you call me an asshole.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
Let me refer you to post #216. Let me know when the penny drops, [insert acceptable non-gender term of endearment here].
I haven’t figured that one out yet. Can anybody help me with dividing by zero?
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
Why should I counter your description of how communication works? I agree with it. I simply don’t agree with its applicability to this shitstorm for the above-mentioned reasons. I don’t particularly care to repeat those reasons, since I’m unconvinced you’d care to listen. You’re simply using me as a punching bag to prove yourself as a member of the ingroup.
Also “stop talking to you?” Seriously? I didn’t ask you to initiate a conversation to me. Is it so disconcerting when punching bags talk back that you feel a need to ask them to stop?
[meta + OT + opinion + final]
Sketch, I see you as a quite intelligent, well-informed person with an excellent grasp of English and with whose general views I concur.
I also think you have let your ego get the better of you, here.
My unsolicited advice is to take a real break, and only then come back. If you are a regular (your nym rings no bells for me), then you know you will again be engaged if you do so.
(I know, I know! It’s very hard (requires much self-discipline) to walk away and lose the immediacy of the situation. And people will write things to which you are tempted to self-righteously, self-defensively retort. But, if nothing else, you need to sleep ;) )
It dropped, *Poof*, dismissed as OPINION WITHOUT EVIDENCE, you lose of course, Hitchens and all. Typical of egotistical maniacs who can’t show any bona fides other than attitude. I’m still waiting for your showing you know how to cite the literature to back up your fuckwittery…like any intelligent skeptic…Again, that leaves you out…
Nur, this doesn’t really help. It is then condescending to men qua women, you see? The insult is that he is to be condescended to in the way that one would normally condescend to a woman; this relies on using a comparison with women as the insult.
I guess “buddy” is always incredibly annoying but not a group identity insult. Also “friend” and “pal”.
1)so you agree that intent doesn’t override perception, but your intent still overrides the perception of the readers?
2)no such reasons for why your intent overrides perception have been provided. “you’re stupid” and “you’re sheeple” are not reasons.
3)assertion and projection will get you nowhere
4)strawmanning me isn’t going to get you anywhere either. I have no problem pissing off any of the other posters here when I think they’re wrong, and have done so on multiple occasions,but right now, they aren’t. As I’ve pointed out in my analysis of the beginning of this derail.
And on a side-note, are you going to ever admit that an insult is notan ad hominem, or are you just hoping people will forget that you made that mistake?
@John Morales, I’ve only recently started using this pseudonym for Pharyngula comments, although admittedly I mostly lurk. I’ve been following (and intermittently commenting) Pharyngula since…hmm. Since crackergate I think.
Regarding my ego, maybe. I think it was a case of arguing with idiots while letting them drag me down to their level and beat me, if not with experience, then with the share amount of their inanity.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
Glad I could be your punching bag. Hope I’ve earned you streetcred for the ingroup. Unfortunately at this point I’m too tired to play any more. Let me know if you’d actually like to have a conversation. I’m sure it’s not going to devalue their acceptance of you now that you’ve proven yourself a good little soldier that can bark with the rest of them.
sketch wrote:
And yet, in all that time, you”ve failed to notice that anyone making a claim will be expected to back that claim up with evidence?
@life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ
Buddy, friend, and pal are more annoying than asshole, dumbwad, moron etc.?
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
Look, I don’t know if you want an actual conversation with me. On the one hand you do seem to make a little bit of effort, but on the other hand you’re repeating claims about me, which I’ve already addressed. Yes, I’ll gladly admit that an insult isn’t an ad hominem. I’ve never claimed it is. Scroll up and you’ll see my statement of understanding for what an ad hominem is. I realise it might be daunting to read every single comment in this thread, but then again a lot of your fellow commenters have repeated lies about me even when I know for a fact they’ve read the refutations. You give me no reason to think you’re not of the same ilk, so you need to show me some good will here.
Now I’ve admitted that an insult is not an ad hominem. Will you now admit that I never said it was in the first place?
If you can’t do that, then communication is one-way and therefore pointless.
@Wowbagger, Madman of Insleyfarne
Ibid.
Let me see if one can spontaneously turn into a trollus itsallaboutmememeus. Ahem…
fapfapfap
PAY ATTENTION TO ME!
You’re all wrong, with your groupthink and ad populums which you aren’t actually making, and your strawmen which I am totally not also guilty of doing, and I will go on and on and on at length about how wrong you guys are until this thread is nothing but me insulting people for daring to insult me because I insulted you because they insulted you. I will find anything, desperately scrounging for the tiniest response that might seem like a rebuttal, to everything said that even indirectly might be about me, in order to insure that the next hundred comments will be about what an obtuse asshole I am being. I NEED to turn this entire thread into a long, misguided attempt to defend my “honor” and will REFUSE to read any post, even my own, correctly if it helps me further whatever petty sub-argument I am making at the moment.
fapfapfapfapfapfap
Why does no-one love me!? Why does no-one uncritically accept everything I say!? This is all you fault, you evidence-requiring assholes!
fapfapfap *splooge*
Well, shit. I don’t think I could ever make the transformation. It takes more than one comment to properly turn a thread into a sideshow act about myself.
But seriously, though, sketch. Can you fucking read at all? You “rebutted” my observation that you were turning this entire thread into a giant egowank by saying that you address other people. You sure do. Excessively. Because they are talking about you and you can’t let a single piece of snark sit without responding to it with your counter-snark. Look at your fucking self. You have around 80 comments on a page with 280 comments total. Over a quarter of this thread is just you, talking. When the topic of the thread was PZ going to Iceland. PZ GOING TO ICELAND. How the fuck do you justify spewing out just south of a hundred comments on an “argument” when the topic of the thread is something as offensive and controversial as PZ going to Iceland. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Either multi-task with each individual comment more, start talking about something other than the meanness and stupidity of those who hurt your fee-fees, or SHUT THE FUCK UP. Please.
I dunno. But you asked for terms of endearment, which the latter three are not.
Who the fuck cares? I will go to bed without needing your permission.
Why would I want a “conversation” with someone who must define everything, and tell everybody what they must think? Conversation implies the possibility you could be wrong. Given you performance today, I seriously doubt your ability to carry out a conversation. And you performance today also means that you would have to cite the literature for every claim you make. Get it? You are considered a liar and bullshitter until you prove yourself otherwise with third party evidence.
Why do you think I’m any different than any other regular about the need for evidence? If you have lurked, you haven’t been paying attention. I am at the forefront of “show the evidence.”
@anteprepro
I love you too, friend.
@life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ
Fair enough. I was just musing about something that seems to me a discrepancy but probably isn’t.
Sketch wrote:
Does that mean ‘no’ in your language?
Because what it means in English usage makes no sense as an answer to my question, which was pretty straightforward.
I have trouble believing a long term lurker wouldn’t know Nerd of Redhead is a man.
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
Why do you think I’m not aware of the need for evidence? I’d respect your anger toward me more if it weren’t directed at a strawman. As is all I see is you (and your fellow anger-spewers) keep justifying your anger toward me by pointing out how you’re part of the Regulars and I’m a dirty Outsider, who needs to know his place and admit to all of your accusations against me regardless of whether I’m guilty of them or not if I know what’s good for me.
Well, I’m sorry. Is your faux ingroup-privelege not paying out as expected? That must be stressful for you. Join a Church. I hear they’re pretty good at finding people, who can’t defend themselves, to ostracise.
@Wowbagger, Madman of Insleyfarne
It’s a Latin abbreviation of ibidem meaning ‘the same place’ or something that has already been mentioned before. It’s my way of telling you that your question is a loaded question, which I cannot therefore answer either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to since I don’t accept its underlying assumption, and that I’ve already addressed it before in this thread in any case.
@’Tis Himself
I don’t care what gender people are.
It isn’t if you can produce your evidence that KG asked for, or shut the fuck up as a liar and bullshitter. There is no middle ground. Either you cited something, or you expected us to take your word for it. And nobody here takes a strangers word for anything without evidence. Question Everything.
you can repeat this endlessly, it’s not going to become any truer.
incorrect, at least in terms of the way you apply that term:
in this instance, you’re taking an insult by KG and claiming it’s an ad hominem.
this is an assertion on your part, and an incorrect interpretation of the comment, since KG didn’t say or imply that he’s dismissing you comment because of you food-habits; he made a snarky “conclusion” that what he perceived as the very low quality of your arguments might stem from your food-habits.
or in short: you have the causality of this comment reversed, and thus incorrectly claimed that what is an insult is an ad hominem.
stop assuming things about me for your convenience of not having to have a serious conversation about your mistakes. I have read every single comment in this thread. And no one has lied about you. No actual refutations have been provided by you for anything either, with the sole instance of the inconsequential “refutation” of a comment by someone else being used in a conversation with you in such a way that you interpreted it as an attribution of that comment to yourself.
no, i really don’t. you can argue based on content, or you can complain.
you admit that KG’s comment about your food-habits was an insult, not an ad hominem? great.
why would I do such a thing, when it is clearly and obviously incorrect?
you want me to lie and admit to incopetency where I have not committed any, to establish two-way communication? I don’t think this is reasonable.
Don’t give yourself airs. We’re not angry at you. You’re nowhere near annoying enough to cause anger. We’re playing with you, watching you wriggle and squirm and show your stupidity. As a supposed “long time lurker” you should know we love to play with trolls.
Now continue to dance, troll.
Inability to stick a flounce, certain proof of a troll, liar and bullshitter. Right Sketchy???
@Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
Scroll up. Post #44 and #65 Evidence has already been provided. Haven’t we been over this already several times?
It’s amusing to be called a liar and bullshitter by someone lying and bullshitting about the existence of the provided evidence.
“Question Everything.”
Why?
If sketch misunderstands, that is acceptable (though sketch’s interpretation will stand (in hir mind)). If I, or any other of the Seven Pharyngula Liars misunderstand a comment, we are, by definition, now, and forever, liars. I guess double standards are acceptable.
sketch wrote:
I know what it means – hence the second part of my comment, “Because what it means in English usage makes no sense as an answer to my question…” – the part where I wrote ‘what it means’ should have been a giveaway.
But, given how much that has confused you, I’m starting to understand why you’re struggling here.
And it still doesn’t explain why you chose to not respond to KG’s request for evidence to support your claim and instead derail the thread; if you had genuinely been reading posts here for that long, you’d not have been so offended by what is a standard reaction.
Then again, as you’ve demonstrated with my post, reading ain’t necessarily comprehending.
you have made 3 claims in your comment: that Watson is a liar (evidence provided that he has lied once… which is a bit essantializing, but ok; it’s evidence at least); that his actions endanger human lives (no evidence provided); that his actions are ineffective (no evidence provided)
and of course you’ve not provided any evidence for any of the claims about the commenters here either, but that’s a separate issue.
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
You’re flip-flopping and contradicting your own previous claim. Either I made a correct identification of an ad hominem in an incorrect interpretation, or I made an incorrect identification of an ad hominem in a correct interpretation.
You asserted that I claimed that an insult is an ad hominem. Are you now forfeiting this claim in favour of the claim that I correctly identified an ad hominem but that the problem was in the incorrectness of the interpretation?
If you’re willing to admit you’ve amended your position and that you were wrong in accusing me of claiming that an insult is an ad hominem, as you seem to know I didn’t, then I’ll respect your intellectual integrity and we may talk properly.
Until then you seem just as cavalier about honesty and truth as KG, Brownian et. al.
Which is wrong, by the way. Ibid is used in the way you imply it is used in your first sentence: To reference that something is “the same thing” as something previously stated. It is sort of like saying “ditto”, and is often used in citations immediately after the source “that was already mentioned before”. It is not used to say “neither yes or no” all on its lonesome. If you want a word that is actually used for such a purpose, try mu. Per the Pfft:
@Ogvorbis: Illogical and Incompetant Liar (OM)
If Sketch makes a mistake, Sketch is willing to own up to it and has already done so several times throughout this thread. Others haven’t been as honest.
@Wowbagger, Madman of Insleyfarne
KG never actually requested evidence he just acted indignant that it hadn’t been provided in advance of his request. Also there seems to be a lot of revisionism going about. I did provide evidence. You lot lying about that fact doesn’t help your case.
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
Right, so now you’re amending your position from “Sketch hasn’t provided any evidence” to “Sketch has provided evidence but not for every claim?” Are you then willing to admit that a lot of people here have been lying about me in their claims that I haven’t provided any evidence whatsoever?
If not, then, again, you aren’t really trustworthy, are you?
Regarding not having provided evidence about the commenters here, now you’re lying again. The evidence of KG engaging in strawmen against me can be found in post #103.
yes, this is my claim.
this is not my claim. which comment of mine are your interpreting to mean this?
you did. you took an insult, and you made the claim that it was an ad hominem. are you having trouble parsing this? if so, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
insufficiently clear communication on my part or misreading on your part does not constitute a change of mind on my part.
I understand now that we’re having a communications-problem based on the ambiguous meaning of the phrase in question. you should now stop imputing incorrect intent and incorrect motives to me, because it makes you look like an idiot when you do so
your tendency to jump to conclusions of ill intent is noted and dismissed as really fucking stupid and annoying.
Yeah, you could have provided some citations for your claim.
Cite these claims.
@anteprepro, as far as I can see I’ve used the word correctly in accordance to what you think it means. I think you’re getting the meaning of the word mixed up with my explanation of intent in making use of that meaning. Although I admit I might have been clearer in separating the two, I think you’ll that the distinction is present in my post.
Simply saying “that was already mentioned” is my way of refusing to respond to a loaded question, which I’ve already addressed. Is that clearer?
There is no citation in #103. You lie and bullshit. Your word is not evidence, it is OPINION. And evidenceless OPINION, POOF, CAN AND WILL BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
This is evidence: Lenski.
If you lie and bullshit about that, what else will you lie and bullshit about??? EVERYTHING….
you’re still imputing ill intent in KG’s comments, as well as imputing stupidity and/or ill intent in people interpreting you comment about responding to pteryxx differently from how you meant it.
neither of those incorrect acts have been corrected by you so far.
you have not provided evidence for your claims; you have provided partial evidence for one of your claims. there’s a difference. and, in regard to the beginning of the derail, you had not provided any evidence yet when KG pointed this out to you.
you’re once again insisting that I make incorrect claims to prove something to you. this is unreasonable.
incorrect. as has been noted by me, and supposedly agreed with by you, intent does not override perception in communication.
to call a perception at odds with an intent a “strawman” is incorrect unless evidence can be provided that perception was in fact in accord with intent, but is being purposefully misrepresenting those comments.
if you had claimed that KG was misunderstanding, or even simply wrong, you’d be correct. you are not correct that those were strawmen, and your comment 103 is not evidence of strawmen, but of miscommunication.
i apologize for the egregious amount of typos in my comments in this thread
And evidence that KG simply responded to what you wrote was provided by me in comments 108, 110, 111, and 114.
Others have made the same claim. I explained why in this case, it’s not a fallacy to invoke others’ opinions in 233. You sidestepped it, of course, with some about how this all could have been avoided if you’d simply provided support for your claims in good faith, instead of being the piece of shit who calls himself sketch.
<blockquote cite=""? Simply saying “that was already mentioned” is my way of refusing to respond to a loaded question, which I’ve already addressed. Is that clearer?
That’s clearer, but I don’t think it helps. “That was already mentioned” is not the correct way to respond to “loaded questions”. There are many other ways to address it, including saying “the question is moot,” or actually pointing out how it is loaded. Referencing something the last thing you previously stated (which is what ibid does in the vast majority of cases when people use it) does not make it clear that you think the question is loaded. Implying that you have already answered something is not the same thing as implying that you can’t possibly answer something (and that this is the fault of the question).
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
Your clarification is accepted. It’s a matter of scope. I took “an insult” to mean an insult in general. You took it to mean a specific insult. Am I right? Sorry, I didn’t catch it before.
So our disagreement comes down to interpretation of what KG said. You take him to have said “your argument is delusional, and furthermore I speculate that it’s due to your diet.” I took him to say “your diet – as I speculate it to be – has made you delusional and therefore your arguments are inadmissible.”
I concede that your interpretation is merely an insult and an illicit speculation on my personal dietary habits, not an ad hominem. (Hey, where’s the evidence that I eat whale or that I’m delusional? Should KG get away with that?) I trust you concede that if my interpretation were correct, then it would be an example of ad hominem. I further concede that my interpretation might be incorrect. Could I do other? I can’t read KG’s mind, and neither, I surmise, can you. I still think mine is a plausible interpretation of what he said, though, of course, you might disagree.
Satisfied?
To everyone else, I’ll only be responding to Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe from now on. She, (sorry for the assumption. It’s the “Jade” and the “féministe” that give me the association)unlike the rest of you, has proven herself capable of intellectual integrity. I’ll respond to you to if you follow her example.
Jadehawk
You must be so proud.
*guffaw*
*JOY*
*DOH*
sketch, if you don’t stop confusing lack of insults with intellectual integrity, I will lose any hope that this conversation can be had intelligently. Just because I’m being ridiculously patient and ignore your constant accusations of ill intent and spend a ridiculous amount of time holding your hand through meticulous explanations of how your accusations of fallacies and ill intent are unevidenced, doesn’t mean that similar has not already been pointed out to you previously by others.
it does not reflect well on you when you only take seriously the claims of a person you find sufficiently polite to yourself (while not at all returning the favor, I shall note), and then only when you’re carefully and patiently guided through the argument.
Fixed that for you egotistical loser. You don’t have intellectual integrity. I’m a scientist, and I recognize it. You fail…
anyhow; I patiently await the supply of further evidence for Watson’s lies, as well as for him endangering people and his organization being ineffective.
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
As to imputing ill intent in KG’s comments, I think he proved ill intent right off the bat. But if you’re not just talking about his general behaviour but specifically about ill intent in what I take to be fallacies levied against me, I’ve conceded that your interpretation of what I take to be an ad hominem might be right and mine wrong. Nevertheless I think he’s proven ill intent in his strawmen by never conceding that what he burdened me with wasn’t my position. If he has misunderstood or misconstrued my position inadvertently, he should have no issue with amending what he took it to be once I corrected him. He never did. That, to me, says ill intent and that he does not possess the same intellectual integrity you do.
I provided the first piece of evidence while simultaneously asking KG if he were willing to own up to his petulant entitlement. He declined to do so. The rest has been fallout from that. If he’d just said “Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. I came on a bit strong because I assumed you were one of those people not willing to back up their claims. I see now that I was wrong.” That would have showed good will. Instead he opted for ill intent. Hence I never bothered to provide any subsequent evidence because by then the shitstorm had already started.
Regarding intent or perception, if KG had amended his understanding of what he took my position to after corrected and conceded that he’d misunderstood it or inadvertently misconstrued it. Then you’d have a point. Since neither he nor anyone else in this thread has done so, that is a clear (if not conclusive) indication of deliberate intent of purposeful misrepresentation.
By the way, a strawman is simply misrepresentation. It doesn’t have to be deliberate. Informing someone that they’re attacking a strawman is well in order in the context of an argument and a signal for them to take stock and consider that “Oh, hey. Maybe I misunderstood something here.” It’s only when they continue to hold fast to the incorrect position that it becomes a matter of deliberate ill-will. But the initial inadvertent strawman is a strawman nonetheless. Just a particularly innocuous member of its species.
Past the twelve-hour mark and still nothing. Too busy gutting whales? I mean, is it even possible to do that, masturbate and troll a blog all at the same time?
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
Your intellectual integrity is not attested to by your lack of insults. It’s attested to by the fact that you were willing to make a concession.
It’s a matter of the second step in this following flowchart:
http://godlesspaladin.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/debate-flow-chart.jpg
Which, I believe, PZ has linked to in the past, if memory serves me right. You might be right that something worthwhile has been said by some of your follow commenters. I might have missed it among all the shit that has been hailed down upon me. It’s just that I haven’t noticed much else than blank unargued-for assertions repeating lies about me. A person who can’t amend their position, which no-one here has shown themselves capable of, might have some good points, but it’s useless to argue those points with them since those points aren’t amenable to rational argument. It’s not a matter of only taking seriously politeness. After all, you’re not particularly polite either, but you do same capable of rational discourse.
So, wait, sketch is claiming that he is refusing to respond to the rest of us because we insult him? And that he will start responding to people when they stop insulting him? Not buying it. The only reason the thread is where it is right now is because he is constitutionally incapable of withholding a response when his ego is slighted. Besides, what conversation would we possibly want to have with sketch at this point that isn’t just pointing out that he is an incompetent blowhard?
And here he is, 300 comments in, refusing to talk to anyone but Jadehawk, and still BAAAAAAWing at length about KG, who hasn’t actually been here for at least 200 comments. What a heroic stand he has made here, on the subject of *mumble*mumble*mumble*. Truly, if he were to perish on this day, he would be considered a courageous martyr for his cause. That noble cause of *mumble*mumble*mumble*.
sketch wrote:
[best read as if it were being delivered by Stephen Fry]
Oh, the utter beast! Well, who can blame you for your subsequent meltdown and post after post of pissant whining and bleating after you were dealt such a blow? The cad. The bounder. I simply must collapse upon my fainting couch.
Funny how his complain about KG comes when KG used a link sketchythinker provided to refute him. Typical of trolls, typical of liberturds, and typical of tone trolls. No matter what they provide as evidence, they are always right, even if said evidence doesn’t back their claims. And sketchythinker, wonder why we don’t your word for anything other than lies and bullshit. All behavior that is familiar to us…
@Wowbagger, Madman of Insleyfarne
Ok, I’ll admit that was funny.
Well, and the flowchart says, under “You cheated”:
Nothing about hours of repetition, if you’re going by the flowchart.
Besides, making a concession is not required for integrity. There’s no concession to be made if 1) the assertion is correct, or 2) there’s insufficient evidence to prove the assertion either way (or it’s a bad assertion).
Et tu, Pteryxx?
are you confused?
none of the people you’ve talked to are unwilling to make a concession, they’ve just had no reason to. neither have I. so why the fuck are you making this distinction? based on what evidence?
either “I think”, or “he proved”; not both.
we’re all quite aware that you think there was ill intent. as my deconstruction of that part of this thread shows, it’s not at all obvious or “proven” that this wast the case.
his behavior is not, nor has ever been, in dispute; he was rude, snarky, and impolite in his first comment but matter-of-factly (though certainly no more polite) when pointing out lack of reasoning and lack of evidence. intent is a matter different from behavior however.
no. you do not get to just ignore my response about those purported strawmen. you will have to address it and show it to be incorrect, before you can go back to claiming there were any strawmen.
he and a bunch of others have a different interpretation of what you said, but you jumped to accusations of strawmanning which they have every right to defend themselves against. and please be consistent: you impute ill intent at the drop of a hat, but accuse others of strawmanning when they incorrectly interpret what you write.
it should be also noted that you’ve never explained how responding to pteryxx was supposed to explain why you don’t think KG was right to say that you’ve provided assertions rather than reasoning and evidence at that point in the conversation. thus, it is not yet at all clear that what you meant to communicate was something significantly different than what you ended up communicating. you’re welcome to provide that explanation now, though at this point I doubt KG is going to bother reading this thread anymore.
of course he did. pointing out correctly that your comments so far had not been “reasoning” as you said, but rather unevidenced assertions, is not a symptom of entitlement. As John Morales correctly stated, KG didn’t strictly speaking demand that you provide evidence; rather he pointed out (accurately) that you did not reason but assert, and that in order to have your assertions taken seriously, you’d have to provide evidence. please explain the entitlement in either of those.
why do you claim that he assumed you were that kind of person? no evidence from that part of the conversation suggests that to be the case, since he only pointed out that you hadn’t yet provided it, and that you’d need to to be able to have your assertions taken seriously.
I’m not wholly sure if you’re aware that “good will” vs. “ill intent” is a false dichotomy. nor that you’re not, strictly speaking, owed any good will here.
again, you’re going to have to show their position to be incorrect. what was the point of you saying you had only responded to pteryxx? how is your intent in making that comment significantly different from the interpretation of multiple readers? (for that matter, do you understand that interpretation well enough to be able to make the claim that it is incorrect? because you’ve shown a tendency for misinterpretation in this thread. just sayin’).
no. a strawman is “to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position”
the ambiguous comment in question was neither a position, nor was an illusion created that it was being refuted by replacing it with another position. at most, a comment (the purpose and intended meaning of which I hope you’re going to finally explain) was misconstrued, and then re-misconstrued as having been turned into a position that wasn’t expressed originally.
Also, I see no evidence that inadvertently misunderstanding is synonymous with misrepresenting, since the latter does carry a connotation of dishonesty, which misunderstanding does in fact not.
this, after you snottily tell me to read everything in this thread?
jesus, sketch. stop being such a hypocrite.
no. apparently it’s because he feels that I’d concede if I were wrong, but others here would not. what he bases this distinction on is entirely unclear to me.
well fuck. now I’ve lost my concentration enough to just randomly refer to sketch as “he”; a habit I’ve been really trying to wean myself of, with evidently no success.
I’m also getting sick of talking about talking about this conversation. I’ve listed a number of things I’d like to see sketch finally address, but I think I have to refuse to address any more extraneous stuff, because I haven’t yet read any of the articles accumulating in my other window, and I’d actually like to do that, since that would be more informative than this conversation is likely to be. unless we can maybe return to actually talking about whaling.
Now I’m wondering if that was a) an assertion, b) an opinion, c) a strawperson, d) an insult, e) an ad hominem, f) a concession, or g) really addressed to Jadehawk. I’m tempted to start a betting pool.
/snark
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
Based on the endless repetition that the issue over which we disagree is whether it’s in order to require evidence of claims, even when I’ve repeatedly and unequivocally said it isn’t.
Based on the endless repetition that I’ve derailed this thread, when it’s entirely the self-proclaimed “Regulars,” who are at fault.
Based on the endless repetition that KG’s strawmen were accurate even when I’ve repeatedly and unequivocally stated that they’re not representative of my actual position, and have repeatedly clarified what my position is.
Based on the endless repetition that no evidence has been provided for my original claims, when that’s clearly not the case for anyone who bothers to look.
Based on the endless repetition that I’ve not provided any arguments for various things and only make unargued-for assertions, when on the contrary that’s a precisely accurate description of most of the self-proclaimed “Regulars.”
Based on the endless repetition that I’m whining, when in fact I’ve merely responded to and refuted the attacks of my detractors.
Based on the endless repetition that I’m a liar and bullshitter for claiming that my detractors are lying about me, despite the fact that I’ve provide ample arguments, reasons, an examples of their endlessly repeated lies.
Based on the endless repetition that I’m a tone-troll, when that is at worst a deliberate misuse of the concept and at best an egregious misunderstanding, and despite the fact that I’ve already refuted that claim and no-one has as of yet engaged with my argument against it.
Need I go on? These people have not only had ample reasons to make concessions, they’ve been dutybound to do so by basic honesty. The fact that they’re unwilling or unable displays a completely callous disregard for truth and fair play. The complete opposite of what I would associate with rationalists or skeptics.
That last comment was a response to #326 by the way. In case it wasn’t obvious.
Right. Because if there is anything that this thread shows, it is that sketch would concede an argument if he was wrong. Wait. No. I think that was the version of this thread that I saw in Bizarro World. Damn. Forgetful me.
(Does this post count as a concession?)
Also, on strawmen:
Dealing with logical implications of statements or slight rewordings of statements that don’t change meanings are not strawmen. Desperate people who love to whine endlessly about how they are so misunderstood love to conjure up The Cry of the Strawperson when they are backed into a corner, but they will rarely ever shoot themselves into the foot by daring to point HOW they were misrepresented. Because it would make clear to everyone that there was no straw on the premises or within a five mile radius.
For an example, see 93, where all “four strawmen” were direct responses to “KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence in advance, in the context of me simply sharing my opinions on a subject with Pteryxx.” KG’s responses were:
1. This is a public blog, so you don’t get a right to chat with one person uninterrupted (a clear rebuttal to “simply sharing my opinions..with Pteryxx”).
2. He says people are expected to back up claims with evidence, which rebuts “KG isn’t entitled to a full disclosure of evidence.”
3. He makes the bold claim that sketch’s original post was presented as facts, and not just “opinion” which he suggests in the quote.
If this was a strawman at all, it could only have possible been due to being a quote mine. But sketch was far too brilliant to arse himself to make such a claim, and simply presented KG’s argument as four separate strawmen without bothering to show WHY they were inaccurate. Without bothering to realize that every one of these “strawmen” directly addressed the quote.
What was that about concessions, again, sketchy? Why don’t you just concede that this is all pointless nonsense, walk away, go punch a few pedestrians, cry into your pillow, and leave us without the privilege of listening to you whine about the same thing, ad nauseam?
you’ve said that. how nice. that’s just an assertion though.
In this particular social space, in the instance of contentious claims not previously discussed here, it is in fact in order to require evidence of claims. it is absurd of you to demand that we deny the existence of the social rules we made ourselves.
and the rest of your “based on”s is just as baseless. and more to the point, I’ve argued against you on moste of them, yet you perceive me as having conceded, or being willing to concede, any of them? why?
hardly, since they’ve not actually been incorrect on any of them (I’ll except NoR from this, because I don’t actually know what he said. I admit to kinda skipping those based on experience)
this, unfortunately, looks like pure projection
now, unless you’re going to address the points I’ve asked you to, I’m going to leave this conversation, since it’s entirely pointless. You seem to have made up your mind that your idiosyncratic interpretation of this conversation is correct, and that everyone else therefore is wrong. I see nothing fruitful in further wallowing in minutiae to maybe eventually have you concede all these if I just hold your hand through them sufficiently.
well no. it could also be that 1)KG interpreted these comments in accordance to the as yet undisclosed meaning intended by sketch, and chose instead to respond as if sketch had made comments that 2)meant the things that sketch enumerates in #103
I don’t see that there’s evidence for either 1) or 2), so… yeah.
this conversation is migraine-inducing
@anteprepro
Alright, anteprepro. To show what a despicable liar you are in claiming I never bothered to explain why KG’s strawmen were inaccurate, I’ll repeat myself for your and everyone’s benefit.
Indeed. You were spot on at the end of 335. Get the hell outta here. Spare yourself the chore of trying to teach trollus itsallaboutmememeus how to see things that are clearly square in an emotional blindspot. It’s just not worth it, and you are under no obligation to go through it simply because he said that you’re his favorite.
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
I said:
To which you responded:
Are you fucking kidding me?! I just unequivocally told you that I do not deny that it’s in order to require evidence for claims, and you respond that it’s absurd of me to demand the denial of it being in order to require evidence for claims?
I evidently had too high hopes for you. You’re just as bad as the rest of the liars. Nobody here cares what I actually say my position is, just what they want it to be.
@anteprepro Concede that you’ve lied.
you’re once again impute ill intent to make your argumentation easier. when all I’ve done is misread that one part of your comment.
you are not arguing in good faith.
I’d like you to quote what your claim to the core of this disagreement is, though. because as far as I can tell, it’s entirely about how mean KG has been to you.
you once again ask someone to concede to something that is not true. they have not lied, but rather they find your weak argumentation in 103 insufficient, as they explain in the comment which you impute to be a lie
and you still haven’t said what the intent of that comment about pteryxx was, so that we can actually see whether it was misinterpreted.
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
It’s hard to believe people are arguing in good faith when they continually repeat things, which I’ve repeatedly and unequivocally corrected them on. I would be more convinced that you were arguing in good faith, if it wasn’t because you simply repeated a misrepresentation of my position, that several others have also repeated ad nauseam throughout this thread, and which I’ve corrected them on time again, even after you claimed to have read this entire thread. Come now. You have no excuse at this point.
You’re right that this disagreement started with KG, but it was only compounded by everyone ganging up on me and continually spreading and defending lies. Yes, I say lies, because after the nth repetition and subsequent correction I have no reason whatsoever to believe that any of you are arguing in good faith. You’re simply lying through your teeth. It’s despicable.
Which you do by referencing zero of your actual posts. Great work. You really know how to present evidence.
Yeah, except that KG also mentioned that the fact that this is a “public blog” means that it isn’t a faux pas for person z to respond to something that was “in response to person y”. Your whine about KG butting in is still wrong, and your Cry of the Strawperson still worng.
And now who’s strawmanning, you dishonest fuck? Did you really think KG was asking you to be a fucking time-traveller? Do you think you are arguing honestly right now? And quotemining? Obviously, if this is what you meant by “in advance”, I did you a fucking favor by omitting it.
As for the opinion thing: Here is your only statement on the matter in 112.
My response? Ibid, fuckwit.
If you projected any harder, you’d be considered an asset by the accounting department of the nearest IMAX. And if you jumped to conclusions any faster, you would have the patent on faster than light travel.
Seriously, just fucking stop this. The hole you’ve dug for yourself is starting to rival the Grand Canyon. You should look back on this thread tomorrow morning and hang your head in shame.
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
anteprepro claimed that I had provided no explanation whatsoever for why the representations of my position were inaccurate. This is clearly false, as I’ve shown, even if anteprepro meant to say that I had, in fact, provided explanations but that anteprepro believed them to be insufficient.
anteprepro lied. Concede it. Save face. Stop moving the goal posts.
I know the fucking feeling. You, of course, have shown yourself to be an utter piece of shit.
If you were killed in the street by a hit ‘n’ run driver, I’d slap your parents for crying.
anteprepro said:
Yet another obvious lie. See #337 for its patent untruth.
@Brownian in 346.
Quotemining. Yet another example of dishonesty. Thanks for proving my point, guys.
“Yeah, I meant something different than what I wrote. You’re all big meanies for interpreting what I wrote instead of what I meant.”
Seriously, sketch, the world is completely full of terrible, terrible, liars. You’d better go jump off a cliff to avoid them all.
I’ll give you a push, if you lack the conviction.
So you’re all proven liars. Are we done here?
Well, you’re fucking incapable of proving a point, so you need all the help you can get.
So, you’re welcome, fuckface. Can I do anything else for you? Punch you in the throat? Toss you in front of a car? Hold your head under water until the honesty seeps into all your sinuses?
Correction: My last post stated that sketchy didn’t reference his previous posts specifically, but that’s inaccurate. I wrote that before I finished his post, and he vaguely alluded to previous posts while specifically mentioning one at the very bottom. A thousand apologies. Sketchy is still stupid, obstinate, and wrong.
Fuck off, you simpering asswelt. Go take a fucking nap. You are starting to sound like fucking M@bus right now.
How about you stop being such a lying piece of shit?
Lying and strawmanning. Isn’t that what you accused Watson of?
Didn’t life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ prove you’re a liar with respect to those claims too?
How about you, fucker.
Are you going to address how life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ proved you’re a liar too, fuckface?
Or are you going to slink away like the cowardly little sack of fuck you are?
@anteprepro it’s sad to see how low people will stoop when they’ve been proven to be liars of the most persistent and immoral kind.
By asking you to provide evidence?
You are a fucking coward. Don’t you have any shame?
@Brownian
Nobody’s proven me a liar. I’ve proven you lot liars. You have no evidence. I do. Evidence trumps no evidence. If you think I’ve lied. Prove it.
You’ve been done for at least 250 comments. The rest has all just been gas escaping. You’ve got quite the excess of hot air, after all.
@Brownian, I’ve provided ample evidence of numerous lies. You haven’t provided any evidence of me having lied. Hypocrite much?
The lying, piece of shit fucker wrote:
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ provided evidence that this is a lie in 181, 197, 214, and 234.
If the lying piece of shit fucker had a shred of integrity he’d address it. Instead, he’s too busy slinging slurs.
Fuck off now, coward.
@anteprepro
This was done when KG decided to start lying and you all piled in to help him dig deeper. What a disgusting bunch.
well fuck. now I am going to have to go through them one by one. fuck fuckedy fuck.
aside from me just misreading this as a restatement of your first claim that you are not obligated to provide evidence, the only such claims are from the very beginning of the conversation. After that, most people decided that you seem to be complaining about KGs behavior. if that’s still not it, I’m sorry to say that your communication is awful because then it’s not clear at all from any of your comments what your fucking point of contention is.
pteryxx derailed the thread; you’ve derailed the potential conversation about whaling seemingly because you took offense at KGs (and brownians) tone.
you’re still insisting these are strawmen, when multiple people have taken this assertion apart as incorrect. it’s not even entirely clear that KG actually thought you meant the things you ascribe to him in 103, since his comments address the pteryxx-comment accurately while explaining why he jumped in, but with no direct indication that these are meant as direct refutations of perceived intent in the comment.
because the extent of the perceived intent seems to be only “I was talking to pteryxx (not to you)”, nothing more, nothing less. since you’ve still not explained what the intent actually was, we have no way of knowing if the commenters were wrong to interpret it that way.
but it is the case. you’ve provided partial evidence for a single claim in a thread full of claims.
you have made a lot of unsupported assertions, by virtue of having provided evidence for only one of your claims so far.
“whining” is not a fact-claim, it’s a subjective opinion, thus there’s nothing to refute there. besides, you could be both responding and even, theoretically, refuting things, and doing so in a whiny manner. not mutually exclusive things.
you are definitely a bullshitter, constantly assuming that people have the most negative intent when making comments. whether you’re actively a liar, I can’t judge.
you are absolutely a tone troll, since you’ve been complaining about KG’s “entitlement” and “petulance” and asking why he didn’t politely ask you for evidence (If you want to know the reasoning behind an opinion of mine, I’ll be glad to oblige if you simply ask. Politely.); and you’ve actually used the phrase “proper decorum”
@Brownian
#254 you lying piece of shit. Dig deeper. Keep digging.
Rare footage of sketchy in the wild
Before you leave, lying coward, why don’t you address how life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ countered your lie about Watson in 181, 197, 214, and 234?
What’s the matter, coward. You too fucking hypocritical to admit you’re a liar in the same way you accuse us of?
@Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
Look no further than the last few comments by anteprepro and Brownian for examples of ill intent.
Hey, fuckface, you lied.
The fact that you gave it up when you were caught out just proves that you’re a spineless fucking coward.
How do you live with yourself?
Hey, I started arguing in good faith, you fucking cowardly puke.
But right now I’d gladly beat your fucking face in, just to make the world a better place free from your bullshit.
@368
I forfeited a claim after being provided evidence to the contrary. That’s called intellectual integrity, not deceitfulness. Although if you think the true hallmark of honesty is to adamantly clutch onto a claim even after it’s been proven wrong, I can finally understand why we don’t see eye-to-eye.
You’re a dogmatic. I’ll happily concede I was wrong, if it’s been shown to me.
Not much different than yours when you claimed Watson was strawmanning in order to poison the well.
Or was that a misinterpretation of what he’s claimed, since we have actual fucking evidence that such claims of tradition exist?
Well, coward?
Sketchy, I’ll have you know I AM THE ONE TRUE TRUTH TELLER HERE! You DARE to suggest that I tell A LIE! You are the one who bathes in distortions and falsehoods much like an infant would bathe in their own feces if not given timely diaper changes! I WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED! I WILL NOT BE MOCKED! Every word from mouth is as true as the sun rising and as the most tautological of tautologies. I WILL CRUSH YOU UNDER MY HEEL LIKE A PARTICULARLY SMALL USED CARS SALESMAN FOR DARING TO QUESTION ME WHILE SPEWING NOTHING BUT FILTH AND FALSEHOOD FROM YOUR OWN DISCONNECTED JAW! Oh, you will see. Oh my, will you see. Much seeing will be done. It will be seen in thirty to forty more comments virtually identical to this one! /sketchiness
(The most disturbing thing is that sketchy fancies seems to quite a philosophy fanboy. Logic goes out the window though when HULK MUST SMASH! I guess using logic while feeling passionately is a talent that is much rarer outside of Pharyngula)
@Brownian. Cowardice is to never admit you were wrong even after it’s been shown to you. I think we both know who the coward is.
AND
Holy shit. He’s gotta be pulling our legs, right? No-one could lack self-awareness to this degree. Right?
Oh, the irony.
incorrect. anteprepro said that you’ve not explained HOW KG’s response to the pteryxx-comment is a strawman. which indeed you haven’t. you’ve only said that it was so based upon your interpretation of KG’s intent as seen in 103. since you’ve not explained what the intent of that comment was, we indeed do not know how these are misrepresentations. and secondly, anterepro specifically points out that you haven’t shown KGs comments to be strawmen (i.e. misrepresentations), not merely inaccuracies, as you claim now.
precious
how so? not all partial quotes are quotemines, you know. plus, he’s not even claiming anything with that quote. you’re confused again.
you’ve done no such thing.
Oh, fuck yourself. You wrote, way back in 85:
That you won’t admit that KG wasn’t being dishonest, but in fact misread your shitty, shitty writing, and then you clung to that claim and impugned everyone else.
I know you think that’s somehow integrity on your part. But that’s because you’re a fucking scumbag.
If you’d admitted that, way back when, this whole shitstorm would have blown over.
What was that fallacy again, with the big name? Fundamental Attribution Error?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
“IIII made an honest mistake/misinterpretation/conceded, but YOUUU’RE all a bunch of fucking liars!”
Link through to his blog, take a look at the man himself.
There’s your answer.
you want me to use the end of this thread to prove the beginning of it?
what are you, unglued in time?
I wouldn’t be surprised if, at this point, almost everyone you’ve shat on is bearing you ill intent. but you’ve been imputing it into almost all comments since the beginning of the conversation, including into many of the comments by me.
Well, you guys have succeeded in demolishing my faith in humanity. If that was your intention, congratulations. Until this day, I had hoped people valued truth, honesty, intellectual integrity, and charitability. That hope has been forever shattered by you vile demagogues. Good night, I suppose.
Yes, because that’s what this shitweasel thinks is argument.
And again, this is all because KG did not ask him to produce evidence for his claim nicely, when he was addressing Pteryxx.
Or whatever the fucking slimeball now wants to pretend he actually meant.
jesus fuck. I actually got confused by the stupid fuck into actually believing he really just said it was a mistake on KG’s part. serves me right to take anything he says at face value. of course he said it was a dishonest strawman, and then moved the goalposts to claiming it was a misunderstanding and that the dishonesty was in not admitting it later.
*sigh*
Liar.
Oh, now you’re all of a sudden unclear on our intentions, when all along you just knew we were all liars?
Honestly, if you can’t hack life anymore knowing this is the case, call me. I’ll be happy to help you end your life devoid of hope.
If I wake in the morning to find you’ve died in your sleep, it will have been.
Like Rove, whenever he calls someone a liar, he’s talking about himself.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
this, from the fucker who instantly assumes the worst interpretation of any possible or real mistake.
Well, that might explain why he interpreted KG’s request for evidence as requesting that sketchy provide evidence before the point in time that KG asks for evidence. I mean, surely, that would look like a blatant strawman interpretation to us mere mortals. But not to sketchy. To sketchy, it was a blatantly offensive request. Not because it is impossible. But because sketchy can’t be expected to violate the laws of causality and bend the flow of time at KG’s beck and call. Time-travelling is hard fucking work. Just look at the mental toll it has obviously had on sketchy. It’s obviously not for your average Joe.
On charity:
When multiple people supported KG’s interpretation of the “I was talking to Pteryxx” comments, he said this:
That’s this slimy fucker’s version of charity. And reason.
He’s one of the worst people I’ve ever encountered on this blog. I hope I never encounter him in real life.
[meta]
Brownian:
No. Just… no.
(Please, save that sentiment for the true monsters)
*sigh*
all that, and we
1)still have no evidence that Walton is a liar (I am going to assume we’re all clear that “a liar” is someone who tells lies, plural; not someone who said one incorrect thing); that he endangers people’s lives; and that he’s ineffective
2)what the fuck it was that sketch actually meant with the “I’m talking to pteryxx” comment.
*sigh*
this conversation was entirely futile; shouldn’t surprise me, but it disappoints me.
lol. that was a formatting fail on 2)
Looking forward to the insincere, bashful apology when you wake up in the morning, when your hours-long barbarian’s rage is long-since over, and you finally realize the degree to which you were a tremendous irrational asshole in this thread. Hopefully the fact that you value “concessions” wasn’t just a blatant lie, like it seemed to be to anyone who was paying slightly more attention to your comments than you were (Hint: Apparently not very hard). Because you’ll have a hell of a “concession” to make if you come back here after having found the tiniest shreds of the rationality you slowly tore to pieces over the course of these comments.
[OT + meta]
Watson, Jadehawk.
(The Walton would be most unimpressed with my weaksauce response to Brownian just above, I reckon)
right. fuck. i give up, this thread has sapped my brain of all functionality.
All of us that aren’t sketchy, probably.
For what it’s worth, that rather vague and broad claim’s trivial to prove. Watson and Sea Shepherd do things like run risky small-craft missions in Antarctic waters and threaten collision with whaling ships. Obviously, they’re risking their own lives at the very least. This is well documented on their own site, in many episodes of Whale Wars, on the wiki… it would’ve taken no effort whatsoever for sketchy to back that up. It still says nothing about whether that risk’s voluntary, rational or justified; but considering the trouble sketchy has with words like “proof” I’m not confident we’d ever get to that level of discourse.
I said originally that he reminded me of the very recent troll, ryanwilkinson. I now think a much better comparison is “chris,” that troll who clogged up a thread about the Pharyngula Shop opening up by getting into programmer skillz pissing match and then ranting and raving about nothing in particular. Also an atheist, also derailed an innocuous thread topic entirely due to ego, also became increasingly and disturbingly irrational as time went on. Also seemed to spend his entire day on the thread. Amazing, the things that some people can get worked up about.
be careful; you’re falling for sketch’s trix. KD didn’t request, demand, or otherwise implied want for evidence; he pointed out that assertions would have to be supported by evidence to become believable (he also said sketch wasn’t reasoning, he was asserting)
KD?
yeah, my brain is fucking friend
No, that’s just you projecting your own pitiful moral failings, as evidently, you are too much of a coward to recognize the ethical emptiness in your own character.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh what a privileged, sheltered life the sketchy has lived, to even think it appropriate to compare what happens here to demagoguery of any sort.
anteprepro:
As it turns out, I get worked up about sorghum beer.
Not that that has anything to do with sketch or ryanwilkinson or chris (that Python programmer with the maddest skillz). I just thought I’d throw that out there.
Because really. I’ve dealt with ryanwilkinson in the last 48 hours. Y’all can’t expect that much more of me.
These “holier-than-thou” atheists are so fucking tedious.
FRIED!!!!!
Jadehawk:
*SNORT*
sketch wrote:
In a the great Pharyngula tradition, I now have changed my nym (the title part at least) to match this particularly hilarious insult.
[meta]
I note Wowbagger’s claim is self-evidential. ;)
@ sketch # 381
Hi sketch, I understand exactly how you feel. There are many who feel the same way.
As a way to let us all tell our stories without getting shot down continually, PZ has created a thread for people who feel harangued by the vile demagogues on Pharangula. A place where we can express ourselves without the sniping and harassment – or the fear of the banhammer making us hold ourselves back.
Link to TZT – the demagoguery free zone.
theophontes – acting 2IC in chief
er… have a “y”
If I hadn’t already understood why the Faroese get so excited about their bloodsport, this here mass rhetorical slaughter of a defenseless animal would do.
I wonder if Sketch will slap the bloody water with his tail a few more times for our amusement.
Raske drenge grind at dræbe
det er vor lyst!
fugleognatur.dk/forum/show_message.asp?page=2&MessageID=53336&ForumID=3
Google translation: “Besides, I can not really feel offended by grind killing.
It’s a huge tradition, which dates from the time when people killed in order to survive.”
What’s worrying me now is that even after reading this thread and totting up the scores, I’m still not sure who has the biggest pee-pee. Therefore I can only conclude that after all the willy waggling and man meat measuring that I, in fact, am possessed of the most mighty member here.*
BOW BEFORE MY ENORMOUS COCK! BOW BEFORE IT! GOOOOOD! GOOOOOOOD!
Now tickle the balls.
Louis
* Dispute or denial of this will hurt my MAN FEE-FEES. Which are IMPORTANT and must not be questioned EVAR.
Well, over 14 hours of a temper tantrum. No other way to describe that extended diatribe by Sketchy.
Shit. This thread is headache-inducing.
You should see it from in here Svein. I stopped drinking on Sunday and I’m still hungover. I’m only capable of feeble humour and dick jokes.*
Louis
* INB4 “That’s all you are and ever were capable of, Louis.”
Hey PZ, why not bring up whaling at your talk? Seems to get the locals going alright.
You’re too kind. I could certainly have been less snarky at the outset, but what the hell – it’s clear someone would sooner or later have trodden on some outlying province of sketch’s enormous ego and produced a similar starfart. I notice sketch’s favourite tactic is that of simultaneously insulting someone and demanding an apology from them. Looks to me like a way of trying to assert dominance. I’d hate to be his partner or colleague. Oddly enough, given his history of serial fallings-out with people he’s worked with, I suspect Paul Watson is a rather similar personality.
@rorschach
Doubtful. PZ’s talk is in Iceland. Sketch is from the Faroe Islands. Although both are whaling countries it’s not nearly as big an issue in Iceland. Also, the grindadráp of pilot whales is unique for the Faroe Islands.
Ouch ;)
Oh yes – source for my last sentence in #414 is wikipedia’s article on Watson, which mentions:
1) His falling out with Greenpeace, which he left early on in a dispute about strategy. He claims to have been a founder, which Greenpeace denies.
2) His falling out with The former member of Sea Shepherd and captain of the Ady Gil Pete Bethune, over who ordered the ship to be scuttled.
3)His dispute with the Sierra Club board, of which he was a member from 2003-6.
4)His falling out with the Costa Rican authorities – which has just led to his arrest in Germany.
Obviously, these could all have nothing to do with Watson’s ego.
Wow. An actual Trollus estdeegoegoi which remained engaged for 14 hours. I do hope the species remains endangered. Or at least rare. We should count ourselves lucky to have had one stay in view for that long.
Oh, no. Those were all completely independent cases. There is no correlation.
Actually, I have a vision of sketch or Watson saying, totally without irony, “I have no problem. For some reason, everyone has a problem with me!”
Seven (or more) people misunderstood the same statement. But it is I, and others, who are the liars. Weird.
Oh for fuck’s sake, why won’t ANYONE acknowledge the important thing about all this thread is how gargantuan my cock is?
It’s all about me and my enormous cock.
It’s all about me and my enormous cock.
It’s all about me an….
Louis
There is only one response to this thread: WTF IS THIS SHIT?
Louis:
Leghorn? or Bantam?
Strawman! You’re a liar!
I am slaughtering you, and you know it.
Damn. Sorry. I asked for information after not asking for it preemptively via time travel.
Ogvorbis,
Perhaps this will help.
Louis
P.S. A local musician sang this to me at my 18th birthday party. Both party and the singing of the song were arranged by my father. It’s a wonder I turned out as well as I did.
Oh and Ogvorbis and Brownian,
You are both strawmanning me, ad hominemininininining me and committing the fallacy of masturbare post factum, you lying liars who like lies.
So hence, a song for you all. But especially for Sketch.
Louis
Mmmm. I love me some adhominy. Specially with some subtractbacon and some divisor black eyed peas.
What would that be as a pizza topping?
estdeegoegoi = Est de ego ego = It’s all about me me! I guess that tentative species may need to be redescribed by someone with a clue.
(tangent…?)
Well, Watson being an egotistical douche, even playing the media, still doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong or ineffective. Anybody that favors direct confrontation over protest gets hated on and called names; and considering how corrupt the whaling and fishing industries actually are, all the way up to the governments and international regulatory agencies, being a raging militant asshole might be a realistic approach.
I’m interested in the Faroe Islands campaign specifically because most of the usual arguments don’t apply: it’s legal, local, there’s no industry or profit, minimal waste* and reasonable necessity*, the whale species they take aren’t endangered or at risk*, the killing’s supposedly quick and humane*, and there’s community regulation, discussion, open recordkeeping, and concern for all these things, plus willingness to debate it with outsiders. (Not talking about sketch here; Heri Joensen for one, Asa for another.) Some of these (*) need further verification IMHO, but if everything held up, basically it would be as close to an ideal fishery as it’s possible to get.
Yet Watson and Sea Shepherd are still willing to break laws and go to disturbing lengths to actively interfere, because shorn of all the emotional kerfuffle, they believe all whaling is wrong. The Faroese generally disagree.
Anyway, that’s why I’m nosing into it. Sorry about the mess.
well, except for the obvious lack of any, y’know, fish being involved.
Which is of course why it’s controversial at all. These are ceteceans, our intelligent holy sentient sea-brethren. Nobody would care if the Faroese were clubbing a bunch of catfish to death.
I hereby describe the species Trollodon estdeegoegoi as observed on this thread by Ogvorbis.
Familia: Trollus (Amphipox)
Subfamilia: Trollii (A. R)
Genus: Trollodon (Ogvorbis)
Species: estdeegoegoi (Ogvorbis)
Wow, with insight like that…just, wow.
So, I haven’t been following Days of our Chas lately. Did it turn out this little dramatic display was just that: another performance art plea for attention, or what’s the deal? Why are you still here?
Note to self: If I want more comments, just remember to post more articles in Icelandic. It’s the ðs and þs, isn’t it? They just provoke you.
Right. I mean, no-one gives a shit about sharks being de-finned and thrown back to die, do they?
Oh, wait.
PZ: I bet the diphthongs are getting some of them too.
KG: srsly. The illegal shark fishing in the Galapagos of all places just made me rage.
What? Uhm, yes, this argument is used. Maybe not in the Faroe islands, but certainly elsewhere. Sea Shepherd certainly didn’t pull that out of their ass completely.
Well, it’s all about the uptick in page hits, or whatever it is that the culture-commenters pat themselves on the back for pointing out.
Thanks, KG, I was about to bring that up. Looks like I don’t have to.
As you noted, the Faroese medical chiefs say it’s just plain not safe to eat anymore. So it will be necessary to replace this portion of the Faroese diet with something else, ASAP, like yesterday.
This leaves out any mention of the hunt, chasing them by boat into shallow waters where they are stranded and surrounded by people — all of which must be terrifying — and then dragging them by their blowholes onto land while they are still alive.
IIRC, you’re familiar with Grandin’s efforts to somewhat reduce trauma in cattle immediately prior to slaughter by constructing an elaborate system of corridors, because the calm or horror of the last minutes of life is important too.
There is nothing humane about the hunt itself. It is torment.
life is like a pitbull with lipstick,
>/blockquote>This leaves out any mention of the hunt, chasing them by boat into shallow waters where they are stranded and surrounded by people — all of which must be terrifying — and then dragging them by their blowholes onto land while they are still alive.
IIRC, you’re familiar with Grandin’s efforts to somewhat reduce trauma in cattle immediately prior to slaughter by constructing an elaborate system of corridors, because the calm or horror of the last minutes of life is important too.
There is nothing humane about the hunt itself. It is torment.
Exactly. THIS!
A.R.:
Species (though in the vernacular) was first identified by Amphiox at http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/16/p-z-myers-slandi/comment-page-1/#comment-338570 as follows:
Pteryxx found the relevant citation over on the The Endless TET Thread.
Woops… (Looks at can of beer. How strong is this stuff anyway?) You know what I meant.
Og: Has been changed in the official Taxonomy. Though for some reason, Amphipox used the Family name instead of the genus name.
Dr Weihe does, yes. Part of my reading stack now is his research papers, and whatever I can find to verify mercury contamination levels in Faroese whale meat specifically. That one statement from the health department sounds suspiciously like “Nothing to see here folks, further study further study.”
*nod* that’s actually what I’m discussing over email now – I’m not convinced that the driving process is either humane enough, or as humane as it could be. The explanation given to me is that as long as the whales are just swimming away from the boats, they think they’re successfully escaping and thus aren’t too upset. There’s *some* discussion of the use of blowhole hooks in the 1999 paper I linked way back when. I’m trying to read up on what signs of distress in small cetaceans actually look like.
The finale of Whale Wars, when they actually try to interfere with the Faroese hunt, is tomorrow night; so I’m going to be watching specifically for signs of distress. I know it’ll be biased footage but it’s probably also the only footage readily accessible.
edit: Holy crap, they’re going to show “The Cove” beforehand. Wow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cove_%28film%29
Brownian: old habits die hard, I guess. Just backsliding; don’t mind me. Have a nice day.
KG: good point. I see from your link that Watson/Sea Shepherd are involved in that as well, which I think is commendable.
(As far as I can tell, though, opposition to shark-finning and opposition to the Faroese grind have few if any rational arguments in common.)
But I only commented because I was amused by that use of the word ‘fishery’ in this context. As always, feel free to ignore me–I’m not going to argue with anybody. And for the record, I disapprove of catfish-clubbing.
Evidently. There’s nothing there about how or when it happened, but given that there are cognates in Swedish and Danish, I’d expect that it’s an old borrowing.
I see.
Did I screw up the taxonomy back there?
Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor, not a Cladist!
However, have we ruled out the possibility that the putative type specimen for estdeegoegoi isn’t actually a new species, but a juvenile (very juvenile) member of another Trollodon species?
Amphipox: That is a definite possibility, however, further study would require TZT containment.
Amphiox: there you go again, blaming juveniles :p. I’m in favor of making it a new species.
“It’s from róð”
A stretch of the Swedish coast north of Stockholm is still called Roslagen, literaly “rowing teams”.
BTW while most of the language transfer went East, some DNA went West. The vikings stole slaves from the areas adjacent to the Russian rivers. Some of them ended up in Sweden, so as Aardvarchaeology (at scienceblogs) has pointed out, all blog readers are by now descended from slaves (and quite a lot of them Russian).
Damnable lumper!
Damnable splitter!
Then again, we may be lucky and Trollodon estdeegoegoi may be a one-off mutation. If there is a sustainable gene pool of this species, we are up shit creek without a flat water pushing thingie.
Now that the bitching about who’s the biggest bitch is more or less over, we can perhaps finally continue our interesting discussion of etymology.
I wouldn’t put too much faith into that Wiktionary entry. The source it references for this claim is not really scientific. When I google on “etymology torg torv” I can observe a big scientific discussion on the origin of the word.
Even if the word has been borrowed from the early Slavs, they themselves may have gotten from another source again. As David already alluded to, the root can also be found in place names of Venetic origin; Venetic being an early Indo-European language that is usually grouped with in close allegiance with Italic languages, but also shows some common characteristics with Germanic languages. A missing link?
Anyway, from what I can glimpse from the scientific literature, there seems to be some suggestion that it is one of these Wanderwörter of obscure Central-Asian origin. Some suggest that it comes from a Turkic language originally, others Mongolian.
Anyway, it’s quite a bit of a mystery, but it sounds like a word that has travelled really far!
sketch, your comment 31 is based on a false premise: reasoning that has led people to atheism is explained on this blog on a daily basis. (It’s hard to imagine that a regular could have missed that, BTW.) Thus, there is no double standard in saying you should have provided the reasoning behind your claim, and I still don’t understand why you didn’t provide it when KG pointed out that you should have in comment 28.
Oh, so it does exist. :-) I’m quite surprised that it has -a-, but that should mean that the form with -o- can’t have come into Slavic from a Germanic neighbor on the western side… unless I’m wrong again about the annoying ъ (can it only come from u, or can it also come from o – Wikipedia doesn’t really tell).
BTW, what does it mean? In modern Russian, торг is “trade”, but that can’t be it in Polish, because you imported handel, right?
QFT.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-D
Took me way too long to get that joke.
No, he was just being an asshole in general, not in specific. :-)
If you use both hands to type and the edge of the desk to stimulate yourself (male anatomy to the rescue!), you can probably type right through the orgasm. I’ve never tried, though. :-)
Well, I suppose the photo counts as evidence, even though (see Josh) it’s not proof.
+ 1
…Oh… so… “it isn’t” does not refer to “whether it’s in order”, but to “the issue over which we disagree”?
Without comment 339, I would never have guessed. Really, you must learn to express yourself more clearly, or you’ll be misunderstood throughout the rest of your consequently angry life.
I’m not being sarcastic here, in case that’s unclear.
:-D
Most of that during the night.
Actually, no: de me. I’d also put est at the end by default.
The family and subfamily names must be Trollodontidae and Trollodontinae, respectively. There are rules about this.
Amphiox.
I’m a splumper, myself.
At least, ‘splumper’ sounds like something I might be. Or be into.
“Hey, Brownie, whatcha doin’ this weekend?”
“I’m gettin’ together with my splumper group, and we’re goin’ splumping. I can’t wait to try out my new splumping shoes. They’re guaranteed not to nemrail while telting, which can put you out of commission for weeks, nevermind getting you fleired by underranking splumpers.
So, all that, I guess. You?”
Also, petrander, bitch is not the preferred nomenclature. Whin(g)er, please.
Possible. Germanic and Italic are fairly closely related to each other (according to the few cladistic analyses that have been done)… but that doesn’t help us with this word, because if Germanic had inherited it from any common ancestor with Venetic, it would begin with þ in Icelandic (and its complete absence from West Germanic would be a bit strange).
Huh. But that doesn’t work with Venetian; Venetian probably died out before Proto-Turkic acquired its loanwords from Middle Chinese!
Can you help me with the origin of ъ?
Thread won.
Thanks for schooling me. This is what I get for doing research when I should be working. In my defense, I’m not a historical linguist.
@ David Marjanović:
In Lithuanian, “outdoor market” is “turgus.” :)
it means market (usually of the outdoor variety, but “Hala Targowa” also exists), but as a verb it also means haggling
ooooh… :-)
I stand corrected! I apologize for my male-chauvinistic slip-up.
Sorry. I am not really a linguist, just an interested layman with a very basic, cursorial knowledge of these matters. For me, I have reached an end with this question. There is a point where there is just too little evidence for my (natural science background) taste, so then I’d rather thrown it on the “we just don’t really know!”.
It seems in linguistic history, a lot of things that seem certain start crumbling away on closer inspection. Take for example the original language of the Angles and the Jutes. One may take for granted that these spoke a West Germanic and North Germanic dialect respectively, but when starts looking into it, we do not actually know for certain. I am mentioning this, because I am involved in another discussion about just this topic.
I found this discussion on Google books (actually starts on p. 64). It’s from Polomé 1966. (As an aside I notice that one of my old professors, Eric Hamp, has a paper in that collection. I can still hear him saying, “You have to account for everything.”)
Well, it isn’t all bad. The text referred to itself looks like it at least is written by a professor in linguistics. :-)
:-) :-) :-)
That’s compatible with inheritance from Proto-Balto-Slavic.
:-)
^_^
Oh, definitely. As usual in science, everything becomes complicated when you look at details.
I suppose we don’t, but textbook wisdom is that the Jutes spoke West Germanic, too, and North Germanic was really confined to the Scandinavian peninsula.
David:
I’m a virologist, I see pox everywhere! Also, I have posted our current classification, please review if you wish:
Famillia: Trollus (Amphiox)
Subfamillia: Trollii (A. R)
• Genus: Trollodon (Ogvorbis)
o Species: assholicus (Ogvorbis)
– racistii
o Species: estdeegoegoi (Amphiox)
o Species: libertardia (Ogvorbis)
o Species: menzii (A. R)
– defensor
– privilegiata
– mysognyistus
o Species: mystikus (Ogvorbis)
– stultus
– mysognyistus
o Species: soni (Ogvorbis)
• Genus: Accommodare (A. R)
o Species: incommodus (A. R)
– atheistii
o Species: stultus (A. R)
– agnosticus
– athestii
– pseudoagnosticus
Subfamillia: Fundamentalis (A. R)
• Genus: Creationistii (A. R)
o delugionistii (A. R)
– hamii
o complexionem (A. R)
o hovindii (A. R)
• Genus: Godbotticus (Ogvorbis)
o repetita (A. R)
o defensor (A. R)
o mysognyistus (A. R)
• denotes genus, o denotes species, – denotes subspecies.
Classification: later. I might even log in at the wiki to fix it.
Angles and Jutes: it has, of course, been speculated that the fairly large gap between the attested West and North Germanic languages is only due to the fact that the Angles and especially the Jutes absconded before their languages were ever recorded and left a geographic gap that was then filled from both sides. – I know Old English had a large dialect diversity, but its existence is pretty much all I know about it.
What also interests me, as an Icelander without any training in linguistics, is that the word ‘torg’ probably wasn’t used in Icelandic for a long time. I mean, today it means ‘square’ (and ‘hringtorg’ means traffic circle) and ‘market’ or ‘trade’ in other languages – but there weren’t any markets or squares in Iceland for centuries.
I think I’ll look it up, and maybe send an email to the linguistics department at UI.
@ KG
Sadly there are many shark fin merchants in my neighbourhood. They have the windows covered and signs saying “no pictures”, so I guess the message is actually getting through. In Shenzhen it is a different story. Shark fins on proud display.
@ lilapwl ॐ
Perhaps it is time to go around injecting sharks fins and rhino horns with low doses (non-lethal) of radiation/poison(an almighty laxative would seem particularly apt). That would guarantee they are illegal, dangerous to eat and easy to trace if smuggled. The Schrodinger effect will mean people don’t take their chances. (Too extreme? The battle for the protection of rhino is currently being fought with automatic weapons. Addressing demand is the only way to stop the problem.)
First you would have to figure out a way to do this without having the track down and capture (with risk of harm) the animals in the first place.
Second, shark fin is a prestige food. It is not eaten for its taste, or texture, or nutrition. It is used as a status symbol for wealth, position, etc. Radioactive/poisonous but non-lethal shark fins would, in all likelihood, be even more prized.
Similarly, rhino horn is typically used as an aphrodisiac/sex aid/erectile dysfunction. It is doubtful that a little bit of poison would be a deterrent here, either.
Screw the rules, David. We have funny!
@ Amphiox
Up the dose!
(Yes, tardigrades have complete disdain for Homo sapiens idiotu and would be happy to see them go the way of Homo sapiens idaltu)
{A. R whips around in his chair} Poison? Harrumph! I can do better. How about inoculating with something a little more… interesting. Some Mayinga Strain Zaire ebolavirus, perhaps?
Considering the popularity of fugu as an edible status symbol, making shark fins toxic wouldn’t help at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugu
How high could we go before it becomes harmful to the animal in question.
Now we all know that sharks are nigh invincible, with magic cancer resistant cartilage and all, but the poor rhino, for all its bluster and thick skin, is just a weak fragile mammal.
As for the shark, seeing as shark fin in its natural state is virtual inedible anyways, and requires near-epic levels of preparation already, I suspect they’d just add on a leeching-out-the-poison step (which would make the fins even more prized as status symbols).
@ A.R
Aah, my distant cousins. No, that would be to much of a shotgun approach. We just need to shrivel up the testicles of whoever ingests the stuff.
@ Pteryxx
They don’t (intentionally) eat the poisonous parts of fugu. If the entire fugu was poisonous (and glowed in the dark) we would have a better comparison.
theophontes: That can be done. {A. R gets up, puts on bio-containment suit, walks into lab airlock}.
Actually, as far as I can tell, some do.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-04-06/news/9201310910_1_fugu-mitsugoro-bando-japanese-delicacy
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/world/asia/04fugu.html?pagewanted=all
@ Pteryxx
We’ll have to up the dosage then. Permanently numb nuts should cure the dumb nuts of their nutty behaviour .
I have nothing to say personally about the Russian→Icelandic “torg” connection, but there was a recent languagehat thread that discussed that and similar terms. It included the following tidbit about a lovely word:
It seems so applicable to so much on the internet.
Perhaps I am tegiversering, here, myself…
I’m with David, actually, when it comes to the troll taxonomy: we must uphold the rules of the ICZN!!! There must be no srewing of rules when it comes to taxonomy! Of course, this is assuming that trolls are animals, and not plants or fungi or something else, because then a different set of rules would apply.
Yes, that is the same that I stumbled upon, and which led me to the remark that the origin of this root is all but certain, that it may not be (Proto-Balto-)Slavic at all, and may have wandered across the Central-Asian plains until it reached Western Europe. Imagine that… Perhaps all the way from Mongolia to Iceland!
You raise an interesting point. Assuming that nothing like ‘torg’ for market place or similar wasn’t used in Icelandic for centuries and the language really was isolated from other influences during that period, it is entirely plausible that the word was artificially dragged out from the linguistic past to be introduced to the modern language, Icelandic being really puristic. That sentence was way too long…
Interesting. It could very well be that Anglic and Jutic were missing links between North and West-Germanic that perhaps formed a dialect continuum at the time over Denmark.
The argument that I have been presented for is the masculine noun suffix -R (or ‘-Z’) supposedly being diagnostic of North Germanic languages. And there is one inscription on the Golden Horns of Gallehus that were found and dated to the Anglic sphere of influence that apparently has this characteristic. However, I am sceptical and have tons of question marks about that.
For anyone still interested in reading up on allegations against Paul Watson, here’s what I’ve been able to find so far.
First the financial stuff:
– One 2005 financial expose by a freelancer, suggesting questionable handling of small real-estate assets between Watson, close contacts, and Sea Shepherd. The other articles I’ve found have been citing this one, with no primary documents.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/higgins100705.htm
– Sea Shepherd’s GuideStar financial report as a nonprofit, most of which requires registration (apparently free) to view:
http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/93-0792021/sea-shepherd-conservation-society.aspx
– Charity Navigator’s four-star rating is on Sea Shepherd’s site as well as Charity Navigator’s own site:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5784
This includes Sea Shepherd’s reported revenue ($9,911,301), expenses ($9,625,392), and assets ($5,681,669) for fiscal year 2010. Also, Paul Watson’s reported compensation as Executive Director ($121,601) which is 1.26% of the organization’s expenses.
Excellent!!! I live in Reykavik. I will be there for sure!
As to whether Paul Watson routinely lies and to what degree… frankly there’s so much spin, exaggeration, oversimplification and quote-mining going on that I’m having trouble parsing it all, much less giving the proper names to it. Some claims are also a matter of interpretation and/or what side one’s on.
For instance, Japanese “research” whaling. From the front page of seashepherdlies.com:
However, in the actual transcript quoting Dr. Gales:
Further in the transcript:
So yeah, the claim “hasn’t produced a single peer-reviewed paper” is incorrect. However, “has produced 55 peer-reviewed papers, generously speaking” while more accurate, fails as a justification of Japanese whaling being necessary for scientific research, as noted in the same transcript. So my interpretation is that the inaccurate statement’s trivial compared to the failure of scientific justification.
That transcript is here:
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1657789.htm
—
This quote’s from a 2009 Telegraph article, which looks very good:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/5166346/Paul-Watson-Sea-Shepherd-eco-warrior-fighting-to-stop-whaling-and-seal-hunts.html
—
Linguistic bonus: A recent article by Paul Watson claiming that the word for the pilot whale killing in Faroese, “Grindadráp”, literally translates to “pilot whale murder”.
http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2012/05/10/the-case-for-mass-murder-in-the-faeroe-islands-535
No, David is right. This is cladistics. It is not supposed to be fun.
I, for one, welcome this input of our Cladistics Overlord!
True, wouldn’t be the first time…
Plus, Icelandic wasn’t of course isolated from other influences. It was a part of the Danish kingdom for centuries. One wonders when the Danes started using the word ‘plads’ (probably related to the Icelandic word ‘pláss’ and the english word ‘place’) for squares rather than the word ‘torv’.
I do however doubt that ‘torg’ comes straight from the Danish ‘torv’ when Icelanders finally started living in villages in the 19th century since there is already another word in Icelandic that would sound very similar (Icelandic words don’t end with an -rv sound, or a -v sound for that matter) and was definitely used at the time: ‘torf’ (probably similar to the English ‘turf’). It’s a noun describing the topmost layer of grass which was cut and used as building material.
But then again what do I know, I’m way out of my specialty.
re: the discussion of torg (and all the permutations)
I keep reading it as ‘torq’ rather than ‘torg’ and have caught myself, three times so far, wondering how a name for a piece of jewelry became a town square.
Fucked up the link. This is the one I was referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_sheltering
I think that probably happened under Low-German influence during the Hansa era. An influence that Icelandic missed out on which is why it is so wonderfully conserved.
That’s right.
Murder is also drab in Danish, drap in Norwegian.
How grindadráp is conceptualized by the average Faroese speaker, whether it calls to mind connotations of homicide or whether that has to be pointed out like we point out the connotations of mankind versus humankind, I don’t know. There can be other translations, but this one is not “wrong”.
Actually ‘dráp’ probably just means ‘killing’ (that’s the case in Icelandic). ‘Murder’ is ‘morð’ both in Icelandic and in Faroese. ‘Mord’ is the Danish and Norwegian word for the same.
He wasn’t the first to notice; there’s this from last September.
Translating “drepa” as murder seems a bit tendentious; from what I can find online (e.g., here) a better translation would be “slaughter” or “kill”.
Unrelated to the linguistic conversation, sveinnthorhallsson’s link reminded me of the sod houses used on the North American prairies, often as temporary shelters while a more permanent wood structure was being constructed. My maternal grandfather, a homesteader, built one when he first arrived on his quarter section, and the family’s icehouse remained made of sod until they sold the farm in the late 70s.
Wait, I have no idea how long the sod ice house remained. My mother remembers storing food there when she was a girl, back in the fifties.
yeah, I was going to speculate that dráp might be better translated as ‘killing’ in some contexts (i.e. this one). Of course, Watson’s purpose is rhetorical, not linguistic.
@Brownian
Cool. In your link there are photos of such houses both from the North American Prairies and Iceland, so yeah – definitely similar :D
What a Maroon: the author of that HuffPo article is a Sea Shepherd volunteer who worked the anti-grind campaign. Maybe it’s a case of failure to credit specifically whose idea it was? (Though, again, that’s my science training talking.)