Zombie Jesus is looking good! From experience, he’ll be looking a bit tattered by the time this thread runs its course.
TZT
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Zombie Jesus is looking good! From experience, he’ll be looking a bit tattered by the time this thread runs its course.
And roll I went in my eyes, and kill, I said to my killfile.
You went in your bowels and discovered you were already there, blocking the bowels???
OK. So now it’s fun time with atheist bots. Ok. I am ready…
Nerd, while we play, would you please play your usual role of the extremely corrupt referee?
If anyone’s ever wondered if it’s possible to vomit and laugh uproariously simultaneously, believe me, it is!
Why shouldn’t anyone believe you, and that, my friend, is the surprising part. If you can go in your bowels to meet your better half, why can’t you do this stunt?
rajkumar,
If that’s the case, then what could possibly be the value of anything else that you could say about it?
Sounds to me like there’s nothing about it that can be conveyed by language. Either we’ve had this experience and recognize it, or we don’t.
Unless you believe that your use of language is more persuasive than the experience of God itself.
Fucking hubris, how does it work?
The most valuable thing about it … that God is a **reality.** What kind of reality? We don’t know YET. But we have got 1000s of years of future before us to work this out. You are I are not the last generation on this planet.
Sorry…
You are I
should read
You and I
Raj, interacting with you just makes me feel as if I’m bullying a clueless kid. Very uncomfortable experience.
So, killfiled. It’s not about you, it’s about me.
If I were you and you were I; i’d kill ourselves
If you mean the 2-1 goal, it wasn’t. Jelavić certainly was in offside position, but the ball bounced to him via Irish defence failing to clear it. Not that it was obvious at the moment, but visible in replays.
Tomorrow France – England and Ukraine – Sweden, in glorious HD free of charge thanks to Yle. Fourth day of games and I’ll have to buy another case of beer…
This is going to a long month :D
Why?
In my 64 years of life, the question had never occurred to me.
Thanks for tell us.
What’s your next line of research? Does it involve flatulence in any way?
I’m procrastinating, so I’m going to fuck with you, just a little bit.
Mostly because I think you’re an asshole, and I don’t really like you or respect you.
But let’s remember this: you have no understanding whatsoever of God. You said it. I know you think it’s a humble thing to say, and it makes you sound deep, but it actually means you’re an idiot. Because once you say this, you’re done.
For now, let’s just remember this. We’ll capitalise it, in fact. RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD.
Well, there are some things that must be coherent, such as logical negations. Can God exist and not exist at the same time? Not if ‘exist’ means anything. So, there’s at least some necessary coherence. God can exist, or God can not exist. God cannot exist and not exist, if ‘exist’ means anything.
What facts? That God does not have to be coherent?
Remember, RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD. So your little “this is not the case” fact is gone. You can’t say it. You can’t say anything.
Why? Because, as you’ve admitted, RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD.
Well, that’s a stupid thing to say. Because assigning the concept of existence would be at least some understanding of god. And you don’t have any whatsoever, remember?
RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD.
Do you follow? Saying these two things:
A) I have no understanding whatsoever of God
B) God exists for sure
Are not logically compatible. Both cannot be true.
You can’t say this. Why?
Why? Because RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD.
Saying the mind is too puny an instrument to know anything about god would constitute some understanding of god. And you’ve admitted that you have NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD, so you can’t even say whether or not god is too complex to understand.
Because RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD.
You can’t say this. Why?
Because RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD.
So stop saying things about God. You’ve already admitted you have no understanding whatsoever of God. Saying anything about God after that that means you’re a liar.
Are you talking about me? Or someone you made up?
Before you start talking about my life’s work, answer one question: how old am I?
What a dumb thing to do. Why? Does god answer prayers?
Just kidding, I know you haven’t the faintest foggiest idea, because as you love to say, RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD.
“Hi, I’m rajkumar.
I have no understanding whatsoever about God.
Now that I’ve admitted that, let me tell you about God.”
I for one have always wanted to know if it’s possible to play a trumpet or other wind instrument with one’s butt.
Caine:
It is your fault that he was wrongly banned from there – you acting as a member and often leader and instigator of a gang of bullies engaged in a campaign to attack him and drive him away (and me as well) and to turn TET into a space where you can spout bullshit and go after people without their being able to call you out on it. Your partial success is not an indication that you were in the right, but an error on PZ’s part.*
That you’re engaged in such a campaign – honesty, consistency, and basic kindness be damned – is evident on this very thread. You could have simply stayed out of the “darling” discussion. You could have pretended you hadn’t seen it. Instead, you couldn’t resist the opportunity to jump in and attack sg. Your comment @ #19 was a completely gratuitous attampt to blame sg for something you would otherwise support. You were wise enough later to acknowledge that Louis’s retort was not OK just because it was to sg (though not without the “I’ll skip everything else I’d normally add”) and then to shut up on the matter, though you didn’t take that to its conclusion and apologize to sg (or Aratina Cage and others) for what you’d gone out of your way to say.
You’ve inexplicably developed a pattern of behavior toward certain people recently that’s been pointed out even by friends. You can ignore people and talk porcupines all you want, but it’s plain right here on this thread.
I don’t know whether this thread will be a space for intellectual honesty and critical thinking (this weekend gives me hope) or whether I’ll continue to comment here, but I am relieved it hasn’t been one where people aren’t safe to challenge comments like yours.
*It would have been fine for PZ to have created a separate thread for arguments, but his going along with your framing, singling out sg, and using this designated troll thread was a problem.
SC, I actually agree about SG. Just because he’s an unlikeable asshole, doesn’t mean calling him shit like ‘Darling’ is OK. Not word of argument there.
But seriously, this is, what, the third or fourth time you’ve threatened to stop commenting here? Jesus Fucking CHRIST, shit or get off the pot already!
I realize that you consider me a subhuman, but I couldn’t keep silent any longer.
TLC §2@20, woulda been a good comment, were it not for the first sentence of your last paragraph.
Tsk.
(That was a combative jab, of the passive-aggressive variety)
Ok. I never doubted you before, and I still don’t doubt you. For someone in your situation, anything is possible. I think I can hear your imagination say, sky is the limit. Yee HA
170 years, 5′ 1″, 250 lbs???
With sufficient practice you shouldn’t need an instrument at all, see Le Pétomane.
As I said, I’m deciding. I’m not threatening, though I’m flattered that my saying I’ll possibly stop is viewed as a “threat.” (And you haven’t been here that long – it’s probably the 20th or 30th time, and on some occasions I have in fact left for a period of time.)
I don’t consider you subhuman. Based on what you’ve written here, I consider you violent, and it doesn’t help that you seem to wear it as some sort of badge of honor (that no one called you out on your “Male Primate” bullshit was expected but also a problem). I’ve seen other aspects of you in recent weeks that are likable/admirable, but your self-declared violent tendencies continue to make me wary, and I don’t like to be in or associated with an environment in which violence towards people or nonhuman animals is not challenged or is excused.
You might say this, fapwit, but you LIE.
Here you are, claiming an understanding of God. HOW DO YOU KNOW WE ARE MISTAKEN ABOUT GOD IF YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD?
And here you are again, claiming some understanding of God.
And here you are again, claiming some understanding of God. HOW DO YOU KNOW THE HUMAN MIND IS TOO “PUNY” TO UNDERSTAND GOD USING LOGIC AND REASON UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND SOMETHING ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF GOD?
And here you are again, claiming some understanding of God. HOW CAN YOU KNOW THAT WE CAN HAVE AN **EXPERIENCE** OF GOD IF YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD?
And here you are again, claiming some understanding of God. HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD IS A **reality** AT ALL, IF YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER OF GOD?
Caught lying yet again, fapwit.
Truly you have no shame.
Pitiful.
Fapfapfap.
Amphiox
Get off that crap. If you ever held the belief that you were an intelligent person, now is the time to deeply re-examine that belief.
This is true as a general principle about arguments of that sort (specifically the retort) – it could be one of the pitizens, and I’d make the same argument – but I don’t agree with your characterization of him.
Raj please read this
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/ob//internet_graphic1.jpg
HATE for the HATE THREAD:
My head is screaming again. I took medicine and drank a glass of water and hopefully it will stop, but christfuck ow. I’ve got the whole weird amplified sound thing going on too, which does not bode well when I have to keep my window open because otherwise I’m too warm but my neighbors have some small child shrieking excitedly at their house. STOP IT CHILD. HOLY SHIT. BETWEEN YOU AND THE MOCKINGBIRD I AM GOING TO GRIND DOWN MY TEETH.
And my paper is fucking stupid! And I don’t mean I’m writing it stupidly, or my subject is stupid, I mean I don’t want to fucking write it anymore. I’ve come up with some interesting insights (male slaves compare themselves to soldiers because of the complicated position of soldiers with issues of bodily integrity! slaves’ skin is hugely significant, and the trickster slave describing himself as a skin-turner (shapeshifter) might have to do with that!) but I’m having a terrible amount of trouble explaining how things are connected to masculinity at the moment.
Amphiox
A person in your position should only ask QUESTIONS. So, I would say, formulate good questions, instead of wasting your time in formulating stupid and meaningless responses.
I’ve seen things I like about you too, which is why I try to give you the highest respect I possibly can and not respond to what you say. This time temptation got the better of me.
And are you arguing that I’m NOT a male primate? What in the bleeding fuck am I then?
Well, my assessment is subjective. I can’t fucking stand how, when SG thinks he has a ‘good point’, he’ll copy and paste it into his replies, over and over and over a-fucking-gain.
Bear in mind I don’t always consider myself likeable either.
Your totalitarian desire to control my thoughts and free acts are noted, fapwit.
This is not a question?
This is not a question?
This is not a question?
This is not a question?
No, you totalitarian thought-controlling fapwit.
Fapfapfapfap.
Evidence!
(Probably also what prompted you to say that, but I LIKE FEELING CLEVER)
Actually no Cipher, it occured to me all on its own, but thanks for the link- I always relish a chance to attack Antigodless.
Cipher, I have to correct you. This is an example of playing the butt trumpet. Please note how he responses to my sarcastic retort by repeating what he said earlier. So this is one note butt trimpet playing.
Of you? Why?
Okay. Sitting next to me, I have exactly the same amount of bars of gold bullion as you do an understanding of god.
That is to say, I have NO BARS OF GOLD BULLION SITTING NEXT TO ME WHATSOEVER.
If someone wanted a bar of gold bullion, why would they come to me?
Likewise, if someone wanted to know something about god (say, whether or not god exists) why would they come to you?
I understand that you don’t know what words mean, but in that case, rajkumar, the right thing to do it to STOP TALKING.
I have a vewwy gweat fwiend in Wome named Lowd Pwetzewnippews.
‘Tis, my earlier comments were perhaps too brief to provide context.
I was throwing up at rajkumar’s “Amen I said.” (His hoping the fetus would turn out to be male,) and laughing uproariously at his incoherency at the same time.
I have three children, all female, and I can’t tell you how many obnoxious YOU’LL BE HOPING FOR A BOY THIS TIME statements I had to deal with during pregnancy. Always made, of course, with my daughters standing RIGHT THERE. It’s a sore spot for me.
However, I’ve killfiled raj. He’s so incoherent I feel engaging with him is:
1/ Futile.
2/ Mean. It’s just not a fair fight. (And no, raj, if you’re reading this don’t interpret that to mean anyone’s implying you’ve got a superior intellect, mmkay? It’s not going to be as funny and clever as you think it is.)
Ri-ight… Caine was able to convince a number of regulars to turn on SG and try to get rid of him. And has a direct pipeline to PZ to get him to act on that impulse. It had nothing to do with his obsessive nitpicking.
Oh, right, he just had to fight back against all of the mischaracterizations of him. He could not help himself.
OK, I’m going to offer a suggestion because a) your paper sounds extremely interesting and b) I’m a professor to my very soul and am compelled to give paper-writing advice and feedback. (And of course I like you.) Might help, might not, might not be something you’re interested in doing.
Anyway… You can use the ideas from data analysis on your own thoughts/notes/draft. Think about reading these as someone who’s trying to code various bits of evidence and statements – to put them in different categories. I’m guessing you don’t have software that’ll help you with this, but you can just create a document with your notes or draft and go through it, giving one or more labels (e.g., “skin”) to individual quotations or evidence or your statements or paragraphs, and then organizing them according to these labels. For masculinity, it would help to divide it into subcategories, like “masculinity – comparisons” or “masculinity – bodily integrity” or whatever (I have no idea what yours would be).
Ideally, this will both help you to develop your thoughts and lead to the organization of sections and paragraphs, and the writing will flow from there. Like I said, this might not appeal to or work for you, but for me it’s a good way of giving my thoughts structure.
I have a question:
What understanding of god do you have rajkumar?
Oh, wait, that’s right: you have no understanding of god whatsoever.
‘kay, thanks. I guess your job here is done.
I think I was very clear about Caine’s participation, and gave a specific and very recent example.
What the hell is going on with you that you would say something like this? You’re suggesting people shouldn’t fight back against misrepresentations of them?!
Will the fapwit ever stop talking?
Will the fapwit ever stop lying?
Will the fapwit ever feel remorse for its lies?
Will the fapwit ever learn anything?
Can the fapwit ever learn anything?
Ah, the ineffable mysteries of the universe! So many questions! Which can only be asked, and never answered.
So, everytime SG has gone off, it was because he was misrepresentated.
And PZ must be in on the conspiracy seeing that he played along in the nefarious scheme.
Caine, pardon the fuck out of me too, but why trigger a whole bunch of people who might think “if only I’d {done whatever}” five minutes sooner, given that it took from “9 June 2012 at 1:50 am” to “9 June 2012 at 6:01 pm” to sound the alarm.
And I would have offered support if, you know, other people hadn’t had it covered by the time I saw the comment because, you know, I can’t spend every fucking waking minute hitting F5 waiting for the cupcake signal.
*sheesh*
Do you need me to explain how painful, how personal this shit is to me?
I was tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn’t affect how your statement came across to me (or others), which I thought I made clear. I was angry at Louis’ bullshit, thinking about my own history with depression and had a lot of other things on my mind, so maybe I could’ve expressed myself better. My mistake. If you’d be a little less defensive for a minute and try to understand where I’m coming from, I’d appreciate it.
Again, I’m upset about how lots of people have been treated recently, not just SG or myself. If you don’t care, fine, but I wouldn’t blame you for everything that has happened either.
That is utterly absurd. If you’d like to explain how you came up with this bullshit, be my fucking guest.
Another question for the fapwit.
Why does someone who has no understanding whatsoever of god arrogant enough to think himself competent to discuss the issue of god on a public forum? With a mere puny human intellect? And mere human words?
Amblebury, I have NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT RAJKUMAR MEANS WHATSOEVER.
So, if you want to know what rajkumar means, a person in your position should ask me questions.
*BRAIN EXPLODES*
(With laughing and kinda weeping simultaneously ;))
Sorry, my mistake.
And you did ask a few questions…
I think I can answer one question, which should be able to answer the rest of your questions.
Question 1:
HOW DO YOU KNOW THE HUMAN MIND IS TOO “PUNY” TO UNDERSTAND GOD USING LOGIC AND REASON UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND SOMETHING ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF GOD?
Yes. Good question. Do you remember the red-green colour blind example? Do you also remember the “trying to visualize ‘no space and no time’ example?” A person cannot explain the greenness of the colour green to a red-green colour blind person. The ONLY way for a red-green colour blind person to know the greenness of the colour green is to experience the greenness for himself, subjectively. It is not possible to ‘explain’ the greenness of green to another person using logic and reason.
Now, people all over the world claim to have had subjective experiences of God or the divine, as in spiritual experiences and NDEs. So, this means the only way to experience God is to experience God subjectively, and when you do experience God in such a way, you know you have had such an experience, but that doesn’t mean you ‘understand’ how this experiences came to you, or how it was created and by whom. Just like the colourness of a colour cannot be explained using logic and reason, the ‘essence’ or ‘quality’ of these experiences cannot be explained using logic and reason.
Now to answer your question, if a simple thing as colour cannot be explained using logic and reason, how could something like God be explained using logic and reason? Does that make sense? If it doesn’t, I think nothing will.
Please Note: No high school science on the ‘firing neuron’ in the brain, and ‘atom bouncing off’ to explain how colours are generated in the brain would be highly appreciated!
Brownian:
You haven’t told me whether or not my guesses were accurate. Well?
No, I’m arguing that your attributing your violent tendencies to the fact that you’re a male primate (like primates aren’t diverse) as though they naturally follow is ridiculous evo psych bullshit of the sort that’s usually challenged here, and that your justification in terms of this – even if it were valid – is the sort of naturalistic fallacy of which you seem quite fond.
For the record: Caine had absolutely nothing to do with my decision to restrict sg’s participation. I do not follow the details closely in TET; I follow the overall pattern, and what I was seeing over and over again was roiling, angry bickering with sg tangled up in the middle. No one asked me to ban him, no one sent me email complaining about it, no one other than myself made the decision. I saw an ongoing habit and decided to squelch it.
You want to know how close to my age your guess of 170 years is?
Pray for the answer.
Is this like SG Derangement Syndrome? What the hell is going on?
SC, thank you very much! I actually started to do that prior to starting my paper (with labeled index cards!), but the project got derailed in a big way when I panicked about writing my paper and started doing the “JUST WRITE STUFF DOWN AAA” thing. It’s definitely a good idea and I’d probably find it at least somewhat soothing too. In fact I’m going to do that now. Thanks thanks thanks.
Give or take 100?
SC: You might have a point.
I spent my entire childhood at the mercy of a miserable fucking small-town shitsplat called Gibsons, BC.
Molly’s Reach! Beachcombers! Beautiful beaches! Seaside Picnics! And a population of the most hateful, xenophobic, disgusting, small-minded churchie fucks you can imagine. No matter how much better I get over the years, it will always be “ME vs fucking EVERYONE” in some part of my mind.
And this is where I’d rather the discussion ends, really. Responding was a mistake. You have much to offer pharyngula, but really not much to offer me personally.
Actually yes. You can’t experience what doesn’t exist. You can experience delusions and hallucinations, and mistaken think they are god. They aren’t, they are your own mind playing tricks on you. Like you think you have a point. You don’t.
A variation of a Fox News theme. Nice.
I see the fapwit, has, again, just repeated the same tired, old, debunked, dishonest fappings it fapped out already many times before.
And continues to dishonestly ignore everything already said to it about them.
The ridiculous perseveration over the color green is particularly amusing.
*Yawn*
Fapfap.
Where are the snows of yesteryear??
If you’d want to post that message right (to my mind) it would have gone as follows:
Try that next time, mmm’kay?
You want to use an uncertainty larger than the average human’s lifespan?
That’s incredibly fucking stupid, even for you, but no, I am not between the ages of 70 and 270 years, fuckhead.
Having noted that, the next time you feel like describing my life’s work as an atheist, stop and remember how stupid you are at this moment.
That’s not so. You’re assuming that I meant what I said in a way that I didn’t.
And me as well. There can be several explanations for that,* and the one you arrived at is incorrect. That’s explained by the fact that you don’t actually follow things closely, which is what I’d suspected. Not following things closely can lead to bad decisions, and I think it did in this case.
Huh. I thought Hairhead said he did. But that wasn’t what I was suggesting in any case.
That’s far too vague to justify the specific actions taken.
*”I was seeing over and over again…roiling, angry bickering with [Jessica Ahlquist] tangled up in the middle.”
Meaningless question for your purposes answered by science.
And how to separate that shit from hallicinations, delusions, false memories, and other scientifically explained stuff. Science wins again….RAJKUMAR LOSES. Film at 11:00 pm.
Rajdumbshit,
Your color-blind argument was dismantled. It is possible to describe various aspects of green to color-blind people and even to completely blind people.
So you know “God” exists because…well, just because…but you know it exists even though you don’t have a single clue about any aspect of this “God” you know exists, not even whether or not it exists. Seems like you’re really good about convincing yourself to believe any bullshit you feel like believing.
TLC, a friend of mine spent a few years on the Sunshine Coast. Gibsons Landing.
You’re welcome! I hope it helps. Please let me (and everyone) know how it’s going.
Brownian: I spent 11 years there, and no matter how beautiful the scenery, I still feel the town would be improved by a liberal application of napalm.
Gibsons is why I despise authority figures. I’ll never forget principal (name redacted) carefully explaining to me that it’s unacceptable when I defend myself and that I bring it on myself by being such a freak.
It’s a funny thing, TLC: my friend went there specifically to get away from the hub-bub of life elsewhere in Canada. Meaning, in particular, the bustling metropolis known as Edmonton.
To get away from authority and the idea of being defined by one’s career, etc.
How odd.
The difference between the colour green and god, is (obvious to everyone here except the fapwit) that the subjective experience of the colour green is triggered and produced by something that is objectively real. And that something can be INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED and INDEPENDENTLY DESCRIBED in a manner that does NOT need to be referred back to the subjective experience itself. That the separate subjective experiences of two individuals to it might be different, and might not even be describable to one another is irrelevant. The fapwit’s perseveration on this point is a transparently dishonest evasion of the simple reality that utterly destroys its entire argument:
The subjective experience of green is produced by GREEN THINGS in this universe whose existence can be independently confirmed without reference to the subjective experience of green at all.
If god is real in the way green is real, then the subjective experience of god must ALSO be produced by a REAL THING in this universe whose existence can be independently and objectively verified.
The absence of independent, verifiable objective evidence for the THING that produces the subjective experience of god tells us that god does not exist.
(Oh, and fapwit? Don’t bother responding to this. This comment is not directed AT you, as you have yet demonstrated the level of competency required to meaningfully contribute to a discussion of these concepts. Any replies you attempt to make that do not demonstrate that level of competence will be summarily ignored.)
That’s a terrible comparison. Inflammatory, even.
I don’t know if you’re reading this, but I understand that as a sociologist and sympathize as a person. I won’t respond further as per your request.
That’s a useless comment. Stupid, even.
Brownian: I’m sure adults who move there as adults find it lovely.
For me it was 11 years of hell. 11 years of having to change course every single time I saw a group of people while walking about. 11 years of people publically harassing me. 11 years of being stuck in class with these miserable little fucks who could do whatever they wanted to me while their filthy church-rat parents snorted into their sleeves… but if I raised one hand to their precious shit-rat spawn, they’d call the cops, call the principal, call my parents, anything to protect their little mistakes.
11 years of having authority figures carefully explain to me, like I was stupid or something, that that’s ‘just the way it is’. That it’s right and good I should suffer so the good kids can maintain their little status quo.
http://youtu.be/l0Y3L0s1m2o
The dishonest fapwit STILL hasn’t acknowledged that it in fact got the red-green colour blind backwards even when presented it solely on its own terms. Red-green colour blind people see green, as near as we can tell, almost identically to everyone else. The colour that they have trouble distinguishing is RED.
“I was seeing over and over again…roiling, angry bickering with [Rebecca Watson] tangled up in the middle.”
*facepalm*
uh but seriously, folks, I’ll go on record as somebody who has observed the dynamics of Pharyngula for a long time to say that in my opinion, sg was treated poorly in the new-rulings.
I spose by now nobody’s surprised if I whine about the gnu tribalism around here. *shrug*
Also, as an inspiration, Robert Jay Lifton talks about how in writing (can’t recall the exact words) “structure is all.” Succinct, true, beautiful. Reading his Nazi Doctors was a formative experience for me, but I also think his general advice is important.
I agree that banning SG from TET was a bit far.
But I wasn’t one of SG’s ‘targets’, and I sure as hell won’t speak for any of them.
And holy fuck his repetition was getting annoying. If people don’t jump on a paragraph as some awesome revelation the first time, they sure as hell won’t on the sixth.
NO.
You, you arrogant, pretentious fapwit, are NOT ENTITLED to dictate to the rest of us what we may or may not discuss in OUR posts.
And the a priori refusal to acknowledge into discussion the material that utterly annihilates your entire position is the absolute height of odious intellectual dishonesty.
You truly are pathetic.
Fapfapfap.
I wasn’t going to get involved in this, but this goes too far and absolutely requires a response.
Rebecca Watson wasn’t actively posting in most of those slimepit threads. In the ones where she was, she only posted a few posts. She was “tangled up” in the middle only insomuch as everyone was choosing, of their own free will, to talk about her.
That is VERY different from what was happening with SG back at the TET.
The two situations are not equivalent.
I don’t believe he’s ever had “targets.” He tenaciously opposes what he sees as falsehoods and oppressive acts. It’s fair to argue about what’s false and what’s oppressive, but that’s very diffeent from personal attacks on him that seek to “other” him, separating him from the rest of the people here and blaming him for discord. (Same goes for me.)
The fact that this fucking topic is monopolizing this thread with drama lamadome right now is exactly why it was booted before. Can everyone please just let it die?
SC, you have valuable things to contribute. You don’t deserve to be othered, and neither does SC. It isn’t fair.
But I’ll eat the shit out of a dead whale’s asshole before I believe that you (and SG) don’t cause at least a little bit of ‘discord’.
Do you appreciate what you’re saying here? Really – follow this argument through – if she had tangled up and been actively posting…
@TLC
Let’s all say it together now
“The Greater Good”
*neither does SG rather.
Oh, hey! No! This is supposed to be the thread precisely for this, so your controlling nonsense is what needs to die.
ING, I kinda agree with SC. This is kinda the place for hashing this shit out.
Sometimes, you just gotta rip the band-aid off, and to hell with all the blood and pus that oozes out.
Do I even care to know the reason why SC thinks SG was and piled upon?
Oh, wait, it was all of the falsehoods that was being sprend about him. And SG’s principles just could not leave them unchallenged.
Am I wrong to think of SG as a vanguardist who advocates the used of violence to end religion?
Since when is contributing to discord around here blameworthy?
I honestly can’t believe I’m reading these words from you.
SC:
Good answer, maybe the only one I would have accepted.
But I still think SG took it several degrees too far. And it was getting incredibly intrusive in TET. Seriously, my finger was going numb for all the scrolling. And then his copy-paste bullshit… so now I have to scroll through the same shit about 10 times.
I’ll tear the scab off a dead whale’s asshole if…no, that wasn’t it…
If the pus of a…of a dead whale’s…
wait
Thanks, Louis.
+++++
Thanks, theophontes.
+++++
Cipher, thanks for relaying to me about kc. I checked TET and was glad to see the list.
I relate to what you’re saying about ideation without intent. I’ll give you what advice I can. YMMV, but I didn’t invent this stuff, so I don’t think it’s too idiosyncratic and specific to me.
I don’t know, it seems like both are good ideas. But at minimum I’d recommend you go ahead and make a “what to do when I notice myself ideating” list, more like the one linked earlier, so that you have a list of easy distractors available when it gets hard to think of anything else.
As you’ve of course noticed, it’s usually unhelpful and annoying to attempt to just stop thinking about it. It’s like “don’t think of a suicidal elephant.” Not an easy task.
So another approach is non-judgmental acknowledgment of the thoughts. When you notice you’re thinking about suicide, you deliberately acknowledge it to yourself; think, subvocalize, or just say out loud, “I am thinking about suicide. That is okay. These are only thoughts. People think about suicide sometimes. Now I am going to go do one of my distractors. I will probably keep thinking about suicide for a while anyway. That is okay. Alright, now I am [playing Tetris].” And so on. Likely you’ll have another loud thought about suicide within a couple minutes. So you just acknowledge that one too, and think/say that it’s okay.
The point of this is to just let the thoughts be what they are. You’re not trying to force them out of your mind, thus you’re saving yourself the stress of that difficult or near-impossible task. And you’re not making them into a terrible thing that you judge yourself as bad for having. You just tell yourself they’re okay, because that’s true, they’re just thoughts, even if they are uncomfortable you will get through them; you always have before.
Janine:
Nope, not in the least.
(I’ve got links to back that shit up, too!)
cheese it, it’s the Russian Mafia!
Chas,
Thanks.
What bothers me is that it looks so much like an ex post facto rule.
It’s PZ’s blog; I respect his property; I can abide by whatever rules he imposes. That includes what appears to be an ex post facto ruling against me, but, I also think the banning is not necessary. If TET is supposed to be different from now on then I am capable of doing as required in TET.
Nope, not in the least.
But what does it have to do with anything?
I understand that you do. But I think it’s a problem of people not wanting to deal with the content of what someone’s saying or their defenses against attacks.
If I, for example, say everyone should read Mad in America immediately (which they should), and I then get attacked by dozens of people in various ways, and I defend myself, it’s pretty obscene for people to blame me for intrusiveness or troublemaking or derailing or whatever.
I hope PZ sees this.
I didn’t want SG gone from TET myself. I did want the endless crap to stop, though.
(I can’t believe I get to make this stupid joke before anyone else does! Joy!)
rajkumar,
Okay, what is the sound of one hand fapping?
everyone should read Mad in America immediately
By which I mean the book.
I read MAD a lot in my childhood, but never ‘in America’.
Read the book.
Not perfect – you don’t have to agree with every word. But, seriously – every skeptic and social justice advocate on the planet needs to read it right away.
rajkumar,
Before you act so sure about this, you should read what Dennett’s written about qualia.
Here is a free introduction: http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/RoboMaryfinal.htm
Damnit, there was a whole heddle thread (and many others, I’m sure) about it at Ye Olde Pharyngula.
Have we gotten any word yet on whether the Sb comments are coming back?
I am his ilk. If you want to presuppose what I presuppose, that is fine with me. What I find objectionable, is that you presuppose, mistakenly, that I presuppose anything specifically.
Coherent – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster …Definition of COHERENT. 1. a: logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated: consistent <coherent style> <a coherent argument> b: having clarity or intelligibility : understandable <a coherent person> <a coherent passage>
Then neither can you.
Puchbug!!!
You just stated coherently that god exists, and may I point out that your supposition is presented as a fact.
But, you already said that I, the ilk, cannot argue with facts. “God exists” is a coherent statement, “God exists for sure” is a coherent premise, and therefore, subject to logic and rational analysis! Note that you said coherence is a non-sequitur when discussing God: It IS YOU THAT SAID THIS.
You have already discounted your claim that I, the ilk, can be coherent when discussing God, yet you have offered me, and my other ilk, a coherent statement that can be coherently addressed, vis a vis your premise, “God exists for sure.”
This is a priori false, because you have said coherent statements about God are outside of the realm of coherence.
Now, you also have offered another premise. You have directly stated that it is mistaken to think of God as a coherent concept. Yet existence is a coherent idea, and you are applying it to the idea of ‘God’, for which you say no coherence exists.
Therefore, you have refuted your premise, that no coherent arguments can be made regarding God, by coherently arguing/postulating, not only that exists, but that you believe God exists as a fact. Facts are subject to verification, because ‘fact’ is a coherent idea, and ‘facts’ are concrete ideas that encapsulate the very exact fucking meaning of coherency.
My ilk’s, this ilk’s, and Brownians’ contention that you are disengenuous is logically rigorous and therefore logically true!
Furthermore, you have, still left hanging, your contention that, as atheists, Brownian and me and my other sibling ilks, presuppose that because we don’t believe god exists, we are incapable of truth because of an existing bias.
That is a coherent statement.
You now have two coherent tautologies to explain the substantial, or existent, reasoning for using in the first place. You re-use, over and over, 1)the idea that God exists, and 2)that atheists just can’t or won’t understand your arguments and propositions due to incapacity.
You employ the fallacy of repetition to try to weasel in unfounded accusation as substantiated and accepted observation.
Get fucking to it, rajkumar.
Also, get to explaining how you can coherently and precisely state a sensical and coherent conclusion about an un-understandable event or ongoing condition, namely the one of being certain that your God exists as fact – and claiming recognition of the very thing you vehemently argue cannot be recognized! Recognition is a coherent process, for godfuck’s sake.
Fuck, didn’t you see what I just said? How could you possibly ever know if you did, FOR. FUCK’S. SAKE.
WRONG. What the fuck is your basic problem, raj?
Fucking follow along here: MANY. OF. US. HAVE. EXPLAINED. TO. YOU. THAT. WE, HAVE. HAD. THE. EXPERIENCE. OF. EXPERIENCING. GOD. PERIOD.
Are you daft? How many ex christians have to tell you that they genuinely believed they experienced god’s presence, and how many ex delusion psychotics and/or chemical trippers have to tell you that we have experienced god, and orange elephants, and that it was real at the time, for you to get it into you that you are not the slightest bit privy to some existential phenomenonand , and that to the fucking contrary, it is a fucking well known and understood experience! FOR! FUCK’S! SAKE!
I’ve already fucking shown your behaviors consistent with addiction and psychological disturbances that lead to denial, of which projection is a major component.
(I do apologize to you if you have addressed my points on this issue, as I miss three-quarters of the goings on here due to the fact that I can’t seem to get email notices from this fucking thread or blog, even though it says I am subscribed, and the email address that the replies come from are both accepted as safe, and in my contact list, and not in my spam, trash, or inbox folders.)
Now, rajkumar, I am going to risk my already questionable appearance of a tenuous grasp on reality right now. Keep in mind that I am not representing Brownian, or any of his and my ilk when I say this, that is merely my opinion, and my not be based on a coherent evaluation of the evidence.
O, shite, I have to go make a call on a client. Okay, here: I think you have some smarts when you want to, and even make some quite reasonable observations, sometimes once in a while occasionally. Now leave me alone, I have to find a paper bag and cut some eye holes in. I can’t even review before I submit this and probably one misspelled word somewhere has rendered my comment incoherent.
Yes. Let’s go back to the red-green colour blindness example again. Suppose I am a red-green colour blind person, and because of this condition, I do not know anything about the greenness of the colour green — I have never seen this colour in my whole life. Suppose you have a normal colour vision, and because you have a normal colour vision, you can see the colour green and you know what the greenness of the colour green is.
Now, we have about 100 grams of fresh green olives before us. Those olives looks as green as possible to you — green as green can be. But, for poor me, those green olives look yellow olives. The colour green DOES NOT exist for me, even if it exists for you. The reason is obvious enough. My eyes can’t pick up that frequency on which this colour is perceived, and my brain gets no information about the colour green. Suppose there were only red-green colour blind people in this universe. The colour green would cease to exist…. This is because there is no colour green ‘out there’. It is only in the brain the colour is generated. The greenness of the colour green exist only in the brain.
Similarly, to have an experience of God or the divine, one must have his or her consciousness at the level where it is possible to have such an experience. This is called ‘raising the consciousness’. The theory is, God is all around us. In fact, there is nothing else and the whole universe is God, plus all that we can’t see or perceive through our senses. But we can’t know this fact because during our everyday lives, our consciousness is not at the level where we can have such an experience.
Just a cautionary note: During these experiences, there is no God who reveal his glorious self in some form or as some being. Something completely different happens, which as I said before, is an experience that can only be experienced subjectively.
Makes sense?
raj
Mike,
Smells like armchair psych bullshit.
What is with me and borkquotes tonight?
Nope, can’t happen, as you can’t separate hallucinations, delusions, and false memories from the data. All you have is wishful nonthinking that what you believe is happening, is happening. Or, you can actually show you are right with solid and conclusive physical data. Or, the option to shut the fuck up about that which you show no intelligence or cogency about is always an option. An option you should have taken a several thousand posts ago…
Yes I want to use an uncertainty larger than the average human’s lifespan, because you don’t seem like an average human. You are one of your kind. It’s a compliment.
And please, tell me more about your skinny trousers.
Hi Nerd. Looks like you still haven’t been able to move on….?
While you sir are nothing but another garden-variety theist who’s just afraid of what happens to him after he dies.
SG is not mounting a constitutional challenge at a public institution.
SG is not receiving threats of any sort.
SG is not attempting to make a public institution more inclusive.
Jessica Ahlquist does not self-describe as a bitter, spiteful, hateful person. She does not identify her main goal vis-a-vis Cranston, RI, as being to hold a community that purports to value honesty to the fire in order to ensure that Cranston, RI, hews more closely to its stated values.
Pharyngula, for all its faults, is not Cranston RI.
Sorry I wasn’t able to go into more detail before. Got pulled away for a bit.
It’s a lousy comparison.
As far as othering goes, SG has taken steps to other himself. He says he’s an authoritarian, for one thing, and endorses the use of violence to combat the spread of religion.
That’s pretty fucking other, at least where this community is involved, no matter how you slice it.
His quest is noble, to be sure. TET just isn’t the place for it.
OK. Let’s just assume for a second that I am what you say I am. Then what? At least, I am not a mindless atheist bot, who is mindlessly parroting his/her mentors’ words and speeches? Like a remotely controlled robot, who does exactly what he/she is told to do. Have no mind of his own, and considers thinking ‘outside the box’, even for a second, a capital sin of atheism.
Why should I? You still haven’t presented any evidence to show your deity isn’t imaginary, nor have you shut the fuck up. Your fuckwittery, unevidenced OPINION, dishonesty, and lack of integrity will be exposed until you move on…Only then, can I move on….
Yes. When all is said and done, I AM THE ULTIMATE WINNER. Why? Because I SAY SO. This is how I should argue with people like you.
Just ask your mom
Who are we parroting SQUAWK? I don’t parrot any atheist. Show me the evidence you are right, or shut the fuck up. Been saying that for 25+ years. Your lack of evidence shows you lie and bullshit. You expose yourself for what you are. There is no parroting on our part needed SQUAWK the lying theist parrot.
Do you actually read what you type? We’ve almost all individually and in our own ways, come to the conclusion for ourselves, that gods are bullshit.
What you write could easily describe theists, who write big long tracts like the one you posted above trying to explain why God is REAL, but never seems to do anything or respond to anyone or leave any evidence, but it’s REAL damnit and IF YOU’D EXPERIENCED IT YOU KNOW!
Horseshit. I piss on the lot of it.
Nerd, I have seen kids in primary schools who were WAY smarter than you. If you have a Phd, then that university from which you obtained your Phd, should be demolished right now using that crane with a huge metal ball. That university has no right to exist.
So you agree that independent thought is a good thing then?
Good. Now try practicing some of it.
SQUAWK Theist speak for I am losing the logical arguments. SQUAWK
Yes. You all score a lot of points in this area. For having vivid and colourful imaginations, in which you all see yourselves on top of the world in one way or another. And you ask me for evidence?
My ass, Rajkumar. It’s theists who think they’re so goddamn special that they have a personal hotline to the supposed creator of the universe.
I am just an upright walking tool-using ape. Another link in an evolutionary chain that has been around since before my species even hinted at existing, and will probably be going strong long after I’m a fossil being studied and argued over by cockroaches.
I piss on you as well. WHEEE! Stand back!
Oh, but it is. And the vast majority of my life has been spent in New England towns, so I know whereof I speak.
I love Pharyngula, and I love Yankeedom. I want them both to be anarchistic/democratic and good.
As have I, as an anarchist. Have at it.
Well, I have already congratulated you on your ability to create vivid fantasies. What else do you need? You are the hero of your own dream, your own fantasy world, your own la la land. Do as you please, as many times as you like. It’s your own world. Your own universe.
And I honestly can’t believe that you hold an authoritarian personality like SG in high regard.
This from somebody who says nothing but vivid fantasies? What an egotist. Still no evidence for your imaginary deity loser.
This sounds more like you. Projection much?
Anyways, go ahead and ask Brownian if he has a towel.
Baggy Trousers
I don’ understand what asking Brownian for a towel means… but Brownian is a HE???? I thought HE was a SHE….
A sexually-deprived middle aged woman.
Crazy, all this arguing for a concept that Raj has no understanding of.
The majority. Not vast. Didn’t mean to deceive.
since I don’t remember ever seeing SG lie, and know for a fact he hasn’t in the last few pile-ons, while at the same time seeing plenty of people lie about SG, I will take this with all the seriousness it deserves.
that, or someone was using bigoted (usually ableist, at least recently) language. And here I thought intellectual honesty and non-bigoted language were worth fighting for?
well PZ, then you wouldn’t know whether your decision had anything to do with Caine, would you. For the record: no one accused Caine of contacting you to get him banned; however, the latest spat wouldn’t even have existed if Caine had honestly looked at what SG asked her to look at, and admitted that she’d (inadvertently?) agreed that something was true when in fact it wasn’t. Instead she seems to have gone on on memory and apologized (which btw he didn’t ask of her) for something that had nothing to do with the misrepresentation in question. Had that exchange gone over honestly, it would have been over in 3 posts. But Caine instead got aggressively defensive, and that got other people to join in in the SG-hounding. Which lead to the ban.
*”I was seeing over and over again…roiling, angry bickering with [Jessica Ahlquist] tangled up in the middle.”
That’s a terrible comparison. Inflammatory, even.nope. it’s entirely accurate, in that it demonstrates that the person at the center of a shitstorm is not always the “bad” one. And that punishing that one person often resembles what happens to bullied kids who fight back against bullies: they get the blame for everything.
this response makes it look like you’re saying that if she had gone in and insisted on defending herself, she would be to blame for the shitstorm. Because that’s the only difference between those two instances: Rebecca didn’t fight the misrepresentations as they were happening, while SG was.
correcting falsehoods and pointing out instances of othering should be done regardles of whether you hold the target in high regard or not. even slimepitters deserve not being lied about and then hounded for trying to correct those lies.
Raj’s increasingly desperate flailings continue to amuse.
I mean, using ‘sexually deprived middle aged woman’ as an insult now?
Um… I grew up in upstate New York and lived in Vermont for 8 years, but either way, it’s irrelevant. An online group of self-selected individuals who interact digitally is simply not the same thing as a geographical town. Whether both are insular, or share similar cultural values, is immaterial. They aren’t the same and the dynamics aren’t the same and your analogy doesn’t fly. Particularly since there are some pretty dramatic features lacking–I’m thinking mostly of the distinct lack of threats of violence and rape against SG.
I’m sorry, but anarchism is not particularly “other” to me. Authoritarianism, however, is. Emphatically. I don’t agree with you about animal rights, but that’s not “other” either. I don’t like you, personally, but your philosophies and values just aren’t as foreign to me as those SG/Pitbull espouses.
Sorry if I ruined your martyr party.
The Enlightened Guru speaks again unto the masses.
Speaking as a sexually deprived middle age woman, drop dead.
Seriously, drop dead and release all of the material that maked up your body for better use by better organisms.
Next best thing would be for you to delete this page from the memory of your computer. And after that, hit the screen with an axe.
fuck.
nope. it’s entirely accurate, in that it demonstrates that the person at the center of a shitstorm is not always the “bad” one. And that punishing that one person often resembles what happens to bullied kids who fight back against bullies: they get the blame for everything.
Guys you are all making the Lord Pretzlenipples very cross, maybe!
So, Jadehawk, does SG’s incessant sniping at me every time he responds to me in any case just magically not count? It doesn’t matter what I do or how severe it is, every time SG talks to me he makes a point of calling me a total idiot in some form or another, or simply attempts to blow up any potential failures as loudly as he possibly can.
But, I guess according to you…
…I must have done something to deserve it?
Ing: As an act of contrition, I shall ritually drink this beer, and when next I fart, it shall send a pleasing odor unto The Lord (Pretzelnipples)
Now where were we?
Setár, you must have lied about SG.
You are a terrible judge of character, and you have no understanding of people.
@TLC
I can’t say if that’ll help or not, no one can understand Lord Pretzlenipples!
Thank you!
None of this should account for the tolerance of falsehoods.
(I find the endorsement of othering to be disturbing. One’s opponents, even one’s enemies, should not be othered. That is where self-defense ends and gratuitous cruelty begins.)
+++++
That seems to be a fair point, but how about when Setar threatened to assault SC a couple weeks ago?
you were not involved in any of the recent pile-ons, so you’re simply not relevant to my comments about the current situation. If I missed SG talking to you somewhere, you’re welcome to point that out to me.
I do know he’s been an asshole to you in the past. That has fuck-all to do with the current conversation though.
Seriously, I’m gonna need to see a link for that.
Obvious, one would think.
what. that I want to see. O.o
A better question to start with:
does this “incessant sniping” even exist?
I’ll go get the link. Ten minutes. Or Setar can confirm it if he comments again.
Can’t your God keep you on a leash, Raj? If he’s any sort of enlightened being, he should have whispered “not cool” in your ear before you posted that ridiculous misogynistic statement.
Hey, maybe he’s not this incomprehensible extranatural phenomenon who gives you groovy indescribable experiences. Maybe he’s a concocted figment of your imagination, inspired by God-talk you’ve heard during your life, that coincidentally thinks just like you do. And maybe you’ve used this phantasm as a tool to feel superior for so long that you now believe that it’s real!
You think that your “God experiences” are caused by a divine power. Have you considered, even once, the possibility that they might be caused by something else?
Five minutes! http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/10/episode-cccxxvi-singing-scientists-sorta/comment-page-2/#comment-335276
Raj, you really are a piece of shit as a human being. I mean, you’re really a worthless little fuck.
Not because I’m insulted by this, but because you think that I should be.
Frankly, SC doesn’t like that about me. But that’s not the whole of who I am.
Oh, definitely. Worlds apart.
Oh wow, SG brought up exactly what I was talking about when I said
I was going to post an angry response detailing some actual threats of violence, but seeing that the hyperbolic bullshit is (for once) not being taken at face value I’ll just watch this episode of The SGBM Factor play out.
Pitbull: Oh fuck, THAT quote.
I ain’t touching that shit with a ten foot pole. No way.
Yeah, it’s not like I’m in disagreement with the general principle. Just that it’s not applicable in this case. Inasmuch as anybody is “bad” in this scenario, SG has been fucking his own shit up plenty. Not that other people haven’t been assholes to him. And sure, he’s perfectly within his rights to try to keep people honest. Like I said, it’s a noble cause. Just don’t pretend like he’s some kind of martyr here. He has explicitly said that he’s not pleasant and nice. So what kind of reaction is expected, then? Yes, it’s bad when other people misrepresent him. I don’t think I have, and if I did I’ll correct it. Yes, he exposed some hypocrisy on the part of other regulars. Okay. And? The thing is–and here is my own hypocrisy coming into play–in the abstract I see that it’s wrong. But since he is so insufferable, it takes effort to actually care. He said he is an awful person, and he’s demonstrated that.
This would be one of those emotional realities that SG is always struggling with and researching. It’s a bit disturbing, in a good way, which is why I’m glad SG is still around, and even SC, but really, this sort of interaction does not belong in a social lounge! And the basic complaint is that well, PZ didn’t make it clear enough that those were the rules for the lounge. Well, there weren’t any rules until it became necessary to make those rules. And that was a group effort. SG can bear some of the responsibility for that as well, I’d be surprised if he claimed otherwise.
I’d forgotten about that! And what a truly stupid comment it was.
I’m sure it was my fault for being all roily and bickery and all.
So if you say I’m out to get you, and I defend myself by pointing out that I’m not out to get you, by defending myself — and showing you to be wrong — I am thereby picking on you. Right?
+++++
If you threaten someone with violence, it’s an actual threat of violence, Setar. It doesn’t cease to be a threat just because you, with special insight only you can possibly have, don’t consider it to be a threat.
you were saying?
Brownian, you don’t see these sweet gems of words coming out of your mouth? If you do, then this would be the first step toward you as a reformed and refined person.
defending oneself is not fucking up, no matter how tenaciously done. insisting on calling out ableism is not fucking up, no matter how consistently done. having a good memory is not fucking up, either.
since I do know you know the meaning of the word “martyr”, I’ll have to conclude this is a strawman. the claim is that he’s being punished for self-defense, not that he’s being martyred. and the fact that he is an asshole is irrelevant, because most people here are assholes at least intermittently.
The reaction I expect is the kind of reaction I get from RahXephon and Stacy, unkind but intellectually honest.
Yes, it’s bad when people misrepresent me. And what I ask is for it to stop. Multiple times I made this clear during the last argument on TET; people can be mean as hell to me; I complain about unfairness, not mere unkindness.
I take it back.
Setar, that wasn’t fuckin cool.
The rest, however, I’m still not touching with a ten foot pole.
But seriously, whether you meant it as hyperbolic bullshit or not doesn’t matter. What SC was doing doesn’t matter. That shit ain’t acceptable here.
Good thing the antisocial elements have been removed.
I can understand that you’d rather people didn’t point out what a piece of shit you are, but the solution to that problem is for you to stop being a piece of shit.
I don’t see how SG is being punished. Being banned from TET is hardly a punishment for one who does not value this community for its social interactions. His assholishness is entirely relevant as to whether he should be allowed to hang out in a social space or not.
Hence my perception of martyrdom.
1)because of course creating a place where people can shittalk him without him being allowed to respond is not punishment
2)because of course making it so his useful (and clearly appreciated) advice to keenacat had to be relayed by another person is not at all a form of punishment.
3)because symbolic punishment isn’t a thing at all, and doesn’t at all have the effect of validating those who have othered and misrepresented him.
I don’t see how SG is being punished.
I do, and I saw it on this very iteration of TZT, when he asked Louis not call him “Darling”, Louis blew his stack, and people attacked SG for the derail.
in that case none of you should be allowed to hang out there, either. and certainly none of the people who were being massive assholes to both SC and SG over there in the recent past, and those who were similarly massive assholes to Algernon before that.
Oops, blockquote fail.
I deeply appreciate constructive criticism, no matter in what form it comes to me. So, I don’t really mind people pointing out whatever they like to point out about me. Having said this, your constructive criticism, too, is thereby highly appreciated. But do allow some time for people to change. How about you? Looks like you are not too comfortable with criticism, constructive or otherwise?
By the way, we seem to have removed all the communication barriers that were causing so much trouble before?
that, too. the punishment, after all, isn’t usually doled out by PZ but rather by the Horde.
Who is pretending that?
Did you forget that this is pharyngula?
If it takes some amount of effort, it’s okay to do something wrong? Would you accept this kind of bullshit from anyone else?
Dishonesty and hypocrisy don’t belong in a social lounge. Doing the wrong thing because it takes too much effort doesn’t belong in a social lounge. Making piss-poor excuses doesn’t belong in a social lounge.
And remember that it’s not just any old social lounge. Is it any kind of “safe” space, for people you don’t care enough about to treat them fairly?
You don’t
know what you’re talking about.
minor clarifying correction, hope you don’t mind.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
I remember that exchange. It stupidly excites me when I actually manage to get obsure-ish literary references like that, because compared to the rest of Pharyngula, I have barely read any books, ever (or seen barely any movies, for that matter).
Also, have I mentioned I’m writing a Call of Cthulhu campaign?
[/pointless aside]
Is that a question?
But to answer, I’m fine with criticism. I’m not a sexually-frustrated middle-aged woman, my ass is not fat, and you are in fact a piece if shit. I don’t care how you take it, since I have absolutely no respect for you as a human being. You have nothing of value to offer me, nor anyone else as far as I can tell.
I don’t think so. Did you learn English in the last few hours? Have you figure out that RAJKUMAR HAS NO UNDERSTANDING OF GOD WHATSOEVER means you have nothing of value to say on the subject?
I saw you yap on about high school physics and refuse to read what actual philosophers have to say on the subject of qualia, so it would seem that the basic problem, namely that you don’t fucking know anything, has yet to be resolved.
But I can continue to point out what a lying sack you are if it makes you feel better to Tut-Tut at me over it.
Thanks, Jadehawk.
Fapwit’s still fapping?
One cannot dignify its activity with labels such as “speech”, “writing”, or “communication”.
No, you don’t. You say you do, you probably even believe it, but as we’ve seen, there’s not much quality control for the things you believe. You’re simply an unreliable person. What you say doesn’t count for anything.
Ing,
We’ll know for sure in 1000s of years when we work it out.
Cool shit. Never played it, though I like the concept. I wish I knew more gamers around my area who aren’t insufferable homophobes. Maybe I’ll pick up a slow paced play-by-post game.
Haha, is it my turn? Should I mention that I got a bit nervous seeing that SG had linked a bunch of stuff in his reply to me?
You’re right, Pitbull/SG. You do value the social interactions in this community. It was wrong of me to say so. It was based on my perception that you used to value that about this community, but recently have gotten far more passionate about being the self-appointed truth-teller and holder-to-standards than about anything else–this accompanying your shift from optimism to anger and bitterness.
However, when I think back to your recent words to Keenacat, and how helpful they were to not only her but also Pteryxx and myself and some other folks too, I know that’s not that case.
Is it true that I didn’t know what I was talking about when I wrote that? No, not really, but whatever. It was understandable that you might draw that conclusion, so I’m not going to get on your case about it. <–See how that works?
As for Setar, I think SG and anyone else would be right to call him out about using the language of violent threats. I also note that SG has a previously-noted pattern of drawing his interlocutor into an emotional exchange, where the other person spirals into an emotional meltdown, and SG claims victory. Setar, for whatever reason, gets very emotionally triggered by SG, and I don't think that warrants concluding that he's an antisocial element or anything similar.
SallyStrange: It was SC he made the ‘punch in the face’ comment to, not SG.
As for Setar, I think SG and anyone else would be right to call him out about using the language of violent threats. I also note that SG has a previously-noted pattern of drawing his interlocutor into an emotional exchange, where the other person spirals into an emotional meltdown, and SG claims victory. Setar, for whatever reason, gets very emotionally triggered by SG, and I don’t think that warrants concluding that he’s an antisocial element or anything similar.
Aren’t you embarrassed to write this? The threat wasn’t even to SG, but to me, and you’re still trying to blame sg for someone else’s actions.
Stop it. It’s awful.
This was exactly what I saw with the Louis, Darling fiasco, from a number of people.
If SG isn’t a martyr, why are so many people trying to crucify him for others’ actions?
Raj
The problem with this is that we are talking about “God”, which is a concept that actually exists. There are different definitions for “God” already in place depending on whose religious sensibilities you want to base your definition on, and when you pick a definition you can understand what you mean by it.
What you are taking about isn’t “God” because if we don’t have ANY understanding of it (from our puny logic and reason) then it follows that we can’t define it. And we did define God.
Furthermore what you are talking about can’t be distinct from anything else we don’t have a concept of, because you need a definition of something in order to treat it as distinct from other things.
So my conclusion is that your argument can be restated as:
“There is stuff we don’t understand, and we don’t understand it”
Good job.
Care to try again?
Obviously, it’s because SG is Jesus.
And he wears an ॐ? Christopher Moore was right.
SC, I’m sorry. Take that as seriously or not-seriously as you will, but I don’t expect you to take it seriously if you’ve already concluded that I’m an “antisocial element”.
I also don’t see how anything I said to you makes that sort of ableism okay, but…-shrug- that’s on you, not me.
That being said…
Character assassination is not acceptable.
I would have been fine with “hey, that’s not acceptable, cut that out”. But saying that people should respect me less for having a single emotional flameout?
Fuck you, SG. You do not belong in the social lounge if you’re going to do that to fellow lounge-goers =/
—
I am not. I am going after his own.
TLC,
Maybe it’ll look like a nitpick to everybody else, but I think that it does matter.
From that same thread, take that:
That’s violent rethoric. The tone is straight. It’s vivid. I think it’s pretty fucking stupid and ugly. But… it’s rethoric. Bad, bad rethoric, but rethoric. Nobody reads this and can say SC is going to do that.
But this:
-that part? that’s what makes it a threat, as far as I’m concerned. Saying that to someone, over the internet? Implying that you could find them? That creates a pretty fucking concrete context for it. It’s a finger pointing at the recipient, where they’re sitting reading it.
Nothing in a discussion can call for that kind of shit. Intent doesn’t change a thing, the effect is just too damn glaring.
Rajkumar sez:
Does that lack of ANY understanding include God’s existence? Because it is very strange to assert that something logically exists, but that the nature of its existence is immune to logic.
If there are reasons that God exists, reason has just understood something about him.
Rajkumar, you have been flogging your beliefs here, beliefs that don’t make any sense and that change from day to day. You are not using logic and reason, and you state that often, even if you don’t realize what you say.
We aren’t going to believe you.
“I never respected you” != character assassination
?
+++++
Character assassination.
For reference, I’ll copy over what I said to Setar there:
I do expect it will. I stand by that expectation. Confusing “will” and “should” is the naturalistic fallacy.
You want to ask me whether I think it should?
“I expect it will” != “it should”
incidentally: evidently, he was wrong. it didn’t.
probably the use of “antisocial”, because of the existence of the diagnosis “Antisocial personality disorder”. Possibly a stretch, given the non-pathologized nature of Anti-social behavior
Tangent: years ago I was shocked to learn of “laws against anti-social behavior”. Not that there are laws against public intox and excessive noise and so on, of course, every US American is familiar with such. But the framing of it, the implication that it is illegal to be antisocial, it is to me the most foreign concept in the Anglosphere.
A self-evident lie, which the fapwit’s actual behavior when provided with constructive criticism amply demonstrates.
Existence is a property that can be understood. Surety is a property of logic and reason.
If the human mind is too puny an instrument to get ANY understanding of God using logic and reason, then how can the fapwit, with its (particularly) puny human mind, understand that God exists “for sure”?
Of course we have been over this bit of incoherence multiple times already. That the fapwit continues to fap it out, ignoring everything already said to it, is just further demonstration of the fapwit’s utterly pathetic level of intellectual dishonesty.
But of course we already knew all that. God might be a thing beyond the comprehension of our puny human minds, but the fapwit’s lack of ethical character and integrity most certainly isn’t.
The incomprehensible is indistinguishable from the non-existent.
That which is beyond what puny human intellect can understand CANNOT, by definition, exist within the reality that the puny human intellect is capable of perceiving.
If the puny human intellect is incapable of perceiving something, then that thing will, by definition, have ZERO practical effect on the reality that puny human intellects exist in.
Puny human intellects, therefore, have no reason, and no need to believe that this thing exists, nor indeed, to even bother wasting any time or energy thinking about it.
And it is the height of hubris for puny human intellects to presume, as the fapwit does, that they are capable of understanding enough about this thing that is utterly beyond their comprehension and capacity for perception, to be able to know that it MUST exist.
The properly humble position that honest puny human intellects should take is to assume non-existence, and indeed not even presume to attempt to think about it, until such time that the puny human intellect has successfully expanded its capabilities so that it can now understand this thing with logic and reason.
For any given thing that can in principle exist, there is only one way in which it can exist, but infinite varieties of ways in which it might not. If such is beyond your puny capacity to understand in ANY way, then all that you are capable of in thinking about it is randomly guessing about it. It is absolute arrogance of the highest degree to presume that you will be so good or so lucky that your random guess will fall precisely in that one in a million million million million chance for existence rather than non-existence.
The assumption of existence is hubris. Non-existence is what a mind with proper humility must default to.
This, incidentally, is just another way of expressing the principle of parsimony.
Oh, yay. Pantheism, or perhaps, panentheism.
You cannot possibly make the quoted assertions if you have no understanding of God.
Why do you persist in doing so?
The color-blindness analogy is false.
1) There are empirical reasons why the color can’t be seen (a broken gene that fails to produce opsins that will react to that frequency of light in the cone cells of the eye).
2) There are empirical methods that will demonstrate the existence of the color that can’t be seen (colored filters).
3) There are empirical methods that could potentially resolve the problem (it’s been demonstrated that gene therapy can restore color vision in monkeys that are color-blind).
None of the above apply to your incoherent God.
1) Arguing that the universe is God is not proof that the universe is God. If the universe is not a person, then it’s simply equivocation to claim it should be called “God”. If the universe is putatively a person, well, that’s an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
2) Humans cannot directly “experience” the entire universe as incoherently claimed. No matter how many neurons and synapses the brain has, the universe has orders of magnitude more stars, empty space, dark matter, and dark energy. No mapping is possible for such an experience to occur.
I knew there was a reason I had thought that SG was like Piltdown Man, but I had forgotten the point that both supported violence against thoughtcrime.
Heh.
And to think people worry about being in the thread with the specimens active.
(This one is tame, by now)
—
So, ॐ, I guess I was wrong when I called your persistence futile: you did achieve something.
(And you still have all of FB and Pharyngula in which to roam, with but the one exception. So the punishment is rather symbolic, no?)
This. Rajkumar does nothing but ooze hubris and arrogance.
That is, when he isn’t talking about DIVINE BOOBIES and THE GREENNESS OF GREEN.
While I agree that there was quite a bit of flagrant dishonesty about SGBMॐ, sometimes to a ridiculous extent (and some of which might well have been deliberate lying, especially shortly before he was cast out) — SGBMॐ himself was not quite as honest as his appeal to the shared value of honesty might imply.
Case in point: His repeated insistence that “abuse” could only refer to actions by an intimate partner, which he was not — and said that at least one person (Ms. Daisy Cutter) was a liar, for not interpreting “abuse” as narrowly as he was…
Well, this is uncharitable equivocation, as I see it, which is at least potentially dishonest, and might well be deliberate enough to be called “lying”, or with sufficient unconcern for the truth (that is, that “abuse” can have different definitions) to be called “bullshitting”.
It occurred to me that rather than “enemy” or “stranger”, he was striving for a term more like “alien” (which in turn made me wonder if he feels alienated).
But regardless of whether he is a friend or a stranger (or an alien), if he does actually value honesty, then he owes his interlocutors the honest charity that they are simply using or understanding words in a different sense, or have made honest mistakes (in at least some of the cases in that thread) rather than outright lied.
I vehemently deny these accusations, and encourage you to do some self reflection and some introspection. Don’t be too surprised if these practices reveal an urgent need for some home improvement work, and some spring cleaning. If you are open to constructive criticism as I am, then I would say, there is more improvement needed in you than you could have possibly imagined.
that didn’t happen. what actually happened is that the specific kind of abuse his actions were being compared to was intimate partner abuse; which he kept on trying to point out repeatedly.
if the link is supposed to be to that instance of calling someone a liar, then the example is of correctly identifying a lie; he had pointed out multiple times that he was not complaining about meanness, and thus repeating that after having it corrected multiple times is a purposeful misrepresentation. also commonly known as a lie.
how many times does one have to point out the incorrectness of a statement before repeating it becomes purposeful misrepresentation rather than a mistake?
Amphiox
You have an excellent memory and an out-of-this world grasp on some hardcore philosophical crap. But this is PRECISELY what we do not need here. NO MIND. Remember? And after all that explaining, all you can do is pull more and more of this mind crap and verbiage out of your back side? Please don’t do it. It hurts when you do it…..
Hey, rajamuffin.
Hardcore philosophical crap, right out!
NO MIND.
<snicker>
The paiiiiiiiiiiiiin! The paaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin!
(How dare we use our minds!)
No, Johnnie. By all means, use your minds. But use them for some real world problems. Not mere mental concepts that have no real application in the world. You know what I am saying?
You, for example, have previously used your mind to imagine Tim Robbins’ bowel movements. What useful purpose does this kind of mind work serve in the real world?
rajkumar:
Such an ingrate, you are; I praised you, and you whine about it.
(How’s your trolling going, rajcummer? Still praying to be banned?)
Who gives a shit what you think? You do need to look in the mirror. No introspection on your part, especially about the concept you can be wrong. And you are wrong…
Technically, it’s not lying if Ms. Daisy Cutter just couldn’t believe that sgbm actually meant what he said and thus accused him of lying (to himself or others). Extreme anger and other forms of extreme agitation can move many people into this state of mind – so that the agitation ends up perpetuating itself, if not boosting itself. (And naturally, if the other people in the discussion aren’t ideal stoics, their agitation will be sustained or increased as a result, too, leading to yet more feedback.)
Of course, I haven’t caught up, so I don’t know if there’s the slightest shred of evidence that sgbm didn’t mean what he said.
It happens a lot that people believe opinions only come in packages that cannot be dissolved, so that, if any given person has an opinion that belongs to such a package, they automatically have the whole package or none of it. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find that Daisy (and many others) fell for that extremely widespread fallacy, which regularly causes people to overlook or misunderstand statements that don’t fit it or, more or less unconsciously, explain them away in ways as complex as “they’re lying to themselves, they can’t possibly really mean what they’ve been saying all the time”. Disclaimer: this has been a pet peeve of mine since I was… oh, maybe 8; definitely less than 11.
I hope sgbm and Daisy, if they’ve calmed down now, can weigh in on this. I’ll try to catch up with the whole thing – but unfortunately I won’t have time for almost a month. :-(
WRONG. It is precisely what is needed to refute your inane and insane drivel. You haven’t proven your imaginary deity, you haven’t shown any evidence for any of your ideas. They aren’t proven via mental masturbation, only with physical evidence. YOU KEEP LYING TO YOURSELF, AND THEN LIE TO US.
*eyeroll* Does everything need to have a practical purpose?
Perhaps you believe that imagining someone’s bowel movements is a waste of precious resources that will then be unavailable for more useful pursuits? That would be stupid.
Wait, I take a peek in here after such a long time and Raj is still here?! Wow!
“SG-hounding”? SG as the major victim? Caine as the bad and evil person making us all persecute SG? No, I cannot swallow any of those. I have little use for SG’s style of scorched earth interaction and less for those who defend him. Hatred may pass for intellectual honesty, but it really is not the same.
It was a mistake to try and come back as things are worse than when I previously stopped reading and responding. Easily rectified.
JeffreyD, this is one thread, TET is one thread; there are many threads.
Only us old farts remember you; your repulsion has little weight these days.
(You flouncing?)
life is like a pitbull with lipstick ॐ, @ #119
I wish! LOL, it is just the bs part, with that part that sounds like armchair psych added in. This all happened during the Michelle ta-ta episode where Jung was mentioned, so I want all Freudian with the Oedipus thing. It was very advanced and convoluted bs.
I remember in Grade 11 when we had the Shakespeare Final on Hamlet, and I got 70%. The teacher(one of the best I had; good sense of humor and sharp as a tack) said to me when he handed the results back, “That’s the best example of bullshit I’ve ever seen. You didn’t even read it, did you,”
That was my ‘a-ha’ moment.
No, yours is a false analogy. The experience of the color green is inter-subjectively verifiable: Intersubjective verifiability is the capacity of a concept to be readily and accurately communicated between different individuals (“intersubjectively”), and to be reproduced under varying circumstances for the purposes of verification. It is a core principle of empirical, scientific investigation.
Even a blind man can accept the realism of a color perception experience in others because it can be explained coherently as an analogy to the other senses like hearing sounds of variable pitch with almost universal agreement in the explanations by the others.
This is a consistent and straight across comparison to experiences of perception right down to the physics of wavelengths and neuro-chemical activity that is triggered in the brain.
You, on the other hand, say that one half of your analogy is not understandable in any way such that you cannot describe it in any way because you said the experience is incoherent to our understanding.
I already said that your colorblind simile is a false analogy. You employ a text book case of the false analogy, which I will do all the work for you and copy the definition and exceedingly understandable definition from wikiprdea for you right now:
Now, I have directly explained that your ‘experience’ of god is not of the same type as sensory perception. By your own account, it is an incoherent idea, and I have now explained that perception is a coherent idea exactly because it is a complete idea that can be communicated among each other and understood the whys and wherefors.
YOU EVEN SAID IT THUS:
NO, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
The fucking experience you claim is not intersubjectively verifiable because other people claim to have this experience yet DO explain it coherently as according to their religions, which are in opposition to each other. On top of that, I HAVE HAD ‘AWAKENINGS’ in which I became sure that ecerything made perfect sense and had sublime meaning because there was no fucking thing as a god to cheapen it and detract from its beauty!
Now here is another analogy for you. You claim to have this sense of something revealed to you that cannot be communicated, nor explained.
I, other religious proponents, and at least grumps – among others here, claim to have had intensely personal experiences of the same type and persistence, yet reach different conclusions from YOU.
Furthermore, we have theories about why these experiences manifest as they do, and those theories are subject to experimental verification and explanation, and intersubjective comparison and verification. You have no such thing.
Therefore, what you describe is incoherent with all other overwhelming amounts of reported phenomena.
I know you can understand this, raj, because I think you have demonstrated the brainpower to produce an analogy that is coherent(!), and it’s only failing is that one of your premises is incoherent and unverifiable, whereas you argument rests on the fallacy of structural equivalence being the same as contextual equivalence.
I cannot believe(figuratively) this post by me is so stunningly and precisely rigorous and relevant!! Oh, wait, premature celebration, lol, not done yet. (Another lol, an allusion to my bs psychology ‘premature’ insult).
What you have, it seems to me, is an ordinary ‘extra-ordinary’ experience that many others have had, but that you claim is not communicable(lol, lilapbwl, another allusion, but one to sex) because it is beyond understanding(coherent) and explanation. This has been washed, and hung out to dry with all the other diapers(allusion to impending childbirth, congratulations! Also, ca-ca conamination) by myriad others like Brownian(most recent in my memory), for example.
We all have demonstrated, and reached logical conclusions, that your feeble rationalizations and false analogies are mere evasions, which I pointed out is a form of denial, if genuinely presented(demonstrated by your projections just kidding bs warning), or culpable lies designed to introduce red herring discussions.
What am I saying? This: Put up, or shut up.
Mercifully…. Fin
And now for something completely different: The Catholic Archdiocese of Bombay threatens to get Sanal Edamaruku locked up for a long time because he showed the water seeping out of a Jesus statue was from a leaky pipe, not a miracle. Sign the petition that calls on the Archdiocese to withdraw their incredibly stupid complaints.
Anyone else see how this true statement about SG:
got twisted into this one, questionable at best?
So, Sally Strange, when you say this:
it must be the political system you object to, right? Because it means something like ‘fascism’ I guess?
Because you’re in no position to be criticizing anybody else’s authoritarian personality, what with the all-caps demands of strangers on the internet and shit like the following assertions:
Because you say so? Because Caine sez so? PZ?
For the record, the Endless Thread was never just a ‘social lounge’. Never. Caine and the recipe-swappers liked to refer to it that way, but until the recent decree from On High, it was an Open Thread. period. Many things to many people.
But see, the New Rule was, specifically, that the thread was to become a social lounge. It wasn’t already a social lounge without rules. It was an Open Thread, many things to many people, which is why there were previously no rules, including the new rule that states ‘it’s [now] a lounge’.
The other new rule is ‘no SGs allowed’.
In decreeing both new rules, PZ clearly capitulated to the wishes of the metaphorical Russian Mafia, who were able to impose their view of the proper ‘sort of interaction’.
In fairness to SG, IIRC what he has specifically advocated is the “violent suppression of priests”. Surely priests are liable for crimes of action rather than thought.
Oh, no! Rajkumar, but look at the word DENY. Denying something means you will be in DENIAL.
Remember when you used those words, because you thought they were some profound insight? Well, right back at ya, fucker.
And Rajkumar, save the advice for yourself. You’re a misogynistic, lying, piece of shit. My need for self-improvement is irrelevant to what a terrible, pathetic excuse for a human being you are.
Raj
I think I finally get you. You want everything to be summed up in trite comforting little packages, and you think that people like us are all “super dumb” for being willing to treat things as complicated and messy. Is that a fair statemnent?
I don’t understand why you persist in posting bad arguments on a public forum and then flip out when people point out the badness.
Here is a clue; I don’t get paid to post here, so when I’m responding to you I’m on break from solving real world problems. Refuting you is exactly the kind of soothing mindless activity I want to be doing while sipping coffee.
Indeed. I miss those days.
Things change. They evolve. It was clear to me that many people wanted a social lounge, and that function conflicted with it’s use as a wide open thread where anything goes. So now I’m maintaining TZT, which is exactly what some of you want in an open thread — nearly lawless wild anything-goes discussion — and TET — the social site where I expect people will at least try to get along and look on each others’ views with a modicum of charity.
I sense that you look on some people’s desires to be social in a friendly way with some contempt — calling them “recipe swappers” — but I don’t. It’s just a different side of the diverse collection of pharyngula readers, and I have no objection to their existence, just as I don’t object to the rhetorical knife-fighters. Setting up different areas to allow different views to thrive seems to me an entirely reasonable idea.
So you really have nothing to complain about. If you don’t like swapping recipes, you’ve got TZT.
And oh, yeah, NEW TZT THREAD.