This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
This is Thunderdome, the unmoderated open thread on Pharyngula. Say what you want, how you want.
Status: UNMODERATED; Previous thread
dysomniak wrote:
Well, at least it’s in the ‘Educational’ forum. I just don’t know if anyone’s going to bother replying to someone who almost certainly is going to turn out to be a troll.
FFS, this is why I’m done with the Richard Dawkins and friend club house.
Atheism: A group of fucking idiots who are convinced they’re brilliant.
Ing wrote:
Yeah, I’d come very close to unfollowing him before, but that was that last straw.
Why can’t I just be an atheist?
Why do I hafta join a club?
It’s a little difficult to respond to the comments here given the nature of the multiple discussions, but I’m honestly now at a loss as to what we at HCH are being accused of. I tried to clarify what our position towards religion is, and as far as I can tell no one who has come to terms with what I’ve posted on that front has much criticism of it. As so often on FTB comment threads it seems like people are criticizing a fantasy. If someone could clarify the problem they have, perhaps with reference to specific events or posts we’ve made, that would help a lot.
One thing I can clarify is why it’s easier to change the title of the HCH organization than to change Greg’s title – that’s actually quite easy to explain:
The HCH is an independent 501c3 which receives no funding from Harvard whatsoever. We can basically do what we like with it (hence we can change the name). Greg is also an employee of Harvard University, where he is one of the Chaplains. Harvard gets to determine what they title their employees. In case you’re wondering, it’s not like Greg actually uses that title in the community at our Sunday meetings or anything – he’s just “Greg”.
@iflcroft
After all the discussion the fact that you still don’t get people’s problem with HCH is frankly due to user error.
HAHAHAHAHAH links to A Voice For Men HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
pathetic. we left them the entire dictionary atheist movement to play in, and they follow us anyway.
I don’t argue well with James. I’m going to lurk.
After all is said and done, I have less of an issue with the Harvard folks than I once did, probably because Atheism+ makes me wonder if I’m more aligned with groups like HCH than, say, the JREF.
So, I won’t add to the confusion, for awhile.
Jadehawk wrote:
There they could convince themselves their inane tweeting and d00dbro backslapping was ‘helping the movement’, and that they were better people than the religious. Now we’ve come along and told them in no uncertain terms that a) we don’t care what they think, and b) they aren’t better than the religious in several very important ways, they’re fucking furious, and I suspect they’re not going to let it go until we come back and give them each a cookie.
@Ing:
I don’t find the arguments I’m being presented with to be at all cogent. I honestly think that a lot of the criticism is based on a complete misconception of what we do at HCH, and I’d like to try to clear things up if I can. It may be that there are unbridgeable differences in values here that we won’t resolve, but at the very least let’s get the differences on the table. What I’m looking for are clear, honest and frank disagreements based on accurate information on what we’re about.
In re the silliness with Fincke… It occurred to me while I was looking at Greta Christina’s comment policy that she’s actually got a fairly strong stance on civility in her space as well. So I was thinking there might be some value in explicitly comparing/contrasting what she’s got with Dan’s take on the issue, in order to help explain why he’s getting so much pushback, while her policy is accepted with little fuss.
Here’s the link to Greta’s policy, for reference:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2011/09/09/comment-policy/
Your Thoughts?
@ Anne
To me, the main difference between Greta and Dan is that Greta is not making any grand claims about whether it’s inherently abusive to call a misogynist asshole a misogynist asshole, and that that brings you down to the misogynist’s level somehow. She’s just saying that she doesn’t want that language in HER space.
It’s the same as with the accomodationists: they wouldn’t get nearly so much flack if they’d stop claiming that theirs is the BEST and ONLY way to change hearts and minds, and that everyone else is mean and nasty for not doing it their way.
In re NHBU, I would just like to say, hahahahahaha…
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/08/27/mencallmethings-whining-annoying-cunt/#comment-91529
———
Sally, I suspect you’re right that that’s the major difference. That’s sort of the one that was circling around in my brain too. I wonder if Fincke has considered that…
Paul,
Thanks. This will be noted.
I was in an argument with him, and though it wasn’t very significant, I had a half-memory that there is something wrong with him. I still don’t remember what it was, but this says quite enough about him for me to remember and consider if we ever converse again.
It’s fun to see the same accusations thrown at New Atheism getting hurled back at Atheism+. How long before we start hearing “strident” and “militant”?
Then you have not explained what that distinction is. Judaism is not compatible with Shintoism in the sense that you can’t consistently follow both, but they are both religions. If you mean it’s naturalistic, so are certain strands of Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity.
You (Harvard Humanists) appear continually to be trying to have it both ways, and this is evident in your comments here. First you claim that “chaplain” is a non-religious term, then when people show that this is rubbish, you fall back on saying Harvard insists on it. Why not say so initially? Have you asked if you could change it? First you say you borrow from religious organizations, and that by “religion” you mean everything that religious organizations and individuals do, then you say you’re not taking anything specifically religious from them. If people are confused about what HCH stands for, maybe it’s because HCH is confused about what it stands for, or confusing in how it explains it.
However, there does appear to be one very clear difference between HCH Humanism, and Atheism+: the latter is, most definitely, antireligious.
Well, finally Jane responded to my previous gay marriage email. Here’s the response I showed here before and her response to it, with mine in blockquotes. I apologise for the length, but yeah she does that when she responds. I have my own ideas about what to say to her, but any help here first would be massively beneficial:
Jane:Lets look at things at a completely secular, rational, historical, cultural perspective. marriage has always been defined as between man and a woman. Always. If you want to create a mirror legal contract that creates the same rights and privileges that are bestowed in the marriage between a husband and a wife, a groom and a bride then fine but that is not a marriage. You could call a lisianthus a rose because it kind of looks like one and the care is almost exactly the same but it wouldn’t be a rose. From a historical and philosophical context then it would be a completely new thing. Sure I mean it might feel good to force people to call it a marriage but when you try to force something on a group of people you actually hurt that philosophical evolution. Take a look at reconstruction, the redeemer south and jim crow.
Here its like this, Its like a security guard at a mall wanting to be called a police officer. A police officer is a person who’s typical duties relate to keeping the peace, law enforcement, protection of people and property, and the investigation of crimes.
Mall Securty guards do all the same things but do not receive the same respect or benefits as a police officer in society. Should we call all security guards police officers because their jobs aren’t seen as equal in society?
Jane: In the 1890s and 1900s, evolution was thoroughly embedded in science curriculums and treated as fact and even teachers’ journals reminded educators not to neglect teaching evolution. If a state decided to change the curriculum id probably do what I do now when I see Texas changing their textbooks for conservative viewpoints … I cringe.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Trial_and_Error.html?id=LlSS2UEXpiYC P19-23
Jane: He was an employee of the state of Tennessee or of a municipal agency of the state. He was under contract with the state to work in an institution of the state. He had no right or privilege to serve the state except upon such terms as the state prescribed. His liberty, his privilege, his immunity to teach and proclaim the theory of evolution, elsewhere than in the service of the state, was in no wise touched by this law. The law also forbade the teaching of eugenics and Women’s inferiority (a fact taken for granted by most scientists in the 1800s) as major proofs of evolution by natural selection. So maybe it wasn’t so bad.
The decision didn’t burn a book, didn’t outlaw the teaching of it in private schools, colleges or even a majority of high schools in the US. So yeah, if you don’t like it? Go to a private school or teach it at home. Its what my dad did when he looked at it.
According to Paul J Wendel at Kent State, In the late 1940s, Estelle Laba and Eugene Gross mailed surveys to all of the 64 biology teachers in Essex County, NJ (Laba & Gross, 1950). Twenty-nine of these (45%) responded. Eight of these 29 teachers (28%) reported that they did not discuss evolution as a regular part of their courses, while 72% reported that they include evolution. Eighteen of the 21 teachers who presented evolution (62% of all teachers surveyed) included human evolution in their courses.
Jane: Define ethics? Look at the damage that trying to force a population to accept a group of people in the 1870s. I don’t think that a homosexual marriage is a marriage as defined by over 2000 years of history. We could call it that but it wouldn’t be the case. I mean sure they are similar and should be allowed access to the same rights and privileges. I do not want to prevent people from the cultural touchstones of marriage in their union. I think that if a minister is willing to marry them then it should be allowed. I think they should be able to live together and raise children and put eachother in their wills and adopt eachother’s kid. All of those things do not require the title of marriage. There is a clear definition to what marriage is. Why change it? What is being denied?
It would be like calling something that is a philosophy a science. Intelligent design is being discriminated against by not calling it a science right? I mean a large number of people consider it one. Wouldn’t it be ethical for it to be considered a science? I mean what is falsifiability? Why not call the ID philosophers ontic scientists? I mean you should want equality in all intellectual pursuits? Why don’t we call everything that is a systematically organized body of knowledge a science? It would be more fair in a purely ethical stance. I mean we would want all those sciensesque philosophers to feel equal with the things that have been traditionally called science. I mean Philosophy is a purely valid academic pursuit and available to federal funds already but it is denied the cultural standing of science. Lets broaden the definition of science so its more inclusive. That would be the ethical thing to do. (this paragraph is a rhetorical argument not meant to be a factual statement).
Jane: Even though you didn’t mention it, I know where you think I get my moral position on gay marriage from, and how does Strauss V Horton deny entirely equal in both marriage and the ability to raise children to straight couples? “It is only the designation of marriage—albeit significant—that has been removed by this initiative measure.” The Rights and privileges of California law given to both married and same sex partnerships are unaffected by the constitutional amendment. This law
“Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. “
Still stands . If this was true (across both state and federal law) then what is the flaw in this existing legislation that doesn’t remotely stack up when subjected to secular and rational analysis?
The only rational/secular argument you have given is BECAUSE ITS NOT FAIR!!! And stamped your feet. You want me to define why I don’t want to change the status quo without defining why you do.
Jane: No I think that’s wrong. I think that the law I cited before should be instituted at a federal level. Calling it marriage on a state level has no binding on the federal government tho. So even if Strauss V Horton happens and they get called marriage, they STILL wouldn’t get those benefits. So your cure would not work. It wouldn’t matter what you called it.
Jane: I believe there should be a federal civil unions law that would allow all couples to be able to register their union and thus be guaranteed the rights in which they legally registered their license. It would be treated like a prenuptial agreement.
Jane: No, that person broke the law. That’s ignorance of the law whether you called it marriage of not. There is a system already in place to punish the lawbreaker. She BROKE THE LAW, Calling it something else wont stop people from being discriminatory and from breaking the law. If that gay fellow had literally said that’s my husband instead of that’s my partner you sure the person would have had the knowledge to know the law is changed? You cannot even argue for sure that if the law was changed that he would have been allowed in. It’s the law and people should follow the law. If you are going to be charged with upholding the law you should know the law.
Jane: STOP! I wont even go through those links because clearly you are making a huge assumption.
“if they had marriage rights and were treated like as culturally and legally equal to everyone else”
What if they had the rights and privileges without the title and were treated culturally and legally like everyone else would those problems exist? You think that the source of that problem is the fucking optics of the fact that they don’t have the WORD marriage? Oh see I thought it was generations of prejudice and inequality from both secular eugenics, cultural mistrust, and religious bias. I thought it was the generations of blood libel of being recruiters and pedophiles. I thought it was , Oh but the word marriage will fix all that … I mean even if you gave them full legal equality it wouldn’t be enough because they would need that word. Yeah jon, that makes sense.
Jane: Ok. Now lets get to the bread and butter. You do not hold the edge because im arguing for the status quo and you are arguing for a change and have been unable (over thousands of words) to present an argument why Homosexual couples NEED the designation for marriage. Now I will give you 3 reasons why homosexual marriage could damage others as the law currently stands.
There is no scientific analysis of philosophical issues. You sound silly every time you bring it up, just say secular philosophical instead of scientific.
1 . There is no specific exemption in the Constitution, Supreme Court case law or Federal law that protects quasi – religious organizations (like religious universities) from anti-discrimination laws which would require them to violate their religious codes. For example, Yeshiva University, a Jewish school in New York City, was forced by a court to allow same-sex “domestic partners” in married student housing.
2 Organizations might be denied government grants or aid otherwise available to faith-based groups; they might be denied access to public facilities for events; and they might even have their tax-exempt status removed. Separation of Church and state means this is probably unconstitutional but that is what happened to the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersey when they refused to rent facilities for a lesbian “civil union” ceremony.
3 it opens the set in stone definition of marriage open to revision. This doesn’t seem that bad right? I mean if marriage is stagnant and wrong and should be more malleable to what some in the society currently believes. But if you change it too much then the legal contract becomes an outdated concept that has no cultural staying power and tradition and in the end weakens the society. I do not think Homosexual marriage would do it but it would become a slippery slope. I mean if Gay marriage is legal because any legal contract between two adults to love honor and defend = marriage then why should a brother and sister be prevented from marrying? I mean if they are both adults? Shit polyamory is legal in America, why not Polygamy?
I have no problem with same sex unions. Hell I don’t even find them particularly discriminatory if done ethically like California. In the U.S. states of Hawaii and Illinois, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples.
Erm… why am I on moderation?
jonmilne,
Maybe you just put too many links in your post. Or used a word that triggers moderation, although I’m not sure PZ has (m)any of those.
consciousness razor:
Did you not read my previous post where I provided a link of where I got that information? Again, I got it from here, who got it from here (The National Institute of Health and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases). So no, I didn’t “make shit up”.
Let me post the summary again…
If a protection device will fail one out of every two or three times that you use it, then yes I would definitely consider that “marginal” protection. Consistently go skydiving with a parachute that deploys correctly 40% to 71% of the time, and then I may rethink my use of the word marginal.
———–
Nerd:
Did you actually read the CDC link that you provided? This is what it says on there…
First of all, is there anything in the CDC link that is in contradiction with the NIH data I provided previously?
Secondly, you see what I’m talking about when I say “miseducation”? The CDC link provides absolutely no numbers/statistics that provides a clear sense of what “highly effective”, “reduces the risk”, “to a lesser degree”, and “may reduce the risk” actually mean.
Sure, a certain parachute that opens 50% of the time “reduces the risk” of death jumping out of a plane, but I doubt you’d use that particular one when skydiving. And would use a parachute that is touted as “highly effective” when 15% of the time it won’t open?
THIS is exactly what I’m talking about when I say MISEDUCATION. It’s right there in the CDC website.
————
I still would like to respond to the atheism+ comments, but that would have to wait for another time.
Joey, did you actually read the NIH link? The data is inconclusive for whether condoms prevent HPV with some conflicting studies. Technically, you are correct in that they said that there was no direct evidence that condoms reduce HPV transmission, but consider the full sentence, not just the paraphrase you gave: “There was no evidence that condom use reduced the risk of HPV infection, but study results did suggest that condom use might afford some reduction in risk of HPV-associated diseases, including genital warts in men and cervical neoplasia in women.”
Also, in this case, absence of evidence is not conclusive evidence of absence: The studies that could definitively prove or disprove lower transmission don’t appear to have been completed. Or, rather, hadn’t been done in 2001 when the report was published. That was 11 years ago. A quick search of Pubmed reveals quite a number of further studies since that time. Most of them show that while condom use isn’t the greatest thing for preventing HPV, it is far from useless.
Again, we’ve got a vaccine. Why not use that and not worry about it any further?
Sure, a certain parachute that opens 50% of the time “reduces the risk” of death jumping out of a plane, but I doubt you’d use that particular one when skydiving. And would use a parachute that is touted as “highly effective” when 15% of the time it won’t open?
You’re badly misunderstanding the statistics. The 15% is per year of regular sexual activity. The analogy would be if you jumped out of a plane on a regular basis-say, 2-4 times per week-there would be a 15% chance of the parachute failing one of those times. Or of your forgetting to put it on once. I agree that I’d like more protection myself, but the alternative, in this case, is jumping without a parachute and hoping you have one of those freak landings that allow you to survive. At least for HIV. For HPV, again, why are you ignoring the perfectly good alternative parachutes known as the HPV vaccines that we have?
Because its’s a dishonest git who refuses to acknowledge the fact that modern reality doesn’t agree with its presuppositional fuckwittery known as deity given morality.
And it isn’t smart enough to realize we are on to him. It still is pretending he is teaching, instead of what is reality. We are laughing our asses off at its vapid and naive stupidity with every inane post it makes.
So it appears that gooey also happens to have something against skydiving, as the analogy it is attempting to use is for no one to ever jump at all. Except that everyone is already in the plane, the door is open, there is risk of slipping and falling out, but nope, no parachutes because they don’t work absolutely all the time.
Suppose condoms were SO ineffective against a certain disease as to be only 1% effective. Well abstinence + condoms as the second line of defence is still 1% superior to abstinence alone. There is no scenario where abstinence only is superior, excepting anaphylactic reaction to latex.
One doesn’t even need to know any numbers at all to make this decision.
But the gooey is not actually interested in preventing STDs. The gooey is only interested in controlling what material teachers can teach, what procedures doctors can do, and of course, what women can do with their own bodies (and in this case, men too).
Tyrant slavemaster all the way.
And you know what the most likely reason for the gooey’s (self reported as if were by a proven liar) supposedly atrocious sex ed, and other inadequate sex ed programs?
Pressure from the abstinence only crowd. Because they’re always fighting against legitimate sex ed. If they can’t get abstinence only, they’ll settle for no sex ed at all, so they can indoctrinate their children by other means. That means setting the curriculum making sure that as little actual numerical information be given in sex ed, all the better to spread their own misinformation about the “ineffectiveness” of condoms and other prophylactics, or getting into boards and slashing budgets until there’s only enough time and resources to teach how to use condoms but not how effective they are.
*gently kicks the thread’s foot*
Lady, Lady are you alright?
Oh, that reminds me. A friend of mine who went through high school with me is allergic to latex. She found that the sex ed classes were the perfect opportunity to openly ask about alternatives to latex condoms and to discuss their effectiveness.
Denying teenagers a space to ask all the questions they might have without any fears, knowing they’ll get honest answers back from people who are willing to discuss anything without judging them and withholding information is just wrong.
You are miseducated Joey. You show that evey time you post, and you are soundly refuted with reality, not your twisted version of reality. Do yourself a favor, and shut the fuck up, or lose your religious presuppositions from your posts. You have nothing cogent, just stupidsticious, to add to any argument.
There is no scenario where abstinence only is superior, excepting anaphylactic reaction to latex.
There are condoms that are made of artificial polycarbons rather than latex that protect against STDs and don’t provoke latex allergies, though they are thinner and more prone to breaking (OTOH, as a side bonus, they feel less intrusive). The female condom is completely latex free and at least moderately effective for STD prevention. So latex allergy doesn’t condemn one to abstinence either.
jonmilne, I would suggest that your next email to Jane be very short. Ask her, “Jane, do you or do you not agree that gay people’s families deserve legal and societal protections just like straight people’s families do? If you don’t, I am no longer interested in wasting my time on someone so despicable. If you do, then what are *you* doing to advance the protection of those families? Or is your only interest in this issue in making excuses for why it’s too hard to seek social justice right now so they should just suck it up?” And leave it at that.
It seems oolon has been sockpuppeted:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/08/27/mencallmethings-whining-annoying-cunt/#comment-91636
@Beatrice, yeah although I’ll be re-banned by taking up feuds with RagingBee and Illuminata on the thread restoring my ‘reputation’.
@RagingBee, @Illuminata, you can kiss my shiny restored ass :-)
So apparently Greta is now sending folks to the Thunderdome. It seems the Thunderdome is to be the battleground for all of FtB.
Hehe Greta slapped RagingBee down in her thread… I’m off to bed as the Bee is obviously too busy buzzing around somewhere else to engage in more productive name calling here.
ChasCPeterson,
And there’s the appropriate word that isn’t recently made up nonsense. Thanks. :)
Dictionary atheist at work. Heh.
I never get my fill of nonsense and malignant batshittery.
Bring it on.
I dunno why I’m even still over in “No Hate” arguing with Fincke, but at least he’s almost responding to me now. His latest was actually sort of interesting: a summary of his motivations on this.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers/2012/08/24/no-hate/comment-page-1/#comment-380475
No one can post in here.
I, for one, definitely can’t post in here.
anarchy666:
You sound almost disappointed that you are no longer banned. Why would that be?
because it’s some sort of twisted badge of honor to be banned for being an insipid annoying boring idiot.
Okay, so, apparently this is all Dan Fincke got out of the hundreds of words I’ve been wasting on him over the past couple days:
The only reason I commented on that mess in the first place is because I was trying to do *him* a favor. I’ve said so to him more than once, and I gritted my teeth and tamped down my annoyance all through his massive overreaction to my original comments *solely* because I was committed to trying to help him find his way out of the mess he’s gotten himself into. And this is the thanks I get.
So I think I’m done wasting my time over there. Now all the rest of you can laugh at me and say you told me so.
I know. I’m just trying to get Anarchy666 to admit what xe is doing.
Do you suppose we could make some money for a good cause by marketing “I Got Banned At Pharyngula” badges, bumper stickers and other paraphernalia?
Goddamn philosophers. Finke’s being a total Kant.
His parting shot is even more obnoxious:
But I told him I was done and I meant it. He didn’t hear a single damn thing I said in response to all that bullshit the last ten times I said it, and he won’t hear it if I say it an eleventh time, either. And there’s no way of stopping him from getting in the last word on his own blog. So I’m staying done, really, I am. Goddammit.
yeah that’s not a bad idea.
A t-shirt with a picture of the three monkeys: hear nothing, see nothing say nothing.
“I’m a monkey and I got banned from Pharyngula”
How about, “I’m a Troll and I got Banned at Pharyngula!”?
Well that’s just special.
Anne, no one should laugh and say “I told you so,” at least not in a mean-spirited way. You tried valiantly. No, I’m not surprised at the outcome, but it’s unfortunate.
Dan seems to have little capacity for introspection about his motivations. He’s convinced himself he’s motivated only by Very Pure Things, which is not really true of any human, at least not all the time.
Hm. I just tried to put up one last comment over there pointing to what I’ve said about the discussion here in the Thunderdome threads, in order to prove to onlookers that I’m not a liar, and it didn’t go through, even to the usual, “Your comment is awaiting moderation” state. Looks like he’s banned me entirely now. What a fucking asshole. Jesus christ.
Anne:
I can’t, since I didn’t.
(So, not all the rest of us can; your claim is false)
This would be a useful point to insert an image of myself doing a cartoonish rage dance. :P
Also, technically you *can* laugh at me and say you told me so, you’d just be lying, is all.
Anne:
You told him you were done and you meant it, now you have issues you can’t comment there?
<snicker>
Anne,
Heh. Indeed.
(I like the cut of your jib!)
Yessir. Because like all humans, I am perfectly consistent, especially when I’m pissed off. :P
Well, what I actually said was more like, I was done bothering him about that issue. I wasn’t intending to flounce *quite* so thoroughly as to never interact with him on his blog ever again. Also, it seems just maybe the tiniest bit unfair that he accused me of being a liar and then instantly banned me without giving me a chance to defend myself.
Anne, Dan is human, too.
Yes indeedy. He’s made that very clear. I just wish he would act like *he* knows that.
Note to self (left brain to right): On pharyngula, it is necessary to research your jokes before posting them.
Note to self (right brain to left): I already knew that.
Note to self (left brain to right): ORLY? Recent activity suggests otherwise.
Note to self (right brain to left): Shut up.
Note to self (left brain to right): No, YOU shut up. What are you doing using language, anyways. I’M the language center.
Note to self (right brain to left): *flashes obscene picture of unclothed arse*
Note to self (cerebellum to hemispheres): QUIET UP THERE. I’M TRYING TO SLEEP!
Note to self (right brain to left):
Aw, c’mon. Someone needs to learn to parse for Weltschmertz.
(The claim was never intended to be universally interpreted as true.)
*raspberry*
—
A friend did a D. Phil. on the logical necessity of proof. Every time he explained it to me, my
head explodedbrain melted.To show what a sap I am, I’m already regretting cursing at Dan above, because I don’t actually hate him or want to make him my enemy. I’m just *really* not used to being treated like I’m little better than a troll.
I’m not sure if it’s more awful or funny how it almost seems like a mirror universe version of the exact thing Dan seems to be trying to take a stand against — the thing where well-meaning people with a different viewpoint get treated to hostility, dismissiveness, uncharitable interpretations of their views, and accusations of being disingenuous. I wonder if he’d see the humor in this too…
cm:
But intent ain’t magic, right? :)
Oops, nope, just saw his response to John and now I’m back to wanting to curse him out again. I’d unsubscribe, but I’m kind of morbidly fascinated now.
But anyway, this is definitely a “step away from the computer” moment if there ever was one. Let’s see if reading about Wiener series is less aggravating.
Completely off-topic, does anybody know how Norbert Wiener, originator of the Wiener series, pronounced his last name? I feel pretentious saying “Vie-ner” or “Vee-ner”, but it’s hard not to giggle if I say “Wee-ner”, and I’m pretty sure that I don’t want to sound like a snickering twelve-year-old if and when I ever give a talk on this shit.
So one can’t refer to it as the Hot Dog Series?
That sounds like some kind of baseball thing. Like how college football has the Rose Bowl, the Orange Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Capitol One Bowl, and so forth, professional baseball could have the World Series, the Hot Dog Series, the Budweiser Series, etc.
Anarchy666
Just in case you weren’t aware; if you were banned from Pharyngula on sciblogs you aren’t banned here (with a few notable exceptions such as John Davison and David Mabus). Happy commenting.
P.S. – if you consider yourself likely to be banned, the thunderdome is probably a good place to hang. Its the haven for *ahem* “unfettered discussion”.
I have a question for the people who were around when the whole Elevatorgate/Dear Muslima thing went down (especially Jadehawk because of that comment).
I see a lot of accusation that apparently some people claimed that Richard Dawkins was a rape apologist because of his comments back then. Unfortunately (or fortunately as it is a shitty claim) I cannot seem to find anyone making such a claim about him (as opposed to plenty of people claiming that someone made that claim).
If it was like the claim that Rebbecca accused EG of trying to rape her then it is easy to check out (and subsequently dismiss) as I only had to read her output, but as it is not a claim about some specific person’s writing it is perfectly possible that someone somewhere made such a claim. That the relevant Pharyngula threads do not have there comment available makes things worth.
So the question is: Do any of you remember anyone making such a claim (NOT making the claim that there was such a claim). And do you remember where?
I specifically ask Jadehawk because in the comment she said:
“Then when Dawkins decided to chime people (not Rebecca Watson) accused him of being a rape apologists, which I don’t think he is.”
Which tips the scale in favour of such a claim being made by someone.
If you wonder why, check the youtube comments on the Atheism+ video.
Damn, I really need to learn to write concisely.
WRT my previous comment, if nobody remembers anything concrete I will just assume arguendo that someone somewhere did call Richard Dawkins a rape apologist as it doesn’t modify my understanding of things that much (instead of being rape threat vs criticism it is rape threats vs unfair criticism, still not comparable by a parsec).
Julien, I was around at the time, and I recall Dawkins being called dismissive, but not a rape apologist.
However (and I’m not going to try to research this, and yes, the absence of access to comments back there (incompetence by NG) doesn’t help), I do seem to recall his dismissal being characterised as an apology for those who accept a ‘rape culture’*; so, that he might have been called a rape culture apologist is not implausible.
—
* Feminist sociological terminology.
Ok, thanks. I’ll assume someone did then.
I also didn’t expect anyone to do a search, I did a few and google is very unhelpful in it.
I don’t recall anyone calling Dawkins a rape apologist. I’d put that claim on the level of
No, no, no, no. Heated reactions? Yes. Apologist for rape culture? Perhaps. Definitely not “apologist for rape“.
That’s what it sounds like to me but in the Watson case it is relatively easy to check (read her stuff from the period). In the Dawkins case it is impossible (read everybody but Dawkins’s stuff from the period).
Julien: Prior plausibility tells me the “rape apologist” claim isn’t likely to be true.
You’ll be banned here soon, too, from the looks of it.
WTF is that anarchy bullshitter going on about this time ?
*sigh* I foolishly used Google+ to ask Dan to set the record straight on calling me a liar (giving him links to the Thunderdome threads as evidence that I was saying the same thing behind his back as to his face), and he claimed he never did, presumably justifying it to himself on the grounds that he didn’t actually use that exact word. I really do give people too much credit sometimes. So much for philosophers.
Thanks for letting me know. Yes, you are banned and I’ll let PZ know you’re back.
Blindly privileged with respect to recognition of the exist of rape culture, and experience of its extent, would be my judgement on that.
Okay, time to give up on it. Maybe not so important in the long run. And we like you around here, so it’s not like you lack for places to hang out and converse!
hotshoe, it helps if (like me) one is not invested in one’s positions.
(Arguing is fun!)
Boy. Am I ever behind.
What the fuck is going on in this Thread?
chigau, unmoderated chaos.
(duh)
chaos, forsooth.
I totally missed anarchy666.
Y’all sound a bit crazy, talking to someone who ain’t there.
hotshoe, yeah, that really was the end of it for me.
I really wouldn’t’ve even said that much if he hadn’t decided to start accusing me of being a troll *after* I’d already told him that I was done wasting both of our time on this argument. I guess the fact that he chose to call me a troll as his final swipe after silencing me, rather than raising the issue while he was still deigning to allow me to comment on his blog, ought to have clued me in that he wouldn’t have the grace to retract it in the face of contrary evidence. But I am apparently too willing to make excuses for people long after the point where I shouldn’t.
So, no, I won’t bother to try to talk to him any more, but I am still filled with ragey raging rage over his condescending holier-than-thou bullshit way of handling this whole issue, said condescending holier-than-thou bullshit attitude of course being the precise thing that I was trying very gently to warn him about as the reason that everybody else has been pissed off with him basically from post 1 on this subject. He can keep digging himself into this hole until he reaches the earth’s core, for all I care at this point.
———
tl;dr: Mememememe, everyone validate my rage, dammit!
consciousness razor here:
“Better” for what, and “better” for whom? Keep in mind that we’re trying to get to the most fundamental premise(s) on which your philosophies/ethics are based. So what is “good” or is “better” is based on the axiom we’re trying to unravel. It would be circular to say that treating others as equals is “better” for treating others as equals.
And if by “better” you mean whatever makes you more happy/satisfied/content, then we’re now operating under a completely different axiom. Don’t you think Kim John-Il lived a rather satisfied life living by the axiom of doing whatever is best for yourself, others be damned? Same can be said for Stalin, Mao, or pretty much any other dictator who was happy enslaving others.
Consistent to what? A human being can’t think that his own species is leading to the destruction of the earth?
If so, then likewise there’s also no reason to think humanity as a whole is good and has intrinsic value.
Tell that to the greenies.
———
ING:
That’s not my motivation. My motivation is to show that the reason to be “good” centers around axioms that are absolute, or at least should be considered as absolute. But anything regarded as absolute is generally considered antithetical to atheism.
———-
Hurin:
So an infant is less human than its mother? Lol, you now see why I asked the question?
———-
ING:
You know there’s this crazy thing about human nature where some people tend to be attached to their fetuses, dogs, and firearms for some reason.
———-
dianne:
I’m not ignoring the vaccine. It’s just that we were discussing the efficacy of condoms. Okay, you can take HPV out of the equation due to vaccine. By using condoms, you’re still very much susceptible to a variety of other diseases.
———-
NERD:
Let me ask you (and everyone else here) a question. Let’s say you have a loved one that you know engages in frequent casual sex. For the sake of argument, let’s completely ignore the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy (he/she has a perfect vasectomy or tubal ligation) and only focus on the possibility of contracting STDs.
Let’s say a brand new condom is developed that is composed of a new latex material that is absolutely impenetrable while intact. In other words, it is impossible for any bodily fluids whatsoever to cross over the latex barrier. But the condom does have a weakness, which is that it completely rips open on average one out of every ten times you use it. So while the condom remains intact (9 out of 10 times) you are absolutely guaranteed to be protected from the transmission of diseases. However, if it rips open (1 out of 10 times) then the risk of transmission is exactly equivalent to the case of not using a condom at all.
The question is: Would you recommend that your loved one use this particular condom?
Let us not jump to conclusions
No, I think I’d take the real one.
Joey why did you lie about the prolife shit and why the fuck are you lying about sex ed to what are mostly sexually active adults.
Ing, my “being way to charitable to people who don’t deserve it” instincts say, “Maybe joey just really doesn’t understand statistics and we should all spend another few precious hours of our lives explaining them to him.” I’m beginning to think that I really need to take those instincts around back of the figurative shed and shoot them in the backs of their smarmy little figurative heads.
I agree but if your argument is still very strong even while conceding a point *arguendo* then it is not necessarily the best course of action to contest it at that point (especially with a 500 words limit).
It looks like it will be moot though as my interlocutor said:
And
So he is already backpedaling before I even made my argument.
RGL is not the only person who got the impression that someone called RD a rape apologist BTW.
@Anne
Did you miss his introduction where he pretended to be prochoice and argued that we should be able to kill babies if the cord wasn’t cut? and that this option is attractive to women because sharp things won’t have to be stuck up her?
@Julien
Did anyone here say that? If not why are you bothering us? We’re not running a monkey zoo here.
Ing, no, I didn’t miss joey saying horrible things. I was mostly just making fun of myself, in re my persistent delusion that everyone *cough*Fincke*cough* is educable if you approach them in just the right way. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
We? No. YOU.
AFAICT, it’s only the gooey that is showing any interest at all in this issue of “fundamentality”.
He didn’t. A rather typical gooey behavior here, putting words into others’ mouths and running strawman arguments.
Even Kim, Stalin, and Mao didn’t ALWAYS act on the axiom of doing only whatever is best for themselves. And how exactly is the gooey so sure that they were happy, or that their happiness was maximized by the course of action they took, and that they wouldn’t have been happier doing something else.
Oh yeah, this is gooey the tyrant slavemaster we’re talking about here. He’s probably just projecting because acting in such a manner would make him happy.
What the greenies THINK is rather irrelevant to the discussion. Just another piece of dishonest misdirection.
Yes. So what? This is self-evident. That’s why infants are afforded less rights in our society, not allowed to vote, or drive, or drink, or make financial decision, or make medical decisions. That’s why, similarly, less responsibilities are required of them, and less legal liability accrues to them.
And pretty much everyone agrees that this is the way things should be. At least, I’m not aware of all that many Infant Emancipation movements.
Fetuses and dogs I could see. But sticking FIREARMS in that analogy? That’s disgusting.
But I suppose it is consistent. All three are in the set of things the gooey considers more important than women and their bodily autonomy.
Ah, another one of the gooey’s dishonest hypotheticals that will never occur in real life. (Though where his train of thought is going on this one is hard to decipher).
But NO, LET’S NOT. Birth control is irrevocably bound up in the reasons to use condoms. In fact it’s the PRIMARY REASON to use condoms, with protection against STDs secondary.
Trying to separate the two is simply dishonest.
I didn’t say that. I was trying to quote someone who said that and respond, but I had a blockquote failure.
no. no one called him a rape apologist. why the fuck would you “assume” that?!
I wonder if gooey knows exactly how Stalin died….
Hang-gliding, no?
Ing:
I did not say that anyone did, I asked if anyone remembered somebody else saying that, not necessarily here.
I wasn’t accusing anybody, sorry if it came across that way.
Thank you, I did not spot the failed blockquote and thought you might remember such an event.
I already answered a few comments ago.
Basically you might assume something by saying:
“Even assuming you are right then…” followed by your argument.
I was trying to be generous to his position.
Also, it is not like we can prevent a drive by poster from saying it here (let alone on another forum), at most we can call them on it and PZ can delete his post if it is warranted; like when someone posted Papa’s (IIRC) address when the “rationalia” thing went down.
Anyway, it seems to be turning into a moot point in the end as my interlocutor said:
I disagree with his interpretation but if he doesn’t think it was literal then there is no need to assume anything *arguendo*.
Sorry Jadehawk, I forgot to indicate that the second and third quotes were yours.
People and other sentient beings.
Did I say, “better for me, others be damned”? No, I did not. Where the fuck do you get off interpreting me saying “we should treat others as equals” as somehow implying it’s okay if dictators enslave people? You want me to spend time on a more thorough answer, when you won’t even stop your bullshitting for one minute? GO FUCK YOURSELF.
They can think that (they’d be wrong, since humans can’t destroy the planet itself), but that isn’t the same as thinking everyone should be wiped off the face of the planet. (I can tell you barely read my comments, but do you even read your own?) But no, you can’t consistently think that would be a good thing, because it’s not good for anyone.
Are those the only two options? Either humanity as a whole is evil and vile, or humanity as a whole is good and has instrinsic value? Is this “thinking” works for you?
I am a “greenie,” asshole.
correction:
Obviously, I don’t mean to imply it works, whatever it is. Since it doesn’t seem to be thinking in the ordinary sense, I’m not sure what to call it.
Hey, how about giving everyone all the information available, providing easy access to the best methods of protection against STDs and of birth control available, and letting them make informed decisions about their own sex lives?
Why must you always control everything, joey? What exactly is your problem with comprehensive sex ed?
Anne, I mostly just lurk, but I find your argument with Dan very entertaining. It’s entertaining both because of how hilariously obtuse Dan is and because of how hilariously obsessed you are with trying to reason with him. To me his policy boils down to this…
Comment A: I oppose legal recognition of gay relationships because it is a stealth campaign to give legal recognition to bestiality and pedophilia and turn all of the country’s children gay!
Comment B: If you believe that, you’re incredibly fucking stupid, and if not, you’re a lying piece of shit.
Dan: I appreciate the civility of Commenter A, although I hope to convince him (in as many words as possible) that his ideas are incorrect. Commenter B is a purveyor of hate and I refuse to allow that kind of trash to be posted in my comments section.
You can’t reason with such a person, though I’m impressed that you tried.
Nightjar, that’s a well-worded rebuttal. Even if one is maximally charitable towards joey’s arguments, he still only makes a case for COMPETENT, comprehensive sex ed. However, to quote Michael Bluth, that’s meeting him “more than halfway”.
DrVanNostrand, you seem like quite the expert on obtuseness, but at least you cannot be accused of hypocrisy.
(I reckon that what Dan would say is that B breaches the commenting rules)
Joey, fuck your irrational and idiotic hypotheticals. They are for religious/philosophical losers, with their heads up their asses, not rational folks who deal with reality. I don’t do hypotheticals. I don’t answer idiotic unrealitic hypotheticals, nothing but mental wanking leading to nothing. Shove them where the sun don’t shine. All they are good for us adding bulk to what comes out of that orifice.
John Morales, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Do you disagree that Dan would find Comment A acceptable (even if he disagrees) and Comment B unacceptable? We may have different definitions of the word, but I would say that anyone holding that position is incredibly obtuse. Such a person considers hatred masked by superficial civility as more valuable than justifiable outrage against ignorant bigotry.
DrVanNostrand, what I’m trying to express is that I think (with a high degree of confidence) that you’re misinterpreting Dan’s stance and therefore presenting a straw dummy of his position.
I’m confident that A doesn’t breach his commenting rules but B does, but also that he would consider A an abominable sentiment, much worse than B in terms of harmfulness.
Well, such a person would be obtuse (though hardly incredibly so — I’ve encountered more than a few such); but Dan ain’t one of them.
Again, Dan has written extensively (as people keep noting!) on this topic, and his stance is that (a) such value as that hatred has is that it can be discussed and thoroughly refuted and (b) justifiable outrage can occur without vituperation and personal attacks but with passion and anger and personal charges.
—
(a) In that thread @24.6: “My point here is to say that when engaging in the public square we must hold interpersonal civility with our interlocutors to be an ideal, even as we rightly condemn heinous acts of violation with unqualified moral fervor. Good people, in anger, can cross lines into generalized hate or patterns of regular abusiveness and it’s just not healthy or constructive to the discourse.”
(b) In that thread @26.1: “There are countless ways you can articulate your anger and hate injustice without it turning into interpersonal abusiveness and insults, etc.”
@John Morales, I appreciate the clarification. As I said, I have been lurking in this discussion and I am aware of your/Dan’s points (a) and (b). There’s an impasse here as to what constitutes hate/abuse, constructiveness, naivete/obtuseness, etc… Regardless of definition of terms, I have to say that I’m personally annoyed by any comment policy that allows Comment A, but not Comment B (though obviously Dan has every right to enforce any comment policy, even if it annoys me… I just prefer Thunderdome).
DrVanNostrand, it’s quite possible to rephrase B so that it meets his commenting standards, but first one is supposed to civilly dispute it, and only then make the personal charges — something that (technically) PZ’s rules (outside this thread) similarly require (cf. ).
At that point, B could write something like “That idea is incredibly fucking stupid, and since you persist in holding it you must either be that stupid or else a despicable liar” without breaching his rules.
Better for those others of course, you slimy, dishonest little shit. And of course that is a conclusion based on evidence (see here for example), not an axiom*; just as it’s a conclusion based on evidence that we should not treat jellyfish as equals.
* In fact, I doubt that anyone actually uses an axiom system as the basis of their ethical judgements; rather, we start from our intuitions about specific cases, but are capable (some of us anyway), both of generalizing, and of realizing that those intuitions are not infallible, and revising our judgements accordingly. Joey’s search for “fundamentals” is as pointless as most of his dishonest godbotting. Perhaps the nearest to an ethical axiom is that similar cases should be treated in a similar way – but of course, what counts as “similar” is contestable, and for people who value rationality, based on evidence.
ING:
Why would rather choose the statistically inferior condom?
———–
Anne
If there is an error in my interpretation of the statistics, please let me know.
————
consciousness razor:
Look, you claimed that “treating others as equals” isn’t an axiom but rather a conclusion. Okay, so what is the axiom in which that conclusion is based? It can be either doing what is better for me as an individual, or doing what is better for people as a collective.
What I’ve been arguing all along is that following either of those axioms will not necessarily lead to treating all humans as equals. If you feel treating all humans as equals is simply a must do regardless of anything else, then you would be wrong labeling it as a conclusion. It would be the axiom itself.
———-
Nerd:
You consider knowing the evidence-based failure rate of a contraceptive device before using it an irrational and idiotic hypothetical? I guess the miseducation has been much more widespread than I thought.
joey, answer the question.
What exactly is your problem with comprehensive sex ed?
Joey, your hypotheticals are fuckwittery. I know statistics being a scientists. I don’t care to discuss such things with a presuppositionalist like you. You don’t look at facts, you look at what you think you should believe, or want to believe. Which is why I don’t use you for anything other than to laugh at.
joey,
Look, shithead, the failure rates given for condoms in literature such as that of the CDC, are rates of pregnancies per woman using this as their only method of contraception for one year – and that includes women who didn’t always use a condom. The pregnancy rate per condom is estimated at .04% – that is, 4 in 10,000.
Now with regard to “axioms”, let’s hear what your “axioms” are. Come on, shithead, tell us what “axioms” you think we should be using.
No, that’s not the irrational and idiotic part. The irrational and idiotic part is the one where you ask “do you recommend it?” as if all we could say to our loved one was “use this!” and “don’t use this!”, forgetting that “this thing [all the available information about it] is the best we have but not perfect, so please be responsible and take care!” is going to be the right answer no matter what hypothetical you come up with.
The Batmobile is a statistically superior vehicle to a Honda Civic in many measures. I’d still choose the Civic because, you know, the Batmobile doesn’t actually exist.
Not to mention, the gooey’s condom is only statistically “superior” in its own imaginary scenario which was deliberately rigged with arbitrary parameters to make it so.
This is a tired old game the gooey has played before, and no, we are not interested in playing it again.
So, apparently, the gooey’s own imaginary parameters are “evidence”.
What a pitifully dishonest mischaracterization of Nerd’s comment.
Par for the course for the gooey.
Utterly pathetic.
That might a wee bit hard for the gooey to answer, seeing as, based on everything it has *attempted* to argue so far, it probably thinks an “Axiom” is a hypothetical spaceship in a hypothetical animated movie involving lots of garbage.
Joey appears to be unfamiliar with sarcasm, or he’d realize that I was mentioning him only to note that Fincke has convinced me that I need to learn to stop getting dragged into wasting my time on teaching unwilling students. Also, KG seems to have schooled him just fine without my help. :D
Haha, I love how I just comic-sansed myself rather than Joey. Morning brain is the best!
Me: Is a newborn infant as human as its mother? Probably not.
Joey: So an infant is less human than its mother? Lol, you now see why I asked the question?
————-
Dishonest quote mining much?
My point (again) was that babies can be allotted some of the rights of full grown humans because they become full grown humans, whereas cows and dogs do not (and you were the one who brought in the cows and dogs, not me). That isn’t warranted on the basis of self awareness or intellectual complexity. On those grounds adult chimps would be better qualified for personhood than babies.
You could make the same argument based on the number of chromosomes that babies have, but that would be inane because you’d have to argue that your white blood cells are people.
You could make the same argument based on a “soul”, but that is just a fabrication of convenience. You have no proof of any such thing.
More Joey
What Amphiox said about the gun thing.
The second problem though, is that no one is trying to alter the right of women to carry babies to term. If you (assuming you are a woman which I’m pretty sure you aren’t) have a fetus, and you want to keep it, then you can go ahead and be attached to it.
What you seem to be saying is that you are attached to other people’s fetuses and (with the possible exception of your spouse/partner’s fetus) that is just fucking weird. Frankly I don’t believe it. I think the abortion issue is a control issue for you and the other members of uterus gestapo, just like the sex education thing is.
You quite clearly want to impose your anti-sex agenda on everyone else, and your phony protests about “miseducation” and “attachment” are transparent.
Hurin, I’ve got only a slight complaint with your wording. I’d argue that a fetus is fully human, just as much as the woman incubating it, but only potentially a person (if it’s allowed to grow to term and its brain actually develops to the point of sentience/sapience). It’s a distinction I’ve personally found kind of useful — “human” designates our species, while “person” describes the fact that some of us have minds. “Person” can thus be extended to other non-human creatures which have minds as well.
I don’t see humanity as a valuable thing in and of itself. My dead skin cells are human. Sperm and eggs are human. Anencephalic babies and brain-dead adults are human. But if the meat doesn’t make a mind, then what is there in it that’s worth having an emotional attachment to and protecting? On the other hand, non-human meat that makes a mind can be very important, because a mind actually has interests. This is why we protect chimpanzees and dolphins and elephants and cats and dogs and so forth to some extent — they do have minds and are “people” at some level. It’s also why we’d consider intelligent aliens or artificial intelligences to be potentially worthy of consideration.
Another distinction I’ve heard some people make is between sentience and sapience. I don’t have a clean technical version of this on hand at the moment, and I don’t even know that there is one, but basically the notion would be something like, my cats and I are both sentient (having a personality, experiencing pleasure and pain, capable of some level of goal-directed action and solving simple problems), but probably only I am sapient (sentience plus being capable of precise communication, complex culture, substantially abstract and long-term thinking, and whatever else are supposed to be the distinguishing capabilities of human intelligence) amongst the seven of us. (Presumably an alien species could come along that is even further in the sapience direction than humans, and maybe they’d have another word for what differentiates them from us.)
So the notion, rights-wise, is then that all sapient and sentient creatures are “people” at some level and are therefore worthy of social consideration, but sapient and only-sentient creatures have different capabilities for conscious participation and decision-making, and thus fair treatment for them is different. A fetus, and possibly even a very young infant, isn’t sapient yet, and is barely sentient, so, beyond being protected from unnecessary suffering, it has interests only in the sense that the person it is expected to later become has a retroactive interest in being grown in a way that maximizes its chances of being mentally and physically healthy. If the woman in whom it’s incubating isn’t interested in growing it into a person, then it has no future interests, only a present interest in not being subjected to unnecessary suffering. So far more complex and ramified interests of the sapient person in the interaction (the woman carrying the fetus) are dominant, and humane termination is the right move.
Apropos of nothing being currently discussed here:
I have got to give Brownian props for handing Fincke’s ass to him on his latest milquetoast, mealy-mouthed ode to being a bigotry-accomodationist. Showing Fincke’s hypocrisy so easily was a thing of beauty.
Well done, sir.
And thanks for the reminder of why I NEVER read that blog – slimepitters galore praising him for being on their side. Gross.
Anne C. Hanna – when Fincke called you a “classic troll” I literally LOL’d. You tried abiding by his absurd and unevenly applied rules, and he called you names and lied about you personalyl attacking him. He’s a ridiculous hypocrite. His rules apply, apparently, only to everyone who doesn’t tell him how brilliant he is.
Illuminata, thank you. As I said to F over there, Fincke’s initial reaction made me feel like I’d slipped through to Opposite World, and that last bit only reinforced that.
Also, it makes me wonder if Fincke has ever actually met a real troll.
joey,
See, I told you you’d get more attention if you were more forthright with your beliefs.
You still didn’t answer my question, though:
What flavor of theist are you, anyway?
I’ve been guessing Christian. Am I right?
So joey is still the dishonest huge shitstain that he has always been.
Be careful of the sticks sharp, asshole.
Oh, I’m sure he thinks he has. It’s anyone who isn’t telling him how brilliant his man/whitesplaining is.
@illuminata
I’ve seen that in a lot of polite discussions, politness is used as an excuse to skew the dialogue
2joey
Why are you so fucking obsessed with controlling people? You lie, you manipulate, you slander all to try to hammer people into your way…then you accuse people who support equality and utility of being prone to tyrany? You know what the real biggest cause of a march to tyrany is? Arrogance. Quashing out all other veiws and facts and convincing yourself your the one that matters and that everything relies on you. You are horendously arrogant. You are an infant naively believing that any ideology can protect someone from corruption. Science shows otherwise. Humanity has a potental heart of darkness; all of humanity. Anyone is a potental monster our minds are flawed and make it so. The way to prevent this isn’t denial or trying to cage it in some externally imposed morality; it is by looking into the mirror and honestly staring yourself down. Doubt is a safty net, faith is a poison. You are a fool and need to grow up
Joey is a toxin who needs to be left behind.
broboxley is still a Tea Party Republican, right? I never noticed any change on that note. Unless I missed something, linking to Malkin would be a feature, not a bug.
Illuminata, the thing that really gets me about this is, Fincke actually *took me out of moderation* while I was apparently saying all this stuff that he objected to, and he didn’t say a word to me at the time to indicate that I was still pushing it. I honestly thought we were square until he started hitting me with this, “You’re still mad about being put into moderation,” nonsense. So I assume I must have said something that triggered him in between those two points. Maybe it was when I called myself an impatient asshole and referred to trying to tamp down on that as “faking it” and difficult to maintain? But even so, as soon as he started making it clear that I was still on his black list I voluntarily withdrew from the discussion. So I’m not sure how that constitutes trolling.
I honestly don’t know. And it’s probably not really very productive to analyze this in detail, but, as someone who spent most of my youth under social attack and had to work very hard and very consciously to figure out how to defend myself, it’s difficult for me to not obsess about these things.
But in any case, my “favorite” bit of the whole conversation was actually that andreschuiteman character practically echoing one of my comments as he complained abut how terrible people like me are. Compare and contrast:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers/2012/08/24/no-hate/comment-page-1/#comment-380458
http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers/2012/08/24/no-hate/comment-page-1/#comment-380556
I just don’t understand. I used more words than Andre did. Shouldn’t Dan have liked what I said more? :P
@James:
As requested, since the matter re: Seth MacFarlane is off-topic, I am fine bringing it to Thunderdome. As it stands it’s a mere “he-said, she-said” argument. I feel my concerns were largely handwaved. You feel my characterization of the content of your e-mails is unfair. I apparently deleted the e-mail chain, however if you feel it would be acceptable and necessary, feel free to post parts of it here. I trust you not to be deceptive and alter what was said by either of the two of us.
Slimepitters and Civil™ Assholes:
Also, I would really love to know which commenter I supposedly drove away from Fincke’s blog. I hope it was “Still me”, because hot damn was ze obnoxious. Caias at least redeemed himself by saying that he didn’t mean his post like it sounded, so I’ve got no beef with him.
Okay. Stepping away from the computer now. Better things to do with my day, and all.
Anne Hanna
I like your disambiguation. I have some trouble putting everything with the cellular characteristics of a Homo sapient in the “human” category though, because it seems like there should be separate sub groupings based on autonomy. Fetuses and livers are human, but they lack the autonomy of babies and adults; it seems to me that the former examples are “human” in the sense of “human tissue”, while the later examples are cases of “human beings”. Its an obvious distinction, but one that the anti-choicers often try to ignore when they use words like “human” and “life” in their rhetoric.
That’s mostly irrelevant though, as I think the distinction I was making in my last post is well captured by saying that a baby is not fully sapient, and arguing for rights to be assigned based on the level of sentience and sapience of the recipient. That really is a useful refinement of the distinction that I was driving at with Joey.
Hurin, I agree that “human tissue” vs. “human being” or “a human” can potentially be useful as well, but then there’s the question of whether a fetus, an anencephalic baby, or a brain-dead adult constitutes a human/human being or not, and I don’t know if I can find a good way to disambiguate. Certainly, all are individual and mostly self-contained units of the species H. sapiens, just like a sentient/sapient child or adult, so is that what a human being is? Or do we reserve that term only for humans who are also persons?
I think maybe a term I might like for referring to fetuses, anencephalic babies, and brain-dead adults along with sentient/sapient children and adults is “human life”. All of those are human, and all of them are reasonably-independent units of life (unlike a liver), thus they are “human lives”, but, although all of them are more than just “human tissue”, they’re not all people. And, again, people are the ones that we want to protect.
And, if you read the “no hate” thread (or, any of the threads in which he attempts to justify his commenting policy), that’s exactly what happens. The slimepit bigots gets to say whatever horrible things they want, because they couch it in passive-aggressive and/or condescending language that can easily be excused as ‘civil’. But disagreeing with Fincke, or trying to explain why this commenting policy is a failure, and you’re a “classic troll” who is “personally attacking” him.
Now, to be clear, I’m not trying to suggest that Fincke doesn’t have good intentions, or that he’s on the side of the slimepit bigots. I definitely do not think or mean to suggest that. I think he’s trying to heal the divide and minimize harm. But, being who he is – that is, quite high on privilege mountain – he doesn’t get how his policy is effectively silencing the people he repeatedly says he wants to help. And any attempts to explain it to him are waived away with, ironically, insults and baseless accusations.
He’s our own little dawkins of NOT. GETTING. IT.
I noticed that too. You saying X is trolling, andres saying the same thing is fine. because one agrees with Fincke and the other doesn’t.
he’s a juggalo, I know that.
I forgive him that much.
Bloody hell!!! I just had to fucking reexplain fucking elevator-gate and feminism 101 to a coworker who is also an atheist and considers himself a ‘friendly’.
aoifdoijfojifaoitoijfweoij
I sent him to read ‘Schrodinger’s Rapist’….why do I doubt that he actually will?
Wow. MroyalT just made a valiant attempt to get through to Dan and Dan is just doubling down and down and down. Now apparently telling people they are privileged and that that may be affecting their behavior is a form of personal attack. Dan basically just condemned a large chunk of discourse on marginalization, without understanding a fucking thing about it. Looks like he really *has* picked a side, and it sure ain’t the side of truth and justice. Nice.
Also, he appears to believe that his good intentions are magic.
Broadly speaking, in the end, it’s really quite simple. Reality doesn’t care about the human brain’s evolved tendency to want to stick things into categories, nor our evolved side characteristic of feeling all out of sorts when we can’t.
Some things in reality are gradients with blurry edges, and we will simply have to accept that at those edges our neat little categorizations, no matter how clever we make them to be, will never completely or fully apply. We have to accept that these edge-fuzzies will always have to be dealt with individually on a case by case basis, and there will be no fundamentals or axioms or absolutes upon which to generalize them.
Be happy that we can categorize things as well as we can, and have definitions that can broadly apply across the wide swath of the common middles, and accept that the edges will always be soft, that our joinings need to have “play” lest in their rigidity they shatter in the next unexpected frost.
And be thankful we haven’t fallen into the trap of absolutist thinking the way a certain unnamed tyrant slavemaster has, exposed there for all to see as a liar and a fool.
Of course, I suspect you already knew all this.
Oh, yeah, Amphiox, I absolutely agree with your points. I wasn’t trying to talk about the essential nature of things, or whatever, just about what the most useful way is to categorize them for the purpose of productive discussion.
[sotto voce]
Some people I know have a severely disabled child, who’ll never achieve sapience by that definition, but they change the diapers and tube-feed regardless.
You might want to walk that one back just a little?
Interestingly, much of what we’d call a human being isn’t “human tissue”: lots and lots of microbial flora and fauna are necessary for a living human. Then what can we even say about mitochondria?
cm: In fairness, parents rarely decide to value their offspring (in any rational sense, anyway), and so criteria for humanity aren’t applicable.
In other words, a general criterion for identifying which entities deserves rights/compassion/benefits of humanity cannot possibily admit the full set of entities that are actually valued.
doh…entities deserve
*sigh*
If you Google “sotto voce” and end up on the Wikipedia definition, that’s not what I meant. I meant “quietly; as an aside”.
*grump*
Youngsters don’t have any need to know about their peepees and hoohoos
Good god. Dan Fincke is such a whiny baby. He really, really doesn’t like being wrong. PRO-TIP: Noting your privileged position and how it informs your argument is not a “personal attack” or an “ad hominem,” Dan. You’re not a contentless vessel from which pours Pure Argumentation.
Also, cm, I thought I drew pretty clear distinctions amongst sapience, sentience, and none of the above. Sentient-but-not-sapient beings might not have voting rights, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have minds or interests or that they are unworthy of consideration.
If the kid genuinely isn’t sentient even at the level of a pet, then, well, it’s the parents’ decision what the right thing is to do and what level of sentimental attachment they want to feel, but I don’t have a problem with saying that there’s nothing there that I personally consider terribly valuable in its own right. The value in that case is on the parents’ end, not on the offspring’s end, in the same way that my grandfather’s dead body didn’t have any value to him (on accounta he didn’t exist any more at that point), but it did have value to some members of the family.
That grinding noise? That’s my teeth right now.
Fair. But are their options unconstrained?
Well, “want to” was kind of my anti-point. “” would have been better.
Seriously? You can’t see how this might be abused?
cm, how does one abuse a mindless thing, except in the sense of using it improperly?
John Morales #160
I suggest that you stop now.
even though this is the Thunderdome
You know, as a child, I heard a lot of: “Don’t rise to the bait.”
Now I’m older, I’m more often able to follow that advice.
*ponders*
Nope.
Shitty move.
Why, chigau?
(It’s a legitimate question)
cm, I dislike religious thinking.
John Morales
Sometimes a an entity who was a person becomes a “mindless thing”.
The other people involved with said entity are unwilling to simply compost “it”.
Try (again) to have some empathy for lesser beings.
KG:
Maybe he should try looking for his fundament instead. With both hands, a map, and GPS.
Morales, your rape apologism is nauseating.
chigau,
When I find a bug or spider in the house, I carefully put it outside — but I don’t chastise people who just squash them or spray them with insecticide or pretend that it’s a moral issue.
Morales, I find it very interesting that you’re engaging in rape apologetics.
Ms. Daisy Cutter:
<sigh>
There was no such rape apologia, since cm referred to people with developmental disabilities and I was enquiring as to the meaning of the term ‘abuse’ in regards to mindless things — if you go that way, you might as well call necrophilia rape.
(You (like cm did in response to Anne) are equating mindlessness with developmentally disabled people, and it was that to which I was drawing attention)
Happiestsadist, are mindless things people?
Morales, you dishonest shitlord, CM hyperlinked the word “abused” to an article on sexual abuse of the developmentally disabled, and you immediately questioned whether “a mindless thing” could be abused at all. But everyone’s misinterpreting you and your question was totally honest. Right.
For the record, jackhole, a person isn’t a “thing.” A person with a severe degree of disability of one sort of another may not have a “mind” as we see it, but they remain a person, and, yes, fucking a person who cannot consent is rape.
Christ on toast points.
You’re the one calling mindless people things. And most people do find fucking a human corpse to be a form of rape, at the very least, the rapist is seeking humans who can’t say no.
But you wouldn’t know anything about that sort of thing.
OK. Like you need my input. But anyway:
1. John, you’re being disgusting by insisting on the “mindless thing” line of conversation. Some things are just too raw for people with emotional investments. What you’re doing is cruel and you should stop.
2. It’s premature to say John is engaging in rape apologetics. I didn’t understand that because I hadn’t initially clicked the link cm provided. It’s reasonable to assume John didn’t either, so he isn’t referring to mentally disabled people as “mindless things.”
John Morales
I am troubled by you this evening.
Bleh, way to typo. “Calling people “mindless things”, obviously.
Josh, I didn’t click that link, either, but I hovered over it and read the URL.
I can’t speak to Morales’ habits w/r/t link clicking, so you could be correct, but given the degree of assholery on display here without assuming rape apologetics, let’s just say I’m not feeling the principle of charity very strongly.
[final]
Ms. Daisy Cutter:
But cm was responding to Anne who was not speaking about the developmentally disabled (who most certainly are people), but about mindless beings, and my question to cm explicitly was about mindless entities.
(OK, ‘thing’ was a bad term and pointlessly provocative)
—
Happiestsadist,
See above re ‘things’, but the relevant issue is personhood; for example, you can’t both argue fetuses are not people on that basis and simultaneously claim mindless human beings are people without being self-contradictory.
—
Josh,
I hereby stop.
—
chigau, well, I didn’t like the way Anne’s contention was straw dummied. But yeah, I was perhaps out of line.
Well, here we encroach on gooey-style undemonstrable hypotheticals.
So here’s something to ponder for real-life cases:
How do we know? For sure?.
We don’t actually have a “sentienceometer” that can measure sentience on a 18 point scale, D&D style, you know.
Given that the child presumably was sentient at some point in the past, (and given that the possibility of recovering sentience at some point in the future is never irrevocably, provably absolutely zero) one the question of sentience now, it is reasonable that benefit of doubt be given.
Amphiox, anencephaly would be an example where doubt is hardly possible.
I missed this earlier. Dysomniak:
Let’s not, okay?
Remember Shiloh and his NDE obsession? Remember how the conversation kept revolving around the so-called “shut down” brain, flatlined on EEG? Remember how, even with full anesthesia, hypothermia, massive brain injury, and undetectable brain waves, you couldn’t ever say for sure that the brain was not working, and not only not working, but not working well enough to produce quasi-realistic dream-like states such as those reported in NDEs?
So, in the real-world, by what criteria do you declare and confirm that any human being is truly mindless, outside of clinical brain death?
Again, given either the known existence of a fully human mind previously, the expectation of the potential to develop a fully human mind in the future, or both, and (critically with respect to the analogy with fetuses) given that the bodily autonomy of ANOTHER human being with DEMONSTRATED fully human mind is NOT at stake, it is reasonable that benefit of doubt be given.
Anencephaly is an example where survival is hardly possible.
So no, it doesn’t count. In the practical reality of that situation, the question of mind/personhood doesn’t come up.
Except in the context of funeral arrangements.
Anencephaly and its various near and partial cousins being excellent examples of what I had alluded to earlier – fuzzy borderline cases wherein it is necessary to treat on a case by case basis.
NEW THREAD.