Ruse has long been in his maundering dotage, but at least he could be counted on to maintain a thought in his head for more than a few minutes…and sadly, he has now written an inconsistent and incoherent pile of drivel in which he clearly rides his favorite hobby-horses while failing to notice that he’s skewering his own windmills.
Let us begin with Micheal Ruse’s wounded pride. It’s a common marker of a Ruse article: the litany of his grievances, the stinging memory of past defeats. He will never forget an insult. It’s as if every time he mentions me, it’s solely to complain that I once called him a ‘clueless gobshite’ (a remark made in passing; if I’d known it was going to be immortalized by Ruse I would have tried to be more creative.) Yes, he brings it up again in his latest article.
And yet I, and others of my ilk, am reviled in terms far harsher than those kept for the real opponents like the Creationists. We are labelled ‘accommodationists’ for our willingness to give religion a space not occupied by science. We are put down in terms that denote powerful emotion, way beyond reason. In The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, I am likened to Neville Chamberlain, the pusillanimous appeaser of Hitler. Jerry Coyne, the author of both the book and the blog Why Evolution is True and an ardent fan of Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, wrote about one of my books in terms used by George Orwell: ‘There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.’ The Minnesota biologist PZ Myers, who writes the blog Pharyngula, has referred to me as a ‘clueless gobshite’.
Let it go, Michael. It was 3½ years ago. I’ll try to find something new for you to be bitter over.
And then he says this:
I don’t care about the personal attacks. Indeed, I have the kind of personality that welcomes being in the public eye, even if the attention is critical.
He doesn’t care? Michael Ruse obsesses over past insults more than anyone else I know…well, except maybe John Kw*k.
What else is this article about? Why, the horribleness of those New Atheists. They’re just like those religious fanatics, especially that guy Richard Dawkins. It’s yet another familiar tirade about how atheism is just another religion.
But then, this is weird…after excoriating the New Atheists for their fanaticism, he declares that he, Michael Ruse, is the fanaticalest of them all.
Dawkins has said that on a scale from 0 to 7, from belief to non-belief, he scores about 6.9. I place myself even higher than that. I am a true non-believer. I am also a fanatical Darwinian — more so even than Dawkins because I think that, when it comes to culture, genes do much that he hands over to his own special cultural notion of ‘memes’. I have written many books about the implications of Darwinian thinking for epistemology and ethics.
What’s more, I think that religion has done and continues to do much harm to society.
If certainty and aggressive advancement of ideas are the signifiers of a ‘religion’, and if Michael Ruse really dislikes those atheist proselytizers, I suggest that he go lock himself in an empty room and beat himself up for a while.
But wait! There are more paradoxes! One of the big problems with the New Atheism, says Ruse, is the way we idolize and support our leaders unquestioningly.
There are other aspects of the New Atheist movement that remind me of religion. One is the adulation by supporters and enthusiasts for the leaders of the movement. It is not just a matter of agreement or respect, but of a kind of worship. This certainly surrounds Dawkins, who is admittedly charismatic.
We worship Dawkins? And possibly Hitchens and Harris? Has he ever noticed how much we all freaking argue with each other? There are no saints and popes in the New Atheist movement.
Oh, wait, yes he has noticed. In the very next paragraph.
Freud describes a phenomenon that he calls ‘the narcissism of small differences’, in which groups feud over distinctions that, to the outside, seem totally trivial. It is highly characteristic of religions: think of the squabbles about the meaning of the Eucharist, for instance, or the ways in which Presbyterians tear each other apart over the true meaning of predestination. For those not involved in the fights, the issues seem virtually nonsensical, and certainly wasting energies that should be spent on fighting common foes. But not for those within the combat zone.
The New Atheists show this phenomenon more than any group I have ever before encountered.
So which is it? Blind, unquestioning worship of our leaders, or incessant fractiousness and dissension? It doesn’t matter. Ruse is just spinning his wheel of deplorable sins and accusing us of whatever random flaw pops up.
It’s a freakishly odd article. It turns out that a major crux of his argument is that these New Atheists are all Humanists…and Humanism is bad. It’s an awful muddle, free of all distinctions and thought. Atheism is the same as Humanism is the same as Religion. It’s the most useless philoosophical assertion ever.Which makes it entierly appropriate that the comment is coming from the most useless philosopher ever.
Gee, Ruse, maybe there’s a conspiracy out to get you.
Unless, well, you tend to evoke certain terms by writing schlock.
I don’t think there’ll be many bet takers for the first possibility.
Glen Davidson
Well I gotta hand it to the guy, I thought the only person who could burn through that many inches without even a whisper of a cogent argument was Dennis Markuse.
Give the guy a break – call him a “clueless whining gobshite” so he has something new to complain about. He can’t complain it is any less accurate, since he’s demonstrated his whininess.
People like Ruse make me feel a New Atheist. Fortunately there are always some New Atheists making me feel an accommodist, so that I can keep on fostering my identity crisis. Not that I lose even a second of sleep about it.
Not sure if it was a typo, but I will now refer to this type of mental gymnastic as “philoosophy.”
Philoosophy! Hurdy-gurdy bork bork brok!
… the most useless philosopher ever.
An aptly-positioned sequel to “clueless gobshite”, but questionable in point of fact.
31 years ago, Ruse’s testimony was quite constructive in the Mclean v. Arkansas case. His contributions during the present millennium have been on the nugatory side, but how long would it take to find a philosopher without even that much of a positive impact?
I’m not sure if it was just the way PZ presented it, but I got a hint of Ruse complaining: Hey, I’m just as atheist and darwinist as Dawkins et al! Why aren’t they worshipping me!?! (foot stamp) !!
Oh, come on. I know it’s fashionable for atheists to declare how very independent of thought they are, what with culture ceasing to have the same effect on one as it does the great unwashed masses once one declares Jesus a myth, but we’ve all seen the stink eye we get when we criticize Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, or Thunderf00t. Don’t you know how much they’ve all done for atheism?
This community really needs to stop declaring itself so damn wonderful.
Or at the very least, citation needed.
“John Kw*k”
What’s with the asterisk?
If you use the actual name you run the risk of summoning Him.
But now PZ has summoned everyone whose name matches the wildcard expression. We’re doomed!
If you use the actual name you run the risk of summoning Him.</i.
true… but actually the reason is historical.
the old pharyngula used to autodelete comments that had his name in them :)
well, it did for a while anyway.
I saw Ruse “debate” Dembski at my grad institution. The whole thing was decidedly odd. First, it wasn’t a debate. They took turns presenting, with Dembski going second and then took questions from the audience. They didn’t address each other directly at all. Ruse’s talk was okay, as these things go; Dembski’s was, of course, an unmitigated mess.
The thing that bothered me, though, was that whether or not Ruse intended to give this impression, the whole thing smacked of a “well, who knows who’s right, so let’s give both sides equal time, alright?” I mean, Ruse gives his talk, Dembski gives his, but… then what? If Dembski made any mistakes – and he made lots – Ruse sure wasn’t going to say anything about it. We the audience were left to try to untangle his nonsensical mess.
Michael Ruse might have let it pass by without direct comment, but I wasn’t about to. Dembski made the outrageous claim in his presentation that he wasn’t arguing for anything so OUTRAGEOUS as continuing creation – oh, no! He just argued that all the information necessary was there at the moment of creation… which I pointed out would be evidentially indistiguishable from having no creator at all. He then kind of back-pedaled and agreed that new information would have to enter the system, which I got him to admit was pretty much the same thing as continuing creation. I don’t mention this to toot my own horn – the error was elementary and could have been caught by a first year logic student – but to highlight Ruse’s reaction. He grinned while I was grilling Dembski. He gave this little cock-eyed grin, like, “Ha! I knew someone would get you!”
RUSE, YOU JACKASS, IF IT’S SUCH A BLATANT ERROR WHY AREN’T YOU SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT IT? Seriously, what if no one there had been willing to ask Dembski the question? What if no one had noticed (I shudder to think that, however)? If Ruse is going to go around actually debating this guy, if he claims this is actually in the service of promoting a skeptical view of creationist nonsense (rather than just promoting himself), doesn’t he have an obligation to call Dembski on his bullshit?
Or am I just nuts?
Antihumanism? Now there’s a position you don’t see everyday.
I consider myself to be a posthumanist, but antihumanism is just waaaay out there to be honest…
I don’t think Ruse QUITE understands what it means to say you’re a 7 on Dawkins’s 0-7 scale.
Hahaha, PZ, after having listed such wordy intellectual put-downs as to him being ‘pusillanimous’ etc. he does kinda leave your contribution looking like something you said after ten pints of lager and a kebab.
Still, the practice of claiming that science should reference current weaknesses in certain areas of knowledge by bookmarking it as, “we’ll say God did this bit for now”, is utter bollocks though.
Apparently it’s not enough to simply say we need to do a bit more research, we have to invoke ‘magic’ while we wait.
Isn’t that remark rather too kind to Mary Midgley?
I liked the article, and thought that despite an overindulgence in rhetoric, Ruse had some decent points to make. Much like the new atheists ;)
coelsblog #18
Just because Midgley’s objections to Dawkins’ Selfish Gene shows she has no idea about what Dawkins was writing about and just because her attacks on him are personal rather than academic is no reason to think she’s an incompetent philosopher. There are many other reasons to think so as well.
PZ, while you’re on the subject of accommodationists, Stangroom deserves another mention. Not only does he whine incessantly about how mean and nasty you are, but he’s a fellow traveler of the hater crowd. What elaborate mental gymnastics he uses to reconcile those positions, I’m not sure, but it’s certainly interesting.
He’s also one of those people who regards insults aimed at himself as being vastly worse than insults aimed at other people. He was mortally offended by you calling him functionally illiterate (after he blatantly misrepresented one of your posts), and by you including him in a list of misogynistic tweeters.
@Brownian,
Brownian, on the other hand, is best known for inviting people to go fuck themselves with a sharp object and die doing so. A far greater contribution to civilization, no doubt.
Agreed.
drosera:
Reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be your strong point. Brownian was pointing out the contradiction in self-described freethinkers holding certain people to be beyond criticism. He wasn’t commenting on the merits of those people.
That’s hardly what I’m best known for. And I retracted that comment and apologized for it.
Was that all you wanted to say? Or is there more?
@hyperdeath,
Nobody is holding certain people beyond criticism. But I don’t want to repeat that discussion here. I was just struck by the hypocrisy of this particular commenter who has completely disqualified himself to be the arbiter in any kind of dispute. He should crawl under a decaying log.
Yeah, like an abusive spouse apologizing for beating up their partner. That’s alright then. Carry on.
So, is there a point to this stream of tu quoques?
Does any of this somehow contradict my comment? Because right now, you’re just another smug, irrelevant fuck mistaking style for substance.
That’s fucking awesome. How fucking high are you?
Why should religion claim that space? It seems that space should be occupied by something more worthwhile, like philosophy*, or humanism**, or a couple of pints of beer.
Religion is worse than useless in any space. Religion is nothing more than authoritarianism dressed up as mysticism*** or spirtiualism***, all designed to disguise the fact it’s the epistemology of making shit up.
Fuck that. I have enough useless shit in my life. I don’t have time to deal with the multitude of friends, acquaintances, and complete fucking strangers trying to tell me I need to live my life based on their made-up shit. I’m tired of people using their made-up shit as an excuse to feel aggrieved, or to keep their own children from a proper education or effective health-care, or to control society to fit their irrational made-up bullshit.
There hasn’t been one decent fucking argument why religion should have access to the space not occupied by science. We have far better things with which to fill that space.
* Which is more worthwhile than religion, at least.
** Or, as I like to call it, We’re all in this together-ism.
*** Whatever that means.
drosera:
And you have completely removed yourself from rational discussion.
Hey! I have an idea. Let’s all make drastic, unsupportable claims about each others’ inabilities to perform certain intellectual tasks based on single instances of behavior, rather than an overarching pattern. That’s an awesome game.
And by awesome, I mean, “a favorite of half-witted fuckwads everywhere.”
Well, I did make that comment, and it’s not the worst I’ve made. There is a pattern there, and one I would do well to correct.
But that hardly disqualifies me from being an arbiter of a dispute, even if that’s what I was doing. Which, of course, I am not doing.
On every decent blog Brownian would have been banned for all eternity for making that comment. Just imagine Richard Dawkins writing something like that. The world would be too small to contain the outrage. But everybody here (except Walton, who dared to call him out) apparently has no problem with this kind of behavior. I find that pretty disgusting. But that’s just me.
drosera:
If this isn’t a decent* blog, what are you doing here?
But more to the point, did Brownian apologize? Has Brownian refrained from those kinds of posts since being called out? (And yeah, Walton’s pretty good about that.)
Brownian has copped to the accusation, and apologized for it. What the fuck more do you want? You want to keep bringing it up every time Brownian offers opinion, supported argument, or intelligently witty commentary? For fuck’s sake, you even agreed with Brownian’s post. You brought up the past just to whine.
And I find that pretty disgusting. But that’s just me.
* Whatever that means.
@nigelTheBold, Venomous Demonic Hater,
I didn’t agree with Brownian’s entire post, just with one particular sentence. There’s a difference, you know.
You should discuss this with commenter PG on Edwin Kagin’s blog. He feels that any blog that moderates is an echo chamber. But never mind that. He also dislikes me. The two of you will have a lot to talk about.
Whatever a decent blog is, it would then be full of people like you who do not understand how to construct an argument.
That would be pretty disgusting.
And the part you didn’t necessarily agree with*, you dismissed with an ad hominem fallacy. And that’s the part of your post with which I find offensive.
* It was hard to tell precisely what you were commenting on, other than your judgement of Brownian’s abilities as arbiter of disagreements. And your judgement was just an opinion, yet you stated it as fact. Oh, well.
Okay, you want me to comment on the substance of your post?
Brownian responded to this statement by PZ:
with this:
In other words, Dawkins et al. are criticized within the atheist community, just as PZ noted. So, Brownian’s response is self-defeating and clueless.
Is that the best you can come up with?
Sure, and some Catholics criticise the Pope. The fact that some criticism exists does not invalidate the claim that there is a tendency to elevate people like Dawkins to Pope-like positions.
As you wrote:
Now, why would there be such a disparate response to Dawkins vs. me?
Of course, he has much higher visibility than I do. But he’s also seen as somewhat as a hero in the movement. Follow any thread in which he does put his foot in it, and you’ll see any number of disappointed comments with the sentiment “heroes with feet of clay”.
This is natural. This is normal. This happens in any community. (To continue the parallel with me, the reason that I’m afforded some leeway is that people tend to feel I’ve outweighed my negative tendencies with positive ones. For ill or well.)
But it’s certainly not the case that this community does not ‘worship’ Harris, or Hitchens, or Dawkins, esepcially given the loose way in which Ruse is using the term.
More accurately, it is not the case that there are no saints and popes in the community, unless PZ is specifically referring to the supernatural attributes of these positions, in which case his comment is facile and trite: there are no saints and popes in any community.
‘Clueless’.
Give me a fucking break.
Many people in the New Atheist community certainly admire Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, but only a handful of nutters would ‘worship’ them. Of course, if you start redefining words you can always ‘win’ (redefined) any argument.
People who try to silence criticism of their heroes by pointing to their tremendous contribution to areas not directly related to the criticism, and scold critics for daring to criticize their heroes despite having accomplished less, have crossed the line from admiration to worship.
Their proportion in the population seems to be unknown (unless you want to substantiate your estimate of ‘a handful’), but they reliably appear whenever a criticism of the heroes listed is made (at least on this fine blog).
I don’t know many Catholics who ‘worship’ the Pope, for whatever that term means. So let’s stop using it then. Ruse brought it up, and PZ rebutted with the simplistic claim that there are no saints or popes in the atheist community. So we can simply work with PZ’s comment.
It is the case that many in the New Atheist community admire Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens to the point of insisting they be exempt from criticism by lesser people. (Read through any of PZ’s posts on Harris for examples.)
While we are dredging up the past in order to make contrived ad hominems, let’s look at drosera’s fine contributions here . Would you believe that drosera, in accusing Brownian of being a hypocrite by bringing up a select few unsavory comments, is hirself guilty of hypocrisy? Because drosera hateshateshates “slander” and has a very low threshold for what it considers “slander”? And that it is obvious that it is motivated to bring this up about Brownian because he is the kind of drooling sycophants that Brownian’s comment mocked? Well, then, I present to you, The Best of Drosera.
On Accusations of Sexism and Zombie Troglodytes:
Richard Dawkins? Sexist? INTERNET SLANDER!!!
Drosera: Gentleman in the Fray
Calling someone sexist is character assassination, not criticism, mmkay?
You used words I didn’t use! I win!
Did I mention I like to accuse people of slander without elaboration?
What is slander? Well, I know slander when I see it.
Innocent until guilty: For “victims” of “slander”, not for “slanderers”!
Verdict: Dimwitted troll. What say you, commentariat?
Did you see the pushback against criticism of Thunderf00t? Have you seen the pushback against people who criticize Dawkins for his Dear Muslima bullshit? Or how about the folks who post criticizing Harris for his Islamophobia?
Hell, even here I’ve seen folks irrationally defend PZ.
Brownian’s point is that we do provide special dispensations to those we hold in high regard. We revere them a bit more than we should. We defend them even when they say indefensible things*.
So, no. Brownian’s point stands.
* Like, “You womenz have it good compared to females in other countries, so shut up about your problems.”
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/09/07/no-compromises/comment-page-1/#comment-451694
anteprepro, #45:
Hell, not only does Brownian’s point stand, but drosera is exhibit A, B, and C.
That is why you should always flounce with a loud public announcement. That way, you may be deterred from coming back by the potential for embarrassment, and if you do come back, at least you’ll give people a good laugh. Win-win.
For all the people who say that Pharyngula is such an awful place, for all the people who say they hate everything this place stands for and despise all its evil denizens, for all the people who flounce away in rage and disgust… a fucking lot of them come right back, hoping everyone forgot about their tantrum when they try to start a new tantrum.
To all the trolls out there: You may have an addiction. Seek help.
Oh shi-
Anyway, the post I meant to link to in my first comment was already linked to by chigau.
drosera@22: I might be late to the party, but I thought Brownian was best known for the queue.
Ah, I see reading further down you’ve simply failed to stick your flounce.
Well, this is interesting. So, if we take these comments:
And this one:
So I (and the rest of the Pharyngula commentariat) don’t have the appropriate moral or ethical purity to criticise on Dawkins, or the community at large.
No saints, no popes indeed.
I would like to state for the record that drosera has caused me to change my position on this issue.
I had been disagreeing with Brownian.
Yes, I defended Dawkins against the outrageous outburst of hate displayed here some time ago. So what? That doesn’t imply that I consider him to be above criticism. In fact, I have criticized him myself on his own website for seeming to be an admirer of the odious Geert Wilders. Dawkins even bothered to respond personally.
But as I already said ad nauseam (as one commenter above was kind enough to demonstrate), there is a difference between slander and valid criticism. Apparently, it needs repeating.
In the meantime, you are all doing a good job papering over your comrad Brownian’s torture fantasies. He apologized, so it’s okay.
Find a new gotcha.
Or stick the flounce.
I don’t grok the aura built around people like Harris and Dawkins. I sometimes cringe at the occasional Pharyngula commenter jumping to defend PZ in a personal way.
Maybe it’s because I live in Nowhere, Bumfuckistan and have never seen them giving a talk. Maybe it’s because I’ve been looking at the whole NuAtheist culture thing from the outside.
The only attractive I see in them is that they say things that make sense. Outside of that, I don’t see why so many people would refrain from criticizing them. Would we excuse a firefighter for a murder because he’s saved lots of people? Would we excuse a philantropist from an embezzlement scheme because he’s donated a lot to charity? Why are we excusing scientists from hateful rhetoric and sexism because of their “contributions”? Come ON.
And yet you were oddly silent about what that distinction actually was. I’m sure that isn’t because it would show that you either don’t know what slander is or because it would have been shooting yourself in the foot. Nope. I’m sure the person who shouts out “slander” with the all precision of a lawyer’s parrot has a firm grasp on the subject.
What more can he possibly do about saying bad things on the internet? But that you consider this insufficient is particularly hilarious. Do you know what makes Brownian different Dawkins? Brownian was wrong, realized it, and apologized. Dawkins was wrong, hasn’t apologized, and continues to be a passive-aggressive, sexist asshat.
And you defended him how? Ah, here it is:
IOW “You’re not worthy to criticise St. Dawkins.”
“Torture fantasy.” It’s less torture fantasy than Dawkins is a clueless misogynist, slanderous dumbfuck.
And again, how is my comment at all relevant to this discussion?
Oh right, here it is:
Again, I don’t have the requisite moral purity.
So, fuckhead, let’s look at my first comment on this thread:
Recognise someone there in the bolded bit, asshole? Oh, yeah, that’s you.
Fucking sycophantic dipshit.
That should be parsed as:
Ban me. And ban Dawkins as well. The community will be all the better for the loss of us both.
And I sincerely mean that.
By the way
The “so what” is that you are “slandering” Brownian by the same metric that anyone “slandered” Dawkins. Which makes you a hypocrite accusing Brownian of hypocrisy. I thought the irony might be amusing to any onlookers. It is also shows a pattern of you coming to the defense of Atheist Authorities. Because, really, what have any of us mere mortals done in comparison to their greatness?
Also, bringing up your previous adventure here shows to the General Audience that you are a moron and a blatant troll who is incapable of engaging properly and doesn’t need to be taken too seriously. I thought people needed the warning. And I think this information is at least as relevant as “Brownian, on the other hand, is best known for inviting people to go fuck themselves with a sharp object and die doing so. A far greater contribution to civilization, no doubt”. I’m sure you disagree. But you’re a troll, so it doesn’t matter.
The qualifications for the title of “Qualified Dispute Arbiter” is still being worked on in Committee. Be sure to keep checking back for their Final Report on this issue.
As for Michael Ruse, I’ll repeat the suggestion I made on WEIT: we should put his name and face on t-shirts (“I Like Mike”) and welcome him warmly into the community of New Atheist gods, buying his books and quoting his best stuff with worshipful abandon.
If that doesn’t either pacify him or annoy him, it will at the very least confuse him. Put him off his stride.
He’s been so … strident.
Honestly, I can’t say that for either of you. Mostly because I have no idea what “the community” even is anymore, much less what the quality is of the average member. But also because you are on the right side of the majority of issues, which is apparently a rarity. Dawkins is bad, but he isn’t as bad as Hitchens was, or Harris is. Heck, the only atheist with name recognition who might be better is Dennett, and that might only be because he hasn’t had opportunity to put his foot in his mouth.
Fuck, the Christians were right. Atheism is depressing.
Atothefuckingmen.
Pro tip: Mike, when someone asks you if you’re a god, you say “YES”!
Ruse seems to be using the Mistress Quickly defense. Perhaps PZ could assure him that nobody is calling him an otter. Probably. That we know of.
Jesus fuck, you slimeball, just stop it. Just stop your hateful hoggling against Brownian. You’re not going to win; the queue is proof of that.
Your kind is not welcome here. Fuck off. Hey, I’ll even be nicer to you than you deserve. Fuck off, please.
That made me giggle. Thanks!
Brownian sez:
Here is how I criticized ‘St.’ Dawkins:
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/4953-geert-wilders-goes-on-trial/comments?page=3#comment_434160
And his mildly irritated reply:
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/4953-geert-wilders-goes-on-trial/comments?page=3#comment_434171
How sycophantic is that? But don’t let the facts burst the shiny bubbles of your fantasy world.
By the way, I just noticed that I misspelled PZ’s name (Meyers instead of Myers). Apologies for that. Why did nobody call me out for it? That would at least have made sense.
drosera suffering from flounce fail again I see.
Fucking sycophantic dipshit.
you could probably just use dipshit.
I can’t see the reason to get more specific than that.
How
sycophanticrelevant is that?fixed.
and by implication:
not relevant to what Brownian quoted you on in this thread at all.
comrad Brownian
my fantasies have been tinted with red.
Good for you. I mean that, but how exactly does that invalidate my initial comment in which I wrote,
but we’ve all seen the stink eye we get when we criticize Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, or Thunderf00t. Don’t you know how much they’ve all done for atheism?
and in doing so, perfectly lampooned your comment
Professor Dawkins has done more for the cause of atheism and rational thought than PZ Meyers and his united commentariat put together
Believe me, I wasn’t thinking of you in particular (I don’t at all remember you nor particularly care to), but the reams of like-minded appeals to authority. It was only luck (assisted by your feeble narcissism) that you happened to show up.
If you wish to retain my services as a copy editor, you can pay me.
So is Ichthyic another torture apologist or what?
What is slander? Well, I know slander when I see it.
I’m sure dross* will even trademark it, like Apple trademarked rounded corners.
think about how much money you’ll make by trademarking the word “slander” there, dross!
I have to claim a finder’s fee of 10% on your realized profits if you do trademark it though.
*mind if I call you dross? seems fitting, and ever so slightly shorter. Or would that be slander?
So is Ichthyic another torture apologist or what?
If saying “fuck off”, literally means I expect you to go and fuck yourself, yeah sure. call Homeland security.
dipshit.
Here’s a fact.
In this thread, Brownian wrote:
Here’s another, related fact. In this comment, hir first on the thread, drosera wrote:
Now, I wouldn’t have had such a picture-perfect example of what I was talking about, had drosera not shown up to lay a perfect ad hominem on me in this thread. (And I’m not talking ad hominem in the whiny nerd way that skeptics like to use it, as some sort of pretentious longhand for ‘insult’, but an actual, honest-to-god “you cannot argue X because in the past you’ve done completely unrelated Y” ad hominem.)
Those are some facts, all right.
If drosera is any indication, Dawkins has done fuck-all for rationality.
This is your church, Dick, and this is your congregation.
oh, damn forgot the link…
Those are some facts, all right.
“Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!”
–Homer Simpson
I doubt that most of the regulars are smart enough to see that you are lying through your teeth here, after I just demonstrated that I’m perfectly fine with criticizing Dawkins.
And no, my first comment on this thread was not an ad hominem; I didn’t claim that your comment was wrong because of your horrible fantasies.
huh, I thought the whole “meaningless colorful expression = fantasies of murder and torture” died out with Moony’s blog?
good to know Dross is as intellectually agile as John Kw*k
I didn’t claim that your comment was wrong because of your horrible fantasies.
no, you claimed he shouldn’t speak on the matter, at all, because of your erroneous interpretation of a colorful rejoinder.
you.
fucking.
idiot.
I doubt that most of the regulars are
smartdeluded enough to see that you are lying through your teeth herefixed.
next time, I’m going to bill you before Brownian figures out I’m muscling in on his action.
well, this has been amusing.
if you don’t decide to finally stick your flounce, dross, do drop by again for tea and cookies?
Oh, fuck off, asshole. You may be fine with criticising Dawkins, but it is indisputable that when others did it, you criticised the criticism with a perfect example of what I was talking about.
Here’s your comment again:
See the bolded bit? That’s pretty much exactly what I was talking about.
Here’s my comment again, paraphrasing people like you:
Don’t you know how much they’ve all done for atheism?.
Here’s you:
Professor Dawkins has done more for the cause of atheism and rational thought than PZ Meyers and his united commentariat put together.
My paraphrase again:
Don’t you know how much they’ve all done for atheism?.
You again:
Professor Dawkins has done more for the cause of atheism and rational thought than PZ Meyers and his united commentariat put together.
My paraphrase:
Don’t you know how much they’ve all done for atheism?.
You:
Professor Dawkins has done more for the cause of atheism and rational thought than PZ Meyers and his united commentariat put together.
Smart enough. Right.
No. Technically, you did not use ‘because’ in your first comment. But when asked to clarify, you certainly did so:
So, are you going to continue to sit here and deny what you’ve fucking wrote, you lying fuck? I’ve an idea; why don’t you bring up my comment again. You’re inept at any sort of reasoning, so your best hope is to simply criticise me.
So, fucking have at it, you stupid, useless, lying piece of shit.
Even Brownian himself, to his credit, probably disagrees with your characteristic. But he can correct me if I’m wrong.
Even Brownian himself, to his credit, probably disagrees with your characteristic.
hey, there’s something we can talk about.
I always did disagree that telling someone to fuck themselves sideways with a rusty knife meant anything different than me telling you to simply fuck off.
I disagree with those who came later and decided an apology for that was needed or warranted.
if you want to shift usage because the majority have decided a particular phrasing of “fuck off” has become boring, tedious, or inane, then fine.
but apologies?
naww.
apologies merely tend to encourage idiots like yourself.
Yes, because much of it wasn’t criticism but insane hyperbole.
This is a simple statement of fact and I stand by it. If it gives you a nice ‘gotcha’ feeling in your tummy, be my guest.
insane hyperbole.
that does tend to characterize you better than anything else you’ve said.
I’m finding drosero’s whining, and the mocking of drosero quite amusing.
However my brain keeps reading drosero as drosophila and then setting it to lyrics.
drosophil-eee, drosophil-iii, drosophil-eeee, drosophil-i-i-i-i-i-i, with a knapsack on my back
… you know, when I said:
“apologies merely tend to encourage idiots like yourself.”
I think I need to amend that.
I see that just conversing with idiots like yourself is already too much encouragement.
you need yourself an empty room.
to that end I now contribute.
@Ichthyic,
Juding from your pseudonym I’d rather expect something fishy. Smoked salmon on toast perhaps? I’ll bring a nice bottle of wine. In the meantime you can try to find some actual arguments.
Ad hominem par excellence, fucker.
Ichthyic, the comment drosera is referring to is here. Both Walton and Pteryxx called me out for it.
Well, whatever. So your response to it was this simple statement of fact?
That’s your story? On a thread that you characterised as ‘insane hyperbole’, you thought it apt to throw out a completely unrelated and uneccesary ‘statement of fact’ about Dawkins’ relative contributions to the field? And it’s not actually an example of my comment on this thread, but an unfortunate coincidence which simply makes you look like a douche? And your response to that is to suggest that I’ve used violent, hyperbolic imagery in the past, and despite apologising for it, I’m somehow unqualified to comment on the atheist community’s admiration of people like Dawkins, but that’s not an ad hominem?
That’s the story you’re going with? No, these are all simply unrelated non sequiturs that I’m struggling to twist into a coherent story. You’re being unfairly mischaracterised? You’re simply unable to follow an argument are you? That’s what’s actually happening?
Why, I think you’re one of the most dishonest people I’ve ever encountered.
Flounce already, you chickenshit liar.
Both Walton and Pteryxx called me out for it.
that’s nice.
I wouldn’t have.
but then, I also don’t think Walton and Pteryxx are the moral arbiters of what constitutes an acceptable turn of phrase, any more than I think Dross has any clue what the term “not literal” means.
Quit lying through your teeth Drosera.
Demonstrating your hypocrisy is not an ad hominem.
Here’s one you can use, Ichthyic:
It’s a simple statement of fact. It’s kind of a non sequitur, but feel free to throw that in drosera’s face in response to hir comments. Xe’ll stand by it.
Maybe not. But I’m the arbiter of what I consider acceptable, and I felt that I’d crossed a line.
I then got called away and forgot about it. When I returned to the thread the next AM and saw Walton and Pteryxx’s comments, I was reminded, apologised, and was please that the target graciously accepted it.
You don’t know what the terms hypocrisy nor ad hominem mean.
You haven’t demonstrated any hypocrisy with that comment. If you had, then it would be still be a tu quoque, which is a form of ad hominem, but since I’m talking about whether or not the atheist community has saints and popes (i.e. revered personages), anything unrelated to that is, well, unrelated. To bring it up then is at best a non sequitur, and to imply that because of that comment I’m unqualified to have any say in a discussion on whether or not the atheist community has saints and popes is in fact an ad hominem.
Have you learned nothing?
But I’m the arbiter of what I consider acceptable, and I felt that I’d crossed a line.
fair enough. I just keep going back to that complete idiocy surrounding what happened at Mooney’s blog (was dross there too?) and inevitably come down on the side of NOT overreacting to what are obviously just turns of phrase.
It’s like in that old Python skit… if you were the husband, I the wife, and the “offended” the person who runs off at the mention of the word “tinny”
Ooo! Ooo! Are you taking suggestions?
(Jumps up and down in seat, with hand up, in the manner of an excited third grader…)
And I know this probably just reveals some scary issue of mine own or something, but I always seem to read the weirdest subtexts into these things…
But, seriously, let’s take stock, shall we:
1) Yes, the whole thing does seem, on the surface, kinda pointless as commentary, buuuuut…
2) He points out the fractiousness, the narcissism of small differences stuff,
3) He brings up the old insult,
4) He assures us he really doesn’t mind the abuse, and, finally,
5) He underlines that, look, he’s totally athier than Dawkins.
Don’t you see? This isn’t meant as commentary at all.
Nay. This is the cry of a wounded, lonely soul, if ever there was one. Or, possibly, the shy, shuffled feet of a wallflower at the dance, who dearly wants to get onto the floor, but is just too nervous to ask directly…
He’s lonely, don’t you see? No one’s called him a gobshite in years! And now it’s starting to sting a little. So now he’s all like, c’mon, listen, guys, you fight among yourselves like mad, how come no one fights with me? What, am I not good enough? What gives here? What’s wrong with me? C’mon, I’m standing right here, no one to dance with, dammit! No one’s even looking! What, is it the sweater? The hair? Why is no one paying attention to me! Guuuuuyyyyys….
(Cue ‘Awwwwww’ sound effect…)
So, PZ, seriously, this post is probably a nice start. But I think if someone did up a #HugTheGobshite Twitter tag or somethin’, it’d just make the poor guy’s day. Let’s show some love, here, people.
If this thread has learned us anything, it is that PZ is not considered a pope or a saint by his own commentariat, thereby proving him right.
Here’s one you can use, Ichthyic:
alas, that time is past.
I’ve learned that conversing with it is only humorous for a few minutes.
past that, it just becomes an exercise in waxing the car.
you know… nothing but circular motions?
Well, some people, like drosera, prefer lies cloaked in politeness. I find such people repugnant. They do make excellent politicians, though.
I think drosero is far more interesting in trying to count coup against Brownian.
Basic logic fail. Such a thread would only demonstrate that PZ is not considered a pope or a saint. It certainly would not preclude others from being saints or popes.
Jeepers, but you’re a dull one. Is there anything you’re good at?
They do make excellent politicians, though.
I would substitute the word “successful” for excellent before agreeing with you, and then wax melancholic because of the truth of it, but otherwise no argument.
@Ichthyic,
In the case of Brownian I had the distinct impression that it was not just a turn of phrase. The guy meant it. Read the bloody exchange.
In the case of Brownian I had the distinct impression that it was not just a turn of phrase. The guy meant it. Read the bloody exchange.
last response.
I’ve read the man for years, and know what and how he responds.
if you think he meant those words literally, you’re a bigger fool than anyone ever realized.
No, but those others were already ruled out earlier in this thread. Only PZ remained as potential pope or saint.
btw, Brownian, nor I should have to clarify what the apology was for.
hint:
it wasn’t for Brownian considering he actually threatened someone, nor was it because he has “torture fantasies”.
that shit is all in your motherfucking skull.
Oh, my. You are the most desperate, flailing case I’ve ever seen. No, they haven’t. Read the thread. Fuck. Right. Off. like you promised to do, you lousy, lying, filthy fuck.
Stupid comment. PZ makes it clear is neither a pope or saint on a periodic basis. Only a fool would claim he is one.
I wasn’t threatening, nor do I want Jim to die.
He sounded fairly serious to me:
Not what I would consider merely a ‘colorful rejoinder’ [Ichthyic, somewhere upthread].
I wasn’t threatening, nor do I want Jim to die.
damnit. I just said you didn’t have to clarify that!
;)
…OTOH:
Not what I would consider merely a ‘colorful rejoinder’
I should amend my earlier statement to:
no need to clarify for anyone with at least half a functioning brain.
That’s not much of an argument, given your level of stupidity.
So, you’re not going to come clean and admit your entire reason for bringing this up is an ad hominem, even if it is an example of my ‘hypocrisy’, which it is not?
Because you’ve already been granted way more time on this subject than you deserve.
You can leave this place. We may be foul-mouthed, but we don’t much care for cowards and liars.
Which I didn’t.
Brownian,
Clever, to put the part following the comma in the present tense. You’re a sick fuck, to state it in language even you can understand.
Oops. Well, this dumbfuck is on the case of hypocrisy!, and xe’s not going to rest until we all admit that I wrote that and was serious (which means, what? I really wanted jim to suffer self-inflicted internal puncture trauma, perhaps fatally? Even if so, so fucking what?), and
because of thatunrelatedly, I’m unsuitable as an arbiter of disputes, andbecause of thatunrelatedly, I’m wrong and PZ is right that there are no popes or saints in atheism, despite xir not ever having actually made any argument other than referring to that comment.You sounded like you did. Maybe if you shut the fuck up for a week or so, you wouldn’t keep sounding like are a demented fool claiming PZ is a pope or saint…
Oh, a fucking liar and an idiot thinks I’m a sick fuck.
I don’t know how to put it any plainer than this: I have absolutely no respect for you as a person. You’re a fucking idiot, and you’re a perfect representation of the sort of pseudo-intellectual this atheist movement is chock-a-block with.
Feel however you want about me. It is not possible for me to care any less about you as a person, nor about what you have to say.
It does piss me off that you’re a fucking cowardly liar, though.
Christ on a crutch Nerd, read the fucking thread. Drosera is indeed a moron, but xe did not say that, nor did xe imply that. If anything, xe’s defending PZ’s comment that “There are no saints and popes in the New Atheist movement”, but by no means is xe doing it in the manner you seem to think.
So, we’re going to take that as a no on copping to the ad hominem then. You’re just gonna double down, are ya.
So, honesty means nothing to you.
I’m perfectly comfortable being an honest, but sick fuck. You, on the other hand, care not a whit for honesty.
I hope Dawkins is very happy with the calibre of follower he’s attracted.
Yet I quoted xis post. Maybe xe needs to be more pertinent, and less defensive or attempting inane humor when it posts. I get the feeling Xe can’t say what Xe really means.
Yeah, that would piss me off too, if it were true. Fortunately it isn’t. But I seriously hope you’re not in a position of power over anybody. Not even a goldfish.
Well, it won’t admit so, since all it really means are ad hominems and appeals to authority. So it lies and simply settles for claiming non sequiturs and irrelevancies.
So, you’re like what? 22?
And I get the feeling you can’t read. I don’t know why.
Oh, a fucking liar and an idiot thinks I’m a sick fuck.
FWIW, nobody else thinks that, nor has ever thought that of you.
dross is just that… dross.
You still haven’t admitted that you’re engaging in ad hominems. You clearly have.
Is that dishonesty, or cowardice? What else?
That’s only because you folks have no idea of the things I choose not to write.
And yet you haven’t.
Were you serious? Or just lying?
That’s only because you folks have no idea of the things I choose not to write.
oh sure, you’re all darkness and badness.
totally believable.
*pinches cheek*
little cuddly wuddly teddy bear you.
Well, that’s what the people who I am in positions of power over think.
I can’t vouch for the goldfish. They won’t fill out the performance appraisal forms I give them.
I can’t vouch for the goldfish. They won’t fill out the performance appraisal forms I give them.
I keep telling you that fish don’t respond well to torture.
try treats instead.
meh, I gotta go meet up with the SO for lunch.
Do me a favor and toss all the lab cats in the meat grinder for me, eh Brownian?
there’s a good evil lad.
Oh, that’s a given. Without extra vegetable matter, fancy goldfish like chinshurin are prone to constipation.
Toss? Won’t they die too quickly?
Fine. *Grumbles*
Dear Muslimina
I’m sorry I can’t bother to respond to the death threats you are getting for apostacy…someone on the internet used violent hyperbole
*Trebuchets a cask of grog Ing’s way*
Hey, I think I found a pic of Brownians goldfish
It seems happy IMO.
So, I see that drosera is behaving almost exactly like it did in the previous thread. Terminally obtuse, that one. It is literate, but only just. Just barely on the cusp, where it is fully capable of writing coherently, but can’t quite grasp the ideas conveyed by others. Needs a course in reading comprehension. Or intellectual honesty. Or it needs to be put into Troll rehabilitation. Or something.
Holy fuck.
Narcissism on display. Impressive.
Alright, this has been bugging me since… well, since my douchebag ex-boyfriend used to do it.
How is “I’m not saying what it is blatantly obvious I was saying, that sentence was totally a non-sequitur, not a response to or otherwise in any way related to what was said immediately before it!” a defense against anything?
Non-sequiturs are (a) rude (b) fallacious and (c) indicative of a complete lack of understanding of how argument, conversation, or any other sort of verbal or written exchange involving more than one person using any language actually functions. Using non-sequiturs is an admission that you are too much of a dumbfuck to speak to another human being and you should probably shut the hell up forever, or at least until you learn how talking works.
Thanks, Ichthyic. I did appreciate that.
I couldn’t understand that myself. It’s not a better thing to be throwing out random claims unrelated to any discussion at hand, even if it weren’t clearly a lie to claim so.
Also,
“or at least until you learn how talking works.”
was awesome.
Hey, I think I found a pic of Brownians goldfish
Is he experimenting with growth hormones again?
I keep telling him: look what happened to Henry Pym!
you don’t want to go there.
“or at least until you learn how talking works.”
does this blog have a video chat function now too?
damn, I just got this new puter, and I’m STILL behind on everything!
Talking is like sex: It’s good when you do it with other people who are interested in it. It’s better when you do it by yourself. And it’s fantastic when you do it by yourself in front of a random crowd of people, whose grimaces and sneers are clearly indicative of their awe and wonder.
So, given the sheer intellectual force of that analogy, I conclude that brainfarts must be orgasmic. Consider trolls explained.
(Yes, I’m pretty sure that I also don’t understand how talking works.)
So, given the sheer intellectual force of that analogy
it did indeed put images in my tattered brain.
I guiltily confess to actually experiencing the awe and wonder that comes with a bit of exhibitionism though.
OK, so it was one guy on a horse that was watching us have sex on a beach.
…and I think the horse was the one that looked more interested, but still.
what a thrill.
Honestly, thank you thecynicalromantic. I was gobsmacked for awhile there.
“So, I was just skimming Pharyngula and saw Brownian’s name and decided to lay into him, because, you know, fuck that rancid douche. Yeah, that’s what I hate about Pharyngula: you can’t have a decent conversation anymore.”
That’s the story that’s better? Really?
And then,
“I wasn’t saying ‘Dawkins has done so much more for atheism than you people’ in the way Brownian was talking about. ‘Dawkins has done so much more for atheism than you people’ just rolled up on my random fact-o-dex. If I’d commented a half hour later, I would have written ‘Latex allergies are accompanied by fruit allergies in some people’. I stand by my statement. Gawd, I hate slumming on Pharyngula. You people are total morons.”
What the fucking fuck?
What the fucking fuck?
see?
surely there must be people actually deserving of the rusty blade/necrotic porcupine treatment?
I mean, just for irony’s sake alone, I would use it on dross.
oh, right, I better get to it then:
Dross…
may a necrotic porcupine fester, unremovable, in your bowels.
Horses: Nature’s Peeping Toms.
I smell a documentary! I hope…
I have two theories: Internet trolls were originally abandoned children, raised in the Internet Wilderness by a pack of spambots. Or they are actually self-aware spambots that are really bad at selling things, and thus post their nonsense with more frustrated RAGE than you would expect from your run-of-the-mill spambots. I don’t know which one I prefer.
Internet trolls were originally abandoned children, raised in the Internet Wilderness by a pack of spambots.
hypothesis rejected because of the simple fact it would require learning abilities not in evidence.
self-aware spambots that are really bad at selling things, and thus post their nonsense with more frustrated RAGE
again, I think there is sufficient evidence to reject the “self-aware” part of this hypothesis.
otherwise, modified with that evidence in mind, I think 2 works.
I don’t know. If you get a normal person, take away 12-16 years of education, and replace it with 12-16 years of poorly spelled Viagra ads, I think the end result will be a pretty close match to a troll.
But, yeah, I’m leaning towards two as well. The debate is how “self-aware” they are. I think we need a Turing test that gives letter grades.
If you get a normal person, take away 12-16 years of education, and replace it with 12-16 years of poorly spelled Viagra ads, I think the end result will be a pretty close match to a troll.
thus masking the previous effects of education.
right, ok, but then how would one be able to tell the difference just by examining the end product?
You’re such a bunch of echo-puppets.
Except for drosophila.
I believe it calls for two experiments.
The first: Group A will be the control, Group B is children without an education and raised by humans, Group C is children with an education and raised by spambots, and Group D is children without an education and raised by spambots. Make sure there are a few dozen children in each group, start them from infancy and then once they hit age 20 or so, monitor their internet activity for a year or three and record the amount of Trollishness, including such measures as Poor Spelling, Illogic, Tenacity, Aggressiveness, Inanity, Regeneration, and, perhaps, Inexplicable Jamaican Accent.
The prediction: Group C will slightly out-troll Group B, and Group D will trump them all.
The second: Take a sample of the population of Internet Trolls from various sites and a control sample of the general Internet Population. Measure their Trollishness as above. Get them in person and inquire about their parents and their education.
The prediction: There will be a significant difference in Number of Spambot Parents and Education between control and troll, and both variables will correlate strongly with Trollishness in both groups.
I’m pretty sure you’d both studies to confirm hypothesis 1. And if there isn’t enough of an effect for Raised By Spambots in study 1, and it seems suspiciously difficult to get trolls to come to physical interviews, then the tests for hypothesis 2 would begin.
I don’t know what echo-puppets would be, but they sound awesome. A sci-fi or fantasy setting is out there somewhere, waiting for them. Yearning for them. I just hope they have a hivemind, or else I will throw a fit.
An echo-puppet? That’s easy. Everyone knows what they are. They’re also sometimes called Mirror-droids.
Artificial life forms that look like they’re made of perfectly polished metal, their faces are perfectly reflective. They have the personality and memories of anyone that is reflected in their face.
Group A will be the control, Group B is children without an education and raised by humans, Group C is children with an education and raised by spambots, and Group D is children without an education and raised by spambots.
now who to apply to for funding?
sounds like an NiH project to me. I’ll make a call to Francis Collins.
I’m sure he’ll love the idea.
:)
@Ichthyic
Try to find a way to work waterfalls into the experiment, then you’re sure to get funding
So, given sufficiently broad definitions of “reflective” and “memories,” they’re politicians?
Well, clearly it would have to be an institution that didn’t care about the welfare of children, are willing to invade privacy, and who want a cleaner internet. Sadly, the results would likely show a positive effect for education, so I don’t think the Republican party would be as willing to contribute than if that weren’t the case.
Also, I’m fairly sure that science gives them the heeby-jeebies. It’s just another word for god-free elitist idea-communism, after all. Maybe an Objectivist organization or two would be willing to help, if we promised to only take infants from poor people.
Try to find a way to work waterfalls into the experiment
would kid drool count?
if we promised to only take infants from poor people.
wait, you mean there’s any other way?
Shhh! You’re ruining the deal!
Mission accomplished.
you just keep tellin’ yourself that, cupcake.
Message sent.
One day… One day I too shall have my fifteen minutes of fame.
But I will know, deep in my heart, no matter how much that knowledge hurt, that my success can’t be compared to what drosera accomplished here.
Beatrice
I know, dear, I know.
*sigh*
Want some rum?
Yes.
*sniffle*
Thank you, chigau.
Was it a social experiment?
Are you trolling, Drosera? Stop that. It can get you banned.
Wow. I was going to say something about how disorganized, disoriented and discombobulated Michael Ruse seems, when an even better example of mental wanking land shows up. Are you sure your ‘nym shouldn’t be drosophila instead?
No, I’m not trolling.
Why do you tolerate one of your commenters, Brownian, writing this:
and then this:
So fucking what, indeed. Don’t you think this is sick? I find it shocking that the regulars here (with only two exceptions so far) seem to consider this acceptable, even funny. I am the one who is denigrated — for exposing it for what it is.
One of the great minds here (Ichthyic) ridiculed me for believing that Brownian was serious. My ‘mission’ after that was to establish if Brownian was indeed serious, and I think I have succeeded in making this at least highly plausible.
Well, it’s your blog (which I used to like), and if you’re fine with people here spouting hate-filled nonsense about other commenters or about Richard Dawkins then that’s your prerogative.
Poor drosera. Ridiculed for an off-topic crusade against one comment by a commenter who had already apologized for it. Such the victim. We should all shed a tear for the brave drosera, fighter of the good fight.
But on a more serious note:
Still whining about people daring to insult the Almighty Richard Dawkins? I think it is pretty clear why you really objected to Brownian. You’re kinda pathetic.
No, you have only succeeded in showing you’re irrationally trolling for effect. You don’t have a valid point. We understand Browning.
Ah, now there’s the hero whorship we have come to expect. Its hero must not be criticized for any reason, and any criticism is slander. The lessons here at Pharyngula are to question everything and everybody, including both you and your motives, and those of your hero. If you don’t like it, fuck off. You won’t change anything with your concern trolling.
Incoming troll alert. Circle the wagons. He mentions Richard Dawkins, so he must worship him (ignoring evidence to the contrary, which I provided here).
By all means, don’t question the behavior of one of your own.
Start distraction routine.
That’s the strawmanning expert speaking.
drosera (#183)
If a credulous, illogical idiot saying “I really, really believe it” makes something highly plausible, then we have to say the existence of god is also highly plausible. Only, it’s not, because to rely on the misplaced fervor of credulous, illogical idiots would be a massive failure of epistemological rigor. In other words? Try again, dumbass.
drosera:
What hate-filled nonesense about Richard Dawkins? You mean, people calling him sexist because he said sexist things?
Oh, that’s so slanderous*! The calumny of calling sexist behavior sexist!
* Really, it would be libelous if it were untrue and intended to hurt his character. As it is, it’s simply a truthful judgement based on Dawkins’ own statements. Not that I expect you to understand the difference between slander and libel. You have demonstrated yourself unable to grasp nuance in meaning and intent.
Aaah, wait. Suddenly it is obvious to me. How could I have been so blind? PZ was wrong in claiming that there are no popes or saints in the atheist movement after all. There is a saint, right here, among us. Unlike other saints he doesn’t like to inflict pain upon himself, but he is generous in inviting others do to so. I’s none other than our friend Brownian — he who can’t be criticized after he apologized. Well, he is in good company. If you all continue worshipping him and kissing his ass he may one day even start his own blog. That would save him from hanging around other people’s comment sections.
Back to the civilization.
No, that was you on a previous thread. ALL CRITICISM WHERE DAWKINS WAS CALLED SEXIST WAS CALLED SLANDER BY YOU. You forget what you say. We don’t.
drosera
You obsession with Brownian is probably very unhealthy.
drosera:
I was curious how long it would take you to make this patently ridiculous claim. I figured you’d resort to it eventually. However, considering that Brownian has been criticized in the past, your playground-like assertion falls flat.
You are right that there is one revered thing here: rationality. If you feel piled-on, perhaps it’s because you have demonstrated a vast and incredible lack of rationality. You have yet to admit your first post here was simply an ad hominem. You have yet to admit that your earlier posts demonstrate a kind of reverence for Richard Dawkins, to the point you claimed we were not worthy to call his sexist comments “sexist.” (And yes, you did say that. Claiming you meant something else is a ludicrous dodge.)
Perhaps the act of apologizing is alien to you, as you seem unable to admit your mistakes or misunderstandings. However, a sincere apology, an admission you have done wrong, doesn’t retract earlier statements, but it is an indication you have learned, changed. Become a better person, in some cases.
But please. Feel free to continue to deflect any kind of actual responsibility for your own words. I enjoy watching your escalating stridency and desperation. While it is low comedy, it is at least consistent with a lack of self-awareness.
Funny how Drosera thinks we care what proven concern trolls think. Maybe if they did think, we could care. Now, if it had any honesty and integrity it would stick the flounce. Not sticking the flounce shows us its character, or rather, lack thereof.
Mission accomplished.
I’ve said it before: Trolls lack object permanence with respect to comments. If they aren’t looking at it, they think it no longer exists and they can go on their merry way.
Bingo. Admitting error in general is something that overloads its circuits and makes it spontaneously revert back to spouting ads for dating websites.
I thought The Mission was to get Brownian banned.
anteprepro:
Well, their own comments, anyway. This one seems to have a couple of Brownian’s comments stuck in an infinite loop of algorithmic outrage.
Wow. The level of narcissism grows. And why does drosera have this Brownian fixation?
And yes, drosera, you did accomplish your mission. This thread is no longer about Michael Ruse, it is about you. That’s what you wanted, isn’t it, you narcissistic troll?
Indeed. It is a very convenient affliction.
Don’t feel bad. We all fell for Drosera’s Elaborate Ruse™. As the target of the sting (and as a mastermind of unmitigated evil), how do you think I feel? How can I ever look again with pride upon my collection of pickled eyes removed with a mellon-baller? No longer is my freezer filled with trophies; memories lovingly bone-sawed off and vacuum-packed with tufts of hair—now it’s just full of frozen arms and legs, like any old bin in the Costco butcher’s aisle. And my viscera pit? Just a sump in the basement. A sump wired with a $30,000 sound system to record and replay the layered screams of my victims to be sure, but now it just seems trivial and kind of tacky.
Brownian
Did you pickle the eyes before or after you removed them?
Ugh. After, of course. You put the whole head in, you end up with eyelashes in your brine. Gross.
What are you, sick?
Was the mission to get Brownian banned? or to make the whole conversation about drosophilia? Now I’m confused.
Wait.
Perhaps narcissism was the mission and an attempt to get Brownian banned was the tactical system chosen?
And, damnit! how come I’m still at the back of the queue after all these years? You’d think there would have been some movement by now!
Drosera is very uncomfortable when we, the Commonfolk, the Rabble of Atheism, dare to speak ill of The Great Atheists. When we question our Superiors, The Pioneers, The Leaders, drosera sheds a single tear and shudders in terror and rage. How could we? How could we do such a thing? How dare we challenge The Movers and Shakers, whose sheer Greatness and Force of Will have moved mountains? How dare we be so ungrateful to these terrific, magnificent Ubermensch? It was bad enough when PZed, a lesser Superhero of Atheism, insulted the Superior Atheist known as Michael of Ruse. But then Brownian, a mere jester in PZed’s court, one of the little people, speaks ill of Ruse and ALL of the Wondrous Ones? Well, that will simply not stand. That will not be accepted. So, drosera, loyal subject that it is, takes it upon himself to confront the Horrific Brownian and the rest of us mere mortals. Drosera hoped to subject Brownian to a public flogging for the high crime of mocking The Dawkins, and pretending that the Real Crime was a particularly venomous comment that Brownian withdrew. So, when it turned out that the case was piss-poor, and we refused to join drosera’s lynch mob, drosera had a plan: Martyrdom. It would drench itself in idiocy and inanity, and sacrifice itself to the Horde in order to distract us all from hissing and spitting when blasphemously speaking the names of the Elder Atheists. I’m sure that the Grand Atheist Council smiles upon drosera for his servility and willingness to sacrifice for its betters. Bravo, drosera. Bravo.
I was on Ruse’s side. I’m evil, remember?
Right, right. Fucked that one up. Apologies, my memory is only marginally better than a troll’s.
(Hey, look drosera! I admitted I was wrong again! And there wasn’t even an explosion or anything! Come on in, the water’s fine.)
Y’know, Michael Ruse and PZ look alot alike…
GASP! PZ is really just Michael Ruse with a poopy on his head and a cephalopod at his arm! So, PZ, I must ask…..
Why the ruse?
I’d noticed that. It’s all moot sillyness now, but it occured to me that I’d only need one of their faces to stretch over a frame and hang like a decorative plate. I feel so foolish just saying that now.
What do non-evil people put on their rec room walls? TVs? I should get one. What do they cost? A kidney?
This is gonna be a tough adjustment.
Godwin’s other law: In any thread about Michael Ruse, the probability someone will use that pun rapidly approaches 1.0.
Posters of David Hasselhoff and graffiti covered Kinkade paintings.
2 European kidneys for a good TV (2.6 American). Sadly, organ harvesting is usually frowned upon, so might I suggest trading two or three stolen laptops instead? It will help you ease into your transition into Morally Gray.
And I’m the sick fuck?
Oh, right. Well, then what am I supposed to do with all these orga—
Hey, who’s up for a barbeque at my place?
Well, shit. Now I’ve got to rely on puns involving “Michael” instead.
I’ll bring the blood transfusions.
Not necessary. The blood’ll be—heh-heh, ha-ha—on me! Ha-ha, HA-HA, HA-HA-HA-HOO-HAH-HAH-HAH! [continues cackling maniacally for several minutes]
Brownian’s no saint in my book. Myers either. Dawkins I’ve admired greatly since I first read The Selfish Gene back in 1979, but that admiration has waned steadily since he became a Horseman. He’s no fucking saint (even if he is among the best science writers of the last century)(which he is).
I agree with those named more often than not, but far from always.
Nope. No saints, no popes, not even any heroes. Self-styled ‘leaders’ piss me off, and blind–ar at least cataractic–followers even more.
There. I’ve found a way to feel superior to everybody! It’s a nice warm feeling.
So what day is the holy day of St. Brownian? And is it one of those holidays where an entire European village is set on fire?
@Chas
*clinks champagne glasses* cheers
Wait. Ruse and drosera are fruit flies??
I thought they were just fruit.
Low-hanging?
Brownian, the Patron Saint of pointed sarcastic witticism, obsessive trolls, and queues.
Blame continued low-grade phever for the screwup from drosera to drosophilia. Sorry. I promise it will happen again.
Wait, wait, wait. It’s a few weeks from Halloween, and you’re not sure what to do with a house full of body parts?
It’s obvious: charge admission.
I’ve just read the entire thread and I realize what’s going on. drosera was conducting an experiment on the Pharygnula commentariat. He’s that rarity, a mad social scientist.
I stand in awe! (Actually I’m sitting in a chair, but that’s not what the cliche is about).
Wow, the standards for Papacy have dropped sharply lately, if all it takes for Brownian to be Pope of Atheism is a few people defending them against one person. Especially when that person happens to be an off-topic poster obsessed with an old grievance.
Dross sez:
No, I’m not trolling.
more’s the pity.
Are you trolling, Drosera? Stop that. It can get you banned.
guilty of trolling, inanity, repetition, and thread-jacking, dross should be disposed of, well, like dross.
dross sez:
. How could I have been so blind?
you’re probably not actually blind, it’s just that you have your head wedged so far up your ass that you are just effectively so.
Back to the civilization.
whatever civilization that is, i weep for it if you are considered representative of it.
Ichthyic,
Are you senile? Did you forget already that you stuck that porcupine up my bowels (see your comment 158)? Then how could I wedge my head up my ass that far?
Geez. You are not the brightest of the bunch, are you? Maybe that’s why you’re so eager to ban people who are smarter than you and who don’t try to imitate Tony Montana.
And before anyone starts crowing ‘stick to the flounce’, read Ichthyic’s comments 95 and 113 and tell that to him first. But we already know that there are double standards here.
I will once more return to the civilized world, but first I might as well address this remark (193) by nigelTheBold, Venomous Demonic Hater:
Say what? Rationality? Bwahahahahahahaha.Heeheeheeheeheehee. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. Can somebody give me glass of water?
Raise your hand if you think distinguishing the head from the porcupine would be difficult, even before the insertion.
Hey myeck, what’s that green blob in your avatar? Is it your brain?
Dross comes back in order to sneer and say nothing of substance? SHOCK GASP SURPRISE
To be fair, dross’ #233 was a response to a direct insult from me.
However, as snappy comebacks go, I feel it was sadly lacking in both snap and back-come-itude.
Comment 231 is a prime and rather rank example of hoggling.
(whispers to Brownian) Dross got a look at you on the Pharyngula vlogs and got a look at the line where we all impatiently wait our turn and just DISPAIRED. I’m afraid it just broke him. The hoggling is the best he can hope for, and he knows it.
Nigel @193:
I know there’s a long line in the queue, but perhaps Drosera’s obsession with Brownian [poorly] masks a desire to be in the front of the line…?