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
Shazam!
Damn.
I wanted to answer with “As you wish”, but then got stalled thinking whether that was more creepy than jokey.
Solomon, Hercules, Atlas, Zeus, Achilles, Mercury? What about Baby Jesus ™ ?
Shabjamz!
Better luck next time, Beatrice ;)
@ Tony
Indeed.
*Any* kind of medical procedure should be done by licensed doctors in apropriate medical facilities. Shit is always going to happen. Trying to ban activity that can lead to accident, or undesirable outcome, is beyond ridiculous.
Is joey next going to recommend we don’t tell our children to be careful when playing outside? WTF, rather lock them up? And if they do get injured playing outside, it can only be because they disobeyed and therefore they should be refused all medical assistance. (Hey, YHWH recommends killing those disobedient kids so such legislation would be relatively mild.)
So people here actually read Taslima Nasreen? Her very firsts posts on this site (aside from the introduction, which I’m not counting) were denying the existence of sex workers who are so because they chose it.
Not all that much later, she posts this shit.
I do not like her blog… at all.
Ack… for the record, she’s 100% right about sex slavery. She’s just wrong about all sex work being sex slavery, and she’s even more wrong for ignoring and erasing sex workers.
NateHevens@507
Actually Taslima writes
And that may be true, but the life-style-prostitutes are few and far between.
The problem is that this rabbit is pulled out of the hat all the time to defend not helping the millions and millions of sex-workers all over the world who are either being forced into prostitution or are driven to it by desperate need.
And this isn’t limited to poor countries. In France e.g. the “maisons de dressage” are an open secret.
*Trigger for rape, sexual abuse, violence – quote and links* (links all in French)
-LaurenceBeneux, with audio see also
here or here.
@NateHevens
Admittedly, she seems a bit confused about parthenogenesis. And I’ve read a few other things which I don’t approve of.
But she was right about the prostitution issue. It’s like the “I know a woman and she doesn’t mind [insert sexist behaviour here]. I’m just so sick of people inventing reasons why it’s bad to fight prostitution…
Preemptive: no, I’m not advocating prosecuting or shaming the prostitutes.
*sigh*
Again… Taslima is 100% right about sex slavery, but…
Ah, fuck it. I’ll just let Greta Christina and Sarah van Brussel explain it:
Prostitution Is Not Sex Slavery
Sex Workers – An Invitation to Tell Your Stories
“Feminists have made sex workers’ work so much more difficult”: A Guest Post from Sarah van Brussel
I’m not saying that Taslima is always wrong, but often when I read her stuff my only thought is “I’m not welcome here”.
Ronda Rousey and Cat Zingano will coach next season of UFC’s The Ulimate Fighter in September. This is a huge opportunity for women in mixed martial arts, and I could not be more excited!
Ultimate*
Nate:
I do not read Taslima either. I tried three separate posts she made and did not like them (her position on sex workers is one I dislike, and she was fond of sweeping generalizations; there is alsosomething about her posting style I do not like, but cannot put in words).
Nate:
Also, when Taslima speaks of sex workers and how horrible it is and conflates that with sex slavery, there is no mention of the men in the sex industry. As you say sex slavery is 100% wrong. Sex work is not.
Tony,
Oh, so that would mean this latest nonsense isn’t out of character after all. She really does like to tell women what they really think, doesn’t she?
Unless she forgot the sarcasm tag.
[from http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/04/13/the-christian-theocracy-isnt-planning-murder-me-after-all/ because it’s completely off topic there]
anchor,
Unless you have some problem with him from other threads, Tony did nothing to deserve your wrath over there. I tried to point out the misunderstanding politely.
I don’t mean to argue and I certainly didn’t mean to insult you .I have just gotten to know Tony enough to know that he didn’t mean to judge or insult you either. Take a peek in the Lounge and you’ll see Tony mixing people’s virtual drinks.
I’m off to Singapore for a few days of 16-dollar Coronas, swimming on the 57th floor, and lots of Asian food. The only critical time will be during airport transfer, here’s to praying that I don’t cop the crazy Hillsong fan taxi driver again.(And of course there is that other crazy person with the nukes, but let’s hope he keeps it in his pants until I get back)
Beatrice, oh no, i have not for a moment thought that you had insulted me, or the obverse, oh, no no no,. As a matter of fact, i am humbled and honored by your attention to my particular problem.
If i’ve delivered wrath to Tony I apologize for it, down to the marrow of my bones. But i do not like anybody serving up any unsubstantiated gook on me or anyone else either. We are all, i expect, well qualified to be able to defend ourselves against a ‘casual’ insinuation that our remarks may be twisted by drink or drug instead of directly and sincerely offered by clear-headed thinking.
After all, that’s what a rationalist/humanist/atheist must in the end ammount to, or we are – all of us – dead before we ever had a decent chance to flower.
I know you do not have any argument or antagonism bent my way, and i thank you for that, and I know Tony fairly well from my readings in the lounge and elsewhere (like this instance) and i am well acquainted with a fine voice in Tony, but to automatically impute the onus of this problem onto me for merely reacting to a totally ridiculous charge that threatens to invite other readers to think all of what i write is bogus is, you must at last admit, a very low blow.
The very fact that i might respond in order to so much as defend myself on completly reasonable grounds -and nothing more – becomes, incredibly, an issue in which i may be cast as the heavy.
I know from your writing over the years that you an exceptional expnonent of the truth, and your ability to cut tu the chase of any matter in question is second to none.
Therefore, i am obliged to defer to what you are saying, and must accept the rap that you have now crystalized for me. I get it.
No hard feelings, please – i’m glad it was you – and your sharp and exceptional caliber – only that can i rely on, the one who could set me straight.
Thank you Beatrice! Lots of love and range into the future!
AAS
Why does anchor write as if it was the 17th century? Maybe xe should update xer translating software.
Don’t worry, anchor, I’m quickly scurrying off your lawn. It was really too brazen of me to try and imply that you misunderstood someone. I can’t believe I acted so horribly. I’ll send myself to bed without dinner this evening.
Have a nice day!
@ Beatrice
Bah! You beat me to it.
{Attempts to push half a falafal and a can of Tsingdao down the intertubes.}
Is that the problem? I find that their writing style makes my sarcasm detector act up. I really can’t tell if they’re serious or not.
anchor
To be clear, I’m not bashing you or anything, I just honestly find your style of communication very difficult to interpret.
theophontes,
I could use a beer. Thanks!
Also, *arrrrgh* so that people don’t think Thunderdome is getting nice again.
@ Beatrice
Holy Fuck, I forgot about that.
Best try it again: {theophontes rudely flings half a falafal and an empty can of Tsingdao down the intertubes.}
Alright.
Wow Beatrice.
What a low blow.
You really know how to crush a person down to the bone, don’t you?
You solicit a frank PRIVATE conversation, i thought in confidence, with a fellow hordeling – no fuck that idiotic bullshit – a fellow Pharyngula commentor, and next thing i know it appears on the fucking thunderdome, just so you can get to squak at my expense.
Nice.
I trusted you, and you ripped that trust and my heart for Pharyngula to shreds.
[PZ and Chris: my following remarks have absolutely no bearing on you or my esteem for you or for your original vision, PZ, of what Pharyngula . but what i have to say is going tyo be said just this once, and that is all]
Well done, take a deep bow, and none of your pathetic ilk (which i would charitably compre to
anchor,
These comment threads are not private. Anyone can see and read them. And it is customary to take off-topic conversations either to the Lounge or the Thunderdome.
What the hell?!
This is a blog, we’re talking in a comment thread. That’s hardly private. You were an asshole to Tony and you are continuing to be an asshole to me. I don’t know what the hell is your problem, but don’t take it out on me.
If it was private, it would be done via e-mail exchange; posting on a thread isn’t private except in someones delusional dreams. Your claim is like a guy talking about stuff in public. Anybody can overhear you, and jump in. If you don’t like it, shut the fuck up.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you the one who posted it here? It’s posted via your account.
Another question for scientists and science fans, based upon something science popularizing shows like “How the Universe Works” does that is really fucking annoying.
I’m currently watching the HtUW Expanded show on Orbits. They just got through talking about habitable zones, and they pull this rhetorical trick:
“The smallest change could kill us all.”
“…if our orbit shifted a little bit in from where we are now…”
“…if we move just a little bit closer to the sun…”
“…a small shift in the opposite direction…”
“…and that’s only by moving the earth a fraction of the distance from the sun.”
“The smallest shift in earth’s orbit, and we die by fire or ice.”
I hate this.
With a fucking passion.
I hate it because it’s so fucking easy to misconstrue. It gives CreIDiots really good ammo for their bullshit. I have quite literally had Creationists try to explain to me how science has proven that the earth can’t be moved even a few FEET (not kidding) from where it is now, or we’re dead.
Thing is, scientists aren’t talking about feet. They’re talking about Astronomical Units. 1 AU is 92,955,807.273 miles.
So my question is this: In miles, how wide is our sun’s habitable zone estimated to be? In other words, how far could the earth move in either direction while still being pretty much habitable? I need to be able to counter CreIDiots who latch on to that with this, but I don’t know the information and Google is failing me miserably (I never denied that my Google-fu is just plain pathetic, so it’s probably my fault… but still).
Also, anchor… was this “private conversation” being had via email, or was it here on Pharyngula? Because if it was here on Pharyngula, then there is no such thing as a “private conversation”… this a public forum. Everyone can read it, and anyone can respond.
Earth’s orbit is not a circle…
I… know that. I never said it was. The earth already gets closer to and further from the sun. I’m just looking for the outer edges… what’s the furthest it could go without becoming uninhabitable?
Natehevens
Between 4,647,790 miles and 23,238,951 miles, possibly higher depending on whose estimates you use. Most estimates hold that 0.95 AU is too close, while too far ranges from 1.01 AU (Which can’t possibly be right, as aphelion is farther away than that) to 3 AU. (I got my figures here.
NateHevens
I wasn’t criticizing your statement.
I always wonder if the people who make those “a little bit closer/farther” statements realize that the Earth gets closer to and farther from the Sun all the time.
Frankly, the 0.95 AU figures for the inside seem kind of fishy too, given that perihelion is .~98 AU, and the difference between that and .95 is only about as much as the distance between perihelion and aphelion, which difference clearly doesn’t have any effect on the Earth’s ability to support life.
Ah okay chigau. I misread you. Sorry. It’s scientists on the show saying this: Michio Kaku and Michelle Thaller in this particular bit (first 8 minutes of the show… they’re on Black Holes right and are featuring Michelle and Phil Plait… and here’s fucking Michio Kaku again).
And Dalillama… thanks.
So our sun’s habitable zone could be as wide as 23,238,951 miles… good. That gives me some good rebuttals…
Bloody hell, this is driving me nuts. I’m having trouble phrasing this, so excuse me if it gets a bit muddled. Concerning this whole bit about variance in the orbit and habitable zones:
Let’s say you have a planet A. Planet A has an orbit that has a maximum distance X from its sun. Now let’s take another planet, B, and let it have an orbit that’s constantly at distance X (never mind whether that’s possible, at the moment).
Is it possible that planet A could be habitable and planet B could not be?
I’m drawing an analogy here between organisms that can survive brief exposures to extreme temperatures, but will die from prolonged exposure. Is it possible that a brief journey through an area that’s technically not part of the habitable zone could be tolerated, if the rest of the orbit is within the habitable zone?
Related to that, could there be a kind of tipping point where a relatively small difference in orbit distance could result in a massive change in climate?
This is totally not my field, so I’m kinda feeling around in the dark here. Anybody know about this?
No, that’s 23,238,951 in either direction. The total width of the habitable zone using those figures would be more like 46,472,902 at the low end, and estimates range as high as 206 826 671 miles total width at the high end.
Damn.
That’s even better.
Is there any way we could petition creators of these shows to either define “a little bit” when talking about the earth’s orbit, or just stop saying that all together?
LykeX
Yes. Habitability is basically defined by the presence of liquid water on the surface, which is affected not just by distance from the sun, but also atmospheric density, composition, etc.
I’m not certain this is a meaningful question; if the planet supports life, the zone it orbits in is by definition within the habitable zone. If, for instance, a planet regularly wandered far enough out to become an iceball or far enough in that all the water boiled off, it wouldn’t be able to support any kind of life that we’d recognize.
Depends on what you mean by ‘relatively small.’ A staple of SF is the planet which has a more eccentric and’or irregular orbit than Earth (often involving binary stars) where it has a mini-ice age on the farther points and then gets all tropical on the nearer approaches (see Alan Dean Foster’s Icerigger and sequels for an example of the type of world I’m talking about), but the science on those is pretty shaky, as our current sample size for habitable planets is one, and nobody’s got any actual evidence regarding what others might or might not be like.
Crap! This happens all the time when I venture into unknown territory; I realize that I don’t have enough background knowledge and I end up adding another dozen books to my already extravagant reading list.
Dalillama, thanks for the answer, even though it only made it clear that I still need to learn more.
You should see my reading list…
Lisa Randall, Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth, Leonard Susskind, Sean M. Carroll, Lawrence Krauss… I even have String Theory for Dummies on my birthday wish list…
It’s ridiculous, but too fascinating to let go.
If only I could do math…
Don’t get me started; I’m worried I might get hooked again. This is my standard reply when people ask if I’d want to live forever; yes, I’d need the time for all he books I have to read.
I’m reminded of Greg Egan’s Diaspora, where the main character ends up sort of stranded and ponders (in his immortality) whether to just shut himself down. He (/she/it? I’m not actually sure if the character has a conventional gender (it’s basically just an AI, at that point)) decided to postpone the decision and first get into mathematics really deep.
I loved that ending.
Google Doodle: Euler.
Speck!
cm’s changeable moniker
You made me think of the “peck, peck peck” scene from Willow, but I can’t find a good clip of it.
Yes, that’s completely unrelated to anything at all; it was just an association.
opposablethumbs:
Of course reducing harm to women and their families is not an intellectual trifle. But neither is reducing harm to viable babies. Did you actually look over the grand jury report? What about the hundreds of viable babies who had scissors shoved in the back of their necks? Yes, I would desire that we as a civilized society attempt to *eliminate* THAT.
—————–
cm:
But the UK also has certain restrictions on late-term abortion. Abortion is not free from restriction there.
——————
LykeX:
Gosnell performed late-term abortions (and in many cases very late-term abortions). I don’t think you’re suggesting that late-term abortions in general are “not condoned by any pro-choice people”. Are you?
That late-term abortions are especially horrendous, as is apparent to anyone who has scanned through the grand jury report and who also has the slightest bit of empathy toward babies. Let me ask you this. What do you find so unacceptable about the Gosnell case? Is it the fact that he performed late-term abortions of viable fetuses or is it the manner in which he conducted those abortions? If it’s the latter, how should have he performed those late-term abortions that would have made them not unacceptable?
———————–
Tony:
I guess same questions to you that I asked LykeX:
What do you find so unacceptable about the Gosnell case? Is it the fact that he performed late-term abortions of viable fetuses or is it the manner in which he conducted those abortions? If it’s the latter, how should have he performed those late-term abortions that would have made them not unacceptable?
In case you’re wondering what my answer is, it is this: the late-term abortions were unacceptable because they resulted in the purposeful death of viable babies. These abortions most likely had many more things in common that made them even more unacceptable, but even the most “professional” of doctors, with the support of the most trained medical staff, under the most sanitary conditions, won’t right the wrong of viable babies getting killed.
———————
theophontes:
If the person who helped one of these women to induce birth to a living/breathing/viable baby and subsequently “snip” the spinal chord with scissors to the back of the baby’s neck was “a licensed doctor in an appropriate medical facility”, would that have made the late-term abortion acceptable? If not, how can such a procedure become acceptable?
In the context of Gosnell, what “shit” or “undesirable outcome” are you referring to? You don’t think the deaths of all those viable fetuses/babies were the desired outcome?
anchor:
I am so sorry. I just now got back online and saw your response in that thread. I did not express what I meant clearly.
When you said:
my response was meant to indicate that I thought we (as in anyone in that thread waiting for raccisrick to to support his ridiculous claims) would be waiting a while on a response, and one way to kill time would be to have a drink.
I sincerely apologize.
As per the standard for pro-death/anti-woman assholes, you’re equivocating between “abortion” and ‘”killing the fetus”. They’re not the same, as you well know. Pro-choice people generally do not condone of the deliberate killing of viable, delivered children.
No, I have no problem with a cesarean; an induced birth is a late-term abortion and I’m perfectly fine with that. I have a big problem with the (as reported) cases where he deliberately killed a viable child after delivery. Once it’s separated from the mother, it’s a human being and you can’t kill it willy-nilly.
He should have performed the abortion without killing the fetus (if possible) and with the necessary medical care for the patient (always). He should have gotten the proper licenses and hired the proper personnel with the proper training.
He should have acted like a proper doctor with the relevant care for his patients; how difficult is that? It’s not fucking rocket science, dude.
How about this:
1) Human beings have a right to bodily autonomy, which includes the right to decide who uses their body for any particular purpose.
2) Women are human beings.
3) Women have the right to bodily autonomy, etc. (from 1 & 2)
4) Before viability, a fetus requires the use of a woman’s organs to sustain itself.
5) A woman has the right to deny a fetus the use of her organs (from 3).
6) A woman has the right to abort a pregnancy if she wants to do so (corollary to 5).
Please explain why this isn’t true.
joey:
Did you read what I wrote and process it through some christian filter?
I said:
THIS is the situation in which *any* abortions should occur.
{from the Gosnell thread}
Untrained staff.
Improper procedures being carried out.
Lack of certification.
Harmful to women.
Improper disposal.
Horrific conditions of his facility.
Murder of newborns.
Death of mothers.
Broken Equipment.
Unsanitary facility.
When you ask this:
What do I find unacceptable about the Gosnell case?
See above.
Kermit Gosnell *should* never have carried out any of those abortions.
Why did he carry out late term abortions on women? I don’t know. For all I know, their lives were at risk, and abortions were necessary. Maybe their lives weren’t at risk. Either way, he shouldn’t have been performing the procedures to begin with!
This is not an argument against abortion.
This is a complete condemnation of a vile, disgusting person, who murdered newborns and is directly responsible for the death of women in his care.
I used to think you were just a dishonest christian fool.
Now I think you are a dishonest christian asshole.
joey it is pitiable and reprehensible that you choose to pretend to believe the “Satanic Baby Killer” myth that conservative Christianity tars all its critics with.
There is no way that you are stupid enough to genuinely believe that Pro-choice advocates should have no problem with Gosnell’s “clinic”. There is no way that you cannot figure out for yourself what makes this fake “clinic” different from a licensed and professional facility that follows the highest standards for medical procedures. There is no way you can ingenuously be confused about why Pro-choice people would have issues with an “abortion clinic” (quotes because Gosnell ran nothing of the sort and you know that). You are being intellectually dishonest and it is quite sickening. Your intellectual dishonesty allows you to support policies that will create more Gosnell “clinics” and harm more women. You and your ilk allowed that tragedy to happen and lay the blame on the Pro-choice side. You are disgusting.
You KNOW this. All of this. people have told you what the Pro-choice side believes and why a million times AND you have enough common sense to recognize the difference between reality and fantasy. Nonetheless you persist in your righteous daydream of fighting the evil babykillers with your genius wit. That you come in here after the revelation of the Gosnell tragedy and start asking leading questions to score points is monstrous. Fuck off, you aren’t wanted here.
The most telling thing about joey’s latest round of disgusting, pathetic, reprehensible, sickening, and pitiful intellectual dishonesty is that virtually every single one of his “questions” are outright answered directly in PZ’s OP about the Gosnell Clinic.
Which, just in case he might be unfamiliar with the “scroll” feature on his browser, was pointed out to him directly in almost the first reply to him.
He hasn’t bothered to read it. Or if he has, his deliberately ignoring it.
Yep, he deliberately ignores anything that might hurt his imagined argument. Like the non-existence of his imaginary deity. A fatal flaw for one who requires “absolutes”. NO DEITY, NO ABSOLUTES. QED.
To date, no deity, no attempt to prove his imaginary deity with solid and conclusive physical evidence. Tacitly acknowledging he has nothing, and his philosophy is bullshit….
Yes. But it does depend on how restrictive you make your definition for ‘habitable zone’, which is currently a matter of some debate.
So for example, if you define the habitable zone as the orbital region in which a planet will have sufficient solar insolation to maintain a temperature range that allows for the existence of liquid water on its surface, you could envision a planet with an elliptical orbit that takes it into and out of that habitable zone.
For example we can consider a planet that spends 3/4 of its year inside its star’s habitable zone, and 1/4 outside. During the time outside, it’s ocean’s will start to freeze. But, it will not freeze completely instantly. If its orbit re-enters the habitable zone of its star before it freezes solid, it will still have liquid water somewhere on its surface year-round. Even if it spends enough time outside the habitable zone to freeze over “completely”, if it has volcanism there will be hotspots that can stay liquid with geothermal energy.
Yes. If an Earth-like planet transitions past the inner edge of the habitable zone, a runaway greenhouse effect will be initiated and it will turn relatively quickly into a Venus-like planet. This is in part due to the fact that water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. So any planet with oceans is doomed. And a planet without oceans wouldn’t count as earth-like.
The inner edge of the habitable zone is a sharper and more stringent boundary than the outer edge. (Probably.)
We must also make a distinction between ‘habitiable zone’ and ‘habitable’, or, specifically, ‘planet within habitable zone’ and ‘habitable planet’.
As a scientifically useful concept, the ‘habitable zone’ only defines a probability. A planet within that zone has a *chance* to be habitable. Whether it is or is not habitable (currently defined as liquid water-bearing) depends on additional properties of the planet itself, such as its atmospheric composition, density, albedo, etc.
And right now, when astronomers are defining the edges of the habitable zones around stars, they are making a variety of assumptions that are likely not to bear out in reality. So any newly discovered exoplanet hyped as being in the habitable zone, if it is only at the edge of the habitable zone (especially the inner edge), is highly likely NOT to be habitable.
So for example, you can stretch the inner boundary of the hypothetical habitable zone by having no atmosphere to produce a greenhouse effect. This was the way that Gliese 581c was initially declared to be in the habitable zone. This of course is an assumption that cannot hold in reality, and in fact by this definition, Venus is in the Sun’s habitable zone.
Conversely you can extend the outer edge of the habitable zone by positing ever thicker atmospheres, and you can in fact extend it very far that way. But in reality there is a limit to how thick you can make an atmosphere for a terrestrial planet before it turns into a gas giant.
Another way to extend the inner boundary of the habitable zone that has come up in the literature is to increase a planet’s albedo. The inner edge then becomes the point where even an albedo of 100% does not reflect enough solar energy back into space to keep the planet cool enough for liquid water. But this again produces a highly over-optimistic series of assumptions. Short of an advanced civilization deciding the paint the planet white or cover its entire surface in mirrors, the only way to increase albedo is to increase cloud cover, and that will mean an atmosphere with more greenhouse gases in it.
Another way of estimating a habitable zone that has been tried in the literature is to use climate modelling of earth, and changing the solar insolation up and down until earth is no longer habitable. Using this method there was a study that revised the inner edge of the earth’s habitable zone around the sun from 0.95AU to 0.98AU, iirc. But of course this method applies only to earth – you get a different set of values for a planet with different characteristics to earth. It should be noted, for example, that the outer edge of earth’s habitable zone extends beyond the orbit of Mars – Earth would still be habitable if it orbited where Mars orbits today. Mars of course, is not (or if it is, only barely so).
@joey
Here’s a question for you:
Do you understand and accept that the vast majority of pro-choice proponents are rejoicing to the news that Gosnell is being prosecuted? Do you understand that we’re all totally in favor of him being locked up? Do you comprehend that we do not, in any shape or form, condone the actions that he took or the general situation in his “clinic”? Do you accept that we’re totally against everything he did and that we wouldn’t in any way support legislation that would make his actions legal?
Yes or no?
@ joey
WTF? You are going to use the abhorrent example of Gosnell to suggest that we would endorse properly qualified people behaving in like manner? Methinks you are completely failing to understand the points that people are making here. Put down that bale of straw and follow what we actually say.
No, that does not sound like an acceptable procedure. Where do you get that from? Are you going to scour the interwebs looking for egregious examples of criminal behaviour to pin on us?
In the context of Gosnell, we are discussing unwanted pregnancies. More generally, anything that would require medical attention should be attended to by a suitably qualified person, not a butcher like Gosnell. Why do you want to make such a special case for the medical procedure of abortion? Why not make the same histrionic case for the procedure of setting a broken arm? Nobody deserves to have medical attention given by such a criminal.
No. Are you suggesting there are people who fall pregnant with the specific goal of seeking an abortion? You are reading me arse-about-face. Pregnancies are not always desired. The consequences (carrying full term or undertaking an abortion) are then also not desired.
…
[joey. Aside from this whole discussion, I trust we are gradually getting the message through to you that your world view is counterfeit. It was manufactured by mere mortals for rather less divine purposes than that you appear to divine. Stop projecting this counterfeit view onto the rest of us. What do you intend to achieve here, if that is all you intend to do here?]
My question pertains to the habitability of the planet. That is, how many miles towards the sun or away from it could the earth go and still be habitable, for the most part, to the life on it now? Or, how much room does the earth have to play with beyond its orbit before we and the other life would no longer be able to survive?
My question is for an answer to counter shit from creationists who actually take that “only a fraction” to mean in, like, feet, or maybe a couple miles.
Well, you should trust what Amphiox says over me; I’m going from wikipedia and half-remembered books about space colonization I read a decade or so ago.
@ Nate
Check out this image: Aphelion | Perihelion
Not the cause of the seasons, but it does cause a variation in solar radiation on Earth (~ 6%). The difference in distance is ~ 3¼ % .
That difference is, of course, still an incredibly large distance: 4.8 million kilometers (roughly 3 million miles) which is about 377 times the radius of Earth. There is nothing particularly precise about it.
joey:
I’d like to second this question by theophontes:
Given the nature of this blog and the reception you receive, why are you here?
[Sorry about the staccato responses:] “Habitability” depends a lot on other effects, like the greenhouse-effect, without which our planet would be pretty much to cold to inhabit as we do. (On the other hand, we could all drive SUV’s if we could just move the Earth further away from the Sun. Where is Archimedes, and a long pole, when we need him?)
@ Tony
Brownie points. When enough have been accumulated, joey is going to sit at the Right Hand of YHWH and look smugly down on our suffering in the Infernal Depths.
How YHWH manages to record all joey’s electronic correspondence is anyone’s guess. Key logging? Reading over joey’s right shoulder? Attending lovingly to each individual electron in the uniBerse?
@ Nate
Check out Wolfram Alpha (link). It is a really cool, and powerful, web-based program for playing around with numbers. It is also pretty good at inferring what it is that you are asking of it.
Nerd of Redhead@557
And that’s exactly why they hang on to the deity. Because when you let go of that, you need to take responsibility for your own choices. Rather like when you stop believing Mummy and Daddy know everything…
“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity.”
Not everyone seems to be ready for it.
Though of course even with a deity there are no absolutes.
Even if it were scientifically proven that there was a being that had created the universe, and these were it’s commandments to us, and that it would take revenge on us if we didn’t follow them – we’d still not accept these commandments as “good”. In fact, we would feel morally obliged to oppose such a terrible monster: anti-deism I think Hitchens called it.
So religion just preaches that whoever has the greatest power defines what is “good”… perhaps unsurprising, as religion is used to prop up those in power.
The more I think about it, the less I understand how any adult can buy into it.
Delft:
You lack their humility; they recognise that God is unto us puny mortals as we are to bacteria (but infinitely more so), and so its morality is as understandable to us as ours is to them.
Author: Amphiox
Sounds like Alberta! Half of the year our axial tilt takes us outside the bearable zone.
@Joey #551
If you can not distinguish between late term abortions and inducing early birth before stabbing the baby in the neck with scissors then you are a fucking idiot.
thumper
Yeah, that’s what I thought. Weirdly, we have a defense of stabbing already delivered infants in the neck right here on FtB. I’m still baffled, especially by her followup comments:
Because my earlier comment might not be clear, here’s the problem with this article:
By referring only to what he did as abortion and not explaining that what he’s accused of is not abortion, the writer is quite likely to leave readers unfamiliar with abortion practices thinking that delivering an infant and then severing the spinal cord is what an abortion is.
Nate @562: I think theophontes @564 has the best answer for creationists who think very small changes in distance would be catastrophic; we already have a variation of about 5 million km due to the eccentricity of our orbit. Ask them why they haven’t noticed it.
I give up. what’s the difference? the temporal order of killing then removing as opposed to delivering then killing? That’s an important moral difference?
Bodily autonomy. If something is inside my body and putting me at risk–which every pregnancy does–my right to bodily autonomy means I can have it removed. If the safest and most humane procedure is to kill it rather than a live delivery, then an abortion is the best option. Once a neonate has been delivered, it’s no longer a question of the woman’s bodily autonomy.
There is also the mounting evidence regarding fetal awareness. I don’t think this is the most compelling argument, but it does point to very real differences between a fetus and a delivered neonate:
Men should be offended – Nice poster, but don’t read the comments *victim blaming*.
Quote from here.
ChasCPeterson
Once the child is separate from the mother and living independently, the abortion is complete. If, at the end of an abortion, you’ve got a living, breathing child, then you’ve got a second patient. Anything done after that point is a procedure done on a human being with all the same rights as anyone else.
The child has a right to bodily autonomy as well and once the mother’s rights are no longer an issue (because the two are no longer physically connected), the child’s rights are the only consideration left.
What you’re doing here is right back to the good old “But what if the mother decides to have an abortion halfway through the delivery?” It’s bullshit. It’s the same equivocation over what “abortion” means that we keep seeing from pro-life assholes.
An abortion doesn’t have to involve killing anyone or anything. If the fetus can’t survive on its own, obviously an abortion will kill it, but that’s not the purpose of the abortion. The purpose of an abortion is to end a pregnancy.
LykeX
Exactly. It’s not possible to “abort” a delivered neonate. Abortion terminates a pregnancy. Once a newborn has been delivered, the pregnancy is terminated.
As of the latest calculation, which may or may not stand up to the test of time, the inner boundary is 0.98AU (ie far from being in the perfect position to sustain human life, the earth is ALMOST too close to the sun).
The outer boundary is more nebulous, depending on how you model climate, and what amount of atmospheric alteration you allow in the moving process, but it is not that difficult to push it out beyond the orbit of Mars.
From a technical stand-point, what Gosnell was doing wasn’t abortion. He was doing induced birth. In the case of the earlier non-viable fetuses he was doing induced birth against medical indication, when abortion should have been done instead. In the cases of the late-term viable fetuses he was doing induced birth followed by murder.
All of which, of course, is already covered and prohibited by existing law.
ChasCPeterson:
The difference is that, once the child has been delivered, they are not interfering with the mother’s bodily autonomy anymore. Come on, you’ve been here regularly, are you really this fucking dense at this point.
Yes, it ABSOLUTELY IS. Because the temporal order here is not a straight up reversal.
SOMETHING HAPPENS IN BETWEEN in one case but not the other. And that something makes all the difference.
There is the fact that geologic and atmospheric processes buffer the climate. Solar energy is absorbed and some of it is only radiated back later (water has a high specific heat, after all). A watery planet that spends some time inside its habitable zone and some time outside will have its climate protected by that effect.
In the other direction, as increasing heat increases evaporation of water, cloud cover goes up, increasing albedo, and slowing down the heating effect.
On longer time scales, as a planet’s atmosphere warms, weathering increases as a result of more violent weather, which strips CO2 from the atmosphere (freshly weathered, exposed rock will react with atmospheric CO2), reducing the atmospheric greenhouse effect (and the opposite occurs as the planet cools).
On earth, the runaway moist greenhouse effect will not kick in until atmospheric CO2 essentially falls to zero and the buffering capacity is lost.
So even if the earth moved past the inside edge of its habitable zone right this moment, we wouldn’t all instantly fry. What will instead happen is that the ocean’s will start evaporating faster than rainfall replenishes them, and sea levels will ever so slowly drop. Weather patterns will become wilder, and CO2 in the atmosphere will start falling more rapidly. It may take thousands if not tens of thousands (or even millions) of years before the planet actually becomes completely inhabitable.
You could take the earth and plop it at 0.9 AU right now, and we could still fit maybe 10 or 20 full bibles worth of history before the planet becomes uninhabitable by humans, and maybe even longer if the impact of advanced technologies that increasingly desperate humans may try to use is factored in.
Delft @ 580:
Excellent poster. Thank you.
@The Mellow Monkey
That Camomile Lox commenter appears to be an idiot. And I too am confused by the OP, where it says that what he did was a legitimate method of abortion. Why is he being tried for seven counts of murder, then?
Seriously, can anyone explain that?
@Chas
I support abortion mainly because a woman has the right to bodily autonomy. However, once the baby is delivered that argument is nullified. That’s the difference.
thumper, I had to discuss it with my ob-gyn friend before it even made sense to me. She (my friend) read it as a plea for not using emotional language and instead clinical language should be used. Which might be a fine argument to make–his alleged crimes should be about crime and not the ickiness of the human body–but…that’s not how it reads to this lay person. My friend’s familiarity with delivery and abortion had her filling in a lot of blanks that just looked like gaping holes to my mind.
Fuck CNN. Seriously. They are running the Potts story, and the tag line is Alleged Rape Victim . She committed fucking suicide but her rape is alleged .
*spits*
Shit.
Two bombs went off at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.
NPR is reporting 2 dead, 23 injured. I hope that those numbers don’t climb.
….
I went to Cincinnati over the weekend with my boyfriend to attend his uncle’s wedding and meet/visit with his family. It was interesting – I’d only ever flown through Cincinnati before. Some thoughts:
1. I don’t like Cincinnati-style chili. Bland, tomato-y stuff.
2. I don’t like five-ways. Although there’s no individual component in a five-way that I don’t like in theory, in practice I really don’t care for them mixed all together:
Spaghetti: Good.
Chili: Good.
Beans: Good.
Onions: Good.
Cheese: Good.
All together? Yuck! I was surprised when my boyfriend said he’d never eaten chili without spaghetti until he moved out West, because I’d never heard of such a thing before.
If I ever have this again, I’ll make it myself. And it won’t be served over squishy, over-cooked spaghetti. :P
….
My boyfriend and I had dinner with some of his friends, a married couple, where I mostly just sat and listened to them reminisce about growing up and all of their old friends. This is completely foreign to me, because my family moved around a lot while I was growing up. I have no idea what it’s like to be adults with the people you were kids with, and I actually shudder at the thought. My grade-school days were full of bullying, ostracizing and no lasting friends. I would hate to be “stuck” with those same people in the same community.
Included in the conversation was discussion of one of the people in my boyfriend’s old circle of friends – “Rich”. The other woman at the table expressed her disgust with “Rich”, who had grabbed her mother’s ass twice during a (holiday?) party. Her mother now refuses to have anything to do with any gathering at which Rich might be present. She went on to say that Rich had not apologized, and indeed claimed that his ass-grabbiness was “a compliment.” She continued to say that Rich hugs women too tight and too long, and doesn’t keep his hands where they belong.
Later, my boyfriend floated the idea of us visiting Rich at his house, and I (DUH) said no. My boyfriend admitted, without any prompting, that he’d never noticed the behavior that his female friend had described, because he was never the subject of it. I told him that there was no way that I was going to let Rich touch me in any form, even a handshake, and that if he tried I would chew him out good. This, I considered fair warning to my boyfriend to let him know that I wouldn’t tolerate that shit, even from a friend of his. My boyfriend agreed and we didn’t visit Rich.
When we were visiting some other friends, my boyfriend joked that I had been “freaked out” by the idea of visiting Rich.
I corrected him and said that I was perfectly calm – I just didn’t want to be groped. I felt that was perfectly reasonable.
I like my boyfriend, or else I wouldn’t be with him. But I’m trying to show him that negative reactions, especially when justified, are not necessarily “over-reactions” or “freak outs.” I just hate that his mind goes there immediately, even when he agrees with my judgement.
Sigh.
@mythbri
Compliment. *Snort* Want some complimentary hot tea down your trousers?
.
I think men in general are not really aware that practically every woman is familiar with groping, and accustomed to keeping her distance from men who
can’twon’t keep their hands to themselves. So just the fact that you go from hearing about it to protecting yourself – blindingly obvious to women – may seem strange to a man, who (as a rule) simply hasn’t been in the position of needing to do that.So it’s back down to privilege and the paper-cut thing…
.
I have found an ever-so-slightly snarled “Don’t touch me” quite effective in social contexts, i.e. with others overhearing.
I know exactly what you mean. It’s teeth-grindingly frustrating, and these kinds of mental habits are so ingrained it can be hard to shake them.
Sounds like you handled it just right.
Chas, if you show up, what the fuck is wrong with you? So a few people weren’t so sure about the NYPost as a definitive source. So what? The few comments at you because of it were incredibly mild.
Where I’m from, when someone hijacks a public event, like a discussion about the bombings, to demand that everyone know how right they are, it’s said of that person that they’re trying to get in a pissing contest.
Why in the fuck are you making that discussion into a pissing contest? What in the FUCK is wrong with you?
mouthyb #597
I’m sorry, I don’t remember how long you’ve been around here but that is one of Chas’s schticks.
I usually just [hush] him.
(before I got Firefox, I used scrolling down)
chigau: I know. It just really….. got to me today. I’m probably a little too emotionally involved.
old hats
How many times has Sven flounced?
@ Mellow Monkey
Indeed. And it is not as if we have not had this discussion before, and recently, on Pharyngula. As in the case of Savita Halappanavar. The Pharyngula thread is here: Link.
@ Amphiox
Sorry, my mistake in the piece you quote at #587:
I meant to write 377 times the diameter (not radius) of the earth. Obviously, for the radius, the difference is double that. (For clarity.)
Apologies for my sloppiness.
@ Nate @ #533
If you want to keep shooting, I shall happily pass you more ammunition.
Geologists are the real godkillers:
Quoted from: Bishop Colenso and the Literal Truth of the Bible
Sadly, goddists seem less honest today than they were 150 years ago.
…
You will also like this argument from astronomy: Nice argument for the age of the earth Pharyngula is a damn fine go-to resource.
Found this over at Libby Anne’s place (can I just say how much I despise Patheos in general? It’s a credit to Libby Anne’s writing that I seek it out there).
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/04/saving-children-from-africa-a-quiverfull-adoption-fad.html
I know that PZ was joking about being enslaved by Christians.
It’s not a joke. Not for some people.
That makes a certain amount of sense. It’s a very fine and not-very bright line to be drawing (the line, I mean, not the drawer), but I won’t pursue the point. I don’t disagree, btw, but it sets me off to see opinions treated as facts (where’s Nerd when you need him for some opinion-flooshing?).
Do you really not understand the excellent reasons why all news outlets–not just CNN, all–used the term “alleged” before trial? ffs.
What do you want, a list? None of it’s anyof your business anyway.
yes, and I responded in kind. It’s called “conversation”. I say something, other people say stuff in response, and I…what? shut up? why? Because you think the subtopic being pursued in this conversation (of which you were not a part) is, what, inappropriate for the particular thread? Sorry, but that’s not your call.
obviously, the proper measure of all things
Are you nuts? (is that ableism or frugism?; I’m not sure)
It was a blog-comment thread at Pharyngula. Not a public discussion event. It’s OK to have conversations, even OT side-conversations, even OT side-conversations that piss you off for some reason, in blog-comment threads at Pharyngula. Ask the mgmt.
Further, the brief argument was never about me being right. I made no assertions to be right about other than pointing out what was being reported (unquely) at a particular outlet. That was on-topic and provided new information to the discussion (what did you contribute beyond your thread-copping activities?). People responded by saying stupid shit and I responded to point out what I thought was stupid about it.
You don’t understand what a “pissing contest” is; that, or you failed to read the thread in question for comprehension. So fuck off.
You are a really smug asshole sometimes, mouthyb, to me at least. I don;t know where you get off with that attitude. How about just ignoring me in the future? Thanks a million.
I’ve attempted it once or twice. The fuck do you care?
Why don’t you take your content-free little snipes, chigau, and shove ’em up next to that porcupine?
Related to nothing in particular: Fuck Cracked. I love the site, I really do, but sometimes they really drop a deuce. They’ve done so twice in the last few days and I’m fucking pissed.
Here are two completely unfunny entries mixed in between two actually funny entries with such insightful nuggets as asserting that critics of religion just doesn’t, like, get religion and a false equivalence-laden smearing of Rachel Maddow. Hilariously, the author says “maybe go somewhere besides MSNBC to places that take a more critical eye of civil rights abuses, not just to gays and women, but to all Americans. Things like our current administration’s stance on NDAA and drone strikes that go to the heart of everyone’s civil liberties. A stance that most of the Democratic and Republican parties seem in harmony about.” This a Cracked columnist who has been with the site for years, and he can’t even be arsed to google “Maddow drones” before putting this in the conclusion for the celebrity he considers to have the most annoying fanbase.
But this article is far more offensive. It is a list of victims people shouldn’t feel sorry for, most often because they have “brought it upon themselves”. There is a teenager who tried to circumnavigate the globe and got shipwrecked, celebrities who went to unlicensed plastic surgeons, and Grizzly Man. Who else made the list that earned my undying hatred? The woman who dared to heckle Daniel Tosh’s rape joke act and got a personalized borderline threat “rape joke” in return. We shouldn’t feel bad for that woman, because apparently she provoked it by heckling. The columnist even uses “she asked for it” as a completely self-aware joke on the matter. Just another front on the war on women: Those Neutrals who think that Comedy trumps basic human decency.
I’ve always found Chas a little grating, but that thread is where I lost any semblance of respect for him.
First flounce I can find was the day you got your Molly.
Is that about right?
oh. and.
link
Stupid shit like “The Post isn’t a reliable source”? Fuck, Chas, because if that isn’t what you meant by “stupid shit”, then you must have intentionally been ignoring the main point of contention. The Post is a borderline tabloid. By design . It is Fox News on paper. That does not make for a reliable source. Everyone who criticized you for relying on them as a sole source was right. You were wrong. And you could have just left at it that instead of going into Full Defensive. Why the fuck did you double down on defending content from the New York fucking Post? Why the fuck did you do so on a thread about a fucking bombing that happened on that very fucking day, Chas? That is not the place or time to play Glib Contrarian.
Just to remind you all: the comment threads here are not a safe space. Even the Lounge only aspires to be a moderately safe space, and has that status only by comparison with other threads.
Arguments and disagreement and shouting matches are perfectly ordinary things here. I only step in and get grumbly when they cross the line into, for instance, racism/sexism, or when they just go on way too long and derail a thread way too much. Smoking craters are exciting during the brief moment of their creation, but are damned boring when we linger over them.
It’s not just you nowadays, PZ; there’s Chris, too.
Do you understand the difference between facts and rhetoric?
Neither the NY Post nor even Fox News are in the business of making up shit that isn’t true.
And in point of fact, everything I reported them reporting checked out, did you notice?
[If anybody tries to interpret this as me advocating the politics or editorial policies of of the NY Post or Fox News, I will laugh out loud.]
lol, I forgot all about that one. (It was actually 11 days later.)
So, OK, that makes 2 or 3.
so what?
Chas @610:
From your reporting of their reporting;
Am I misunderstanding what “checked out” means?
Rob, heh.
Well, if everything he reported them as having reported was indeed reported by them, then to that extent it indeed “checks out”.
And that hole he’s totally not been digging? Not getting deeper, no sir.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/this-is-a-tragedydoes-it-really-matter-exactly-how,32076/
Gee, now Chas really HAS gone radio silent. Funny, that.
mythbri?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/54-iraqis-die-in-not-our-problem-anymore,26766/
Especially considering
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863
… which was the news I read before I read what happened in Boston.
—
I’m not commenting anymore, for a bit.
Sven, you’re honestly complaining about smug sniping?
Not only that, Ing, but a couple of weeks ago he was complaining about an excess of assholery around here.
*snerk*
cm’s changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) @617: Thanks for that.
SallyStrange:
Yeah, but I haven’t been posting as much since then.
Clever.
@Chas:
Fine and not very bright? Care to tell us why you think so?
Because, from my point of view, the line is very clear.
Inside the woman’s body -> using her organs -> interferes with her bodily autonomy -> her right to decide.
Child is born -> no longer inside the woman’s body -> no longer using her organs -> independent entity with their own right to life.
I had I good intertubes day.
I was sneered at by Chas and txpiper.
txpiper made another drive-by? What thread?
Rob Grigjanis, touché on the number of fatalities.*
However, this: “NY Post reports that a suspect has been IDed and is under guard in a hospital” was indeed true.
yeah, I went to the bar, Sally, to drink delicious ales, watch the hockey game, and enjoy a bit of real life with people who are my friends. If you get there before 8, pints are only $4. Is that funny to you?
Ing, you‘re honestly complaining that I’m complaining about smug sniping?
I’ll just file that away in my tu quoque collection. (Yours too, Sally!)
If you care to read the rest of the sentence from which you quoted, you’ll see that the answer is “no”.
I’ll even give you a reason: because my explanation would be biologically technical, pedantic, and PaulW-esque in length and detail. Then I would be thoroughly pummeled (rhetorically) for paying so much attention to considerations that are not necessarily directly focused on the rights and feelings of women.
no thank you.
So you’ll have to continue to be satisfied with your own absolutism; fine by me.
(But if you want food for thought–which, frankly, I doubt you do–consider that your list of simple dichotomies are all different concepts that could be (again, I do not intend to do so here) extensively unpacked; i.e., child is born ≠ no longer inside the woman’s body ≠ no longer using her organs ≠ independent entity ≠ with their own right to life.)
*however, to be fair to meee: a) somebody else linked the Post for the 12-dead report, not me; b) the quote you attribute to me was actually the last sentence of a long direct blockquote directly from the Post report, in a context in which I was obviously focused on the rest of it; c) the number of people that were killed in any incident like this is something that I would never have any interest in arguing about; d) I was explicit about the possibility that the Post‘s federal source could well be wrong. So although I know you just going for the snerky laffs you got, Rob, it was pretty dishonest of you and I didn’t appreciate it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/04/15/marys-monday-metazoan-ol-three-eyes/
myeck waters
txpiper drive-by is here
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/04/15/marys-monday-metazoan-ol-three-eyes/comment-page-1/#comment-603307
I really need to learn to refresh.
Thanks for the link, both of you. David Marjanović’s reply made up for txpiper’s idiocy.
For an especially broad definition of “suspect”.
And then you decide to go on at length, anyway, without an explanation?
How is “child is born” distinct from “no longer inside the woman’s body” and “no longer using her organs”? Are there many cases of children born who are still in the woman’s body? Are there many cases where a child is outside of the woman’s body but still using her organs? If that wasn’t just a mistake, perhaps it is best that you didn’t go into it further, because the level of hair-splitting pedantry involved would have been so absurd that it would liquefy the eyeballs of we mere mortals.
Chas I remind you again. Since were all so much dumber and ideological than you and you spend so much time sneering at the hippies; you can leave.
Other people here may be jerks or assholes (yo!) But youre the regular who is just downright nasty and mean spirited
@Chas
I only wish that I was satisfied that my bodily autonomy was absolute. People keep trying to take it away from me and other female-bodied persons.
I don’t mind admitting that I’m an asshole. But then, that is why I don’t complain about the level of assholery around here. That would make me a hypocrite. Hey wait a minute…
*poke*
Is this Thread dead?
Tomorrow, some televangelist is going to be screaming about the end of the world right fucking now.
We go all the way back to Steubenville. Two more cases followed, but those two victims committed suicide.
Then the Boston Marathon gets bombed.
And while that’s happening, our fucking bullshit piece of crap Congress (*spits*) decides that 91% of USians is not enough to pass gun control.
Oh no. To add on to that wonderful bout of fucking misanthropic humanity-hating anger, we have a complete accident.
This is literally happening now.
Fertilizer plant 18 miles outside Waco, TX explodes… in a really big way (felt 15 miles away and heard 45 miles away… apparently a preschool and nursing home were damaged… no confirmed numbers of fatalities or injuries, but estimates are in the hundreds… this last is from MSNBC which I’m watching right now).
It’s dead, chigau, but it’s not death as we know it.
(It evolved from TZT)
I’m fucking done. After these last couple incidents, piled on top of everything else, and personal stresses, I’m checking out for a bit. May there be some good news for somebody somewhere before this whole fucking world goes to hell in a hand basket. I’ll be back when my head isn’t so stuck in the dark…
John Morales
What’s that you say?
The Undead Evolve?
How’s that work then?
—
*aside* Has hyperbole ever solved anything?*/aside*
chigau, I’d tell you but it’s ineffable.
(Seek the succour of the King in Yellow in Lost Carcosa if you dare)
John Morales
I’ll have to save that reference for the morning.
—
Hey!
“effable” is a word!
Here’s hoping “anything goes” includes test posts. I’ve sold my nonexistent soul for a gravatar, and I’m skeptical that it’s going to work…
Yay! Thanks for the help, John Morales!
meursalt, your evident pleasure is my reward.
(… and if not I, then another would have)
Go ahead. Let’s hear your narrow and therefore correct definition of ‘suspect’. Be sure to note exactly how that rubric differs from “potential suspect’, ‘person of ionterest’, and ‘guy to whom we refuse to publicly attach a label but for whose apartment a federal search warrant was obtained’. dumbass.
lol. One sentence? You’re quite a reader, aren’t you?
And then you decide to go ahead and ask a bunch of questions that you know damn well I already said I wasn’t interested in answering. Sorry. You can either think about it or simply dismiss me as a hair-splitting pedant. *shrug*
Either way, have a nice day.
Hi Ing! You have a nice day too!
To be clear, I am not one of those people.
I am merely a hair-splitting pedant when it comes to physiology. so sue me.
Oh, Sally. I never called you an asshole. Not recently, anyway. Rather, I pointed out your tu quoque and then look, in your response quoted just above you just do it again. I guess you don’t know what it means.
Here, learn something: The tu quoque fallacy is “oh yeah? well, you do it too!” It’s a fallacious argument because, for example in this case, my being an asshole in no way addresses my argument that somebody else is an asshole.
It might, admittedly, make me a hyporite, if the kind of asshole behavior I complained about was the same kind that I display. I don’t feel that’s the case here, but if it was, and you had conclusively proven my utter hypocrisy to the world, so what? I’d just quote Whitman at you.
I’ll also point out that exactly this kind of hypocrisy gotcha is the favorite activity of them slimepitizens. just, as they say, sayin’.
You are willing to baldly assert that vaiyt is wrong in saying that birth leads to leaving the woman’s body which leads to not using the woman’s organs, but are uninterested in answering questions on the topic. Uh huh. A troll by any other name. Go fuck yourself.
As for suspect, Chas, you should know damn well how serious the implication of the word “suspect” is. Any possible lead could be legitimately called a “suspect” but when you announce to the public that you have a “suspect” people usually think that it is a serious one. I know you love you some semantics, and being technically right, because you are a ripe, puckered asshole, but when the real fucking news says “suspect” the implication is “well, just a matter of a time until the case is closed, then”. But when the real fucking news and when the police actually dare to say “suspect”, though you’ve nothing but contempt for their reservations in doing so, it means that they really, really, really suspect them. And they aren’t just working on a hunch, or something just north of jack shit. Like they were in this case.
Oh but continue to defend the New York Post and how it was accurate here. Because it fucking wasn’t. The very article you linked to said there was 12 dead. The very article you linked to, in its haste to mention a Saudi suspect, ironically is unable to say whether or not that suspect was also a victim of the bombing. It says that he was “caught” and that he may have been injured in his “apprehension”. You know, evoking exactly the serious definition of “suspect” that you are trying to avoid in order to remain technically right. How about instead of not being willing to say a peep about technically right you are about abortion issues, you instead decide to shut the fuck about how technically right you were to cite the fucking New York Post? How about you do us all a favor and become uninterested in that issue as well?
I decided to write a puppet show! Here’s what I’ve got so far:
[the curtain goes up on Judy, reading a newspaper. Punch enters, stage left.]
Punch: You’re a shit Judy, and not as half as smart and the objective superman you think you are. You’re a complete and utter asshole
Judy: Oh, hi, Punch. Have a nice day!
Punch: Youre the puppet who is just downright nasty and mean spirited.
it’s just a draft, I’m still working on an ending.
No, I baldly asserted that none of those things is equal to (the same as) any of the others. Were those little arrows supposed to mean “leads to”? I guess that wasn’t clear to me. That makes some difference. But yes, you correctly note that I repeated my disinterest in pursuing the topic. and…so…I’m a troll who should fuck myself. I guess that’s your way of dismissing me as a hair-splitting pedant? *shrug*
Oops but wait there’s more.
Yes, that’s correct. That’s exactly why police never use the word ‘suspect’. Because it’s so widely misinterpreted. Example:
That’s simply not true. That’s a mistaken inference, not an implication. I suspect that when the real fucking news says “suspect” they mean “suspected of involvement”, on account of that’s what it menas. The state of my asshole is irrelevant.
You’re simply projecting what you think it might mean onto “the real fucking news,” whatever that’s supposed to mean–it reflects a naive view of reality, imo–and, as noted, police never use the term any more, for this very reason.
What it actually said was that a federal law-enforcement official had told the Post there were 12 dead, and yes, that turned out to be inaccurate. So?
(the official 2 that all other sources were taking from BPD also turned out to be inaccurate. but a lot closer) The whole business of the Saudi guy, though, is what we’re talking about.
uh wut? So now you’re criticizing them for not reporting stuff about the guy? They said he was under guard in a hospital with burn and shrapnel wounds; was that not in the very first report?
And look up the word ‘ironic’. (oops, more semantics, i.e. knowing what the words you use freakin mean.)
At this point I’m not sure which Post article you’re quoting, as there were 2 or 3 different pages being both linked and updated at various times. But I agree those seem like rather loaded words, depending on the context and timeline. (I mean, later reports had either an alert and/or racist bystander or three BPD detectives observing strange behavior and deciding to tackle the guy as he tried to flee. As far as I know all those ‘facts’ are still unconfirmed, but what do you think ‘apprehended’ means?)
However the poor guy got stopped, though, the facts as reported by the Post about him were, it turns out, accurate. He was apprehended by police and taken to B&W Hospital where he was treated for injuries while under police guard. He was questioned by both BPD and the FBI. A federal search warrant was obtained to search his apartment (hint: it’s the warrant and search that make him a ‘suspect’ at the time). They interviewed his roommate. The Saudi consulate got involved, they had found nothing to tie him to the bombs, so they cleared him and let him go.
Please identify which part of that is innacurate. because that’s how far I am willing to defend the NY Post.
You’re a nut. I have never asserted any opinion “about abortion issues” that I need to be “technically right” about. ‘Birth’is a process, not a nice bright dividing line, and issues of bodily autonomy do not end with the end of that process. That’s all. I could make similar biologically based arguments about ‘conception’ if that was the topic under discussion; it wasn’t. I entered the discussion by asking an honest question, and when I received a good-faith answer I acknowledged that it made sense. I also felt that for technical reasons the answer was a bit simplistic, and made the evident mistake of saying that too. What’s wrong with that? What do want from me?
Tell you what, maybe we can avoid this kind of thing in the future if you’ll just give me an approved list of what I should and should not be interested in, in your opinion. Thanks so much.
@Chas
But you’re willing to characterize the fact that I own my body and have the right to make decisions about it “absolutism”? I suppose it is absolutism in the sense that I am the supreme ruler of a country of one: Me.
Aww. Adorable. You weren’t straw manning, you are just an idiot who thought didn’t bother to make sense of someone’s argument before smugly deriding it. *Applause*
An inference based on how the news and police typically use the term (a use that admit to immediately above and below the quoted line) is not a mistaken inference.
READ YOUR OWN FUCKING SOURCE YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
It’s not they didn’t report stuff about him: It is that they explicitly said that they didn’t know whether or not his injuries came from the bomb or from being “apprehended”. As in, when reporting about this “suspect” they assumed that it was maybe sort-of possible that there was a violent pursuit involved, based on something something something. That’s not journalists doing journalism, as you dishonestly suggested when defending them: That is them doing their best Glenn Beck impression.
Wow. I fucked up the blockquote, omitted some words, added some unnecessary ones. Well, whatever. I’ve said my borderline incoherent piece. Keep on keepin’ on then.
I must congratulate Chas on his convincing impersonation of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
“It’s worse than that…”
Excuse me for dropping in with a nonsequitor, but just wanted to leave the most perfect steaming turd of chivalrous sexism that I’ve seen in a long time. I can not believe that there are people out there that still get away with this sort of shit!
From dianne’s link:
Holy historical revisionism, Batman!
Ah, Patheos.
I’m going to guess here…
….some kind of Christian….
….Protestant or Catholic?…..
I’m gonna say Protestant….
…..Evangelical?
Now I’m gonna check and see if I’m right.
Dammit, should’ve gone with Catholic, which was my first instinct.
Also from dianne’s link
*stunned silence*
Reading that thing, there are plenty of specific things to object to, but what made me most uncomfortable is a more nebulous thing: I got the distinct impression that he considers women an other. His descriptions are all about how women are these strange, fabulous creatures.
It’s almost like he’s describing elves; graceful and beautiful, innately talented in various ways, intuitive understanding of this or that; wisdom and maturity.
It’s hard to put a finger on, but it kinda creeps me out.
@LykeX
What he’s doing is setting women up for failure. He’s Pedestalizing them. He’s building them up so much that any woman who doesn’t adhere to that mythical, wondrous standard is fair game for abuse and exclusion.
This is a huge thing in Mormon culture, actually (and I’m sure it is in other religions, too, it’s just that I have direct experience with this).
With great Pedestalization comes great Responsibility. Mormon women are required to dress “modestly” because they are responsible for putting naughty thoughts in righteous men’s minds. Mormon women are required to serve quietly, reverently, faithfully, without complaint, objection, or shirking her duty. Anything less than that is willingly and consciously accepting imperfection, and that is the Kryptonite of Mormon women. You must be perfect. And since you cannot be perfect, you must strive for perfection. And if you are not striving for perfection constantly, then you are defective.
Mormon women’s mantra should be this: “Mormonism: When Perfect Just Isn’t Good Enough.”
Rule of thumb I’ve developed for dealing with chivalrous sexism: Anyone who pays you a compliment that limits your options is not really paying you a compliment.
I think Lyle’s got it right: He sees women as “other”. Not part of the same species, not people with whom he could be a friend and partner, just some mystical being that is inherently different. And “too good” for mere humanity and thus in need of protection. And so the oppression begins-in women’s own interest, of course.
@mythbri
You’ve got something there:
If those are the qualities of women, then anyone not exhibiting those qualities cannot really be a woman. If you’ve got ambitions beyond being a house wife and baby-making machine, you’re compromising your natural womanly instincts.
Fuck.
If you click back, you’ll see that the author is now allowing comments.
Shockingly, my comment of “Huh. What a load of shit.” has not yet appeared.
I took the liberty of writing a brief reply also. I tried to keep the invective to a minimum (to not give him an excuse), while still keeping the critique strong.
Let’s see if he lets it through. Considering how tame the displayed comments are, I somehow doubt it. I think when it comes to moderation policy, the good father is an advocate of the old saying: “If less is more, think of how much more more is.”
@LykeX
I admire your restraint and your writing – it will be interesting to see if it gets posted.
I couldn’t stomach the sage head nods and scriptural “proof” that women were “superior” to men, or the woman that thanked him for his condescension and basically just admitted to hoping for a permanent end to their difficult situation.
How hopeless it is to believe in God.
Wow, you made it, LykeX! Congratulations, he’s playing the “Ha ha ha, you reacted exactly the way I wanted you to!” game.
I replied thusly, though you likely won’t see it there:
Now reading: John Wyndham — The Chrysalids.
(It’s off the back of the NZ thread. Those Sealanders, once they develop telepathy …)
Test:
re-reading
re(re-)reading
re(re-re-)reading
(There were more “re-“s in my #669. Not sure where they went.)
Well, it’s been over half an hour and my follow-up still hasn’t gotten out of moderation. Maybe he’s just busy, maybe not. When the next comment clears moderation, we’ll know. In the meantime and for the record, here’s a copy:
Regressives who think they are iconoclasts are just fucking sad. As are the pathetically unfunny people who jump in over their heads in an argument and then desperately try to find sanctuary in the hallowed halls of Comedy. Because Comedy is so sacred that you can’t be challenged for the bullshit you are pushing as long as you were intending to be humorous while doing so. Comedy is so sacred that you don’t actually have to be funny in order to gain the benefits of its ironclad defenses.
Looks like both of our replies were posted, surprise surprise.
The thing is, LykeX, that I think he really believes that he’s “upsetting the status quo” or “bucking the system” by making these ridiculous claims.
This is incredibly sad, that he thinks that placing women on a pedestal is so revolutionary, because it only serves to illustrate the way in which the Catholic church, and society in general, consider women to be inferior. To put them higher is avant-garde. Even though it is also massively sexist.
I just commented thus:
“Are you planning on mentioning your dishonesty when next you confess?”
It’s in moderation…
That all you got, Grigjanis?
bah. ’tis but a scratch.
Lovely, the NY Post gets it wrong again, and posts a picture of two people at the Boston Marathon to the front page and says they’re wanted by the Feds. Of course, they’re Arab, and one has a black backpack (the wrong kind). I hope the two people the NY Post put on their front page sue the paper for lots of money and win.
No, you misunderstand me (my fault). The absolutism I referred to was drawing a magic before-and-after line at ‘birth’ as if that was equivalent to body-autonomy. Once again, it’s a pedantic, technical point only. And no, I don’t know a better line to draw; they’re all somewhat problematic (imo): my point. That’s precisely why I support personal choice over top-down restrictions on abortion.
fuck you and your condescension.
If somebody uses little arrows instead of words, they are inviting misinterpretation. And it makes only a little bit of difference. I acknowledged the ostensible error, but I don’t feel bad about it.
Evidence? The police never use the term any more (officially) and as for news my guess is that some writers and editors know what the word means and others are as ignorant as you guys apparently are. *shrug*
fuck you and your yelling, jackass. I can read conventional orthography.
Because at the time the report was posted, only a few hours ater the bombs, they didn’t yet know. What’s your problem? If you’re a jouirnalist and you report somebody’s in the hospital, people will always ask “why”? If you know, you report it, if you don’t know, you say so. When you find out, you report that additional information. This is actually ethical journalism, not a “Glen Beck impersonation”.
Again, you are confusing facts with rhetoric. This seems to be a widespread problem around here.
there follows more yelling. Look, dumbass. My first comment on that thread was from the link already posted by WhatGarbl @#31 in that thread. My second comment linked a different page. Later I quoted a different (updated) version of the seconf page. Both were updated and changed a number of times since they were first linked. That’s why your reference was unclear to me. If you had simply pointed to the quote I posted @#79 all would have been clear. OK? Shove your insults into any available orifice.
Something like that. ‘Incomplete’ is closer than ‘wrong’.
It has nothing to do with ‘taste’. I’m a hair-splitting pedant about physiology, OK? That’s it. I know that prediliction is not shared by other readers, so I elected not to explain further. Do you not like me for that reason? I guess I’ll have to live with it.
yeah, something like that.
Have a nice day.
ck @#677: yeah, that’s pretty bad.
Not quite as bad as your comment implies (a. the men are not Arabs, b. they were in fact being sought for questioning (as witnesses), and law enforcement had in fact circulated their photos for that reason, but they were never suspects. And the Post never claimed explicitly that they were (in fact they said explicitly that it was unknown if the pictures were of the suspects that the FBI had already announced had been identified, and whose photos were circulated later)).
But yeah, they went off half-cocked and fucked up. They should be embarrassed.
Have I mentioned I am no fan of the Post in general?
None of this changes the fact that they got the story of the Saudi guy right. (With the possible exception of confusing a lot of ignorami by using the term ‘suspect’.)
“ignorami”? :)
[habitable world]
Kepler telescope spies ‘most Earth-like’ worlds to date
You know, people like me?
Yes, Ogvorbis, I know people like you.
(What’s not to like?)
NEW THREAD.