Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
…Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded…
[Plato, Phaedrus]
Evolution of alcohol synthesis
Patterning the nervous system with Bmp
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Look familiar? | Main | There is no such thing as a godless family? »
Category: Stupidity
Posted on: January 2, 2008 4:54 PM, by PZ Myers
He's just got to dive into the Marianas Trench. Quote-mining (badly) my daughter isn't just ugly, it's vile and loathsome and despicable…but that's typical Cordova, now declared Asshole of the Year.
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
Nothing is beneath Sal "Im in yur interwebz minin yer quotez" Cordova. And let me say, from what I've read of Skatje's blog and facebook page, an irreligious future full of people like her would be just dandy.
Posted by: Ric | January 2, 2008 5:10 PM
Only if you can also nominate FTK for female dog of the year.
Seriously, how can someone be so stupid to not know what quote-mining is (or more likely, pretend not to know)?
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | January 2, 2008 5:11 PM
Holy Crap.
literally.
I always knew Slaveador was unhinged. didn't need further verification, myself. I hope by this time anybody who "knows" him doesn't either.
the man needs serious help.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 5:13 PM
It's also worth noting, PZ, that Sal thinks that being hated by "Darwinists" is a badge of honor and shows he's "on the side of what is right." So by that logic, disparaging your daughter and thus provoking a reaction from you is logical proof to Sal that he's been right all along.
http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/160 (comment 2)
Yes, that's an insight into his warped mind.
Posted by: Ric | January 2, 2008 5:18 PM
This is one of the best arguments for re-legalizing dueling that I've seen in some time.
Sometimes violence _does_ solve problems.
Jack
Posted by: Jack | January 2, 2008 5:18 PM
They're scummy.
FTK is a bitch. She's a liar too.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 2, 2008 5:19 PM
I can see his next post already:
"...[M]y daughter isn't just ugly, it's[sic] vile and loathsome and despicable." - PZ Myers
Posted by: Jordan | January 2, 2008 5:21 PM
It was well a well deserved award.
"Unhinged" is probably understating the case, Ichthyic.
Posted by: JanieBelle | January 2, 2008 5:21 PM
What a brainiac slimy shithead is.
Posted by: danley | January 2, 2008 5:21 PM
PZ, can I date your daughter?
Posted by: zer0 | January 2, 2008 5:21 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | January 2, 2008 5:23 PM
Steve_C,
Quite. She's in the Young Cosmos thread at After the Bar Closes defending him as we speak.
Starting a little way down on this page.
Posted by: JanieBelle | January 2, 2008 5:23 PM
I don't know about the accuracy of it though - is there any evidence that Cordova was ever hinged?
*thinks back 5 years*
good point.
but then, I never actually claimed he became unhinged, so I think I'm safe.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 5:25 PM
I daresay it's almost amusing to see cretins like Sal and this Ftk person run around with their fingers in their ears. It's like that stupid computer mouse trick where the spot asks you to roll over it but every time you get close to it, it rushes away tauntingly. You see it in how they are challenged on that crap blog. Everyone calls them out with exact quotes, and all they do in scream "Nyah Nyah" and run away.
But as I said, it's almost amusing. These people can't be honest about what they see plainly on other people's blog post, so how can anyone truly expect them to remain honest about that cob-webbed-up book they claimn runs their life? They come from a group that tacitly allows quote-mining, and practices it on every "lost soul" they encounter. I could probably string together the whole of Christian morality by skimming the average novel for passages that sound reasonable, and assembling a docket of social rules with them. Hell, I could do that with the Dictionary.
I would personally let this garbage from Slavedor roll off, and just nail him on how he's so obviously wrong. Skatje can handle herself fine against misbehaving children dressed up as big tough "adults".
Posted by: BlueIndependent | January 2, 2008 5:29 PM
Skatje will decimate them in one blog post.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 2, 2008 5:38 PM
"When I heard my daughter got engaged to some stinky little pig, I was horrified. I was so relieved when she introduced me to the collared peccary! I'd thought that she had been seeing Sal Cordova."
Posted by: windy | January 2, 2008 5:45 PM
When the Islamists imprisoned and threatened a woman because she let her second-grade class name a teddy bear "Mohammed," I had to change my python's name to "Mohammed." And now to spite Sal I have to stick it up my bum. All's I can say is, spiting idiots is getting awfully hard on my snake.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | January 2, 2008 5:45 PM
I'd like to congratulate Sal for sweeping the event on January 2nd. We can now spend the next 364 days wearing bemused expressions as we wait, holding our breath only to keep out the stench, for someone to overtake him.
I'd also like to commend Sal for his consistency in exhiting the same depth of character and intellect day in, day out, month after month, year after year. WTG, Sal!
Posted by: Kseniya | January 2, 2008 5:48 PM
Next year will he be going for the "Biggest Douchebag in the Universe" title?
Posted by: Mena | January 2, 2008 5:50 PM
The only person who will offer any competition to Salvador Cordova for the remainder of the year is... well, Salvador Cordova.
Posted by: Mister DNA | January 2, 2008 5:52 PM
Yes, I'm aware it's a little early to hand out this award, but I am supremely confident that it will be next to impossible for anyone to stoop any lower...
...unless of course it's Sal himself.
Posted by: JanieBelle | January 2, 2008 5:54 PM
HA! Mr. DNA, why don't you come up and see me sometime, big boy? Sounds like we have a lot in common!
:)
Posted by: JanieBelle | January 2, 2008 5:56 PM
Tyler had a great post up on Sals debating style.
(side note, Tyler, if you move your blog one more time, boy... *shakes fist threateningly*)
Posted by: ERV | January 2, 2008 6:02 PM
I might do that, Janie. Seeing you outside the dim lights and dingy smoke of AtBC casts you in an entirely different light.
Posted by: Mister DNA | January 2, 2008 6:10 PM
Yes Abbie, I shall obey. ;)
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 2, 2008 6:29 PM
PZ, I fail to see how what Sal said can be considered "quote mining".
Your daughter condones sex with animals as well as incestuous relationships. Sal and I pointed that out. So what. You blog continually about the horrors of religion and it's affect on society, so don't go nuclear when someone considers you're daughter's views and how they might affect society.
Sal was being a jerk in his attempt at humor, but he was not quote mining.
Posted by: FtK | January 2, 2008 6:59 PM
Why are you making Sal's acceptance speech, FTK?
He couldn't make it?
Posted by: CJO | January 2, 2008 7:09 PM
OT for ERV.
Hey Abbie, did you ever post the contents of Horowitz' Medical Hypothesis paper? In your Horowitz vs ERV post from April last year (linked to on your recent New Years Res post), you mentioned you would but a lazy search by me didn't reveal it on your blog.
Thnx.
(BTW I used to do HIV epidemiology in Jim Mullins' lab in the bad old days of the early 90s when denialists were under every bush....good to see them still being shot down, especially with such aplomb as your blog)
Posted by: shiftlessbum | January 2, 2008 7:10 PM
Tonight's episode of Righteous Indignation Playhouse is brought to you by the letters F, T and K. The secret word for the day is condones. Special Guest Star: The apostrophe.
Posted by: Mister DNA | January 2, 2008 7:11 PM
FtK said, "Sal was being a jerk," therefore she has apparently seen the error of her ways. Judging from that sentence fragment anyway.
Anyway, I don't think people should screw animals because the animal can't really consent. But that's neither here nor there.
Posted by: Hexxenhammer | January 2, 2008 7:15 PM
FtK is outright lying here. At what point does she condones bestiality? Where? Prove your point.
What Sal did is casebook quote mining.
Also would suggest it is time for FtK to be tossed into the dungeon. This has moved well past creepy.
Posted by: Janine | January 2, 2008 7:16 PM
We should just be glad that nutjob extremist FtK isn't posting abortion pictures, shouldn't we? But she posts them with love because she cares about society. What an ego.
Posted by: Mena | January 2, 2008 7:17 PM
Wow ...
Let's examine two possible futures:
One, future "A" we'll call it, a future full of FtK and people who agree with her.
The second, future "B," a future full of Skatje and people who share her "morals."
I'll take "B" in a landslide. I think I'd rather be a homeless person in future "B" than the wealthiest man in the world of future "A."
Posted by: dogmeatib | January 2, 2008 7:18 PM
Your daughter condones sex with animals as well as incestuous relationships. Sal and I pointed that out.
Except thats not what she said. That makes you a liar. Didn't your god say something about that?
Posted by: Nerull | January 2, 2008 7:22 PM
"FtK is outright lying here. At what point does she condones bestiality? Where? Prove your point."
From Websters dictionary:
Condone: TO FORGIVE OR OVERLOOK
Skatje's post:
Allow me to first tell you that I personally do not have an interest in bestiality. I don't support it being legal because I want to hump animals. You might ask, why even bother arguing for this position if it really doesn't actually matter to me. You're right. There's no point in me doing this, but since FTK made a comment and I replied asking why she's against bestiality, there's been a huge freak-out. So I feel the need to address this and clarify that I'm just arguing a rational stance and I'm not some sort of psychotic horse-raping weirdo.
The main argument people give to ban bestiality is that it's abusing the animal. I completely agree in some instances. Forceable penetrating a sheep is a bad, bad thing. In cases like that, there's frequently "ripping" on the part of the animal, as well as the human would be stopping the animal from moving or leaving. It's cruel. And this is what animal abuse laws are for. We don't need to ban bestiality to ban this sort of mistreatment.
Not all cases of bestiality are this way though. Animals can approach humans for sexual reasons too. Ever owned a dog? They'll come right up to you and start poking at your crotch. What if you don't have pants on at the time? And what if you maybe enjoy a little complication-free oral sex? You go to jail for it? It's not like you shoved your meat into their face and raped them. The animal isn't hurt, so animal abuse doesn't apply.
The second argument against zoophilia is that animals are unable to consent to have sex. That's complete crap. Animals understand what sex is and they CAN communicate it. Not in words, of course, but in action.
As Andrea Beetz said, "Animal owners normally know, what their own pets like or do not like. And as long as there is no sexuality involved people most probably would agree, that an animal moving away when petted, does not like it and does not consent to being petted, while an animal, that stays, pushes against the hand, and seems to enjoy it, gives consent to being petted. Owners know also other preference of their pets without having to use force."
I think it's incorrect to equate an animal with a human child. We'd agree that a young human could not understand the full meaning of what sex is and is incapable of giving consent for an adult to engage in it with them. While an animal is maybe about as smart (or less than) as a very young human, that has no bearing on its understanding of sex. Unless the zoophile is trying to engage in sex with a baby animal (which probably isn't a good idea anyway), the animal is sexually mature. Unlike a human child.
Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn't to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can't obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn't anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?
That said, I remind you that my position isn't based on my own personal wants. I just don't see any reason to ban it other than the same reason things like homosexuality and sodomy were banned: it's icky. I think it's bad practice to put social taboos into legislature when no actual logical argument can be made against it.
If that is not a post "condoning" bestiality, then I don't what is.
Posted by: FtK | January 2, 2008 7:25 PM
Hm. apart from simply being an ass, Sal took a quote from Skatje's post and used it to infer that the young lady must advocate human-animal marriage, conveniently ignoring her very next sentence: "Obviously they can't obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn't anything unusual." [emphasis mine]
Tell me, FtK, how is that not quote mining?
Posted by: Aaron | January 2, 2008 7:27 PM
There are two ways to tell when FtK is lying or otherwise is completely insincere: 1) her lips are moving, or 2) she's typing something
Posted by: Stanton | January 2, 2008 7:30 PM
"If that is not a post "condoning" bestiality, then I don't what is.
Posted by: FtK"
Excellent! At least we agree you have no idea what you are talking about.
Apology accepted Ftk.
Next?
Posted by: ice weasel | January 2, 2008 7:31 PM
"If that is not a post "condoning" bestiality, then I don't what is.
Posted by: FtK"
Of course you don't, you're a fuckwit.
Posted by: Richard Wolford | January 2, 2008 7:33 PM
"Your daughter condones sex with animals as well as incestuous relationships. Sal and I pointed that out. So what. You blog continually about the horrors of religion and it's affect on society, so don't go nuclear when someone considers you're daughter's views and how they might affect society."
Uh, it was exactly quote mining. It was taken out of context. She made the point that it is difficult finding a compelling legal reason to make those activities illegal, outside of the general revulsion to them most people feel. You used the word condone, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
I find your style of mindless attack in the name of Jayzuz to be revolting, but I wouldn't try to make it illegal. I also do not condone what you do.
See how that works?
Posted by: Ty | January 2, 2008 7:34 PM
Huh... I'm pretty sure there's a difference between thinking something shouldn't be legislated by the government and thinking something's a fine idea for people to practice.
But that sort of distinction is one of the more easily-lost ones among groups like Creationists. Oh well.
Posted by: Rachel I. | January 2, 2008 7:35 PM
Hon, it's more than obvious that Sal wasn't implying that Skatje advocated human-animal marriage. It was quite apparent that he was being flip, not quote mining. The post was listed under humor.
He also HT'd my post which was posted right before his, and I linked to Skatje's post in it's entirety. It's all in black and white and accurate as can be.
You'll have to try another angle to hang him on quote mining. Good luck.
Posted by: FtK | January 2, 2008 7:39 PM
Are you really so ignorant or simply dishonest as to what quote mining is? I can't simply string together a bunch of quotes, taken out of context, to further my own agenda, then link back to the original article and claim innocence. That was nothing but a quote mine, the only real issue is whether it was done on purpose or if Sal is too stupid to understand the concept. I'm voting for the latter myself, considering the high quality of his thought processes. But I guess that's what home schooling does to you.
Posted by: Richard Wolford | January 2, 2008 7:42 PM
Do you see being unable to find a compelling argument for legal sanctions against something as "forgiving" or "overlooking" it? That seems to me to be a bit of a stretch. For example, I don't get the idea that you think that Sal's rudeness should be illegal, but I believe that you've also specifically said that you don't "condone" it.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | January 2, 2008 7:44 PM
ftk, you seem to be reading something in the text that was not written there...
Posted by: T_U_T | January 2, 2008 7:46 PM
You people are an interesting bunch, that's for sure.
I post her exact words which indicate that she condones bestiality, and you still call me a liar. Check out the comments in her post. She finds incest acceptable as well. Though she realizes that birth control would certainly have to be considered for obvious reasons.
Mercy, what a mess of a place this is...
Posted by: FtK | January 2, 2008 7:50 PM
You people are an interesting bunch, that's for sure.
you people.
that about says it all.
it's the dungeon for you, methinks.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 7:51 PM
FTK: You've said you don't agree with Sal's attempt at humor.
Do you think he should be thrown in jail for it? No?
Then by the same definition you want to use on Skatje (Which is at odds with the definition normally used in every day conversation - which I'm sure you know full well - citing that definition is just an attempt to weasel your way out of it), you condone Sal's humor.
FTK - "ForTheKids" condones sexual innuendo about a 17 year old girl. ForTheKids indeed.
(No complaining, FTK - I used the same definition you did. Thats now how anyone else will read it, but you can't have your cake an eat it too, now can you?)
Posted by: Nerull | January 2, 2008 7:53 PM
FtK,
I'll grant you that one of the definitions of "condone" does work in your statement.
However, I have...difficulty in accepting that you didn't know that your sentence seems to be saying that Skatje is all for it.
Regardless, it is exceptionally clear that Sal's post all but outright states that Skatje engages in bestiality, and out-and-out says that she's all for it.
This is, in fact, now what the post he quoted says.
The fact that he mashed separate sentences together (without marking them as separate sentences) in a misleading manner is really all the proof you need that he's trying to impinge Skatje's character with a baseless claim.
I've also got to ask: Do you, ah, condone what he did? Would you be perfectly fine if PZ, or anyone, went around stating that all of your relatives had sex with animals, and "proved" this by lying?
I can only assume you'd be directly opposed to that, and with good reason.
So why on earth are you defending Sal doing this? It's no different.
Posted by: GDwarf | January 2, 2008 7:54 PM
Thats *not* how anyone else will read it, that is.
Posted by: Nerull | January 2, 2008 7:54 PM
FTK, you unfortunately don't seem to understand quote mining. Posting exact words is of little value, the meaning behind them is what matters. And again, you can't understand meaning by selectively pulling sentences and phrases from an original work. This is why you and your brethren are such jokes; the most basic academic concept is beyond your cognitive abilities.
Posted by: Richard Wolford | January 2, 2008 7:54 PM
"Do you see being unable to find a compelling argument for legal sanctions against something as "forgiving" or "overlooking" it?"
Dude, she doesn't have a problem with it. It's not her cup of tea, but she would have no problem with someone else enjoying the act. That is refered to as "forgiving or overlooking".
Posted by: Ftk | January 2, 2008 7:56 PM
Why not ask she if she condones bestiality?
Let her speak for herself.
Posted by: spurge | January 2, 2008 7:57 PM
Ftk, give it up. Have you lost your mind? What do you hope to accomplish here? This is the stupidest stunt I've seen.
So by that logic, disparaging your daughter and thus provoking a reaction from you is logical proof to Sal that he's been right all along. http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/160 (comment 2)
Um, is Sal aware that he replied to a pingback?
Are you both out of your minds?
Posted by: Kristine | January 2, 2008 8:00 PM
FTK, you unfortunately don't seem to understand quote mining
bah. she does; she just chooses to ignore it.
surely there isn't anyone here who thinks they will be able to convince her of anything?
sweet plastic jesus on my dashboard, just take a look at her cheerleading over on Sal's blog.
she's insane.
I can't figure out why PZ hasn't tossed her ass ages ago. He threatened to do so almost a year ago now - has she shown "better" behavior since??
the humor value was gone years ago.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 8:02 PM
Yes, you don't.
What a poor, poor, poor witness you are. Using deceit and prevarication as your tools? Tsk, tsk tsk....
Posted by: gwangung | January 2, 2008 8:03 PM
She=her
Smacks head
Posted by: spurge | January 2, 2008 8:03 PM
"However, I have...difficulty in accepting that you didn't know that your sentence seems to be saying that Skatje is all for it."
Good grief. Who exactly said Skatje is "all for it"? She obviously does not have a problem with it, and she does "condone" it. She said she's not into it, but it's totally acceptable for others. What is the big deal here? So what if she finds it acceptable to have sex with animals and relatives?
Posted by: FtK | January 2, 2008 8:05 PM
Ftk said: "You'll have to try another angle to hang him on quote mining. Good luck."
How about post three from young cosmos blog entry I linked to where Sal says:
"One should also recognize the critics have a propensity to dish out beatings because it gives them a sense of power.
I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power.
Charles Darwin
Comment by scordova --"
Surely even you recognize that as a quote mine of the worst sort. Or do you deny this?
The fact is Sal is a notorious quote miner.
Posted by: Ric | January 2, 2008 8:06 PM
"Why not ask she if she condones bestiality?
Let her speak for herself."
Um....she already has?
Posted by: ftk | January 2, 2008 8:06 PM
I don't tell people that it's a good thing to have sex with animals, nor a bad thing. I'm entirely apathetic about it.
Here's the fact: people tend to read "condone" as the strong opposite of "condemn." Yeah, you can find a definition in the dictionary like "accept," but people (and I'm guilty of this as well) tend to read condone as "support" or "encourage." I do not support bestiality.
Although that's what everyone's trying to make it look like I do. I guess squawking about "Those evil Darwinists will have all our children completely apathetic about bestiality! They won't even demand locking zoophiles up in prison!" doesn't sound as nice.
Posted by: Skatje | January 2, 2008 8:08 PM
If she truly does understand quote mining and chooses to ignore it, I have even more contempt for the twit that I had before. And what is the deal with the cheer leading she does for Sal? Is there a bit of a love connection going on, or would that constitute bestiality in and of itself?
Posted by: Richard Wolford | January 2, 2008 8:08 PM
If Sal-eazy Cordova gets to be Arsehole of the Year, can we nominate FtK as Haemorrhoid of the Year?
Posted by: Brachychiton | January 2, 2008 8:09 PM
"Ftk, give it up. Have you lost your mind? What do you hope to accomplish here? This is the stupidest stunt I've seen."
Hmmm...I'm sorry, but I'm missing the "stunt" part. I'm quoting facts here, Kristine. I don't hope to accomplish anything. I'm merely responding to PZ's accusation of quote mining. His daughter condones bestiality and incest. So what? Get over it.
Posted by: ftk | January 2, 2008 8:10 PM
FtK:
If you're too fucking stupid to recognize the difference between admitting that there's no good reason to outlaw something, and personally approving of that something, there's no hope for you.
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 2, 2008 8:11 PM
Thanks, Sal Cordova. I am going to print your name next to this quote-mining, leave Skatje's name out (for her sake), and then show people I know the true face of fundamentalist Christianity -- attacking kids.
Posted by: Bubba Sixpack | January 2, 2008 8:13 PM
Skatje, nobody is trying to make it look like anything. I provided your own words....nothing more. I have no idea what is wrong with my use of the word condone. The meaning is entirely accurate in this situation.
Posted by: ftk | January 2, 2008 8:14 PM
And what is the deal with the cheer leading she does for Sal? Is there a bit of a love connection going on, or would that constitute bestiality in and of itself?
FTK routinely refuses to criticize Creationists. They're 'on her side', that's all that matters. Given how she fawns on people like Sal, Dembski, and Dave Scot, she seems to be looking for some kind of daddy figure.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield | January 2, 2008 8:15 PM
I'm quoting facts here, Kristine. I don't hope to accomplish anything. I'm merely responding to PZ's accusation of quote mining. His daughter condones bestiality and incest. So what? Get over it.
Over it.
Bye bye.
Posted by: Kristine | January 2, 2008 8:16 PM
ftk is a liar.
and a bitch.
you can quote me.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 2, 2008 8:16 PM
I notice that the only reason ftk is not in the dungeon is because she's listed as "on notice" for the following reasons:
Does anybody think ftk is not creepy? Creepy is beyond charitable. My take on ftk and ftk's bff slimy sal is that if either of them were on fire, I can't think of anybody who would bother to piss on them to put them out.
Posted by: Ken Cope | January 2, 2008 8:17 PM
"PZ, can I date your daughter?" --Zero
No. :)
Posted by: Collin Tierney | January 2, 2008 8:18 PM
FtK:
I am certain that kindly people, non-Christian or otherwise, will be interested to see your attitude and actions, too. Thanks for the ammunition to be used against you. Hope you enjoy.
Posted by: Bubba Sixpack | January 2, 2008 8:19 PM
If she truly does understand quote mining and chooses to ignore it, I have even more contempt for the twit that I had before.
quite a logical conclusion.
though personally, having seen the same from her for years now, I don't see how I could have less respect for her than I already do.
she is simply not the kind of person to be allowed to converse with rational people - it's like allowing a bright UV lamp of stupid to burn in the room. let it stay on long enough, and skin rashes and burns could result.
do we CONDONE that kind of behavior here on Pharyngula?
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 8:20 PM
I'd like to hear FTK respond to what I said in post 59, if she can and is brave enough.
Posted by: Ric | January 2, 2008 8:21 PM
FTK, you're really going to defend the man who trolled the journal of a 17 year old girl because he disagrees with her father?
Your dear Sal has done enough damage, don't you think? Your presence on PZ's blog is wholly inappropriate.
Posted by: KM | January 2, 2008 8:22 PM
FtK:
Do you understand that the statements "I support x" and "I do not think x should be outlawed" are not equivalent?
Answer yes or no.
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 2, 2008 8:22 PM
Deceit and deception. How disappointing an example for the kids.
What rotten spiritual fruit to bear....
Posted by: gwangung | January 2, 2008 8:22 PM
Ric @ 75:
Responding requires some kind of rational thought. I think you're asking a bit too much of FTK.
Posted by: KM | January 2, 2008 8:24 PM
FtK, why don't you do this like you do the age of the earth?
It could be 6000 years or 4.5 billions years, right? They are both valid interpretations of the same evidence (I think she has this tattooed somewhere or otherwise handy, it's like a hail mary mantra).
Skatje by your same logic could both condone or not condone such activity, right? I think this applies to you as well.
You're a fraud and you know it.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD | January 2, 2008 8:24 PM
PZ Myers condones creationism, pseudoscience, and Biblical literalism. He's actually written that it shouldn't be criminalized, nor the perpetrators put in jail. So let's photoshop his head onto a televangelist and all have a snicker. That's where it leads, that sort of condoning.
Posted by: Sastra, OM | January 2, 2008 8:26 PM
Pointless, I'm sure, but FTK how would you respond to a post by Skatje that said that she thinks a law requiring motorcyclists to where helmets makes no legal sense but that she personally always wears one. Would she then be "condoning" riding helmetless?
Do you see any parallels between this example and your response (if any) to the hoo-hah over Skatje post on bestiality?
Posted by: shiftlessbum | January 2, 2008 8:27 PM
Isn't this the same mind set that makes these professional victims think that they will be rounded up because they are "christians"? They want to make everything that they don't like illegal or amend the constitution to forbid it and think that we will do the same thing. They don't seem to understand that not everyone is a nosy busy body. Put your jack boots away Ftk and try to enjoy life for a change.
By the way, FtK condones evolution:
Yes, yes, I know....I...support...Darwinists...the...theory falls in line with...scientific evidence...based on empirical evidence...rather than miracles or supernatural events.
What, me quote mining? Never. Silly little me doesn't even know what that is!
Posted by: Mena | January 2, 2008 8:27 PM
FtK, what you and Slimy Sal are doing is called innuendo and slander. You want to insinuate that the children of Darwinists are immoral who will allow bestiality and incest to run rampant; you want to claim that atheism leads to heinous offenses against civilized culture.
You're wrong. What we'd allow to run rampant is tolerance. That's all Skatje is advocating: that we can't lock people up for non-harmful, private acts. She only opposes bestiality as a crime against animals, and there are already statues in place to handle that.
But yes, you are incredibly creepy. So creepy that if every I were unfortunate enough to meet either you or Slimy Sal in person I would not shake hands with you, unless there was a washroom handy and a bucket of disinfectant available.
It's the dungeon for you. Good riddance.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 2, 2008 8:30 PM
Do you understand that the statements "I support x" and "I do not think x should be outlawed" are not equivalent?
Ah, but to FTK, 'condone' covers both cases, so that enables her to claim "Skatje condones bestiality!", convinced she's telling the truth.
Does FTK understand this? Less likely.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield | January 2, 2008 8:32 PM
Sex between Sal and FtK... now that's bestiality.
Posted by: mayhempix | January 2, 2008 8:38 PM
I went over to Skatje blog, read her post and the comments.
I took away from it what a majority of the posters here (at least those who aren't clinging to their holy books and rending their garments) did.
Her post is actually what I would expect to see from a good lawyer, or better yet, judge. The 'ick' factor is NOT legally swaying evidence nor should it be. We are SUPPOSED to be a nation of laws, not a nation of superstitious goat herders who look to invisible gods, the zodiac or animal entrails to guide us and our society.
Give me a good LEGAL reason to ban it and we'll talk. Show me how it is detrimental to society and we'll talk. But it isn't, it is just 'icky' and while I may personally find it repulsive that does NOT give me the right to stop anyone else from performing it.
THAT is what I took away from her post. NOT that she approves or participates or 'condones' it.
Posted by: flame821 | January 2, 2008 8:40 PM
It's the dungeon for you. Good riddance.
'bout time, I say.
let Sal and FTK have fun rubbing the slime on each other.
If i tried to pull the same shit she does, I would CONDONE being tossed into the dungeon myself.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 8:41 PM
You're missing the point, flame821. To FtK and her ilk, the ick factor IS legally swaying evidence and the mores of superstitious goat herders determines what's detrimental to society. FtK's comment shows her concept of a good judge's opinion.
Posted by: rrt | January 2, 2008 8:45 PM
...seriously, looking at Sal's blog is very much like watching a schizophrenic describe his view of reality, and then FTK is like another schizophrenic going there not to disavow him, but to reinforce his delusions instead.
it's a great case example, if not something I would choose to read over dinner, or share in polite conversation.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 8:47 PM
This is the difference between scientists and creationists.
For creationists, the end justifies the means and if that means lying then so be it.
They truly believe that lives, indeed 'souls', are in mortal danger from the implications of evolution.
There's few of us who would insist on the truth in every situation if we thought innocent lives would be lost (for instance would you tell a drunk murderous wife beater with a gun where his family were hiding, if you knew?)
Its entirely understandable that you would lie in these circumstances.
Creationists live their lives with a similar mental dilemma.
Evolution to them is not possible to dispute in terms of the facts, yet the implications give them the license to lie.
Their intent is not evil, they are trying, misguidedly of course, to protect people.
This option isn't open to scientists. Resorting to lying once will end your career.
Scientists have really only one commandment - Thou shalt not lie. It is the principle that underlies the peer review process and is the ultimate reason creationists cannot overcome that barrier.
Whatever the intent, they are still liars, and we must call them on this whenever it happens.
Posted by: Sigmund | January 2, 2008 8:48 PM
Their intent is not evil
Road to hell...
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 2, 2008 8:50 PM
I do not support bestiality.
Skatje, we know, dear. But you know what? I just watched the film Passion in the Desert, a beautiful and tragic story of a man who falls in love