Pharyngula

Let me answer my own question: because he is an appallingly freakish idiot, and always a reliable source for the most amazingly inane claims. Don’t worry, that link takes you to Mark Chu-Carroll’s evisceration of his latest insane rant, that women are intellectual inferiors who can’t teach biology or calculus and are incapable of practicing computer science or art. Vox Day. Can he do any of those things? I think not.

By the way, my wife is director of institutional research at a local college, and my daughter is a computer science major. Women outnumber men in our computer science program and have parity in our biology discipline. It’s amazing how they do those things and know more than I do in their fields with such inferior brains.

Comments

#1 B. Dewhirst
March 12, 2008

In fine tech school fashion, our introduction to biology survey course is called “Bio for boobs.” It is accurate, in the sense that the vast majority of the women studying at WPI are biology majors, and that the vast majority of biology majors are women… but biology majors don’t typically take that class, so the ratio is perhaps sub-par.

(All that said, my fiancee sat next to me in that class, and she is an Aerospace Engineer.)
#2 Donnie B.
March 12, 2008

The best math teacher I ever had was a woman. Calculus I, the first course I took after going back to college after a five-year hiatus.

She was Chinese, if that matters, and her English was not perfect by any means, but nevertheless she was far better than most other profs I had.

But of course, one anecdote doesn’t prove anything. How about this: Vox Day is an idiot. There, that anecdote is pertinent.
#3 Carlie
March 12, 2008

I wondered how long it would take that to hit here, but I knew it would make it.

Is “equalitarianism” even a word? He kept using it like he was very proud; I think he made it up his very own self.
#4 Alex
March 12, 2008

My favorite science teacher thus far (8th grade) was female. In fact, I wouldn’t be very surprised if she read Pharyngula.
#5 michael dorian
March 12, 2008

The wrong-headedness of folks like Vox Day is a continual source af amazement. I wonder if he can possible have a social life. Then again, even Hitler and Charlie Manson had “firends.”
#6 tyaddow
March 12, 2008

Only on WorldNetDaily could someone claim that equal rights is the “primary threat to the survival of western civilizations”, and only an odious arch-conservative sociopath rebel-wannabe like Theodore Beale aka “Vox Day” could make such rank declarations and attach his pseudonym and (apparently decade-old) picture to it. What a vile human being.
#7 Jennifer
March 12, 2008

Don’t worry, that link takes you to Mark Chu-Carroll’s evisceration of his latest insane rant

Insane maybe, but he’s obviously qualified to be President at Harvard.
#8 Heather Kuhn
March 12, 2008

#2: I knew a Chinese student at Bryn Mawr who got thrown into second year calc because the administration assumed she’d had first year calc in China. She hadn’t, but aced the course anyway. She went on to major in physics, and IIRC, graduated in three years. Take that Vox Day.
#9 Skwee
March 12, 2008

How can somebody so stupid feed himself?
#10 hje
March 12, 2008

Vox Dick: thinking little thoughts with the tiny head.

So what does he think women are good for? Let me guess.
#11 Norman Doering
March 12, 2008

I get the feeling Sam Harris hasn’t figured out yet how crazy Vox is. According to Vox’s blog Sam is taking the trouble to honestly answer questions Vox emails him.

I wonder if Sam has read Vox’s book? Has Sam seen what Vox says about him?
#12 DanioPhD
March 12, 2008

I’m very keen to hear from any lesbian professors out there who “believe that heterosexual procreation is a myth” (!!!) C’mon–you know who you are.
#13 Ian
March 12, 2008

Is “equalitarianism” even a word? He kept using it like he was very proud; I think he made it up his very own self.

Er, yes. dictionary.com lists it as a synonym of egalitarianism.
#14 raven
March 12, 2008

Vox is just crazy and stupid. No point in making the simple complicated.

More interesting is when he will go postal and shoot up a mall or something. There is crazy and then there is crazy and potentially dangerous. Vox isn’t anyone you want to live within gunshot range of.
#15 Hap
March 12, 2008

How did he manage to write a book? I didn’t think most printers do crayon. *snicker*

Seriously, if his logic is this weak and his grasp of human experience so tenuous (or so strongly suborned to his political and religious beliefs), then he seems singularly unqualified to be writing apologetics. It’s like President Bush writing a treatise on how to run a fair and open government or on how to analyze and deal with events logically, or Enron comarketing a book with Andersen Consulting on honest accounting procedures – his justifications of anything are likely to be inconsistent and fallacious, and unable to withstand a sidelong glance, much less sustained scrutiny.
#16 knutsondc
March 12, 2008

The foolish arrogance starts with his adopted handle “Vox Day,” clearly a play on “Vox Dei.” Whatever or whoever he’s the voice of, I’m quite sure it isn’t God.
#17 Stephen Stralka
March 12, 2008

For a long time I resisted the realization that Vox’s pseudonym is a play on vox dei: the voice of God. Now, however, I am finally prepared to allow this thought into my brain, as it allows me to charge him with blasphemy along with the vicious stupidity we all know and loathe. Even an atheist has to take offense at the notion that the Almighty would spout such feeble-minded drivel.
#18 Stephen Stralka
March 12, 2008

Hey, no fair. knutsondc posted my comment before I could finish writing it.
#19 Brian W.
March 12, 2008

I was just skimming his WND article.

“the predominantly Christian United States produces more science per capita than any of the many more secular nations”

Produces more science? What the fuck does that mean? How much science was produced this year?

Again i have to point out that this idiot’s book is the one that says that women who have been sexually abused are 50 times more likely to commit suicide than women who were raised Catholic.
#20 AlanWCan
March 12, 2008

Can someone please set up a panel discussion between this moron and Christiane N�sslein-Volhard, where he demonstrates his male superiority. How about Gertrude Elion, Rita Levi-Montalcini, Barbara McClintock. Maria Mayer died in the 70s and I’m sure she could still give him an intellectual beat down.

In fact, as his little wee-wee and y chromosome gives him such an edge, here’s a handy dandy list of people to whom I’m sure he’d be happy to demonstrate his intellectual superiority.
Failing that, can we justlock him in a room with some of these women?
#21 tinyfrog
March 12, 2008

“Women outnumber men in our computer science program”

Wow. That’s amazing. As a computer science graduate, I’d say fewer than 10% of the comp sci students were women.

Other articles seem to confirm that:
“Next spring, when 22 computer science graduates accept their Tufts diplomas, only four will be women… it has become one of the least gender-balanced fields in American society.” (Dec 2005)
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/12/18/in_computer_science_a_growing_gender_gap/
#22 syntyche
March 12, 2008

Ol’ vox is a prime example of the general principle that the stupider someone is, the more likely they are to believe that they are smarter than everyone else.

I’m going to have to give him the old

http://imagechan.com/img/5078/Fractal%20Wrongness/
#23 PZ Myers
March 12, 2008

I hate to break the news to you, but Barbara McClintock has also been dead for 16 years.

She’d still be able to outthink Theodore Beale.
#24 octopod
March 12, 2008

Women outnumber men in your CS major? Interesting — here at Tech it’s the most overwhelmingly male undergrad major, I think.
Geology is, incidentally, the highest-percentage female, although I think biology has us beat by a factor of 15 or so in absolute numbers. (Oh no, I’m in a GIRLY discipline! Heh.)
#25 Bride of Shrek
March 12, 2008

To be fair Vox Day is challenged by a special kind of intergenerational stoopid. I mean, for fuck’s sake, he had the kind of parents who would name a child after a brand of guitar… unless they were naming him after Ultra Vox, in which case I think Midge Ure would vomit.
#26 EyeNoU
March 12, 2008

When my daughter was in high school, she was asked by her Algebra teacher to tutor some of her fellow students who were having trouble learning it. Care to guess the gender of every student she tutored? Hint: starts with “M”.
#27 sailor
March 12, 2008

I thought trophy wives were supposed to sit at home and comb their hair while they looked in mirror….
#28 Michelle
March 12, 2008

I’m a video game artist and if I didn’t know how a computer works I’d be in deep shit. I been around them all my life, and I built this computer I’m using from parts I bought separately. I installed my windows (TOTALLY LEGALLY I SWEAAAAAAR) and I can do my own troubleshooting.

Mysoginist jackass.
#29 Norman Doering
March 12, 2008

Brian W. asked:

How much science was produced this year?

Patents, journal articles and Nobel prizes might be one way to measure it. I’m pretty sure that American scientists win a heaping helping of the Nobel prizes every year (and even when they don’t win as Americans they often wind up here). We very well might produce the most journal articles and patents too.

However, most of the guys doing that stuff are atheists.

The nut cases haven’t chased them away yet. But Vox is trying.
#30 Stanton
March 12, 2008

To be fair Vox Day is challenged by a special kind of intergenerational stoopid. I mean, for fuck’s sake, he had the kind of parents who would name a child after a brand of guitar… unless they were naming him after Ultra Vox, in which case I think Midge Ure would vomit.

Actually, “Vox Day” is the pseudonym of Theodore Beale, in that, he has the arrogance to think that, as a Christian Dominionist, he speaks for God, despite the fact that the Bible mentions that God reserves special calamities for those who claim to speak for God without God’s specific permission to do so.
#31 Michelle
March 12, 2008

Oh yea, and I’ll add that while I was in highschool I had a constant 100% grade in visual basic programming for two years. Top of the class. For all it’s worth, since it was just highschool level VB. Still made my own cheap RPG, puzzle and solitaire game. I didn’t continue programming because I wanted a more artistic approach at computer work. So I became a game artist.

Damn. I’m such a dumb woman.
#32 Bride of Shrek
March 12, 2008

Stanton @#30
I did know that I was just trying to be witty. But its only 8.30 in the morning here and its way too early to try and be funny. Teddy’s stoopid (whilst no doubt encouraged by his parents) appears to be entirely his own. Witness his haircut.
#33 Peter Ashby
March 12, 2008

Oh how times change, 20 years ago my wife was the only female in her compsci classes and largely the only woman in her maths papers (she has two degrees). She ended up collecting all these lame duck guys who needed mothering…..
#34 Zeno
March 12, 2008

PZ: By the way, my wife is director of institutional research at a local college

I think it’s really enlightened of you, PZ, to have given your trophy wife permission to work outside the home.
#35 Norman Doering
March 12, 2008

I found the data on Nobel prizes on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_laureates_by_country

304 Americans have won Nobels. Highest number on the list. More than double the runner up, the UK.
#36 Fedaykin
March 12, 2008

Whoa, women outnumber the men in your CS department. Holy hell I went to college a decade too early.

At my university the ratio was about 30:1 of men over women. It’s great to see that going away, some of the best software people I know are women. Also, it will be a boon to the chronically date deprived CS majors like I was. =)
#37 gg
March 12, 2008

Yep, Vox Day is using brilliant 12th century science and philosophy in his arguments. I’ll bet he doesn’t fly in airplanes for fear of flying off the edge of the Earth.
#38 Lycosid
March 12, 2008

Normally I’m not given to ad hominem, but I want to see Hellga from American Gladiators make mulch out of Teddy.
#39 Peter Ashby
March 12, 2008

Only double the UK? but, but, you have at least 3X our population. You slackers!
#40 Natasha Yar-Routh
March 12, 2008

The wrong-headedness of folks like Vox Day is a continual source af amazement. I wonder if he can possible have a social life. Then again, even Hitler and Charlie Manson had “firends.”

On come on now that is a base and vile accusation. Charlie would never associate with a loser like Vox, he has far too much class.
#41 Fedaykin
March 12, 2008

OH, I love the part where the idiot says:

“The idea of biology classes being taught by lesbian professors who believe that heterosexual procreation is a myth or calculus courses being taught by women who can’t do long division may sound impossible today, but tell that to any software developer, and he’ll be able to provide you with plenty of current examples of computer science engineers, some with advanced CS degrees, who have no idea how to even begin writing a computer program.”

You know, I’ve met plenty of CS graduates that couldn’t program “Hello, World” if their life depended on it. None of those people were women.

See, the one thing the sex discrimination of maths and sciences does (and please don’t presume that I think this makes it all good!) is that generally only the best and brightest women overcome the discrimination. The opposite is true for males. Because of the presumption that if you are male you are good at math and science, a lot of males coast through their degrees.
#42 Norman Doering
March 12, 2008

Peter Ashby wrote:

Only double the UK? but, but, you have at least 3X our population. You slackers!

Actually the US is close to 3x UK Nobels, but not quite. And that does shoot down Vox’s “per capita” claim on science, at least as measured by Nobels won because we’re about equal in terms of population with the UK slightly ahead. VD did say:

“the predominantly Christian United States produces more science per capita than any of the many more secular nations”

And besides that, it contradicts Vox’s early claims that science is a bad thing:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/religions-war-on-science-part-1.html

And that’s in addition to most of those scientists “producing” that American science being atheists and agnostics.
#43 Stanton
March 12, 2008

On come on now that is a base and vile accusation. Charlie would never associate with a loser like Vox, he has far too much class.

Especially not with Voxie’s haircut.
#44 syntyche
March 12, 2008

We very well might produce the most journal articles and patents too.

Most recent data on this I could find:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c5/tt05-20.htm

so, yeah.. Vox is pretty much talking out of his arse, as usual. What a tool.
#45 David Marjanovi?, OM
March 12, 2008

More interesting is when he will go postal and shoot up a mall or something.

As soon as God tells him to.

Hey, he said so himself.

“the predominantly Christian United States produces more science per capita than any of the many more secular nations”

How soon we forget that academia is pinko-commie-liberal and of course godless… I love the smell of doublethink after midnight.

I mean, for fuck’s sake, he had the kind of parents who would name a child after a brand of guitar… unless they were naming him after Ultra Vox

If he’s really God-given (theodoros) may be doubted for several reasons, however, too…!
#46 David Marjanovi?, OM
March 12, 2008

More interesting is when he will go postal and shoot up a mall or something.

As soon as God tells him to.

Hey, he said so himself.

“the predominantly Christian United States produces more science per capita than any of the many more secular nations”

How soon we forget that academia is pinko-commie-liberal and of course godless… I love the smell of doublethink after midnight.

I mean, for fuck’s sake, he had the kind of parents who would name a child after a brand of guitar… unless they were naming him after Ultra Vox

If he’s really God-given (theodoros) may be doubted for several reasons, however, too…!
#47 Kseniya
March 12, 2008

Is “equalitarianism” even a word? He kept using it like he was very proud; I think he made it up his very own self.

Yes, Carlie! I’m quite sure he made it up!

He does that a lot.

Vox loves to coin words. It makes him feel smart, like some kind of intellectual giant, like a thought-leader, like a pioneer of ideas that are so new, existing language cannot even properly describe them!

LMAO!!!!!!
#48 Kseniya
March 12, 2008

Ok ok, he didn’t make that one up. But he does do that.
#49 Ichthyic
March 12, 2008

Ok ok, he didn’t make that one up. But he does do that.

it doesn’t matter. the point is that he deliberately chose a rarely used synonym of egalitarian to begin with.

this indeed, is indicative of exactly the problem you delineate:

It makes him feel smart, like some kind of intellectual giant, like a thought-leader, like a pioneer of ideas that are so new, existing language cannot even properly describe them!

and yes, he does do that all the time. It’s beyond pompous on in to the realm of complete nutter.

One might even say it’s his “calling card”.
#50 jfatz
March 12, 2008

I thought it wasn’t the size of their brains that held women back, but rather the length of their bears. Everyone knows “longer beard = wiser.”
#51 drew
March 12, 2008

Don’t forget the medical/pharma/vet fields, where men are becoming scarce in many places. There are 24 men out of 131 in my vet school, for example.
#52 Norman Doering
March 12, 2008

David Marjanovi? wrote:

As soon as God tells him to.

That’s why we call him “future toddler chopper, Vox Day”:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.html
#53 Carolyn
March 12, 2008

(All that said, my fiancee sat next to me in that class, and she is an Aerospace Engineer.)
Posted by: B. Dewhirst | March 12, 2008 5:08 PM

The fiancee in question here. Huzzah for general science credit with no lab requirement!

Anyway. I will whip li’l Teddy’s sorry ass left, right, and sideways at any form of math or science he chooses.

*cracks knuckles*
#54 shane
March 12, 2008

It’s harder to consider women property if they’re as smart as you. That’s what it’s all about isn’t it?
#55 shane
March 12, 2008

BTW, Nobel prizes per capita. Heh heh the US is 11th.
#56 Bride of Shrek
March 12, 2008

Well I say its about time Iceland came first at something.
#57 J�rio
March 12, 2008

Unbelievable.

To think that we could be sitting beside a nitwit like this Vox Day.
#58 J�rio
March 12, 2008

Unbelievable.

To think that we could be sitting beside a nitwit like this Vox Day.
#59 tinyfrog
March 12, 2008

“the predominantly Christian United States produces more science per capita than any of the many more secular nations”

A quick breakdown of the wikipedia Nobel laureate information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_laureates_by_country):

United States: 304 Nobels, 304 million people = 1 Nobel / million
United Kingdom: 114 Nobels, 61 million people = 1.87 Nobels / million
Switzerland: 25 Nobels, 7.5 million people = 3.33 Nobels / million
Sweden: 28 Nobels, 9.2 million people = 3.05 Nobels / million
Norway: 11 Nobels, 4.7 million people = 2.34 Nobels / million
Netherlands: 18 Nobels, 16.4 million people = 1.1 Nobels / million
Italy: 20 Nobels, 59 million people = 0.34 Nobels / million
Germany: 99 Nobels, 82 million people = 1.2 Nobels / million
France: 54 Nobels, 64 million people = 0.84 Nobels / million
Denmark: 13 Nobels, 5.5 million people = 2.36 Nobels / million
Belgium: 11 Nobels, 10.5 million people = 1.05 Nobels / million

The United States actually doesn’t fare that well when you calculate Nobels per capita. Looks like Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway top the pack. Those countries also have some of the highest rates of atheism in europe.
#60 Azkyroth
March 12, 2008

Of course, we all know how this one works.
#61 Norman Doering
March 12, 2008

shane wrote:

BTW, Nobel prizes per capita. Heh heh the US is 11th.

And those countries that are ahead, a group of them are ahead on believing in evolution and low on religion. Check out the charts on my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/02/religion-as-force-for-ignorance-and.html
#62 chuckgoecke
March 12, 2008

Those pesky women folk aren’t going to outlive me, I’m getting that artery clearing stuff advertised on Vox’s Page; Just four tiny capsules per day is all it takes.
#63 Bob Munck
March 12, 2008

Vox better hope that some women can program; my wife wrote a large part of the OS for the Patriot Missile System. Degree in math from Brown, and in CS from Toronto. Of the 15 or so bosses I’ve had in 40 years in computers (MITRE, Unisys, NRL, Prime), all but about five have been female. Not counting the wife.
#64 michael dorian
March 12, 2008

The wrong-headedness of folks like Vox Day is a continual source af amazement. I wonder if he can possibly have a social life. Then again, even Hitler and Charlie Manson had “firends.”
#65 raven
March 12, 2008

Vox claims the USA produces large amounts of science because it is Xian.

Vox also claims that all scientists are evil atheists.

If Vox and his fellow wingnut Death Cult Xians had their way, we wouldn’t be doing any science anymore. We would be too busy hunting, gathering, and working at subsistence agriculture to bother.

A few contradictions here but Vox and contradictions is the norm. For all his claiming not to be descended from monkeys, his style is remarkably similar to the ones I’ve seen in zoos.
#66 Bride of Shrek
March 12, 2008

Oh boy,

I just had a quick surf around his site and you wouldn’t believe the mysogynistic filth being bantered around in his comments sections. Not very nice talk for Christshuns if I may say so myself. Their leering over the breasts of one of the book critics and speculation as to the location of her tattoos is disgusting. These are peurile, dirty minded little boys that hate women, quite obviously because no woman would touch them.
#67 Ichthyic
March 12, 2008

We would be too busy hunting, gathering, and working at subsistence agriculture to bother.

well, almost…

We’d be too busy hunting, gathering, and working for SOMEONE ELSE in a feudalistic society to bother.

after all, money can always buy science from actual enlightened countries, even if ours becomes a complete Idiocracy.

The likes of GW would be more than happy to turn america into a feudal society, and would easily rationalize the result as being “good for everybody”, because they themselves would be doing so well.
#68 Mollie
March 12, 2008

As a female scientist (or, at the very least, scientist-in-training — I’m a second-year graduate student), I can’t even muster up any offended feelings about Vox Day’s blog entry. I mean, I don’t even have to wonder whether I could kick his ass in science. His pathetic, meandering non-sequituriffic “argument” makes it quite clear to me that he’s not worth my ire.

Not that I have a problem with people heaping abuse on him — he clearly deserves it in spades.
#69 EyeNoU
March 12, 2008

Oh,yeah, almost forgot this bit. I work for an oilfield service company here in Texas. I compile data while the well is being drilled for the geology team. The three geologists, and the geophysicist who is also the team leader? All women.
#70 EyeNoU
March 12, 2008

Oh,yeah, almost forgot this bit. I work for an oilfield service company here in Texas. I compile data while the well is being drilled for the geology team. The three geologists, and the geophysicist who is also the team leader? All women.
#71 Bob L
March 12, 2008

Vox Day is a Christian theologian? No wonder he gets in a hissy fit over women being consider equal to men. His magic book says girls have cooties.
#72 monty burns
March 12, 2008

A few years ago when I was a rabid, far-right Christian, I was a fan of VD’s, natch. Of course, the wafer-thin logic didn’t hold and I am now a happy atheist. But all this bullshit coming from his direction is most unsurprising. I actually think he’s embarrassed about the fanboy echo chamber that is the whole of his blog, but there isn’t much he can do about it, as it’s the only affirmation he gets.
#73 monty burns
March 12, 2008

Christian in name only. You should read the very unJesuslike things he’s written about Japanese women on his blog.
#74 Ichthyic
March 12, 2008

I am now a happy atheist

mazel tov!

uh, wait, I mean:

Free at last, free at last
I thank God you’re free at last

no, that’s not it…

ummm…

congratulations!

yeah, that’s the ticket.
#75 shane
March 12, 2008

A few years ago when I was a rabid, far-right Christian, I was a fan of VD’s

That was funnier than you probably intended.
#76 monty burns
March 12, 2008

Thanks for the love. I had actually written “nontheist” first, then I figured what the hell…I’m buzzing and there’s no point in splitting hairs. I think I’m in good company here.
#77 Ichthyic
March 12, 2008

I think I’m in good company here.

belly up to the bar.
#78 Ichthyic
March 12, 2008

btw, you might want to check this thread out:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/what_kind_of_atheist_are_you.php
#79 monty burns
March 12, 2008

*snorts* you’re right! I was lost in horrible memories of the daily rantings of bitter divorced men at vox’s. Christian Libertarians…neither Christian nor Libertarian, discuss.
#80 Ichthyic
March 12, 2008

Christian Libertarians…neither Christian nor Libertarian, discuss.

been there, done that.

see if you can find the thread on Ron Paul using the search engine up top.

be warned:

the level of stupid presented by self-proclaimed “libertarians” in that thread might cause a rash.
#81 Azkyroth
March 12, 2008

Vox loves to coin words. It makes him feel smart, like some kind of intellectual giant, like a thought-leader, like a pioneer of ideas that are so new, existing language cannot even properly describe them!

Hey! I like to coin words.

(My most recent is “ilcliterate,” referring to the state of being grossly ignorant about female sexual anatomy and physiology.)

Vox Taedium is shitting on my doorstep with this. :/
#82 monty burns
March 12, 2008

Ack, how the hell did I miss such a juicy post? Thanks for the reminder.

But let’s not stop talking about how much Vox sucks. Or how amusing it is that he derides women for being stupid when his wife is…not that bright.
#83 Ichthyic
March 12, 2008

no worries.

the difference is that he does it to make himself look smart.

you do it for humor value.

it’s not hard to distinguish the two.
#84 Ichthyic
March 12, 2008

Or how amusing it is that he derides women for being stupid when his wife is…not that bright.

yeah, but is she a trophy wife(tm)?
#85 monty burns
March 12, 2008

To the knuckle-draggers at his blog, yes. To me, she is Scrawny Generic Unfunny White Woman.
#86 Bride of Shrek
March 12, 2008

Must be blind too if she lets her hubby get away with that haircut.
#87 MAJeff, OM
March 12, 2008

VD confuses me. I mean, I’ll most likely never sleep with a woman. As much as I adore the women in my life, there’s just no spark. However, I probably know more about their sexuality, what they enjoy, what turns them on, etc., than almost any straight man any of them will encounter (and some of those straight men owe me a bit of gratitude for tips given to the girlfriends).

While I may not “love women” like heterosexual men do, I love women far more than a straight misogynist like VD. I want them to have a say in how their own lives progress. I want them to have a say in how the communities and societies in which they live are organized. I think they’re the best folks to figure out what to do with their own bodies. I treasure the relationships I have with them, even though I have no desire for nookie with them. Hell, with my own feminist readings and work in the field of sexuality education, my amateur faggot ass could probably give a straight girl more fun than some woman-hating putz like Day.

There are some things I just don’t get at a very basic level. One is how someone can so despise women. Sure, there are some individual women I’m not overly fond of; but there are individual straight people, and individual gay men…..

But to hold women as a group in such contempt? Beyond me.
#88 Bride of Shrek
March 12, 2008

MAJeff,

Its probably because you have intrinsic respect for people and their identities. Your like or dislike or someone is probably based on personality not on gender. People like Mr Day are small weinered little men who are fundamentally scared of women because they fear their own inadequacies being exposed.

Oh, and as for

“I mean, I’ll most likely never sleep with a woman”

I keep telling you, its because we live on different continents and Mr Shrek might get his gills ruffled by it. Otherwise…..;-)
#89 MAJeff, OM
March 12, 2008

I keep telling you, its because we live on different continents and Mr Shrek might get his gills ruffled by it. Otherwise…..;-)

I’ll make you dinner (and frustrate you even more with what I can do with flavors and sensuality). Happily. But..I wants a sexy man. We can go shopping and hunting together, though.
#90 Hairy Doctor Professor
March 13, 2008

Check out the Planetary Society blog, run by Emily Lakdawalla. In particular, see this article for February 29TH: http://planetary.org/blog/article/00001344/ I am truly in awe of these ladies (Emily, too).

It has been my great fortune throughout my life to have been in the company of a large number of spectacularly competent women, nearly all of whom are smarter than I am. My wife should have received a Ph.D. for the work she did for her M.S., and the only reason the two of us together can keep a half-step ahead of our daughter is through age and experience (and ganging up on her).

Misogynistic buffoons are beneath contempt. Smack them down hard whenever they appear.
#91 Eric
March 13, 2008

Read his new book and put an honest review on Amazon.com exposing what a crackpot he is.

* Free download = http://irrationalatheist.com/downloads.html
* Amazon.com page for the book = http://www.amazon.com/Irrational-Atheist-Dissecting-Trinity-Hitchens/dp/1933771364
#92 Ichthyic
March 13, 2008

phht.

I’d say I’d rather wipe my ass with the paper, but that would mean I would have had to either purchase a hardcopy, or else print out the downloaded version.

neither of which is worth time and/or money.

morons like Vox are a dime a dozen. taking the time to make fun of their blog posts is about as much effort as they’re worth.
#93 Kristine
March 13, 2008

I hope Vox’s dad has a female judge at his trial.
#94 Janine, ID
March 13, 2008

Enough! A gay man and a married woman should not be flirting! My evil lesbian brain is frying!
#95 CalGeorge
March 13, 2008

#89: I would have to go take a shower after downloading that book – no, thanks!
#96 Ichthyic
March 13, 2008

My evil lesbian brain is frying!

mmmmmm.

fried brains…

unfortunately, I’ve already eaten this evening.
#97 MAJeff, OM
March 13, 2008

Enough! A gay man and a married woman should not be flirting! My evil lesbian brain is frying!

“The rallying point for the counterattack against the deployment of sexuality ought not to be sex-desire, but bodies and pleasures.” Foucault

Back in MN, there was a group of us who would go dancing. Whenever NIN came on, one particular woman and I would hit the dance floor. I once left teeth marks. Later, I found out that people were staring at us saying, “I thought he was gay.”

In everyday life, yeah. In that moment, it didn’t matter. It was Trent Reznor and bodies enjoying each other.
#98 Brian W.
March 13, 2008

coincidently, i wore my I Love Lesbians t-shirt today.
#99 Ichthyic
March 13, 2008

oh, Lewis Black’s new show is on CC right now.

looks good so far.
#100 Ichthyic
March 13, 2008

… It’s Oprah vs. the Catholic Church to decide which is more evil.

tough call.

I’m going with the Catholic Church.

after all, Oprah doesn’t have squads of missionaries fucking up entire civilizations.

…yet.
#101 Kseniya
March 13, 2008

Azkyroth, Ichty said it best. Keep on coinin’, my friend.
#102 Bride of Shrek
March 13, 2008

Speaking of fried brains, I bought some sweetbreads the other day. Mr Shrek was disgusted when I told him what they where. This from a man who eats friggin’ black pudding!

MAJeff, if I ever get to Boston again then I’ll take you up on that. Has to be some of your famous soup though, I’ll accept no less.
#103 J Myers
March 13, 2008

Christian in name only.
Sorry, Christians, if someone believes in the divinity of Jesus, they are as Christian as anyone else. Behavior is irrelevant.
#104 Ichthyic
March 13, 2008

Behavior is irrelevant.

Just ask Ted Haggard.

I think I’m going to get a chuckle out of ‘ol Ted until the day I die.
#105 Janine, ID
March 13, 2008

Jeff, I understand. I was friends with a extremely artistic married couple and, damn, I was so attracted to both of them. First time that ever happened. Though, in retrospect, I am afraid it was something out of “The Member Of The Wedding” with me as an adult Frankie.
#106 BlueIndependent
March 13, 2008

“Christian in name only…”

How exactly do you intend to prove this? How are you going to make him take back calling himself such? The answer is, you can’t. You couldn’t do it if you excommunicated him.

I hear all the time about self-proclaimed Christians being judged “Christian in name only” by other, supposedly truer Christians, yet I still never hear or see good Christians doing anything about the crazy ones. I never see the crazy ones challenged in the media on a regular basis. I never see the mass anti-war demonstrations by the hundreds of thousands. I don’t see the sit-ins over key social issues like justice for the poor.

All I do see is crazy people like Dobson, Hagee, Bennett and Donohue on nationwide TV espousing a thousand profane acts against others as they supposedly represent the better parts of western society. All I hear on the radio is Bible-thumping and cowing of the masses to a sense of fear and oppression where none exists. All I get is hateful, wasteful government policy aimed at committing the very crimes they are supposed to solve.

If VD or anyone else I’ve listed are “Christian in name only”, I reckon you have a lot of work to do.
#107 craig
March 13, 2008

There’s no such thing as “Christian in name only.”

If someone calls themselves a Christian, then they’re a Christian. You can’t say someone else isn’t a Christian just because their particular flavor of illogical bullshit doesn’t coincide with yours.
#108 Scott Hatfield, OM
March 13, 2008

I hate to break the news to you, but Barbara McClintock has also been dead for 16 years.

She’d still be able to outthink Theodore Beale.

On a related note, I took issue with an article cited by Vox that mentioned McClintock, casting her as a marginalized maverick and outsider who overcame the dogmaticism of her day: in other words, another version of that lame trope that PZ took to task recently on this blog. And, of course, in McClintock’s case, untrue. She was a highly-regarded senior scientist with a prestigious position and many honors at the time she first floated the idea of ‘jumping genes’, and made the textbooks in her own lifetime.

Anyway, Vox never acknowledged this criticism, which I suppose is his right but it’s also emblematic of his style, which tends to be clever and dismissive, rather than substantive.

And, despite my own differences with the guy—which are substantial—it saddens me that so many on this thread characterize him as stupid, deranged or uninformed or impugn him because he is a child of privilege or holds eccentric views that they find objectionable on political grounds. There are better arguments to be made against his prejudices.
#109 Ichthyic
March 13, 2008

clever and dismissive

you mean asinine and dismissive.

it saddens me that so many on this thread characterize him as stupid, deranged or uninformed or impugn him because he is a child of privilege or holds eccentric views that they find objectionable on political grounds.

scott, that’s hardly why folks object to Vox.

frankly, I’m shocked that you think the man well versed on ANYTHING.

O.o

I’ve never seen him hold his own here on any subject, ever.

…and it’s not like he hasn’t come to visit on occasion.

something tells me you get blinded by his “mastery” of language, and end up missing just how far off he is on just about anything he has ever posted about.
#110 Ichthyic
March 13, 2008

…and frankly, he IS nuts.

sorry you seem unable to see that.

I suggest you give him your children to sacrifice to his god.
#111 Ichthyic
March 13, 2008

I’m wondering…

Is this why we haven’t seen much of you of late, Scott?

because you’re busy analyzing the “genius” of Theodore Beale?

if that’s the case, please get over yourself – Vox is not worth your time.
#112 Leigh
March 13, 2008

MAJeff, of course you don’t hate women. You’re a fully evolved human being, a mensch. Only puny little titty baby weinies like Teddy fear women enough to hate them.

Anecdote time . . . my M.S. is in CompSci. Right after graduate school, I got a job managing an IBM mainframe as the sole programmer, sitting in a library as bare metal, and taught myself the operating system, VTAM, and CICS out of manuals. Got the thing up and running and Assembler application installed and in production . . . in two months. Literally soldered the cables myself. Then developed the library’s LAN, programmed the routers for Internet access, added VM to the mainframe for TCP/IP access, and ran 240 workstations with 4 students. Went on later to UNIX and running big shops. I manage support and programming teams, too, and do it damn well.

I am one white-hot technical resource. I could mop the floor with that shrimp-dick any day of the week. But he won’t go head-to-head with a Valkyrie like me; he’s far too cowardly. He’d shit his pants if he saw me coming because he’d know I would roll over him like a tank over a tin can.

And that “Vox Day” name shit is blasphemous.

Handy tip for separating the true Christians from the false, straight from Jesus himself: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Any who show hate rather than love do not follow the Christ. Christians are supposed to manifest the fruits of the Spirit, which are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. After you read a representative sampling of VD’s malicious drivel, you’ll clearly see he’s not a disciple, no matter what he calls himself.
#113 Bride of Shrek
March 13, 2008

One of his prejudices is simply being anti-woman ( or more correctly anti-intelligent women). I find that hard to be anything other than stupid and uninformed. Any “better arguement” to have against his prejudices has been made time and time again over the decades. I will NOT take seriously anyone who still holds these views in the year 2008 and I certainly won’t concede he is any way “clever”.

Therefore, however much as it saddens you, I still think he is a small weinered tosser who is scared of women.
#114 Azkyroth
March 13, 2008

-it saddens me that so many on this thread characterize him as stupid, deranged or uninformed

What else would you call the belief that women are categorically intellectually inferior to men? I’m genuinely curious.
#115 Peter Ashby
March 13, 2008

Shane that list of nobels per capita is wrong. it has New Zealand at 0, but Ernie Rutherford was a New Zealander, those perfidious English must have pinched him.
#116 John Morales
March 13, 2008

Scott @106:

And, despite my own differences with the guy—which are substantial—it saddens me that so many on this thread characterize him as stupid, deranged or uninformed or impugn him because he is a child of privilege or holds eccentric views that they find objectionable on political grounds. There are better arguments to be made against his prejudices.

So what if there’re better arguments? That just makes them regular arguments
#117 Lilly de Lure
March 13, 2008

There are better arguments to be made against his prejudices.

Maybe, but why waste them on an unthinking, hate-filled nut job like Vox Day who shows not indication of taking them on board even if (and this, judging by his output, is one hell of an if) he could actually understand them? Save the good arguments for people who actually want to examine said arguments rather to simply spew monkey poo all over the place.

Since Vox Day falls squarely into the latter category, far better to point and laugh at him, it’s the only response the cretin deserves.
#118 Moggie
March 13, 2008

Up to now, my mental image of little Theo has been of a teenager: there’s something so adolescent about much of his writing. But now I may have to revise that downwards.
#119 The Barefoot Bum
March 13, 2008

I have a profound respect for Vox Day’s moral consistency. (h/t to Norm Doering)
#120 The Barefoot Bum
March 13, 2008

(In case my previous comment dies in the SPAM folder)

Sayeth Vox Day:

Jefferson poses a feeble trap: “If your god revealed to you in a set of flawless communications you could not dispute that you should kill every child you see under the age of 2, would you?”

I don’t see what the problem is, or why people were avoiding this last night. I mean, of course it’s supposed to be a trap but it’s a toothless one of no concern to any sufficiently intelligent individual. The answer is yes, and how would you possibly take issue with that position regardless of whether you believe in my god or don’t believe in any god?

– Vox Day’s blog, 2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.html
#121 shane
March 13, 2008

Peter I think you’re right it appears that Baron Rutherford may have been claimed from Australia’s East islands by the poms (at least according the nationmaster site). Bastards.

As as matter of interest Rutherford won the 1908 Nobel for Chemistry.
#122 Dan Ryan
March 13, 2008

Vox Days book, The Irrational Athesit is a catalog or errors and Lies of the atheist leadership…Dawkins, Harris (who advocates killing people if he deems there beliefs dangeous enought…page 53-53 of TEOF) and Hitchens (who wishes the Jews had been wiped out at the battle commemorated by Hannukkah, p 275 of GING).

The book is devasting.

No wonder it has inspired so much anger.

The truth hurts.
#123 anonymouse
March 13, 2008

By the way, Darwin believed that women were intellecually inferior.
#124 Adam Cuerden
March 13, 2008

I go to Edinburgh University, and I’d say that over half of the biology teachers are women, and also expersin some subfield of biology – Parasitology, evolutionary biology, reproductive biology, botany, genetics, etc, etc.

Speaking of reproductive biology – I really do think it should be taught in highschool. Learning just how little difference there are between men and women, and how easy it is to perturb the balance makes sexism a joke of the worst sort.
#125 Rev. BigDumbChimp
March 13, 2008

By the way, Darwin believed that women were intellecually inferior.

Which has zero bearing at all on what a douchebag Vox Day is. Vox doesn’t live in 1860.
#126 Ric
March 13, 2008

So you guys and girls know of those translation websites? You know, the ones where it translates French to English, etc.

Well I’m going to build one specially for Vox Day. It’s going to be a Bigot to English dictionary. On the left side of the translator one will be able to cut and paste Vox Day’s latest innane screed, but no matter what one puts in, the output is always:

“Look at me, look at me!”
#127 Azkyroth
March 13, 2008

By the way, Darwin believed that women were intellecually inferior.

Darwin was mistaken about some things and absorbed some of the popular prejudices of his time. What is this supposed to prove?
#128 Zeno
March 13, 2008

I know this is petty, but I can’t resist. It’s too perfect an illustration of the quality of Vox Day’s acolytes. The exhibit in question is comment #119 by “Dan Ryan”. Let us begin:

Vox Days [possessive needs apostrophe] book, The Irrational Athesit [misspelled!] is a catalog or [of!] errors and Lies [ooh! uppercase lies!] of the atheist leadership…Dawkins, Harris (who advocates killing people if he deems there [their!] beliefs dangeous enought [dangerous enough!]…page 53-53 of TEOF) and Hitchens (who wishes the Jews had been wiped out at the battle commemorated by Hannukkah, p 275 of GING).

The book is devasting [devastating!]

No wonder it has inspired so much anger.

The truth hurts.

Not as much as trying to read your post, Dan Ryan. Thanks for providing a perfect illustration. Back under the rock with you now!
#129 David Marjanovi?, OM
March 13, 2008

it saddens me that so many on this thread characterize him as stupid, deranged or uninformed

We might (!) be able to quibble about “deranged”, but he is deeply ignorant and too stupid to notice it. That’s a fact.

Unless maybe if he’s a skilled bullshitter like Rush Limbaugh who says stuff to entertain his audience without caring in the least if it’s true — but if that were the case, I’d expect him to make money instead of vaporizing it.

Shane that list of nobels per capita is wrong. it has New Zealand at 0, but Ernie Rutherford was a New Zealander, those perfidious English must have pinched him.

I bet Austria’s score is similarly inflated by people who were born there but did all their work in the USA (after having had to flee in 1938).
#130 David Marjanovi?, OM
March 13, 2008

it saddens me that so many on this thread characterize him as stupid, deranged or uninformed

We might (!) be able to quibble about “deranged”, but he is deeply ignorant and too stupid to notice it. That’s a fact.

Unless maybe if he’s a skilled bullshitter like Rush Limbaugh who says stuff to entertain his audience without caring in the least if it’s true — but if that were the case, I’d expect him to make money instead of vaporizing it.

Shane that list of nobels per capita is wrong. it has New Zealand at 0, but Ernie Rutherford was a New Zealander, those perfidious English must have pinched him.

I bet Austria’s score is similarly inflated by people who were born there but did all their work in the USA (after having had to flee in 1938).
#131 phantomreader42
March 13, 2008

EyeNoU @ #26:
When my daughter was in high school, she was asked by her Algebra teacher to tutor some of her fellow students who were having trouble learning it. Care to guess the gender of every student she tutored? Hint: starts with “M”.

I worked as a tutor for the engineering department in college. I’m male, and as I recall so were almost all of my students (the majority of my classmates were male too, but not all my fellow tutors, so a lot of this may just be due to the demographics of the overall population). The students often didn’t have trouble with engineering issues or college-level physics, but with high-school math (like not knowing how to do derivatives). The only female regular I recall was Japanese, and her problems weren’t really with the engineering work per se, but with the fact that English wasn’t her first language, so she couldn’t make sense out of the lessons, taught in English by teachers with accents sometimes unintelligible to native speakers.
#132 Dave
March 13, 2008

Completely off topic, but thought this board might be amused by the following: According to Bloomberg Radio this morning, Geology students are commanding higher starting salaries than MBAs.
#133 David Marjanovi?, OM
March 13, 2008

Oops! I garbled the link to the technical term of philosophy.

The truth hurts.

Not as much as trying to read your post, Dan Ryan.

LOL!
#134 David Marjanovi?, OM
March 13, 2008

Oops! I garbled the link to the technical term of philosophy.

The truth hurts.

Not as much as trying to read your post, Dan Ryan.

LOL!
#135 Hank
March 13, 2008

Dan Ryan: Had you read any of the primary sources for any of those quotemines, you’d seen Theodore’s staggering dishonesty. Besides, how hard is it to understand that there are no “atheist leaders”? No irreligous papacy. No secular inquisition.

anonymouse: Quite possible. Through the hard work and sacrifices of many since then, things have changed for the better. Howver, it doesn’t change the validity of the theory of evolution a single bit.
#136 Janine, ID
March 13, 2008

By the way, Darwin believed that women were intellecually inferior.

Posted by: anonymouse

And with these brave and true words, all right thinking people rejected the theory of evolution because of flaws in the character of the person who popularized the theory. After further thought, these same people rejected the double helix because James Watson is racist and sexist, rejected the theory of relativity because Einstein treated his first wife badly and rejected the theory of gravity because Newton was an alchemist.
#137 Janine, ID
March 13, 2008

Danny Boy, oh Danny Boy. Did you name yourself for the express way or for the express way’s namesake?
#138 Wilson
March 13, 2008

But Harris DID say that people should be killed if their beliefs are deemed dangerous enought.

Pages 53-54 of TEOF.

And Hithchens did say that is the Jews has been wiped out back then “We could have been spared the whole thing.”
#139 Lilly de Lure
March 13, 2008

Janine, ID said:

And with these brave and true words, all right thinking people rejected the theory of evolution because of flaws in the character of the person who popularized the theory. After further thought, these same people rejected the double helix because James Watson is racist and sexist, rejected the theory of relativity because Einstein treated his first wife badly and rejected the theory of gravity because Newton was an alchemist.

*Applause!* (though slightly huffily as you beat me to the same point (and made it far more eloquently that I was going to!)
#140 Les Lane
March 13, 2008

Vox doesn’t live in 1860. (122)

I’m not so sure about that.
#141 monty burns
March 13, 2008

By ‘christian in name only,’ I meant that they (the regulars at VD) have uttered the required magic words and so now they are free to behave and talk like they are huge flaming assholes. And they do, because they are.
In, what, ten days, they will adopt their yearly show of humility, as they fall all over themselves trying to earn the approval of their invisible zombie friend. But the next day it will be asshattery as usual.

I do know of a few women who used to read that blog but were turned off by the vitriole. Were these rebellious, radical feminists? No, they were very Christian, very conservative and subservient. Still, they recognized the anti-woman message on display there.

Question: If Vox tells his kids that God loves them more than he does, does he also tell them that he loves God more than he loves them? Or does he keep that to himself?
#142 Salt
March 13, 2008

100+ comments is more than enough to establish the dim wattage of the Brights here.
#143 Jit
March 13, 2008

Can anyone think of a suitable tag for Day that is more in keeping with his arrogant idiocy & misogyny? For a start, the name Vox Day is just so breathtakingly arrogant he automatically deserves taking down a peg. His words are poison, and to dignify his nom de plume is undignified for civilised folk. Theodore is a better name, but there are obviously OK Theos out there – not really fair to use Theo as a pejorative.

So how about a brainstorm for a new handle for the guy which will hopefully become such common coin that no one ever says Vox Day any more, ever?

Wilson #133: “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.” Harris p52-3. Note the “may even be” in the middle. The sentence is not a command, it is a point for debate.

On the other hand YOUR boss: “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death…” Leviticus 20:9.
#144 monty burns
March 13, 2008

Ah, Salt. I remember you well.

So we’re judging the value of posts according to how many comments they receive now? That’s about as brilliant as DaveScot declaring the genius of ID because his site got a lot of hits one time.
#145 Janine, ID
March 13, 2008

Here is our good friend Salt tossing in his rather meaningless comment. Just one question, salt is such a good and useful compound. Why do you insist on besmirching salt’s good name?
#146 Carlie
March 13, 2008

Question: If Vox tells his kids that God loves them more than he does, does he also tell them that he loves God more than he loves them? Or does he keep that to himself?

OF COURSE the kids get told that. It’s supposed to be a virtue. The parable of Abraham and Isaac is held up as a shining example of how much to love god, not what kind of a monster god would put someone through the mind game of forcing him to sacrifice his own son just to say “gotcha”.
#147 phantomreader42
March 13, 2008

Leigh @ #110:
Handy tip for separating the true Christians from the false, straight from Jesus himself: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Any who show hate rather than love do not follow the Christ. Christians are supposed to manifest the fruits of the Spirit, which are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. After you read a representative sampling of VD’s malicious drivel, you’ll clearly see he’s not a disciple, no matter what he calls himself.

Here, at least, is an attempt to avoid the “No True Scottsman” fallacy. Select a characteristic that is essential to being considered a “real christian” and demonstrate that the taget does not posess that characteristic, so therefore the target is not a “real chrisitan”. And “love thy neighbor” is a good choice of characteristics for this purpose, as supposedly Jesus himself claimed it was one of the “great commandments” on which hung “all the law and prophets”.

But there’s still a problem with this.

The problem is, in order for this definition to be anything more than an arbitrary excuse to distance oneself from professed christians who say inconvenient things, it has to be applied consistently. And it usually isn’t.

Back when I was a christian, I used similar reasoning. The term “Pseudochristian” was common in my vocabulary, describing someone who made a big show of christian faith for personal gain, without any real interest in the teachings of christ (primarily the aforementioned “great commandment”, but also that stuff about helping the less fortunate and not being a hypocrite). Fred Phelps is a pseudochristian, he lives his entire life based on hatred. Jerry Falwell was a pseudochristian, he used 9/11 as an excuse to attack his political enemies instead of offering compassion for the victims, he constantly lied and stole from his followers. Ann Coulter is a psuedochristian, she makes her living by slander and spreading hate. George W. Bush is a pseudochristian, he lied his way into war without any consideration for the lives that would thus be destroyed, cut taxes for his friends and donors while putting innocent children into debt for generations. Ted Haggard is a pseudochristian, he denounced drugs and spewed homophobic bigotry from the pulpit while screwing a meth-dealing male prostitute.

And by applying this principle consistently, it became obvious that none of the most prominent “christians” in this country were in fact behaving in a “christian” fashion. Warmongers, whoremongers, liars, thieves and bigots. What kind of god would allow himself to be represented by such people? Combining this with the fact that there is not a shred of actual verifiable evidence in support of the existence of any god, much less the christian god, leads to the clear conclusion that no god worth worshipping would allow himself to be represented by these people, and their ability to claim to represent god without being struck by lightning stems from the fact that god is either nonexistent, indifferent, or evil.
#148 Salt
March 13, 2008

Ah, Salt. I remember you well.

So we’re judging the value of posts according to how many comments they receive now? That’s about as brilliant as DaveScot declaring the genius of ID because his site got a lot of hits one time.

Posted by: monty burns | March 13, 2008 9:32 AM

Just noticing the wattage here at Pharyngula. You guys do avoid substance where it tends to undermine your credibility.

For instance, is Vox’s characterization of Harris’ sloppy Red State assertion correct given the (easily) established data proving Harris’ assertion false? The data establishes the answer, unequivocally. Begs a question – As sloppy as Harris is, is Harris’ work therefore worthy of high scrutiny for other possible errors of such magnitude? Absolutely.

The Irrational Atheist is such scrutiny, and of Dawkins, et al.

Laugh, deride all you want, Brights. The data speaks for itself.
#149 Janine, ID
March 13, 2008

What was that? Oh. Salt said something. Carry on.
#150 Carolyn
March 13, 2008

Begs a question – As sloppy as Harris is, is Harris’ work therefore worthy of high scrutiny for other possible errors of such magnitude? Absolutely.

The Irrational Atheist is such scrutiny, and of Dawkins, et al.

Posted by: Salt | March 13, 2008 9:58 AM

One, that’s not what “begs the question” means.

Two, Beale calling something “irrational” is like the sun calling something “a flaming ball of gas.”

Three, when is he himself going to show up to flail around embarrassingly in a display his narcissism interprets as a brilliant rebuttal? Usually it doesn’t take this long.
#151 Rey Fox
March 13, 2008

“Shane that list of nobels per capita is wrong. it has New Zealand at 0, but Ernie Rutherford was a New Zealander, those perfidious English must have pinched him.”

More likely, it was just an error of rounding. Otherwise, wouldn’t every other country in the world have to be listed as producing 0 Nobel laureates? Similarly, I believe Iceland only has to have had one Nobel laureate in order to occupy the #1 spot on the list.

“Three, when is he himself going to show up to flail around embarrassingly in a display his narcissism interprets as a brilliant rebuttal?”

I think that’s why PZ keeps “stooping” to mention Teddy; in the hopes that he’ll show up here and there’ll be a nice roast.
#152 Mena
March 13, 2008

But Carolyn, the sun is a mass of incandescent gas. ;^)
#153 Ric
March 13, 2008

And Vox Day is irrational.
#154 me
March 13, 2008

women outnumber men in our biomedical science PhD graduate program by 2:1. Roughly 300 PhD students in it right now.

women applicants to the program outnumber men by an even larger margin

that vox day guy couldn’t be more out of touch with reality
#155 Vox Day
March 13, 2008

It’s certainly an interesting “evisceration” that manages to completely avoid the substance of the column. I just have two questions for everyone:

1. Why do women require Title IX to achieve numerical equity as educators and students in science education?

2. Since it looks as if Title IX is going to be applied to science education and academic research, will that be good for science or bad for science?

For those inclined to be silly and pedantic, by “science” I refer to PZ’s excellent tripartite definition of science as a knowledge base, a method, and a profession. Now roast away, my little chickens, roast away.
#156 Carolyn
March 13, 2008

Posted by: Vox Day | March 13, 2008 11:27 AM

He came! I invoked him! Eee hee hee hee!

*dances with glee*
#157 Kseniya
March 13, 2008

“Candymancandymancandyman.”
#158 Ric
March 13, 2008

Vox Day @ 151 said:

“It’s certainly an interesting “evisceration” that manages to completely avoid the substance of the column. I just have two questions for everyone:

1. Why do women require Title IX to achieve numerical equity as educators and students in science education?

2. Since it looks as if Title IX is going to be applied to science education and academic research, will that be good for science or bad for science?

For those inclined to be silly and pedantic, by “science” I refer to PZ’s excellent tripartite definition of science as a knowledge base, a method, and a profession. Now roast away, my little chickens, roast away.”

Bigot-to-English dictionary translation:

“Look at me, look at me!”

Oh, and Vox Day, your hair cut is totally stupid.
#159 Ric
March 13, 2008

Oh shit! I just realized that Vox Day graduated from Bucknell, my alma mater, a mere seven years before I did.

Oh sweet Bucknell, what a blight on your good name!
#160 Scott Hatfield, OM
March 13, 2008

A few quick comments…

So what if there’re better arguments? That just makes them regular arguments

OK, that made me laugh. Good one.

Save the good arguments for people who actually want to examine said arguments rather to simply spew monkey poo all over the place.

Well, here’s the thing. He’s actually done that, with yours truly, in a series of posts on my blog and his, several months back. You can read that here, if you like. I don’t like Vox’s politics, and I find many of his views recrudescent. But he is quite capable, in fact inclined, to sit and throughly parse an argument. What makes him insufferable to many are the many gratuitous and mocking asides he often embeds in his writing.

What else would you call the belief that women are categorically intellectually inferior to men? I’m genuinely curious.

I doubt he’d put his views that way. That’s what makes Vox interesting. His prejudices are more nuanced.

Not as much as trying to read your post, Dan Ryan. Thanks for providing a perfect illustration. Back under the rock with you now!

Indeed. This is pretty representative of many of Vox’s regular commenters.

….but no matter what one puts in, the output is always:

“Look at me, look at me!”

I think this is a telling observation. Much of Vox’s rhetoric is merely designed to draw attention to himself. Typically, within the provocation, there’s a more nuanced argument waiting to be made. Whether or not it’s worth putting up with the smokescreen to actually get to that argument is probably a matter of personal taste.

Vox loves to coin words. It makes him feel smart, like some kind of intellectual giant, like a thought-leader, like a pioneer of ideas that are so new, existing language cannot even properly describe them!

Yep. It also allows him to control the course of an argument. In that, he differs little from many philosophers, with their interest in semantics.

I’m wondering…

Is this why we haven’t seen much of you of late, Scott?
because you’re busy analyzing the “genius” of Theodore Beale?

I don’t think he’s a genius. I think he’s clever in a narrow and self-absorbed sort of way. I think of my interaction with Vox as a means of seeking understanding, and, with cockeyed optimism, reasoning with a particular kind of evolutionary skeptic. Again, whether I’m spinning my wheels is probably a matter of personal taste. Sorry if I’ve disappointed you.

BTW, I love Pharyngula and lurk here constantly. But, the truth is, I tend to agree with what’s written here. As a science teacher, one of my primary interests is defending the teaching of evolution. And, realistically, Pharyngula doesn’t need my help doing that. Whereas people like Vox, who enjoy a large Net following, really are flailing about, tripping over various ideological commitments and personal prejudices and misconceptions. You go where the battle is, I guess.
#161 MissPrism
March 13, 2008

Recrudescent?
His views are starting up again after a period of inactivity?

I don’t see why sesquipedalians have to make everything so anfractuous.
#162 Anthony K
March 13, 2008

Vox Day said:

“It’s certainly an interesting “evisceration” that manages to completely avoid the substance of the column.”

Was there anything of substance in the column, because if so a thorough reading failed to reveal it.

Oh, wait, you mean things like this:

“What the rational observer often fails to understand, however, is that these propositions don’t sound the least bit absurd to the equalitarian proponent because the average equalitarian is fundamentally an intellectual cave-dweller with no more interest in reason or capacity for logical thought than a hungry kitten.”

Oh, that is so substantive that it is no wonder Mark Chu-Carroll was afraid to address it. Riiiight.
#163 Mena
March 13, 2008

I just have two questions for everyone:
1. Why do women require Title IX to achieve numerical equity as educators and students in science education?
I dunno, I’m kind of a dumb broad but I’m going to guess that there’s some sort of social situation which makes this sort of thing necessary, even in the 21st century?
By the way, I still can’t take this guy seriously because of the haircut. He apparently thought that his pubic triangle haircut was so good looking (what does that make his mouth, by the way) that he has to continue to use it a decade or two later. Sad, sad, sad little man.
#164 Falyne
March 13, 2008

Ric:

AAAAAUUUUGH!

Please, please tell me you’re shitting me.

Granted, this school DOES produce its share of assholes. The latest issue of the Counterweight was more foul than usual.

On another note, I just got back from renting an apartment in NYC for the summer and onwards. I love Lewisburg, it’s a cute town…. but I’ve spent 5 years here. I need out.
#165 MissPrism
March 13, 2008

This thread reminded me to update the calendar of women scientists’ birthdays, for which thanks are mostly due to commenter Penny at Thus Spake Zuska.

Those wanting an excuse for a party over the weekend can celebrate the birthdays of chemist Agnes Pockels tomorrow, biologist Lyn Margulis on Saturday or astronomer Caroline Herschel on Sunday. Have fun!
#166 Hap
March 13, 2008

Salt: “The data speaks for itself.”

Now that’s funny. Seeing any data would be a start, considering no one’s heard any data speak at all (and not for lack of trying). ID has had a mysterious lack of data for about twenty years (and millions of dollars)- if there were any data to find, you would figure that it would have been found. They could have come up with testable theories for free, but, they can’t seem to manage that, either. Unfortunately, the data may be speaking (assuming there were any, of course), but my moron-to English translator is broken, so I can’t understand them.

Isn’t dishonesty a sin? It isn’t much of an endorsement for what you believe in it if you have to be dishonest to get others to believe in it, and if you have to ignore the key points of what you believe to do so. Christianity would be better served by fewer Vox Days and more MLKs.
#167 Sean
March 13, 2008

Vox Day…isn’t his father still on the run from the feds?

Like father, like son…
#168 Hap
March 13, 2008

Oh, Mr. Beale: I think your “rhetoric” explains pretty clearly why Title IX exists and is enforced. Unfortunately, you are probably either not smart enough or not honest enough to appreciate the irony.
#169 MartinM
March 13, 2008

For instance, is Vox’s characterization of Harris’ sloppy Red State assertion correct given the (easily) established data proving Harris’ assertion false?

That doesn’t appear to be mentioned in Vox’s article, nor in Mark’s response. A quick scan of this thread suggests that you are the first to raise it. So apparently your complaint is that we’ve avoided engaging an argument that wasn’t raised.

Now, did you actually have anything to contribute to the discussion at hand, or did you just want to snipe pointlessly?
#170 Carolyn
March 13, 2008

But Carolyn, the sun is a mass of incandescent gas. ;^)

Posted by: Mena | March 13, 2008 11:04 AM

Well, granted, it’s not actually flaming because it’s undergoing the p-p reaction, not oxidizing, but I think that’s unnecessarily pedanti–Oh. You just wanted to link to the TMBG video.

Carry on.
#171 Ric
March 13, 2008

Falyne @ 160 said:

“AAAAAUUUUGH!

Please, please tell me you’re shitting me.”

I wish I were, Falyne, I wish I were. According to Wikipedia, that’s where VD graduated from.
#172 HongKongCharlie
March 13, 2008

My first and last visit.
When unable to address a question, best answer is to attack the typing or punctuation. Must make one feel oh so superior!

Does any of you actually go back and read some of your middle school levels of humorous insults, interspersed with squeals? No wonder you need title IX.

My mother’s uncle and his second wife had a daughter that blah, blah. It’s simply not the exception that consumes the rule. It’s all so infantile!

Okay, girls! get out your nail files and attack.

HKC
#173 guthrie
March 13, 2008

Why bother if you won’t be back? Its no fun playing with people if they won’t be around to reply.
#174 Azkyroth
March 13, 2008

It’s certainly an interesting “evisceration” that manages to completely avoid the substance of the column.

What substance?

Why do women require Title IX to achieve numerical equity as educators and students in science education?

Vox, I think this excerpt from Mark Chu-Caroll’s response summarizes the problem nicely:

Once upon a time, I was in charge of recruiting summer interns for my department. We decided that in order to try to bring in more people who weren’t white guys, we’d give each department a quota of students it was allowed to hire – but we wouldn’t count women or minorities against that. In fact, we had enough budget to hire about 50% more people than the official quota.

We filled the quota within a day. The first batch of interns were all white guys.

There were, of course, lots of people in my department who still wanted to hire summer students. So I told them that they could look for a student who was a woman or minority. Naturally, this was met by tons of ranting: “How dare you be so discriminatory? Why can’t I hire a white guy if he’s the best qualified?”

Two of the people who ranted most vociferously came back within a couple of days with women that they wanted to hire, and said “I found a woman who was a better candidate than the guy I wanted to hire first!”

To which I responded, rather annoyed, “So why the hell didn’t you find them in the first place? You claimed that you carefully searched for the very best candidate, and you shouted at me about how awful it was that I couldn’t let you hire them. But the moment you had to look at women candidates, you found someone better than your very best candidate?”

The reason Title IX is necessary is because of stupid, bigoted people like yourself who refuse to objectively and honestly evaluate candidates on the basis of their qualifications and abilities rather than on their gender. I hope you’re proud of yourself.
#175 Stan
March 13, 2008

You guys are a hoot. But so far you haven’t called Vox Day enough names to convince me. Better get out the big guns and call him some really convincing names so I can determine the rationality of the situation. After all it is the name calling that counts. Bad hair? Well PZ’s hair isn’t that convincing. Stupid name? Same for PZ. Day is:

“a douchebag; cretin; loser; not with Voxie’s haircut; beyond pompous on in to the realm of complete nutter;
small weinered tosser who is scared of women;future toddler chopper;nitwit; Vox sucks; his wife is…not that bright; she is Scrawny Generic Unfunny White Woman; woman-hating putz; People like Mr Day are small weinered little men; Misogynistic buffoons; he IS nuts; give him your children to sacrifice to his god; spew monkey poo; his words are poison; huge flaming assholes (Day’s readers); Warmongers, whoremongers, liars, thieves and bigots (Christians in general); bigot; “Look at me, look at me!”; Oh, and Vox Day, your hair cut is totally stupid; Sad, sad, sad little man.”

Well,… Just not enough there to convince me.

We’ll just need more evidence, so let ‘er rip.
#176 Ric
March 13, 2008

Well, Stan, we’d shred his argument if he actually made one and supported it with evidence, but reading his screed, he does no such things. He makes unsupported assertions and engages in a few adhominems (after touting his beloved Third Reich’s military acument).

So with nothing else to do, it’s fun to point out that he’s a douche bag.
#177 spurge
March 13, 2008

Why do you think anyone carers what you think, Stan?
#178 Mena
March 13, 2008

Stan, you forgot “Now roast away, my little chickens, roast away.”
Now are you convinced?
#179 Azkyroth
March 13, 2008

Stan, do you dispute that Vox’s anti-woman screeds are based on personal prejudices and insecurities rather than on evidence?
#180 Carolyn
March 13, 2008

He makes unsupported assertions and engages in a few adhominems (after touting his beloved Third Reich’s military acument).

Posted by: Ric | March 13, 2008 2:39 PM

The part that always makes me chuckle when someone brings up the invasion of France as an example of German military genius is that it was actually planned by de Gaulle–Vers l’arm�e de m�tier lays out in detail how to circumvent the Maginot Line.
#181 Norman Doering
March 13, 2008

Stan wrote:

You guys are a hoot. But so far you haven’t called Vox Day enough names to convince me.

We haven’t convinced you of what exactly?

I’m becoming convinced that Vox eats up more attention than he deserves. In this post on my blog I suggest (to myself at least) that the only reason we do so is because he’s such an easy target. Go ahead and have fun with ripping into him, but you probably shouldn’t consider him as representative of the Christian community out there. If you’re looking for more than easy exercises in taking apart bad arguments you’ll need to widen your sources of information and stop following PZ’s lead.

And that’s my advice to me and anyone else who wants it.
#182 Ric
March 13, 2008

Norman, while I disagree with your general assertion that PZ is cherry-picking, your blog post does a good job at dismantling VD’s ridiculous claims, which I strongly suspected were false but was too lazy to check.

I also followed the link to where you point out another of VD’s lies about Sam Harris’s book. Nice work.
#183 Norman Doering
March 13, 2008

Ric wrote:

I disagree with your general assertion that PZ is cherry-picking

I did say that, didn’t I? But I also said that Vox is clever in how he gets under everybody’s skin and provokes the insults we hurl at him.

And if PZ isn’t cherry picking then why doesn’t PZ delve into harder targets, the kind you don’t want to throw insults at. I gave some examples, Michael Heller and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Also, I suggest there are other Christian blogs out there that come at these subjects without Vox’s vitriol; like the blogs “Thinking Christian” or “Reasonable Christian.”

I think Stan had a point of sorts, there’s way too much name calling when Vox’s name comes up. It is counter productive and just serves to advertise Vox.
#184 Falyne
March 13, 2008

Sigh…. well, at least I’m leaving Bucknell soon, and heading to Manhattan (my anti-lewisburg). Granted, I’m moving to Chelsea, and there’s not a bar for quite a few blocks from my new apartment that my comp-sci-engineer-boobies and I could pick up a guy…

Well, maybe I’ll get lucky, and some of them will be bi.
#185 Scott Hatfield, OM
March 13, 2008

I think Stan had a point of sorts, there’s way too much name calling when Vox’s name comes up. It is counter productive and just serves to advertise Vox.

I agree with Norm. If outliers like Vox are to be engaged, they should be engaged on the basis of the claims they make, not on how those claims make us feel or what sort of villian we imagine a person must be in order to make suc claims.
#186 Ric
March 13, 2008

Engaged? How engaged, and to what end? Do you think any amount of logic, evidence, or reasoned argument would sway Vox Day’s views? They aren’t based on these things to begin with. Or do you think he’s going to be touched by an attempt to treat him courteously and will forswear his bigoted views?

In my opinions, these things are clearly never going to happen, so maybe a little contempt is just what he needs.
#187 Steve_C
March 13, 2008

Move to Williamsburg Falyne, nerdy chicks are very appreciated there. Trust me, I live there.
#188 Stan
March 13, 2008

Ric said,
“In my opinions, these things are clearly never going to happen, so maybe a little contempt is just what he needs.”

Well, contempt is what this blog is all about. After all not long ago PZ said, “Ridicule Works”.

I’m willing to bet that Day would take on any specific factual qualms that are presented, and discuss them point by point. But this blog is just about condemnation of those who dare to disagree. (See the comments about me, above). You have your own little choir here who spit out ad hominems on cue, claiming offense at others who they see as doing the same. If that is a rational approach, you need to write a new book on it. If Day doesn’t refute it, then I will.
#189 Norman Doering
March 13, 2008

Stan wrote:

I’m willing to bet that Day would take on any specific factual qualms that are presented, and discuss them point by point.

He can visit my blog, here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/03/pox-on-vox-i-say.html

But I already engaged Vox on Brent Rasmussen’s blog and his defense of his statements quickly got absurd, too absurd for rational argument.
#190 Ichthyic
March 13, 2008

But I already engaged Vox on Brent Rasmussen’s blog and his defense of his statements quickly got absurd, too absurd for rational argument.

which represents the 100th or so time that’s happened.

you see it happen enough times, guess what?

his arguments become immediate dismissed as nothing more than absurd, with invective thrown in because everyone knows how they inevitably end up.

I trust that might at least serve to start to explain to the concern trolls why exactly so much invective gets thrown his way.

It’s simply easier than going on to, yet again and for the 101st time, demonstrate that Beale has his head firmly wedged up his ass.

It’s like trying to explain the guy that streaks at televised football games.

once you’ve attempted it once, there is really little else to say but:

“Get the fuck of the field, you idiot!”
#191 Stan
March 13, 2008

Normdoering said:
“He can visit my blog, here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/03/pox-on-vox-i-say.html“

Having visited your blog, and seeing your reluctance to actually read a book, I doubt that you have anything cogent to offer.

To the others here, try your specific comments here, and let’s see. I don’t know that Day spends much time here, so I don’t know if he will read them, but it’s worth a try, if you want to take the high road. Or you can continue to rant irrationally, your choice.
#192 Norman Doering
March 13, 2008

Stan wrote:

Having visited your blog, and seeing your reluctance to actually read a book, I doubt that you have anything cogent to offer.

I see you’re as absurd as Vox Day. Will reading the rest of his book suddenly make the lies he has already told go away?
#193 Azkyroth
March 13, 2008

If outliers like Vox are to be engaged, they should be engaged on the basis of the claims they make, not on how those claims make us feel or what sort of villian we imagine a person must be in order to make suc claims.

This might be a valid criticism if we had any reason to believe that Vox Taedium was arguing in good faith.
#194 Carolyn
March 13, 2008

This might be a valid criticism if we had any reason to believe that Vox Taedium was arguing in good faith.

Posted by: Azkyroth | March 13, 2008 7:45 PM

Stan seems to be laboring under the tragic misapprehension that the majority of us are here to do anything other than laugh at VD and his pretensions. (Or, in my case, whoop his ass at multivariate calculus and then laugh at said pretensions.)
#195 Azkyroth
March 13, 2008

An addendum
#196 David Harmon
March 13, 2008

Well, I’d say the only thing to do is give him his own date on the calendar… I hereby propose that from now own, the day after Beltane should be known as “Vox Day”. And hey, it’s coming up at the end of this month!
#197 Ichthyic
March 13, 2008

Or you can continue to rant irrationally, your choice.

If i rant irrationally, will it make you get off the fucking field?
#198 thalarctos
March 13, 2008

I hereby propose that from now own, the day after Beltane should be known as “Vox Day”.

Speaking as a Beltane baby, David, I say find another month. It’s already bad enough that Bush pissed all over my birthday with that “Mission Accomplished” crap.
#199 Jason B
March 13, 2008

Only two questions after reading this:

1. Who is this Vox character?

2. Why should I care what he thinks?
#200 Aquaria
March 13, 2008

When my daughter was in high school, she was asked by her Algebra teacher to tutor some of her fellow students who were having trouble learning it. Care to guess the gender of every student she tutored? Hint: starts with “M”.

When I was in jr. high (way back in the 70s), I was struggling to understand a concept in intro algebra. Can’t remember which, but it bothered me that I couldn’t quite get how it worked. So I went to my (female) teacher. Her reply? “Oh, don’t worry about that. A pretty girl like you doesn’t need to worry about algebra. Just concentrate on addition and subtraction, multiplication and division, and you’ll know all you need to know as a wife.” And she never cleared up what I wanted to know.

My mother (graduate degree in nursing) blew a frickin’ gasket when I told her about that. It had been nearly 20 years since she dealt with algebra, but she got it through my head. Not my stepfather. Or my brothers. Or any male. I didn’t know any who could help me. But my mom–she knew.

On a happier level, many years later, I was in college taking a critical thinking course that delved into some mathematics, and was kinda iffy on permutation and combination theory but could get them to work for homework. Call it intuitive understanding. One of the other (female) students couldn’t get it at all, and asked for my help. When I sat down and started explaining it to her, I finally understood WHY and HOW it worked. And it was in my head forever after. And I became the “math tutor” in my class, too. Me. The person who couldn’t figure out intro algebra in 8th grade.
#201 Norman Doering
March 13, 2008

Jason B asked:

Why should I care what he thinks?

Good question. Perhaps he can save your soul from frying in hell for all eternity?
#202 Leigh
March 13, 2008

Oh, so now we have to ENGAGE random fools who are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.? After we get done with VD, should we seek out Fred Phelps, local skinheads, and the guys who spray graffiti on temples and mosques?

Hell, no. We don’t ENGAGE bigots. We ridicule them until they get the fuck off the field or die, whichever comes first.
#203 Stan
March 13, 2008

Ichthyic Said:
“If i rant irrationally, will it make you get off the fucking field?

I’ll make it easier than that for you junior, I’ll leave you to your juvenile friends. Adios.
#204 Ichthyic
March 13, 2008

Adios.

woo hoo!

i winz teh internetz?
#205 Norman Doering
March 13, 2008

Ichthyic wrote:

woo hoo!
i winz teh internetz?

Don’t expect any prizes.
#206 MAJeff, OM
March 13, 2008

Perhaps he can save your soul from frying in hell for all eternity?

Considering the company, I have yet to see a compelling argument for “being saved.”
#207 Norman Doering
March 13, 2008

MAJeff wrote:

Considering the company, I have yet to see a compelling argument for “being saved.”

Well, if bad faith can’t save Vox and Stan then you might have them as roommates in hell.
#208 Kelly O'Connor
March 13, 2008

For anybody who’s interested, I am doing a type of back and forth with Vox Day on my blog. Part One of the series and his response are at .
#209 Kelly O'Connor
March 13, 2008

OOps…I guess links are not allowed in comments.
http://kelly.rationalresponders.com
Sorry!
#210 Ichthyic
March 13, 2008

2 links per post.
#211 Azkyroth
March 13, 2008

Stan, do you dispute that Vox’s anti-woman screeds are based on personal prejudices and insecurities rather than on evidence?

Still waiting…

(Or will he be the first troll in history to follow through on his announcements of leaving? Stay tuned…)
#212 Kseniya
March 13, 2008

(Hmmm, I wonder if the bright and beautiful Kelly is gonna get roundly criticized, as Scott was, for engaging Vox.)

Kelly, links are allowed. As Ichthyic says, more than two and you’ll be held up for moderations. (Sb SOP, sigh.) Use “a” tag format as follows:

<a href=”http://www.someURL.com/somepage.htm”>descriptive text<a>

which gives you this: descriptive text
#213 Azkyroth
March 14, 2008

As I understand it, Scott was criticized on the basis of chiding us for not engaging Vox. So far, Kelly hasn’t done that that I’ve seen.
#214 Kseniya
March 14, 2008

Point taken, Azky.
#215 Rey Fox
March 14, 2008

They’re all just so insanely envious that we’re better at insults than they are.
#216 Kseniya
March 14, 2008

(Mostly true, but he was also criticized for wasting his own time on Vox.)
#217 Scott Hatfield, OM
March 14, 2008

This might be a valid criticism if we had any reason to believe that Vox Taedium was arguing in good faith.

I agree with that objection in principle, Azkyroth, but I want to point out two things:

1) Making absurd arguments doesn’t mean that the person isn’t acting in good faith. It could mean that they really thing the argument is valid, for a number of reasons.

2) Speaking just for myself, I never thought VD acted in bad faith when he and I went back-and-forth on my blog. To his credit, he actually read the source material I referred him to where evolution was concerned, particularly the fusion event that produced human chromosome 2. He actually ended up conceding some points on the basis of evidence, and I felt the dialogue was instructive. At least, I think I learned something, and I would like to believe Vox did, as well.

I recognize, however, that some may have had a different experience (especially where politics are concerned), and I certainly am in no position to tell you guys and gals otherwise. I’m probably a bit of a Pollyanna and too inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, which is probably why I’ve tried on more than one occasion to engage some of the poor souls who ended up in PZ’s dungeon.

(Mostly true, but he was also criticized for wasting his own time on Vox.)

Yep. And those who criticized me may well be right. I may be spinning my wheels. I feel obligated to try to engage, though, to the point of giving individuals the benefit of the doubt now and then.

But I have my limits, like everyone else, in dealing with creationists, and everyone’s mileage may vary. I remember with fondness a wise and mild-mannered former ecology prof who would shrug off virtually any creationist screed with good-natured humor…..except the old canard about evolution violating the law of thermodynamics, which is just one of many throughly rotten and discredited arguments.

But that particular one stuck in his craw, and it led to the only time I ever saw him cross. He explained that he felt that this particular argument made biologists look as if they had never cracked a physics or chemistry text, and that he took it as an implied insult to his profession. So that argument, for him, was the limit. If you used that argument, you crossed the line, and he wouldn’t stand for it. The transformation in his persona triggered by this particular argument was startling.
#218 Ichthyic
March 14, 2008

He actually ended up conceding some points on the basis of evidence, and I felt the dialogue was instructive. At least, I think I learned something, and I would like to believe Vox did, as well.

have you EVER thought, even for a second, Scott, that maybe, just maybe, many others have done the same thing before you?

which resulted in Vox’s public missives changing not one whit in content, regardless of any points ceded to individuals in private, or on various other blogs?

this is just one thing where we who have been following him can clearly see his dishonesty, and it’s the exact same kind of intellectual dishonesty shown by most creationists. You can clearly shred their arguments to the point they basically have to concede defeat, and then sometimes the very next day, they will come back and pretend that everything discussed the previous day never happened.

hey, I could be wrong – maybe you were the one to finally reach Beale. maybe he’s finally seen the light!

why don’t you monitor his future “original” contributions to see how much your conversations with him influenced his thinking, eh?

give it say, oh about a month.

then look for any post of Beale’s on his blog where he speaks of the topics you and he discussed.
#219 Scott Hatfield, OM
March 14, 2008

why don’t you monitor his future “original” contributions to see how much your conversations with him influenced his thinking, eh? give it say, oh about a month. then look for any post of Beale’s on his blog where he speaks of the topics you and he discussed.

Fair enough.
#220 Ichthyic
March 14, 2008

seriously, I really am curious to see if anyone is able to impact Beale in the long term.

I was perhaps a bit more sarcastic than i intended (it’s been a bad week), but I’ve been glancing at his missives occasionally for several years now, and I don’t see much in the way of correction in response to information provided to him.

still think you’re wasting your time, but hey, it’s your time, not mine, so it’s not fair of me to criticize you for it.

It’s not like miracles never happen, right?
#221 Norman Doering
March 14, 2008

Scott Hatfield wrote:

1) Making absurd arguments doesn’t mean that the person isn’t acting in good faith. It could mean that they really thing the argument is valid, for a number of reasons.
2) Speaking just for myself, I never thought VD acted in bad faith when he and I went back-and-forth on my blog.

Well, I thought Vox argued in comically bad faith when I engaged him on Brent Rasmussen’s blog. I had pointed out that his data on terrorists was out of date and Sam, in 2004, was right that most suicide bombers were Muslims by that time. Vox used old data, from 2000, to say it was the Tamil Tigers.

Caught in that lie he tried to claim Sam had said “all suicide bombers were terrorists” something Sam clearly never said, and then like Stan, in his comment on this thread, he just dismissed me because I hadn’t read the whole book.
#222 Norman Doering
March 14, 2008

correction:
I I wrote:

Sam had said “all suicide bombers were terrorists”

That should be:
Sam had said “all suicide bombers were MUSLIMS”

Sorry, not quite up yet.
#223 Kseniya
March 14, 2008

One of your strengths, Scott, is your willingness and ability to engage everyone fairly and respectfully, at least until you’ve been given ample reason to do otherwise. If there’s a downside to this, it’s that you may be motivated to defend your expenditure of time and attention on someone by maintaining that he is indeed worthy of it, even if that may not be entirely true. I inflict this little bit of armchair psychology on you not because I believe that’s the case with your evolution debate with Vox, but because I think it might be. That’s for you to decide, and whatever the conclusion, the time spent finding out was not necessarily wasted.

After my initial allergic reaction to Vox (reading his blog was like showering in toxic waste) I realized I might be doing myself a disservice if I dismissed everything he said as a matter of course simply due to my aversion to his distasteful opinions and annoying conceits. A difficult situation or person often presents a learning opportunity of some kind – though I admit that posts by Ichthyic, Norman and others here suggest that I may have overestimated Vox’s ability to provide such opportunities.

Anyway, Scott, your recent open invitation to Vox to “join us” made me grin. (I have a bit of Pollyanna in me too, you see.) Whether he’d make a good ally or not is moot because, as others have pointed out, he shows few signs of being open to making so many radical changes to so many beliefs – even when he acknowledges evidence that contradicts those beliefs. You know our Theodore: Ultimately he’s blinded by his own self-assumed brilliance, an effect aptly demonstrated by his idiosyncratic and *cough* inventive use of language, and by his attempts to exert “raw intellect” to trump the knowledge accumulated by 150 years of dedicated and informed scientific inquiry. I’ve often said his primary talent is for sophistry, and I’ve meant it every time, but I can’t honestly say he’s devoid of other talents or that he’s literally stupid or insane. If I was going to used the DSM-IV against him, it wouldn’t be to get him pink-slipped – I’d use it to whack him upside the head!

So while I tend to agree that “there are better arguments,” I do appreciate the frustration of others who’ve exercized their right to dismiss him as a misogynist, a nutcase, or an egoist.
#224 Kseniya
March 14, 2008

One more thing. I think the Baby-Killing For God has been widely misinterpreted and misrepresented. Vox says it’s a no-brainer and that only one conclusion is possible. On that I disagree, and though I come down on the other side of the question, what it reveals is not that Theodore’s an avid tot-chopper, but that he believes the imperative authority of God takes precedence over the moral authority of God and the exercise of God-given human free will combined. That a self-styled nonconformist and de facto heretic would choose to unquestioningly obey an order to slaughter children betrays an authoritarian mindset somewhat at odds with his public presentation (i.e. intellectual maverick).

The one disturbing question it does raise, however, is this: Does any other entity exist, divine or otherwise, whose authority is similarly compelling? Are there any other conditions under which Theodore could be pursuaded to engage in wide-spread and indiscriminate tot-chopping (or the equivalent)?
#225 Norman Doering
March 14, 2008

Ichthyic wrote:

this is just one thing where we who have been following him can clearly see his dishonesty, and it’s the exact same kind of intellectual dishonesty shown by most creationists.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. On my blog here I have links to a couple other Christian blogs. One of them is “Thinking Christian” and while I don’t agree with lots of what is said I found some refreshingly honest opinions there. For example, a post there called “How Not to Support Expelled; How Not to Attack Evolution” admits this:

As an undergrad at Michigan State, I was for a time involved in the controversy on “scientific creationism,” which was drawing a lot of attention in Christian circles at the time. The discussion hinged around whether the fossils, rocks, and stars really pointed to an ancient earth, and whether Genesis 1 and 2 really demanded a young-earth interpretation. I came to a very freeing realization at the time: this is a very complex subject. Much of it is really for specialists. And I was a music major! Sure, I could read evolutionists’ opinions or creationists’ opinions, but could I form a knowledgeable opinion on the science? As for Genesis 1 and 2, even that was a matter of discussion among strongly principled Christian scholars. How literal is it to be taken? It has much of the characteristics of poetry-is it meant to be (at least somewhat) figurative?

I settled on this: I don’t know about the age of the earth. I am not qualified to settle the issue, even in my own mind. …

Do you think you’d ever hear Vox saying “I am not qualified to settle the issue, even in my own mind”?

That’s why I’m saying it’s probably not fair to focus so much energy on Vox. He doesn’t really tell you what is happening in other religious minds, or the average one.
#226 DanioPhD
March 16, 2008

If anyone has more time to burn on Vox Day and the larger issue of mysogyny, I could use some help over on Orac’s blog:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/03/vox_days_misogyny.php#comment-787870

much obliged, if you’re so inclined…
#227 DanioPhD
March 16, 2008

Oh hell, of course I mean mIsogyny. It’s not like it’s right there, spelled correctly in the title of the post I linked to or anything.

My puny womyn’s brayn needs more caffeyne to actyvate internal spellchecker, evidently.
#228 m?rc m?rc m?rc m?rc m?rc
December 31, 2008

thank’s
#229 youtube
January 17, 2009

ty man my name is mustafa im from turkey you nice homepage