A while back, I posted this video of an enthusiastic young atheist — and would you believe that almost immediately after I put it up, censorious theistic jerks started dunning youtube to remove all of her videos and ban her? It's nice to know that bullying thugs are monitoring Pharyngula to seek out more fragile targets, but it's not good to see that they sometimes actually succeed in getting people suspended. We all have to hang in there and be tough, and support our fellow godless rationalists against the sleazy weasels who want to silence our voices.
Anyway, she's back now.
Hey, Christian cowards — if you're going to try again to get this person kicked off youtube, at least be brave enough to 'fess up here first…and let's hear you explain why your faith is so weak that it cannot hold up against free speech.
- Log in to post comments
She's great, I love her.
I know this is offtopic but check out this McCain ad that all but accuses Obama of being the antichrist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mopkn0lPzM8
You go girl. This is my first comment here on this site and I am also not afraid of burning in hell. We need more young people like you. Don't let them silence your voice
And, I apologize for typing this, you are cute as hell!
Yay, another round of "Is complimenting her on her looks sexist?"
Last time that discussion went around and around for ages...
but I hope we get to keep on having it rather than discussing whether her being censored was fair. That discussion would be short and depressing.
Ahh, ha, ha! A little shoulder shimmy there. This is a young strumpet worthy of egging on.
I AM VOTING FOR HER ON THE 4TH!
I wonder how many of the censorious theist jerks have Pharyngula on their RSS feeds? Pete Rooke must get an emergency page each time the word "cracker" comes up. Hopefully it's a guilty pleasure for some of them...
If they read Pharyngula enough, maybe they'll see the light.
I can only hope.
Wait a second--did YouTube actually suspend her? If so, why? On what grounds?
I don't use YouTube all that much, so I'm not that well-versed in their policies. Do they have a policy of suspending/banning the accounts of those who maliciously and without reason file complaints (and thus result in suspensions and bannings) regarding other users' accounts? It seems to me that would be the only way to deter such arbitrary and bad faith attempts to ban the accounts of those you don't agree with.
They wanted her off of YouTube because they were afraid she could convert any (straight) guy with two hormones to rub together. What's more, they're right!
Doesn't MySpace censor atheist groups?
Lurkbot,
One would hope that readers of this enlightened internet outpost would know better than to judge anyone by their looks instead of their ideas. Apparently, you cannot do that. Please, go back to lurking.
Hey, we're scientists--we call it like it is.
I wasn't aware that YouTube was in the habit of censoring the speech of atheists and caving to the knee-jerk demands of fragile Christian cowards.
Any ideas if this was done via a DMCA takedown notice like the thunderfoot videos?
Keep in mind that we're talking about a site with millions of videos and probably hundreds of millions of users.
I would expect that YouTube suspensions are done by an automated process once a particular account gets flagged enough times. If Google staffers really chose to suspend her, then they wouldn't have reinstated her.
-jcr
"let's hear you explain why your faith is so weak that it cannot hold up against free speech"
I've just been asking a similar question over at OneNewsNow.com (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Poll.aspx?ekfrm=304662), where those holy liars are busily rigging another of their meaningless polls. This time the question is "Do you think a born-again evangelical should vote for Obama?", and every time you hit "Refresh" the "No" response leaps higher and higher . . .
If you're into Xtianity, only two major figures are supposed to pull this sort of dishonesty under the pretense of virtue: Satan and the Antichrist.
spgreenlaw,
Lay off. Lurkbot is exactly right. She hot, she's smart, and she's dead right. That is a very persuasive combination to the vast majority of humans. That's just the way it is. If we ever stop appreciating hotness and rewarding it with attention, our species will die off.
An attractive speaker is always going to have a built in advantage over an average or ugly one. Pretending this isn't an inherent biological factor is foolish.
She certainly qualifies. Her ideas and speech are as provocative as her piercing green eyes and plunging neckline. That makes her dangerous, that's why she was targeted for harassment. If the theocons can understand this, why can't you?
K
Hey, Christian cowards -- if you're going to try again to get this person kicked off youtube, at least be brave enough to 'fess up here first...and let's hear you explain why your faith is so weak that it cannot hold up against free speech.
Nobody is more cowardly than Christians. They love censorship. They cry when the biology lesson is evolution. They yell at elderly female biology teachers.
Of course they have a childish belief in heaven. Christian cowards would become mentally disturbed if they thought they had only one life. Every Christian is an idiot.
#16 I would expect that YouTube suspensions are done by an automated process once a particular account gets flagged enough times.
I find that very disturbing. It runs counter to the notion of free speech. That policy basically says, "If it's popular, it's OK. If it isn't popular, it's banned." Now I can hear the libertarians out there insisting that a business has certain rights (and obligations) to control content and how Atheists should make their own GodlessTube if we're going to complain.
Two problems, first running and maintaining a site like YouTube is a huge task that would probably cost one million a year or more (employees, hardware, security, etc) and if the Dole campaign is any indication anyone advertising on GodlessTube would suffer a PR backlash. So in the end we still have an "unpopular speech is censored" scenario.
Second, there comes a point in any site featuring user generated content where it becomes a public forum. When that happens the rules change. Some sites are so popular, so huge, that it becomes part of the culture and being banned is the equivalent of censorship. If a site like YouTube is going to claim to be open to the public, it shouldn't be allowed to blindly ban people because they are exercising their right of free speech in an way unpleasant to others. (Note that threats are not covered under free speech.)
I'm not unsympathic to YouTube. I understand that they don't want to drive advertisers away, but they still have a moral obligation to uphold the free speech laws of this country. If they are going to blindly ban people and investigate why later, then should penalize the people who insisted on that ban. For example if you demand that 100 videos be removed because they offend your religion, you should be the one banned.
Paul
We all know you LOVE your Cephalopod's. So this Friday, the Cephalopods have decided to LOVE you back.
http://neoromantika.deviantart.com/art/octopus-96736693
Now we know you're uncut...and you shave.
The funniest thing about that McCain ad is that it makes Obama look great!
Our friend here also looks great -- those eyes, those lips! -- and there is nothing wrong with that. Hooray for our side!
John Grant (comment 17) given the nature of who reads Onenewsnow it wouldn't surprise me if those polls numbers are genuine. Can someone made take a look at the page source and tell us what the page is doing?
Whenever I can't imagine having any more contempt for Christians, I read something like this which was at the end of gogreen18's video: I should also note, I may be switching to a new account because of continued threats.
She's being threatened. The Christian retards, who think they have superior moral values because they believe in a magic fairy who hides in the clouds, are the most immoral people in human history.
I tried to give you people a moment of bemused enlightenment at another thread but was way too late. Go here for your godwallowing/nongodwallowing.
http://www.zippythepinhead.com/
Oh, sweet green18, you and I will trounce over the bodies of slain thetards on the backs of dragons...
(And no, complimenting a girl on her looks is not misogynistic. Grow up, you jealous uglies you, sometimes some people find other people physically appealing and often it's a perfectly natural and beautiful thing.)
Kempesh,
Perhaps if Lurkbot had said something of substance about any of her ideas (since I am fairly certain the video maker is going for a polemic and not for porn here), I might lay off. Perhaps if women were not consistently valued for their looks alone, I might lay off.
Sadly, I cannot lay off.
Nobody is saying that people ought to ignore whatever they define to be physical attractiveness. Certainly that sort of thing is important for many people in a romantic relationship. But if someone becomes an atheist because a spokesperson for rationality is good looking, I fail to see how that is a gain for rationality at all. We ought to be having a conversation about her message and not her "plunging neckline".
I really don't see what the biological significance of "hotness" has to do with what I am saying (I am perplexed that you seem to think that there is any actual natural standard of beauty, save for perhaps symmetry and perhaps a few other things). If you can't get control of your libido long enough to consider someone's arguments, and you can't appreciate that there are probably nearly as many concepts of beauty as there are individuals and that many will be at odds with each other (and that is totally okay, and awesome, in fact) than I'm not really sure what to say. Yes people can find others attractive, no, that shouldn't influence your appraisal of their ideas. If it does, you aren't thinking rationally.
Youtube has a bizarre and unfair policy on what's allowed and what's not? Surely you jest.
Youtube is required by law to pull any video claimed to use copyright materials unfairly, though a review can get it back on the site...
but I am drunk, so do not listen to me.
I don't make a practice of traipsing around Christian Youtube pages... I've seen one or two that were intelligently produced and run by reasonable people, but the majority of them seem to be grossly bad in logic, production value and even entertainment value... Ignoring for the moment any expectations of educational value.
Anyway, one realization that's struck me is that almost all of them censor their comments.
That seems fairly pitiful to me; I can't understand the point of keeping a notion that you can't defend in the battleground of ideas. Doesn't that propensity make you a child?
Being willfully ignorant is at the foundation of most religions.
Also, her eyes are very, very green.
Hmmm, anyone know if she's on Facebook? I don't use Myspace.
Does anyone know if there is some Christian counterpart to Pharyngula where there are a bunch of people chatting away saying "hey, lets all get this woman banned, that'd be awesome", and then whining again about how their censorship and dishonesty didn't last long enough?
Because i'd be really curious just to try to read what was going on in their heads when they pull shit like this.
That McCain antichrist ad was the most ridiculous goddamn thing.
Woah, it's already no more available. What is going on in your country!?
Chivalry is not dead in you PZ.
Good challenge! Let the christian cowards come here. We'll see how many god saves.
There is a few like her out there,PZ,i mailed you a link to another atheist chick's youtube videos a while ago,she has also pulled her vids now due to threats from loving christians.
What pathetic whining losers they are.
I remember in the first post about her, there was much talk about her show of cleavage. I have just watched that video again. Anyone who was focusing on the cleavage and not the message is a sexist misogynistic (sp?) asshole. Not sure if I agree with the content, but that is beside the point. Those who judged her for having teats (pronounced tits) are sexist assholes.
Yours,
An ignorant atheist
Jam,
Anyway, one realization that's struck me is that almost all of them censor their comments.
That seems fairly pitiful to me; I can't understand the point of keeping a notion that you can't defend in the battleground of ideas. Doesn't that propensity make you a child?
Being a former devout Christian, who was fairly gun-ho about the end times, I might be able to comment on this. Keep in mind though that this is a really personal account so I'm not sure how much will hold up with other people.
Quite a bit of it was a complete lack of any real critical thinking abilities. I had never taken a logic course. I was raised in a religious school. I basically discounted the opposing evidence because I didn't understand the scientific method, nor did I understand how to analyze probability. Essentially, I didn't see scientific evidence as any better than biblical, revelatory "evidence" (looking at this now, I feel both ashamed and baffled at how silly it is). Through high school, once I began reading a lot more and seeing how other people came to conclusions, I realized that there was a better way of doing things.
But the ultimate thing that held me back was fear, something religions, for all their talk of hope, is excellent at instilling in their victims. I was terrified of hell, and that made it very difficult for me to even look at other opinions, for fear of being corrupted. When I was religious I was nearly constantly afraid for the well being of my soul. It took a lot of energy to remove my subjective feelings from the situation, and see things how they are, but it was worth it.
You are right. It is pitiful, and I pity anyone who is in the same situation I was in. But people can be won over.
Christians love censorship. Visit any Christian blog and you are likely to find this:
Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.
They are especially interested in censoring science education. If their state board of education or their politicians can't do their censoring for them, the Christian cowards will harass and threaten biology teachers.
Could it not just be as men we have a genetic impulse to look and stare at clevage? Don't judge on behaviour they can't control!
Good for her!
Christianity is all about censorship. It's practically the core belief. Whether it's getting videos removed, blocking negative comments, or just something as simple as getting a council together and deciding which writings are going to be in the holey book and which aren't.
We are evolved beings. Our impulses drive us. We are also rational beings. We can deny our instincts. I don't get a hard on every time I see teats. This is a sign of an evolved intelligence.
Well don't be too lax with us Kel. We've got some self-control. It's not like we're Muslims or anything.
@ thedeviliam:
No, complementing someone on their looks isn't misogynistic. Calling people (presumably women) who want to make sure that a person's looks AREN'T the only thing that matters about a person "jealous uglies" IS misogyinistic. It's stupid and counterproductive to boot. Ass.
Exactly. For all their talk of "the good news", I could never see what was so good about it. Even when I believed in it, I struggled to see how it was "good news". I considered it more of something that was an "unfortunate truth". Indeed, I thought atheists were simply "blind" and didn't want to "face the truth". It took me years before I could look at religious literature without it immediately filling me with a sense of fear and guilt over my apostacy. Even when I could see what nonsense it was, I still felt that emotion.
Your line "looking at this now, I feel both ashamed and baffled at how silly it is" really strikes home with me. I often find it easier to understand other people, sometimes even stranger who have similar views to me, then I do my own past self! Despite sharing his memories, past-me seems like a totally different person who merely happened to look like me. (Incidentally, one reason I have no qualms about death is just that - past-me is dead, I don't really see any connection between him and me, and yet, seeing how past-me gradually became present-me, I can't imagine past-me's "soul" existing somewhere outside of me. If I've accepted the death of past-me, why should I have trouble accepting other people's deaths, or my own future death?)
I don't think many people would, but would you deny that you enjoy looking at them for anything more than social appearances?
All I'm stating is that there's a difference between enjoying the female form and being a sexist misogynistic arsehole.
That YouTube (or anyone) would automatically pull videos (or other content, in the case of MySpace banning that atheist group) is alarming. Yes, they own the site and are free to set whatever policies they see fit. But a better policy would be to actually view the content and see if it advocates hate, promotes violence, slanders anyone, invades someone's privacy, or if there's any other sensible reason for pulling it before doing so.
And Gogree18, I have to say, should you read this, you are one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen. Looks are secondary to mind. But you got both.
As a heterosexual male, I certainly understand that impulse. It doesn't mean I give in to it, though. I am perfectly capable of not looking at the cleavage.
However, I do agree that pointing out her attractiveness isn't, in and of itself, misogynistic. Only focusing on that, yes. She is an attractive young woman, though. Especially after she opens her mouth, and enhances the merely physical beauty with her personality. The opposite, in a way, of Palin - sure, she looks attractive as long as she has her mouth shut, but once she starts talking, the ugliness of her opinions blocks out the physical.
They make pills for that, you know.
Why are you idiots rattling on about her looks? Is this some sort of defense mechanism you toss out whenever you see a smart, young woman with a pretty face?
We get it. You're not hung up on her looks. Now, shut the fuck up already and listen to what she's telling you.
Wazza @ 29 - Doesn't matter if you are drunk, we are almost all abit cockahoop over this golden calf incident (except Walton).
So go ahead and just throw up your tail and gallop across the field bucking and farting like a buffalo!
This young lady deserves a cheer. ;o)
Jeebus,people,get a grip,have a shower or something....
Sex sells,ok,and if it sells atheism,or rationality,great,whatever...
But the message would still be true if it was read by a stuttering bearded overweight bold midget wearing horn-rimmed glasses and an eye patch.
I look at tits too,just as chicks look at my butt(well,I hope they do),but I wish we could concentrate a lil on the message lol.
spgreenlaw (#39), I'm glad you had what it takes to throw out your religious indoctrination. Most people never recover from this mental child abuse and their entire lives are wasted. Christianity is more like a disease than a religion. It's the worst kind of disease because it destroys the brain, and the victims don't even realize how sick they are.
No, you have a social conscious that tells you that commenting on the sexual features of another human being is morally wrong. We've been taught that calling someone pretty and commenting on their facial features is okay, but commenting on their breasts is vulgar. I'm simply arguing that one can enjoy the aesthetics of the opposite gender (or the same gender) without being a misogynist. It's diluting the term and denying our own nature through guilt.
@Kel @47
Not sure I parsed sentence one. What I am saying is too many people say 'she has tits, therefore her opinion is worthless'. And that is wrong.
Yeah, well no disagreement from me that a comment like that is wrong.
[disclaimer]Appearance is not all there is to it. There are some very beautiful women on some of the holy-roller channels on my cable system, yet I feel my lunch rising when I stare into their dead eyes. This woman, on the other hand, is the whole package: looks, brains, passion, charisma, and yes, sexiness. The Theocons are scared to death of her, and that's why they made much more effort to have her banned than if, well, I for example, were on YouTube saying the exact same words. Sorry if I offended anybody[/disclaimer]
@Paperhand @50
You get it!
Oh My God...
She is so cute.
I want to go clothes shopping with her and talk about boys.
Walk passed me with a nice ass Clinteas, I'll goose ya. ;o)
As I recall, most of the discussion last time revolved around the young lady's rather deliberate cleavage presentation, and whether this helped or hurt her message, and whether this sort of thing should be encouraged. I'm sure there was a little "hur hur she's got boobies" here and there, but by and large, it is possible to discuss someone's looks and how they effect a presentation without being cavemen. This is a real issue, this is a large reason why Sarah Palin polls as high as she does, and why she's gotten under my skin so much. So yeah, there's really no need to guilt-trip everyone here.
This thread is bare.
Not like these threads.
Gotcha!
Take Up Thy Cross
Fall to your knees. I'll stand on my feet.
I spit at you.
Transubstantiation. Another diversion.
I smash your eucharist in a single clenched fist.
Never will I submit, never will I stand in line.
Your fucking Christ is dead, spat upon and pierced.
For the slaughtered in his name, I will deny your sheep.
You're a false fucking shepherd.
Created by the privileged, embraced by the poor.
Never will this messiah come knocking at your door.
I spit on your priests.
I spit on your sanctuaries.
You pray for my guidance,
I pray for my excrement in your gaping mouth.
Close your fucking mouth.
Indoctrination. Celebration. Baptizing.
I long to baptize with your innards, chewing on your flesh.
You are subhuman scum, may death steal your soul.
Fucking pigs.
Rotting on the cross was only the beginning.
Burn your holy books, destroy your symbols.
Take up thy cross you pathetic hypocrites.
Let the blind lead the blind.
Let the cardinals feed your mind.
Let terror reign under your synagogues and mosques.
But understand your God is fucking false.
My alcoholism has passed my judgment ability. I hope I made one or two cogent arguments in defense of gogreen18. She is a beautiful, smart lady, and I wish her the best in life.
Paper Hand,
It's funny (ok, not really) but sometimes I am completely taken by surprise and get terrified of Hell all over again. I mean, I know it doesn't exist, and I know that the concept of an immaterial soul is just plain ludicrous, but this feeling still sometimes shows up. The author Anthony Burgess wrote about the vestigial fear of hell. It really is dreadful. Granted, I am just five years removed from my religiosity, (I was just under sixteen when I decided, or accepted, that the concept of God made no sense) so it might yet pass.
Really? I have to get a MySpace account to stay up to date. Blah!
And speaking of presentation, while this was obviously an informal shout-out, I sure do get annoyed when people do that rising question inflection at the end of every sentence. Ugh. That might never go away. Oh, and the late '90s called, they want their green fluorescent light tint back! Snap! Okay, I'm done.
Oh, and a final observation: pretty atheists are a good thing, and here's why: they indicate that atheism is becoming mainstream enough that people aren't forced to find out about it by being a socially awkward and shunned adolescent without sports or parties to distract them. It means that people who actually do have a "life" are ditching religion.
Rey Fox @ 62,
She's gotten under your skin because of her looks? Are you kidding me? Go see a hooker now man,youll feel better afterwards ! The dead eyes ,fake smile and fascist theocracy anti-women rhetoric didnt get under your skin,but the looks did?? Jeebus,what is wrong with this country....
LOL,wrong use of the bold tag,sorry....
@Capital Dan @51
You got my point.
Methinks some people here are trying way too hard to point out that they don't care about her looks.
Seems a bit overcompensating.
Personally I'm quite capable of noticing (and enjoying) that she looks good, and at the same time judging what comes out of her mouth independently. How is this any different than, say, commenting that a car I like for all the substantial reasons looks cool?
Are we supposed to never comment on superficialities anymore because that automatically makes us superficial?
Was it Nietzsche who said something along the lines of 'a man sitting in the gutter is quickest to deny being in the street, because it hits closest to home for him'?
Yeah, she's cute.
But the issue is the censorship and fear of ideas - and that is what really divides humanists from theists. But it is to be expected - if you base your beliefs on a pack of lies, you are not going to want to explore the truth.
I hope my children grow up with her determination and clear mind. Her parents should be proud.
clinteas @69
point to you, sir.
spgreenlaw - Wow, that is a great comment, the golden calf thing today made my christian training ROAR back through my veins.
Maybe this is something like war veterans, and child abuse victims experience? Maybe we are religion abuse victims. Interesting idea, I hadn't thought of that concept before. Recurring fear of hell. Thanks for bringing that up.
Mark Mattern, stop! You're turning BobC on.
And PZ. Really, this pandering to the lowest-of-the-lowest denominators has got to stop. This gogogreen18 is Sasha's age, nicht vahr? I don't see you posting any of your daughter's salacious entreaties to believers or otherwise at this site. (I know, I know, she'd never pander to that element of male juvenilia online . . . we can hope.)
Hot chicks blah, blah, blah.
We have SC, Patricia, et al. to do for us here. (Cute as their ilk is, and all that.)
"What I am saying is too many people say 'she has tits, therefore her opinion is worthless'."
Who is saying that here at Pharyngula?
@TCN
What? You want more?
@77
I am drunk. My last comment for the night. Yeah, but they're great tits, that has to make her opinion more worthwhile, lol, jk.
Patricia,
I do think that severe indoctrination, especially when threats of an eternity of torment are thrown in, is abusive and probably has a lot in common with those other experiences you mention. I'm not a psychologist nor have I suffered other abuse, thank goodness, so I wouldn't know, but it makes sense to me. Was it Dawkins who made much the same connection in one of his books?
Well, not really. But if you want to do some couplets, feel free.
"Jeebus,what is wrong with this country...."
A lot. But let me explain myself. Lots of politicians share her fascist theocratic anti-women rhetoric, and many of them are women. But while they all irritate me, none of them are on as big a stage as Palin, and Palin is on that stage largely because of her looks. And, at least directly after the convention, she captivated millions of voters, and there was (is?) real danger that she could become President some day, with her fascist theocratic anti-woman rhetoric, and if you think her looks have nothing to do with that, then you're deluded.
Ugly evil is easy to hate, when evil comes in the sexy librarian package, it gets under my skin. I'm sorry that I will never be the libido-denying zen master that you are.
Well,that I am not.But like milk turns sour in the sun(or insert fitting allegory here),to me,a fascist anti-intellectual religiously deluded dimwit is just that,nice legs or shapely tits or a cute bum(insert fav body part here)wont change the fact,and I can seperate the one from the other.
I agree that the better part of the US cant seperate it,but I can.My libido gets looked after in other ways,by other people,that have an attractive mind rather than an attractive rack.But thats just me.
Yow. Never mind the tits and green eyes (WTF "plunging neckline"? Somebody hallucinating?) bullshit; this kid connects! She's got it, and it's the liveliness and connection and intelligence that make her sexy. Honest to Pan, people, get a clue.
Not that green eyes don't help, of course.
It'd funny how some people are just OK until they start carrying on about, oh, "biological necessity" and "the species would die out" and that crap. Can the rationalizations, guys. Respond honestly and quit starching your rhetorical collars. STFU after "Yippee!" and you'll come across better. Y'all end up sounding like those unbearable dates who used to try to philosophize me into bed. EEEwww, what a turnoff.
(Sometimes it's a relief not to be young. And to be bisexual and female; I think I get to look at--feel, name--my own responses to people better without all that majority-cultural fog. Doesn't hurt to have a great sex life for 35 years with the smartest guy I ever met, because we just jumped into bed without discussing it. Validating, sure; also vindicating of my base instincts.)
Enthusiasm good. Overdressed pronunciamentos bad. "Jealous uglies" rhetoric way stupid. (You pretty enough to say that?) Get it?
What I want to know is: Who's playing the background music?
@Mark 78
Where's the more? (and we all breakout into "Amore" by mistake.)
To the rest of you:
You want alluring eyes? rel="nofollow">Oh, Mama!
Just "depends" on yer political persuasion.
You fellas!
There are some that actually like bein' goosed, is that you at the end Clinteas?
http://www.youtube.comwatch?v=VUtceIZ4IxY
Probably way too old, but perhaps in spirit. :o)
Patricia,
Link again, por favor.
"My libido gets looked after in other ways,by other people,that have an attractive mind rather than an attractive rack."
It could be that I'm confusing Sarah Palin with Tina Fey in my mind.
Iteration @ #63
Man, I end up at the end of more threads that . . . you'd think I'm on to something. Or not.
Ok,I guess thats a valid enough excuse....:-)
It's nice to know that bullying thugs are monitoring Pharyngula to seek out more fragile targets.
Now why would PZ just profile a pretty face who likes to chat? I assume there are others who are not as pretty on youtube...
I don't believe their are bulling thugs who sitting around waiting for PZ to profile some young pretty atheist on here. I believe there are atheists on here, young and old waiting for pretty faces now, since she has been profiled...lol
My impression though, some have used her, by complaining to youtube that lead to her brief blackout to get back at PZ. Most likely it had nothing to do with her in particular even those she likes to gab about liberal issues.
You know, I could be missing something, but gogreen18's considerable physical beauty was hashed to death on the previous thread. Shouldn't we consider that a done issue and move onto something productive, like expressions of solidarity or something?
Michael, you're making even less sense than usual. And please stop laughing at yourself, people are beginning to stare.
Michael @ 91,
that is the biggest pile of garbled word salad Ive seen here for a long time.What on earth are you trying to say??
Micheal, were you always this stupid, or did you suffer massive brain damage recently?
Nevermind. I just looked at your blog and got my answer.
http://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/about/
That's a bald-faced lie if there ever was one.
Or maybe you can't deal with people who are able to debunk your total nonsense. From what I've seen from fundamenalist hypocrites, they consider "very disrespectful with the rudeness and meanness with their response" anyone who disagrees with them and is able to show exactly why.
Michael, #91
Did you go to assclown college or are you self-taught?
Is there any chance someone with killfile-fu can write a script that automatically hides morons who write 'LOL' in their comments?
Since it's only ever trolls and/or barely-literate assclowns (like Michael above, and that brain-dead swamp-maggot who first asked the 'does evolution imply atheism?' question) it'd save us the effort of activating it ourselves each time they appear.
Yeah, I'm a word-snob. Live with it.
@ "Dale Hanson" (Hussein)
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
What do you think of that Mrs. Dale Husband?
W00T! Watchout for the Intertubes, or you may end up like Ted Stevens.
There will be no moor posting on this thread, per the Inoculate.
Prison is a series of cubes!
Ah, The Daily Show.
So, Micheal, science that is backed by facts but does not confirm god's will is false? Just checking.
:) What a nice thing to say.
LOL! (Just kidding, but I really did.)
Note to "The Cheerful Nihilist":
If you are going to respond directly to my own comments, could you at least deal with reality? Like spelling my name right? And I am male, you moron!
grrrrr,Hayden gone for 83,but that was sooooo going over the top of middle....
Ahem,sorry,im disgressing,where were we? Ah yes,tits....I'll take BrideofShrek over the american females here any time,thank you,its a kink thing.....
I'll take BrideofShrek over the american females here any time,thank you,its a kink thing.....
I'm heartbroken, clinteas. Who asked ya? And just what do you think you know about me, anyway?
I dont know anything about you,SC,well,apart from the anarchist thingy,which I dont mind...:-)
I have found american females to be very sexually conservative,some might say repressed,the ones I met on my travels anyway...
So,before you call me a chauvinist pig now,come over for a holiday,I'd love to show you the place...:-)
I guess I was trying to point out that we should judge people by what they are saying and not by what their bra size is.....
Complimenting her on her looks isn't inherently sexist IMO, but it is shallow, and distracts attention away from intellectual evaluation of a person's ideas. It's as bad as voting for Sarah Palin because she's "hotter" than Joe Biden.
As to her viewpoints, I don't agree with them - but I would strongly oppose taking her videos down. Free speech should always be the default position, unless the speech is indecent (which this isn't) or there is another strong countervailing reason why it should be taken off YouTube. Anyone, from creationists to communists to clowns, should be entitled to air their views; the trick is getting anyone to listen to them.
But you didn't mention them. You referred to "the american females here."
[Disclaimer: It's been a contentious week, and I'm not in the best mood this morning.] I guess ever since I read your comment a couple of weeks ago about not wanting to offend me I've been perplexed and a bit annoyed that you seem to be making unfounded assumptions about me.
Aw. Thanks - I wish I could afford to. :(
SC,
talk about a contentious week,my Mercedes dealer told me today that my 3year old Merc that I bought for 57000 is now worth 26000,financial crisis and all.I told him to get fucked,and will have to sell it privately.
Luxury problems,I guess...
Anyway,hey,hang on,whats wrong with not wanting to offend you???
//and I'm not in the best mood this morning//
Well,im glad its 730pm here and Im well into my second Carlsberg 6pack......
Get a grip all of you!
This beautiful young woman is, as she says, in her 19th year. What do you want her to do? Hide herself in a brown paper bag?
Look at her make-up, her jewellery, her clothes. She's spent time getting ready to appear on camera. She WANTS to look GOOD!!!!!
I'm old enough to be her grandmother and even I can see the appeal!
What is more pertinent is she is receiving threats for voicing her opinions.
Dang, y'all. I can't close this thread down. And you're talking about Mercedes? Yikes! I'm in the presence of my social and intellectual betters. I'm nothing.
Oh yeah.
I forget myself sometimes.
Ahem,you seem to be one lusty grandmother LOL.
As to receiving threats,unfortunately that is par for the course for the loving christians.The anonymity of the Internet nicely encourages cowardly religionists to spew forth their vile hate messages,we see this here all the time,and its no different on youtube.
Um...yeah. :)
Of course there's nothing wrong with that! It's really thoughtful, in fact. It was your assumption that your flirting with the religious girl (possibly :)) or whatever you were doing would somehow be offensive to me that I found perplexing. I'm not sure how you're getting from my feminism to these other notions about me.
SC,
oh,I remember now,that funny religious chick,of course I never heard from her again....
I guess I was apprehensive because youre the one that always comes down hard on me lol.
Feminism and Anarchism? Say it aint so Joe !!
Anyway,if you ever make your way down here,I shall show you around..:-) I could have helped you with the plane ticket,but right now Im fucked with my car lol,so hang in there,I'll keep you posted lol...
@Dale Husband
Forgive me my idiocy. I saw all bold type and went from there. I am a moron. Missed your point due to hysteria (yours, and my assumption that you were crazy) 'cause you didn't talk/type like me. Mea culpa.
@SC and Clinteas
Get a room, already. I'm getting all caught up in your puerile online banter. At this rate, I'll never log-off.
Cheerful Nihilist,
that is somewhat funny LOL
If you knew me and SC,you would know just how funny!
Well,Im off to the Casino now since I have run out of cigs,so you can safely log out....:-)
Yikes. I hope not. I honestly don't remember doing that, but I'll try to cut back.
Nah. You know you like it. ;)
Oh, it be so. And there's a great tradition of anarchist feminists.
Now I really hope your financial situation improves. :)
Your sweetness has helped my mood considerably. And now I have to leave you to get ready for work. Enjoy the rest of your evening!
Whew. Thanks,bro, I can finally go bedways, which is the rightways. Best of luck at the tables, mate. May you win a suite as opposed to the aforementioned room.
Mission accomplished, peeps.
Go back and and look at my small victories for the day. I have had the last word (until you fuckers re-open the threads) at all of the comment threads here for the last 24 hours. Nihilism is optimistic in this America. (Whatever that means.)
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO Uzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Just out of interest, following on from the earlier discussion about religion repressing female sexuality, how many people here consider pornography to be unethical? Strangely, it seems to be the only area where feminists and Christian conservatives agree, albeit for slightly different reasons. My view is that it's disgusting, degrading to women and cheapens sexuality; but as a libertarian, I don't think it should be banned, since the state should not enforce moral views on others. But I abstain from it personally.
(I'm genuinely interested in what other people here have to say. Rejection of religious ethics does not automatically lead to a libertine or hedonistic approach to morality. Once one rejects the principle that "pornography is immoral because God says so", it does not follow that "pornography is not immoral"; rather, one must take into account whether pornography is exploitative, degrading, or harmful to the fabric of society. So I want to know what everyone thinks.)
Walton, that's waaaay out of topic.
I must be one of the few commenters who has a soft spot for your earnestness, but really.
Oh, GAWD. Somebody shoot me.
I like her but she seems to be Soccer Girl lite.
For anyone who thinks that commenting on her looks is mysoginistic, you are a moron. Commenting on her looks, while it isn't particularly prouctive, is still commenting on a large point behind the video. This lass is making atheism look sexy.
It's a marketing strategy that works, and has been employed in the US and most countries that I can think of ever since advertising started. I'm unable to watch the video at this point in time as I'm at work, but from what I remember from the last one I believe that the way she's doing it is right, she's using her obvious good looks to reel in people, and if they listen to her message and put it into practise, then she's doing good.
Mysoginy would be telling her to go back to the kitchen and make a pie or something. Saying "she's pretty with piercing green eyes and jublies that could knock out a whale" is not, it's stating the obvious. She is putting herself out there like this, and I trust that she's intelligent enough to know precisely what she's doing.
And it works in my opinion.
TO: #123
Hardly. We merely would like you to stop infringing on OUR RIGHT of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. That happens to cover a lot that the religious do not appreciate: Government policy, governing, education, science, free speech, etc.
And, you know, to stop killing and maiming people in the name of an imaginary friend.
Freedom from Religion wants you to butt out of our lives, and recognize that we don't WANT your unevidenced, incredible (as in implausible and unbelievable) notion to infringe on our lives. Or anyone else's life that isn't yours and yours ALONE.
TO: People about her looks.
She's hot, she knows it. Compliments are good, so long as you recognize her brain.
TO: gogreen18: Inspiration. Thank you.
"Goldstein", that's a pitiful effort at trolling. Bah.
*sigh*
Whether or not focusing solely on her looks is sexist or not, it makes for a really annoying-boring comment thread to keep reading how hot a speaker is over and over again.
Whether or not it should be that way, yes, an attractive young female speaker will garner lots of attention and that helps spread atheist memes around. But describing hot qualities makes for a dull comment thread.
Spgreenlaw gets it right on comment #27. I'm thinking a Molly nom'.
Believers have religious freedom, too, Elizabeth. Jist as Congress can't establish religion, it can't infringe "the free exercise thereof.".
Thats just the way it is, girl.
And FFRF just wants believers to stop infringing on your right to religous freedom?
Hardly. They want religion SHUT UP completely. NO pubic voice for believers, NONE...although all believers are expected to keep paying their taxes to the all powerful STATE.
Don't feed Julie "Goldstein", Elizabeth. It's what the troll wants.
Why don't you fuck off and die you PC asshole. There is nothing wrong with complimenting anyone on their looks. There is nothing wrong with mentioning that a beautiful young woman is, in fact, a beautiful young women. Or mentioning that a sexually attractive young woman is so.
In fact it's not even wrong to treat someone as a "sex object" if that's part of your relationship. God knows my wife, at times, is more than happy to "treat me as a sex object" or be "treated as a sex object." It's very much part and parcel of our relationship. Along with many, many other things.
There are other boundaries and conditions. But It's fuck heads like you that make perfectly normal shit something dirty or wrong. In this area, clowns like you are NO FUCKING BETTER than the right-wing anti-sex douche-bags like Falwell, Dobson, etc. You only delude yourself in thinking so.
And I, for one, am sick and tired of your PC sex-hang-ups getting spewn all over my Internet.
Alverant,
If you'd ever managed a web site, or even a fairly popular weblog, you'd quickly learn that if you have an "anything goes" policy, you'll be buried in spam. There is simply no way that YouTube could afford enough staff to have a human being review every video. If YouTube didn't use automation for this process, it would be just about useless.
-jcr
Really, spgreenlaw, your play-acting at feminist fellow-traveling was just as tedious on the other site, too.
You, sir, have an over-developed sense of feminist umbrage. May I suggest you dial it down some, maybe have something more to go on next time than, "gosh, he described her appearance OMFG sexist!!!"
OK, I'm in my classroom, and just noticed that. Good thing my students aren't here yet, as I would have had to explain my laughter. Eek - now they're coming in...
Wish I was surprised that fundie whackjobs had a go at getting this young lady suspended from YouTube. But alas I am not surprised--only appalled.
Walton,
The moral issue of pornography is whether the state should forcibly prevent the production or distribution of pornographic material. I say that if the buyers, the sellers, and the producers are all consenting adults, then there is no justification for the state to interfere.
As for one's personal tastes, if you don't like it, don't buy it. It's also your right to complain about it, just as it's my right to disregard your complaints.
-jcr
The moral issue of pornography is whether the state should forcibly prevent the production or distribution of pornographic material. I say that if the buyers, the sellers, and the producers are all consenting adults, then there is no justification for the state to interfere.
I agree totally, but that wasn't what I was asking. I suspect most of us here agree that pornography should not be banned, because the state doesn't have the moral authority to impose that decision on individuals. But there's a difference between asking whether something should actually be prohibited by law, and whether it is morally acceptable.
Oooh, hotness of female atheists is such a divisive issue. Why must it be so?
Get thee behind me, temptress! O bane of the atheist community, thy name is woman!
Geral #1 "I know this is offtopic but check out this McCain ad that all but accuses Obama of being the antichrist."
It seems to me that comparing Obama to Moses (as portrayed by Heston), the very effective leader of the Hebrews, and then asking "but is he ready to lead?" is just plain bizarre. Does McCain want to loose?
If we're going to talk about her appearance I'll say that, compared to the last video (where it was all about the eyes as far as I'm concerned), I'm finding that with this one it's her mouth that's the most alluring thing about her (other than her mind that is) - it's very expressive, as is her whole face.
Expressive is good.
@Julie:
I simply don't want to fund your church or religion, nor live under laws dictated solely by your religion. THAT'S freedom from religion.
"Thou shalt not kill" - No problem, affects others
"Thou shalt not bear false witness" - No problem, affects others
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me" - BZZZT, no. Although strictly speaking, all of the atheists here keep that one.
"Thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy" - umm, no. Why? I don't give a flying flip about it, yet I have to deal with Blue laws based on it?
jcr, I'm not saying automation is bad, just that it can be abused and YouTube has to take better steps to insure it's not. Part of my programming responsibilities is to write automation programs and you HAVE to have spots for human intervention and you ALWAYS have to remember garbage in, garbage out. If one member is making a lot of complaints that wind up getting overturned, then that user needs a closer look.
Hardly. They want religion SHUT UP completely. NO pubic voice for believers, NONE.
I'd like believers to shut up, too. I wish they would chose to not talk about it. Of course, there's no way to make them stop that, but we can keep working on it...
But in terms of your comment, you are, of course, completely wrong. FFRF does not want "no PUBLIC voice" for believers. They want no GOVERNMENT voice for believers.
The government is not public. There are public expressions of religion that occur all the time with absolutely no objection from FFRF. Religions can do and say what they want. They are just not allowed to put the power of government behind it.
This is just the usual case of religion crying persecution because an organization has the GALL to suggest that they can't use the government to promote their religious ideals.
That's what the FFRF is all about.
Sorry, that first part should be blockquoted...
Alverant @#140
Rather than taking a closer look at such users, maybe YouTube could keep a per-user count of the number of videos a user flags where the flagging is subsequently overturned: a kind of "nuisance flaggings" count. If a user exceeds a certain limit, their account is first suspended as a warning, then disabled or deleted if they continue nuisance flagging. This wouldn't affect people who flag legitimately and the hordes of theofascists might think twice about going around in packs flagging every video that piques them if they knew that could only get away with it 3 times.
gee, great spokesperson for you. maybe she could comment on the U.S. Americans in the Iraq.
Goldstein, Julie,
You are lying scumbags.
Another blow in favour of free speech, the freedom to leave religion behind, and my hormone-induced lust for sexy, intelligent women.
I love Voltairine de Cleyre.
spgreenlaw:
"I really don't see what the biological significance of "hotness" has to do with what I am saying (I am perplexed that you seem to think that there is any actual natural standard of beauty, save for perhaps symmetry and perhaps a few other things)."
My understanding of the cross-cultural studies that have been performed is that: people of different races choose the same photos of people as "beautiful" or "ugly" as are chosen by people of the same race as the photo subjects. The data are very consistent, in many different cultures, economic situations, etc. So, my conclusion from this is that, yes, there are universal standards (or ideas/images) of what human beauty is. Matt Ridley's books have a lot of interesting discussions of this.
All the best.
@ Julie, Goldstein:
You poor, persecuted bastards. Give me a break. You're pushing against hundreds of years of evidence to the contrary.
And your claims that FFRF just wants to "shut all christians up" is simply a complete falsification. But somehow christians still fancy themselves as being the poor souls trapped in arena pit with the lions, when the truth is they've been the murderous, occupying, forcing-their-beliefs-down-your-throat bully on the block for over 1500 years. You can stop crying persecution now.
So as a refresher, here's how this works: I could give a rat's ass what you believe in the privacy of your home and your church. Just keep those ancient, dated, patriarchal, batshit crazy fairy-tale beliefs out of my government, out of my publicly funded schools and political offices, and off of my publicly funded airwaves. Do that and we'll get along fine... do it not and I'm going to find the loudest megaphone I can from the highest point I can and tell you, figuratively and literally, to shut the fuck up and keep it to yourself.
Who cares if commenting on her looks is or isn't misogynistic. Discussing it is a distraction. I can't believe that has been the primary topic of this thread.
Apparently the people who feel the need to insult anyone who comments on her appearance.
Commenting on her appearance says nothing about her intelligence or her argument, good or bad. Assuming that saying she's beautiful is denigrating her intelligence says more about the assumer than it does about the person saying it. There's a word for that: projection.
The best argument you can make is that it is pointless to comment on her appearance, to which I respond, even if it is, so what?
Studies show that looks matter, says the morning news.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20081031/sc_livescience/studiesfind…
Of course, she could always move to Canada, Alberta to be specific, where the government is more than happy to use its power to silence Christians who veer into wrong-think:
http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf
Well, she converted me with her full and voluptuous...arguments.
And yet, strangely, so-called self-proclaimed "Christians" violate it all the time. As in the Youtube imbroglio, and right here on this very thread.
What is it with them?
Janine:
So do I! I've mentioned and linked to her a few times here. If you search on her name, they might come up.
BTW: Just want to make it clear to everyone that in my comment #103 I in no way meant to imply that BoS isn't the shit, or that I disbelieve her assertion that (I'm paraphrasing - can't find or remember it exactly) Aussie chicks bang like a cellar door in a hurricane. I've missed her of late...
I dont' know about beauty standards, but I do know that
Sarah Palin
Brittney Spears
Nancy Grace
are all people who make me want to gag myself with a spoon, despite objective hotness, every time I see them on screen. It's the message that interests me. The fact that this girl here has a good message is the important part. The fact that she's hot makes it fun to watch.
Rachael Maddow is another one, so cool.
On this blog, as well as on Skepchick, this looks issue keeps coming up. I speak only for myself, so here goes. Looks only seem to get brought up when the subject is female. As a female, it seems that the "hot" females get lots more attention than the average looking or ugly ones. This is not the case with male bloggers, celebrities, etc. I am smart enough to know that this is probably jealousy, but still, as an average looking woman, it sucks.
I love Penn and Teller's Bullshit, but the constant female nudity gets old. The only time they have average or less than average women on their show is when they are making fun of them. Considering neither one of them is Brad Pitt, its a little disappointing.
So in my view, it boils down to junior high school feelings. You are great friends with a guy, agree with him on everything, but get completely ignored whenever the hot chick comes around.
Just my opinion. I will say though, as a bisexual woman, she is incredibly hot!
The kid's a star. More like this one.
Kudos also to the Music Supervisor on this clip.
# 118
Feminist, lesbian and pr0n lover here. Feminism simply implies the belief that women are equal to men. For some, that can mean that pornography is dehumanizing, for others, it can mean that pornography is empowering. What counts is that women are regarded as equals. Save that last one, feminism isn't a unified, overarching series of beliefs one must adhere to like a religion.
she's still as hawt as last time.
The first thing anybody will focus on when they see somebody for the first time is, clearly, their looks. It's your first impression, and numerous studies show it's an important impression.
What comes afterwards, once the mouth is open, should and does count for more. Personally it reinforces the looks and make the person a more complete package (I think that's called charm :P ), or it can turn the looks into a disadvantage and make her stand out more negatively.
I don't think any rational person here is supporting this young lady based on her looks. We all have a frat boy in us, and commenting on her looks or clevage is a joke. Half of these people do it because they do not think and it doesn't come to them immediately that they should be digging a bit deeper. This is a shame, but it's not vile and does not tarnish their characters or make them mysigonists. And the other half do it because, having read the comments, they see they can get a rise out of the killjoys.
In the end, as to the apparent advantage of good looks over not so good, anybody who realizes this should be able to screen out any conscious biases. But, let's face it: good looks will always give you something extra.
Hey, wait a minute. Bride of Shrek is MIA, and so is wOO+...oh dear! ;o)
I wonder if Laci could inspire this much blogorrhea on a Christian site.
Heh heh. She called you "Pee Zee".
There is nothing wrong with mentioning that a beautiful young woman is, in fact, a beautiful young women. Or mentioning that a sexually attractive young woman is so.
No kidding! Of course it's ok to focus on how hot she is, because god, she's all, like, EXISTING and stuff. You know, if she didn't want people to talk about her appearance, she ought to wear something that hides it, like a burqa. Because if it's out there, of course it's a good thing to comment on it! It's a compliment! There's nothing wrong with that! Sheesh, you let a woman leave the house showing anything but one eye, people are going to say something to her about it. That's just how it is.
Off topic but I have to ask Carlie; how are you handling the news about David Tennant leaving Dr Who?
Depending on their TOS, I don't imagine that YouTube is required to host anyone's videos. On the other hand, if it gets out that 1) anything that was, is, or might become offensive might not be hosted and that 2) their system for determining offensiveness can be gamed by a large group of people with perhaps one functioning brain cell between them, they might not have so many videos to host, nor so many people to view them.
Janine - terribly!!!! I am holding out a sliver of hope that due to their weird time-lordy merge thingy, that some of Donna Noble's DNA imprinted on the Doctor's so that when he regenerates, it's in the form of Catherine Tate. :)
It would not be the first time. Can you say Lalla Ward?
But has a Time Lord changed their gender?
I assume everybody is right that YouTube's flagging process is automated, but is there any way to get any human attention there? I only ask because my screen name was suggested by the constant back-and-forth battle between the spambots and the flagbots on Craigslist, and I know for a fact that there is no one there who can or will do anything about it, or acknowledge that flagbotting is a possibility. I hope YouTube is not the same way.
With all the distractions of her facial features and all, did no one else notice that the posted video (unlike the previous one featured here) was, like, content-free? Seemed pretty narcissistic to me, and I do not find excessive ego attractive at all.
And hey, you! Kid in the Joe the Plumber costume! Get the hell off my lawn!!
[/curmudgeon]
Compliments are nice, and even I enjoy being objectified once in awhile. (Lately more often than not.) But I still understand why it rubs some people the wrong way. If a male were delivering the same message, his appearance wouldn't come into discussion at all.
...or would it? Could PZ post an equally thought provoking youtube video from a young and handsome atheist guy? I prefer the tall, dark, and handsome variety myself.
With respect to question about her looks I would just like point out something - her physical appearance, while quite nice (DDG) is not what makes her really attractive. What does make her really attractive are her vibrant personality, her obvious intelligence, her ability to articulate her thoughts, and her sense of humor. I think that even if she looked like PZ, she would still come across as an attractive person.
Now, should all of that be irrelevant to the topics she discusses? I think not, because, in this case, the medium is the message - a U-tube video is visual, auditory and personal - these videos are fundamentally performances. She is perfect for this outlet. If she were a shapeless lump delivering the exact same words in a dull lifeless monotone - the message just would not be the same.
Ugh, again? She is even more of a bimbo without the theatrical music. There are smarter atheists to promote (even if they are not diligent about reciprocation).
Beauty helps in spreading the word - if she looked like me nobody would watch.
Happening to be a pretty young atheist myself (and modest!) I will happily speak in behalf of this young woman - go ahead and call her cute! She's gorgeous! It is really about time to be breaking stereotypes linking looks and brains and ideas...And if she is anything like me, she'd rather be called cute by a bunch of atheistic biologists than the parade of men driving by blasting hip-hop...As long as you don't ignore what she says just because she's cute, I say praise away!
Since a certain kind of theist will say things like 'all atheists choose not to believe in god because he didn't make them physically attractive and they're mad at him' - which I've heard before - then we can point (or link) to Laci and say, 'Uh, no. Wrong again. Cram it in your jesus-hole, loser'.
Oh, this conversation is still going on.
Here's the thing: yes, it is absolutely ridiculous to judge physical attractiveness to the exclusion of everything else. However, I keep seeing a criticism of a strawman whenever someone simply compliments a girl on her looks.
For example, I wrote this:
"And no, complimenting a girl on her looks is not misogynistic. Grow up, you jealous uglies you, sometimes some people find other people physically appealing and often it's a perfectly natural and beautiful thing."
And a worthless poster named rdriley responded:
"No, complementing someone on their looks isn't misogynistic. Calling people (presumably women) who want to make sure that a person's looks AREN'T the only thing that matters about a person 'jealous uglies' IS misogyinistic. It's stupid and counterproductive to boot. Ass."
First of all, we know right off the bat that if you don't like disingenuous "people", you must _hate_ rdriley. rdriley added things to my post that weren't there--I wasn't specifically referring to women, and I _obviously_ wasn't defending the argument this piece of trash decided to dishonestly attribute to me.
So what am I supposed to conclude but that rdriley is a "jealous ugly"? Why else would someone sink to such levels of dishonesty? Stupidity and dishonesty always make you ugly in my eyes, but some things are too stupid and too dishonest not to be attributed to some sort of motive.
In "real life", you can make all kinds of compliments about how other people look without being viciously slandered by lunatics. So I've got to conclude that the lying freaks who want to police it must never leave their homes or function in society.
Atheist: Theism is sexually repressive.
Theist: Atheists are repressive towards sexually, too!
Atheist: Oh, yeah? Prove it.
Theist: See the comments page on http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/shes_baaaack.php
Atheist: Oh. Fuck.
For some, that can mean that pornography is dehumanizing, for others, it can mean that pornography is empowering.
And for the majority of people I would guess, it's neither of the above, but merely entertainment.
-jcr
Sara #176:
Jealous much?
She's a fabulous young babe. Get over it.
-jcr
Censorious theistic jerks do not like people to be informed. They require people to remain in the dark in order to control them, to hold power over them, to enslave them. Literally:
"To make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason."
- ex-slave Frederick Bailey, otherwise known as Frederick Douglas, '...one of the greatest orators, writers and political leaders in American history.' - excerpt from Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World", Chapter 21
That's precisely and essentially what religion is all about. Control. Power. Enslavement.
Still not persuaded? Think it's a stretch? Look it up. It's in the bahbull. Then look at how people use it.
#176: At least she's trying. Youthful inexperience might come across as "air-headed," but it could be worse. I honestly wouldn't expect a 19-year-old to have the background in logic to articulate why any religion with a divinely-written/inspired writ succumbs to tautalogical fallacy (while all non-divinely-written writs are, by definition, man-made works of fiction). However, it's better to provide encouragement and direction in the pursuit of knowledge, than to simply ridicule for lack of experience.
#178: What about atheistic computer scientists who listen to hip hop? :\
Walton #135
I feel rather leery about discussions of morality. In The Virus That Ate Cannibals Susan Eron describes a New Guinea tribe that honored deceased tribal members by eating them. For them, cannibalism was quite moral. For most of us, Jeffrey Dahmer and Hannibal Lector are quite immoral.
Morality, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder.
Uh, she's very sweet. If only she hadn't acquired the habit of affecting a fashionable ditziness in her manner, however endearing it may be to some jacked testosteroned tastes, she would be even more lovely.
It's irrevant, I'll bet she herself would consider it irrelevant, and she'd be exactly right on that too. 'Don't judge the book by its cover' cuts both ways.
Her words are adorable, and that's enough.
Has anyone noticed how much better looking the journalists on CNN are compared to FOX?
Oh, dear. thedeviliam made me do it ...
First of all, who, exactly, do you THINK you're addressing when you throw out an ad hominem attack like "jealous uglies" in reference to an argument about female attractiveness?
You're certainly not talking about any males of the human population. Men would have absolutely NO REASON to be "jealous" of an attractive woman, would they?
So, unless you're just utterly vocabulary-challenged, and have no clue what the word "jealous" means, you're OBVIOUSLY saying that women who are on guard against misogyny and voice their opinions about it in regards to this "greengoddess" subject, are just "jealous uglies" who WISH they were attractive and are lashing out because they're frustrated and unattractive.
Now, if you can somehow explain that your use of the term "jealous uglies" ISN'T meant to denigrate women who are concerned about the cult of beauty and it's negative effects on women and girls in our society, I'll happily apologize and buy you a virtual beer, even though you doubled down on the ad hominen nonsense in your reply. That's just the kind of person I am.
Men would have absolutely NO REASON to be "jealous" of an attractive woman, would they?
You'd be surprised. I've met a couple guys in my time who were positively vicious towards any attractive woman.
-jcr
@ John C. Randolph:
You're right. I would be surprised. I suspect the guys in question were suffering from "Posehn Syndrome" and NOT jealousy.
"PS" is the name I've given to a condition described by the brilliant standup comic Brian Posehn, about a time when he was on a late-night talk show with Kate Beckinsale. He (jokingly) said that he got really angry because Beckinsale was so hot that there was no possibility whatsoever that he could ever be with her.
Jealousy has a very specific meaning:
"1. Fearful or wary of being supplanted; apprehensive of losing affection or position.
2. a. Resentful or bitter in rivalry; envious."
No man would ever be fearful of being supplanted by or losing affection to an attractive woman, and would never be in any sort of "rivalry" with one.
As I said, it's possible that thedeviliam is merely vocabulary-challenged and used the term "jealousy" wrongly. Somehow I doubt it, though.
Jason A.:
!! Isn't that freaking obvious? (SC and Carlie, I'm surprised that you let this one slide past ;)
IMO compliments in moderation are harmless and cute, but maybe we should consider that it could get just a little bit CREEPY to get dozens and dozens of comments about your looks every time you want to discuss something you care about. Maybe she doesn't mind it, maybe she does.
I'm not saying this proves anything, but when the comments on YouTube seem to be more on-topic than the comments here, perhaps it's time for some self-reflection ;)
That being said, the positive comments are much better than calling her a "bimbo". sara, you're a moron.
rdriley,
I know what jealousy means, thanks. The guys I was talking about were indeed jealous.
-jcr
rdriley--
There you go again, with your strawmen and lies. First of all, you obviously don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is, or are lying about it. But nevermind. You are resorting to the same strawmen I already exposed. Since I proved you were makum up shit and addressed it, you must be some combination of illiterate and dishonest. My point has been, and continues to be, that anyone who gets up in arms simply because one person finds another physically attractive must have some serious issues, because it is not normal human behavior to sadistically fiend against human affection the way freaks like you do it. It is indeed speculation on my part just how you are broken in the ways you are clearly broken, but I just request you do everyone a favor and stay away from other people.
JCRandolph--
Yes, I had those kind of guys in mind. Some people actually get mad when you compliment anyone on anything, not just looks, because they have no positive attributes whatsoever and they self-righteously rail against anything positive anyone says about anyone else. I suspect rdriley falls into this category.
It seems that people have a real hard time with issues concerning sexuality, not surprising. But I do hope after everyone has exhausted their pro / contra misogyny / feminist arguments that they do reach out to this young woman. She seems to have good gut instincts but the fact that she said she would like to have some input on presentations. I'm sure there is some great experience amongst people here that could help her approach some topics she may not have thought of yet or not known how to approach. And that means there are good ideas getting out to more people, especially young people in her case, as it is very likely that she has a much broader, younger audience.
@ John C.
Really? The guys you were talking about were somehow in competition with attractive women? So ... these guys were gay? If so, you should have said so. If not ... then they're NOT jealous. Because straight men are NOT in competition with attractive women.
If you believe you know a straight guy who is "jealous" of an attractive woman, then you clearly DO NOT know the meaning of the word. Or you're making up your own definition.
@ thedeviletc.etc.etc.
I don't know what an ad hominem attack is? I THOUGHT it was the practice of attacking the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. Like, for instance, attacking a person by calling them a "jealous ugly." Unless you didn't do that.
Oh, wait. You DID do that. Next?
You did it AGAIN. "Freaks like you ..." That's an ad hominem attack, too, in case you were wondering.
So, you have yet to explain how YOUR use of the phrase "jealous uglies" to refer to women (or, I suppose, gay men, because straight men CANNOT, BY DEFINITION, BE JEALOUS OF ATTRACTIVE WOMEN) who question the cult of beauty is NOT misogynist. And, I suspect, you never will.
I thought the video that is the topic of the post 197 comments ago got lame pretty quick. Also, I wonder if there is any independent confirmation of the "15 minutes" mentioned as the interval between mention and banning.
I can't be bothered to immediately go get my own myspace presence, though I imagine I'll eventually do that, as well as maybe get beyond sharing the cell phone with W.U.
But the topics I'd like to see discussed are: 1) Popcorn; and 2) Hashish brownies.
She did ask.
rdriley,
I certainly hope you're single. You've got a really nasty "argumentative girlfriend from hell" vibe about you.
-jcr
Some people actually get mad when you compliment anyone on anything
Tedious, aren't they? The ways that some people project their insecurities can make them ugly as hell. (On the inside, where it counts.)
-jcr
The girls on E are good-looking,and will endorse McCain with a great smile and camera on their long shapely legs,nothing could be more off-putting....
Rachel Maddow(despite what ERV thinks)is not good looking,but has a great mind and says things that are true and make sense,I would prefer her over the good-looking journalists at Fox anytime of the day and night.
So while a nice rack or smile is friendly on the eye,nothing is sexier than a sharp and beautiful mind.
But thats just me.
So while a nice rack or smile is friendly on the eye,nothing is sexier than a sharp and beautiful mind..
No, not just you. Looks can get my attention, but they can't hold it. I'm sure that's true for a lot of other people, too.
-jcr
Okay, shitheads, get over the "tits" issue.
Okay? Good.
Situation: Young _person_ presents rational postulates an atheist position.
Can you ignore breasteseses and get your collective heads out of your asses?
Either she has a point, or she doesn't. I could post, verbatim, her dialectic, but instead replace her cleavage with my scrotum.
Would it detract the message any? Surely. Would you still care? Mostly not. Would it invalidate the words spoken? Not at all. Judger her words on their merits. Quit being fundamentally stupid.
I dont think commenters here are stupid Rurne.
Men think with their cocks,drunk men writing blog posts even more so.Live with it,you dont have to like it.I can deal with it as long as it doesnt deteriorate into open dumb sexism.
#204:
Well, you certainly don't rest. Thanks for the attention (and current and future apologies for being so brusque).
I certainly got the attention I wanted).
My point, as a resident lurker, has been that I haven't seen anyone close to addressing, much less supporting, the issues I raised in #185.
Given that we're on almost 200 posts of nonsense and there's an overwhelming percentage of "supporters" who want to talk about inconsequential irrelevance...
Well, it frankly breaks my heart.
You speak in particular about how I'm insulting anyone's intelligence by calling them "stupid". I think you're soundbiting, to be flat honest. I think that most of Paul's adherents are fairly rational people, but it sickens me to quasi/adherents \ trolls put up the "ZOMGshezHOT" flag...
Because this post should have been on the merits of her argument. And, instead, it's an argument about tbe fact she has mammaries, and why/why not men should like them.
As I posted on the last blog, I think she has a chance at a breakthrough. This kind of encouragement as received on Pharylgula is counterproductive.
That, honestly, was the point of my last post. Apologies for the length of this one.
Talk about flogging a dead horse....
Well,congrats on getting the attention you crave,maybe you can become Pharyngula's Joe the Plumber...
Mate,if you have more important things to do,noone's forcing you to read the posts here.
Stuff like that wont help you get your point across tho,Im afraid.
Oh,I just now saw this....
SC @ 157,
Ahem.
Some do,some dont,you know..:-)
But beer generally helps,or funny-colored fizzy drinks.
They dont come close to a good discussion about the pros and cons of sex before marriage with an american chick tho !
*runs and hides*
Glad she's back, I always found her videos amusing and insightful. Yes, she's young and pretty, I'm not sure why some people think that would or should devalue her message. I would have thought that individuals such as she would be the age-group that we should be most happy about rejecting religious dogma.
Which is why I gave a wry smile when I spotted another young, pretty atheist expressing her views on t'interweb:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SaV_BLUkS5Y
More power to them I say.
Mr. Myers,
As a rural Floridian, southerner, and cracker by birth, I object to your mockery of crackers, especially of eating them. Eating a cracker is no joke. Each year, numerous crackers are eaten by gators. Everytime it happens I say "that's a damn shame, loosing another cracker like that." And then, I hear you are having people mail you crackers so you can abuse them, just to annoy Papists? That's wrong in so many ways. First of all, human trafficking is a major problem in third world countries such as Florida. Second of all, a Yankee such as you shouldn't be allowed to look at a cracker, let alone touch it, fondle it, snap it, bite it, or abuse it. Third of all, there are really only a few Papists down here in cracker country. Don't let them rile you up and don't take out your papist frustrations on us poor crackers.
Truely,
"Cracker" Mike from Polk County, Florida
Someone mentioned the people on cnn generally being better looking that those on Fox. That's because evil people are very ugly. Think about it, all the dictators, serial killers(other than Ted Bundy), and nasty people from history are really ugly. A short list of names proves it... Hitler, Idi Amin, Charles Manson, Leona Helmsley, Eileen Wornos, Jo Stalin, etc... all ugly people. So, therefore Fox "news" casters will just naturally be ugly cause they're evil. Sounds like an evolutionary adaptation of some sort; an ugly face warns us that their personality and character are poisonous. Or is it just one of those spandral thingies.
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, I didn't find it in a quick search. In other youtube drama news, FSMdude has taken down his host desecration videos after having his account reinstated. He is 19 and lives with his parents, his father received a letter from some Chistian stating he'd found out who FSMdude is IRL.
"It took a lot of work but it was not that hard to find out were [FSMdude] lives. Eventually someone else will find out were he lives. I can only hope they will be concerned for [FSMdude] safety as I am."
His father, worrying for his safety asked him to take down the videos. Real concern or thinly veiled threat?
http://www.youtube.com/user/fsmdude see the bar at the left.
clinteas,
What, exactly, are you attempting to say? My entire point about "adherents" was exactly to irritate you. There's entirely too much toadying going on here.
In fact, I'd venture so far as to postulate that the entire reason why people like gogreen18 or FSMdude are targeted for suspension was simply because, instead of discussing the critical points of these videos, 90% of the discussion is on gender and/or half-assed flirting.
If that's banging the dead horse, fine. If you're not going to address the issue of why people are more concerned with mammary glands than message, fine. If you want to ad-hom me with "Joe the Plumber" comments, fine.
I wasn't out to seek supporters. I was intetionally trying to irritate people. The reason why they should be irritated is for them to decide: am I a churlish punk, or are people honestly treating gogreen18's suspension, FSMdude's death threat, and Tf00t's DMCA takedowns as non-issues and jokes?
Feel free to cherry-pick my posts and ignore the bulk of the argument. You're only proving my point by continuing to do so.
Sexist comment in 3...2...1...
I want her to have my godless children.
Rurne@203:My point, as a resident lurker, has been that I haven't seen anyone close to addressing, much less supporting, the issues I raised in #185.
All you did at #184 is state some opinions, which were not novel, remarkable or contentious.
Rurne@203:I certainly got the attention I wanted). [sic] ... My entire point about "adherents" was exactly to irritate you.
Pretty much what trolls do - crave attention and irritate people. Bah.
rdriley, I know you think that when anyone says anything mean about you it must be a _fallacy_, because you're perfect in your mind, but an insult is not necessarily a fallacy. Just because something is offensive to your ego does not mean it violates the rules of logic. An ad hominem fallacy is an association fallacy, it _only_ refers to saying a point is wrong _because_ of an irrelevant personal characteristic. If say someone's argument is wrong because they're stupid, it's ad hominem because a stupid person could theoretically still make a correct argument. Hence, it is a logical fallacy because the _logic_ is bad, not because it hurts your precious feelings to be called stupid. If someone says you're stupid because of your argument, it's not ad hominem at all and probably not a fallacy. There is nothing illogical about deciding you are a worthless freak based on your comments because human beings with brains and something to offer the world would know better than to post the crap you do. It's not a logical fallacy to make a judgment about you, as much as you'd like it to be, because no accurate judgment that anyone makes about a brilliant statement like this (from you)...
"straight men CANNOT, BY DEFINITION, BE JEALOUS OF ATTRACTIVE WOMEN"
...is going to be one you find flattering.
Further clarification:
"The Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy"
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
Logic is not defined by your inflated opinion of yourself. If "insult" was synonymous with "ad hominem", no logical person would have any way to evaluate anything about anyone. In reality, I believe any logical person would agree that you're a brainless, disingenuous, illiterate, bitter little toad.
thedeviliam,
<pedant>brainless and disingenuous are contradictory attributes</pedant>
Say, dobethedeviliwasbeforeiamthedevil, that's a helpful link you posted there. You should probably go ahead and READ IT.
"Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument."
The argument: That valuing a woman's physical appearance above all other characteristics may, in fact, be a form of misogyny.
Your attempt to undermine said argument: "And no, complimenting a girl on her looks is not misogynistic. Grow up, you jealous uglies."
In which you meet, quite specifically and spectacularly, the definition of an ad hominem attack. Instead of addressing the argument itself, you made a personal attack directed at anyone making the argument.
Now, for your edification, here's an example of a personal observation which is NOT an ad hominem attack:
You, sir, are an idiot.
Brains and looks....oh my my.
I am glad she is 19; at least my admiration for her attractiveness, while creepy, is not a felony.
@John Morales
"brainless and disingenuous are contradictory attributes"
Touche. However, it's worth noting that it is common practice to call a film, or a paper, or a book "disingenuous" even though nobody is suggesting that these things are capable of "thinking". I guess your response might be that those things would be reflecting the thoughts of disingenuous, thinking creatures, whereas in the case of rdriley it's simply a void where knowledge or intent neither enter nor leave. Ah, well, point for you, I suppose.
@rdriley
I see you resorted to (a) the strawman argument that you made up in the first place and has repeatedly been exposed to you as a strawman argument, making you a liar and (b) taking one line out of the page I linked to for you and ignoring everything else on it, which refutes your accusations, and then hypocritically accusing me of not knowing how to read. So I guess the question I have for you is this: do pathological liars make the world a better place, or does anyone who wants the world to be a better place wish you weren't on it anymore? I guess you'll probably slither around that one as well.
thedeviliam: I used the tags advisedly, "brainless" is well-understood not to be literal, but to refer to someone who doens't employ such intelligence as they have. To wit:
Hm, let me replace two words without changing the argument.
The argument: That valuing a car's physical appearance above all other characteristics may, in fact, be a form of car-hatred.
I doubt if it had anything to do with Christians. All the girls on the YouTube staff probably got tired of walking in on all the guys masturbating and seeing them squirting all their juice on the company computer screens.
I suppose the chick should feel grateful for all the lust spilled.
Vox Day wants to know why you're still ducking him.
I'm sure you've already read it, but just in case you haven't....
"Vox Day" is Christofascist scum. Debating scum is a waste of time. Fuck off back to Scumville.
Yawn.
Is poor widdle Teddy all mad because the big boys won't play with him?
Diddums!
I'm not PZ... but I note that Teddy has all the free speech he wants here on the Intertubes, AND FAILS TO MAKE ANYTHING EVEN APPROACHING A COHERENT ARGUMENT.
Why should a professor waste any of his time arguing with a failure?
I recall a nice scene from the PBS Nova episode Judgement Day. Behe was claiming under oath there were no books written about evolution and the immune system. The lawyer questioning Behe brought out a whole stack (about a dozen) text books with titles like Evolution of the Immune System. At that point, in open court, Behe was essentially shown to be a liar, and since he was under oath, a perjurer. Kill evolution (Darwinism is not a science), no way. Liars don't overthrow hundreds of thousands to millions of papers proving evolution.
Why should a professor waste any of his time arguing with a failure?
So then PZ could show Vox's scalp in his collection of theist debate dominations? Shouldn't be too hard if Vox is as you say he is. Trouble is, he isn't.
Good luck.
Its no good, Bisch. Most of us here have read the crap Pox Day thinks counts as argument. Fuck off back to Scumville.
The question you need to be asking is; why would a professor be willing to badmouth someone on an Internet blog, yet when presented an opportunity to have a live debate with said person, so quickly back down?
The only logical conclusion is Meyer is scared. And after reading both Vox's blog and his fantastic book The Irrational Atheist, I can't say I blame him. Vox would almost certainly hand him his ass on a silver platter and he knows it. *laugh*
Its no good, Bisch. Most of us here have read the crap Pox Day thinks counts as argument. Fuck off back to Scumville.
Yet Vox had a few seemingly prominent atheists tackle his book, and none of them made it past the fourth chapter. Have you read the book? You should contact Vox and offer to do a critique of it so it can be exposed for what you say it is.
Bisch
PS: Calling him Pox really won't get you too far in discussing the ideas presented in the book...
BKD, How about you debating us here and now. But, if you get caught in a lie, which you will be, you have to acknowledge it. Otherwise, you as big a liar as Vox Day. What is is going to be man, you showing integrity, or more lies? Put up or shut up.
The only logical conclusion is Meyer is scared. - BKD
You can't even get Myers' name right, you moron. Although you're right in calling The Irrational Atheist fantastic - as in completely unbelievable. Now fuck off back to Scumville.
Nerd of Redhead, this is about professor Meyer blatantly ducking Vox Day, nothing more. I am not, nor have ever claimed to be a great debater. Vox Day has and is, which is why he's apparently feared here at Pharyngula.
Why would VD badmouth atheists, and yet when presented with an opportunity to debate atheists on the internet, so quickly back down?
I'd definitely bet he got scared.
Did poor diddums lose the link?
Who is Meyer? Stephen Meyer isn't an atheist. Although, given that he withdrew before giving his deposition at Kitzmiller v. Dover, I would indeed agree that he got scared.
No, BKD, this is about your integrity. We all know that Vox Day is a liar and bullshitter. We are just confirming your status. If you aren't willing to debate, time to go.
Yet Vox had a few seemingly prominent atheists tackle his book, and none of them made it past the fourth chapter. - Four pages of that crap would cause any sane person to vomit.
Calling him Pox really won't get you too far in discussing the ideas presented in the book
Ideas? Pox Day? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! Now fuck off back to Scumville.
This is a paragraph out of the middle of the review by Brent Rasmussen of Unscrewing the Inscrutable...
I am not going to go into a point by point review of the various arguments that Day addressed in TIA. Suffice it to say that by the end of the chapters dealing with the individual authors, I was happy that it was over. It was a thorough, detailed, dispassionate (with a little snarky levity thrown into the footnotes for flavor), and completely disheartening take-down of some of the best arguments that the godless have put into print - on their own terms, without using the Bible (in the first part of the book, that is), or any other sacred text to do it with. Amazing. And depressing. It is not my place to defend their books. I truly hope that they do find time to defend and clarify their books, specifically to the counter-arguments and claims made by Vox day in TIA, though, because they really need to. Trust me, it wasn't pretty.
And close to the sumup at the end...
It is not your run-of-the-mill "flea" book looking to make a quick buck riding on the coattails of The Amber Heard Fan Club*. It's the real deal, it's substantive, meticulously researched, it brings up real problems, and it addresses these problems without falling into the trap that other fleas have fallen into in the past. That is to say, relying on theology or the Bible to make their counter-arguments.
The whole review is here...
http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1727
So how can Brent Rasmussen say that Vox wrote a book that is "the real deal" and Vox's rebuttal against the arguments against what Dawkins et. al. wrote "wasn't pretty" but the internet's Nick Gotts can sit back and call Vox names and be satisfied with the irreverence of it all? And how can Professor Myers (with an s, BKD) retain his credibility when he isn't willing to debate Vox?
Just aksin'.
I think VD's qualifications as a master debater are questionable, although I would agree that he is a masturbator. And his tiresome masturbation can be fearfully boring.
But we debated him, and he quit first. Tiresome and tired.
Guess he ran out of spunk.
Sorry, Myers, not Meyer. My sincere apologies. Still, let's try not to change the subject of conversation: P.Z. Myers being afraid to openly debate brilliant Mensa member Vox Day.
Are we sure the P doesn't stand for Puss? Puss Z. Myers? Seems fitting.
Owlmirror, I am really interested in this debate you had with him, do you know how I could go about finding it? Thank you in advance.
Four pages of that crap would cause any sane person to vomit.
You know that's not a compelling rebuttal to his book, right Nick?
BKD, what do your initials stand for?
BigKlutzyDimwit?
I believe it can be found here: http://www.fanfiction.net *thumbs up*
Right here.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/i_cant_say_that_ive_listened…
VD's last reply is: June 9, 2008 4:45 PM
Ooh, snap! Another false belief proven to be wrong.
VD's last reply is: June 9, 2008 4:45 PM
And there are 3 or 4 posts which address his points after his last post, and you claim he quit?
Mercy.
Bisch/BKD, can you cite five papers from the last five years of Science and Nature, two of the premiere journals for first publishing Nobel prize winning work, that show that the theory of evolution is wrong? If not, you have no claim as to scientific proof.
Yes... that's what "quitting" is. You have a point in there somewhere?
Says Mister "Behe,Killed[by]DarwinismHisOwnMouth", defender of Teddy "Venereal Disease" Beale.
Brent Rasmussen of Unscrewing the Inscrutable - Bisch
Never heard of him.
Bisch/BKD, can you cite five papers from the last five years of Science and Nature, two of the premiere journals for first publishing Nobel prize winning work, that show that the theory of evolution is wrong? If not, you have no claim as to scientific proof.
That's like asking for praise of the Dallas Cowboys' defensive scheme on the Philadelphia Eagles' website.
Nerd, can you cite five papers from the last five years of Science and Nature, that show that the miracles of Jesus didn't happen? If not, you have no claim as to scientific proof?
I'm not making any claims to god/jesus, the fictional characters of Xian myth.
You are making claims that evolution is false. I'm just asking you to back up your claims. What's the matter, you know you can't?
Never heard of him.
You should check his site out. It's really quite fair, especially compared to the bulk of both atheist and theist websites...
Yes... that's what "quitting" is. You have a point in there somewhere?
He made several posts addressing your points. It appeared to me that he got bored. Nonetheless, the issue at hand is why Professor Myers didn't join in and take up the torch.
10 yard penalty for false analogy. Science is not football.
Sheesh.
Ooh! Can you cite papers from the last five years of Science and Nature that show that the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba didn't happen?
If not, I expect you to convert immediately!
Bisch, Where is your evidence from the journals? No evidence, no need for PZ to debate anybody.
Nerd, can you cite five papers from the last five years of Science and Nature, that show that the miracles of Jesus didn't happen? - Bisch
Ludicrous claims without a scintilla of evidence cannot be investigated scientifically, moron. For your parallel to work, there would need to be millions of papers showing how these "miracles" occurred.
You are making claims that evolution is false. I'm just asking you to back up your claims. What's the matter, you know you can't?
I haven't heard of the study that repeats macro-evolution in a laboratory. I also haven't heard of the study that repeats the "formation" of the first life forms in a laboratory. Could you direct me to them?
He most certainly did not.
So your assertion is that being bored is an acceptable reason to quit?
Because Professor Myers was already bored.
Owlmirror I was intrigued by your post:
"Even the highest level human intelligence has no a priori knowledge of the constants that govern the interactions of matter and energy in the universe. The human-level intelligence of, for example, Martin Rees, must necessarily include all of the factors that then allows his intelligence to gain the knowledge of said constants, and manipulate them mathematically. So you have to include not only Martin Rees, but everyone who educated him, everyone who educated those educators, and so on going back to the protoplasmal primordial atomic globule that spawned them all.
I suppose you can get away with it if you posit that this putative intelligent entity is the result of some meta-cosmic evolutionary process, over the course of billions of meta-cosmic years, and there are billions of such entities outside our universe."
You must also allow for the fact that an omniscient being could be necessary. What people are positing is that an increase in intelligence is an increase in complexity, but I think that it could be flawed. For example, while it's surely true that as an object approaches the speed of light the energy required tends towards infinity so that it can never reach the speed of light, the light forgoes this problem by moving at the speed of light in a vacuum necessarily. So that there are two extremes, rest and c, from which an object can proceed towards c. Is it not possible that there is something similar in regards to omniscience or omnipotence?
I must admit that I'm only 18 and am ignorant of the majority of philosophy, but I feel that there is no better way than to expose my views to atheists so that they'll show me where my flaws lie. I may look like a fool, but I cannot get further from the truth by pursuing it.
By the way, can any atheists suggest atheist literature to me? I'm not talking the popular authors like Dawkins (I've read him) but the philosophical ones. I'd appreciate a reply very much.
Sorry, I let you guys get me off topic...so why is it that Professor Myers won't debate Vox?
Bisch, what at pile of crap. In science the burden of proof is always on those making the claim. Where your proof that evolution is wrong? Please cite the journal articles, or it's time for you to shut up. We will always bring back the burden of proof to you.
Bisch@257,
I already told you: Pox Day is Christofascist scum, and debating scum is a waste of time. Now fuck off back to Scumville.
It's your place to prove your religious theory true, not our place to disprove it. You've had 149 years and you've yet to do so. You people are more than welcome to waste another century trying to prove a 19th century argument from ignorance true, but the real scientists, those who are committed to following the evidence, have already moved on to Intelligent Design. Darwinism was based around what we didn't know back in 1857, I.D. is based around what we do know in 2008. I know that upsets you, sometimes the truth does hurt, but that does nothing to change it from being fact.
I wouldn't be surprised if you Darwinists believed that the sun revolves around the flat Earth. Such a belief is no less irrational than the belief that Darwinian mechanisms could be responsible for the beautifully designed human body, including the optimal genetic code.
Did someone call Vox Day brilliant? Fucking hell creationists are deluded fools.
*facepalm*
The whole point is that macroevolution takes place over many generations. Macroevolution is not repeated; evidence that can only be explained by macroevolution is demonstrated.
Just as evidence for cosmology, geology, astronomy, archaeology, and a whole slew of other sciences is demonstrated rather than repeated.
Still a work in progress, obviously. Here's one lab:
http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/
I already told you: Pox Day is Christofascist scum, and debating scum is a waste of time. Now fuck off back to Scumville.
Oh, that's right...you already told me. How can I be so obtuse. Sorry about that. Off I go back to Scumville.
You really got me there. I'm so embarrassed.
That statement is a bigger pile of shit than one sees next to a huge steer/pig feedlot. It shows you to be liar of the first degree.
Science has no god, no holy books, no theology. No knowledge that we hold sacred. Ergo, it fails any reasonable definition for being a religion. All present scientific knowledge is all subject to change when better evidence and better theories are presented.
Why is it that people can't grasp that "microevolution * successive generations = macroevolution"?
FACEPALM
Because expressing how dumb that was in words just doesn't work.
Why is it that people can't grasp that "microevolution * successive generations = macroevolution"?
Why is it that people can't grasp that just because scientists want to believe something doesn't make it true?
You can declare it until the micro-evolved higher milk producing cows come home, but you can't prove it.
I call poe...
The human body has many elements that show evolution, just look at the eye or the kidney. These things are so poorly designed that either the designer is an incompetent fool or that they evolved through natural means. If we are the example of intelligent design, I can only imagine how moronic the designer actually is.
Bisch, changing subjects behaving like a cravenly coward. Please cite the articles from Science and Nature supporting your position, or shut up.
the beautifully designed human body - BKD
Too many teeth for the size of the mouth.
Weak back.
Unnecessary and infection-prone appendix.
Tendency to choke because food has to pass over the entrance to the lungs to be swallowed.
Difficulty in giving birth because neonatal head is too large for the birth canal.
If your "god" actually existed and had designed the human body, he'd be criminally incompetent. Now be a good moron, and FUCK OFF BACK TO SCUMVILLE.
BeheKilledDarwinism #260 wrote:
Here's a point you might want to consider on the "optimal genetic code."
One of the admitted weaknesses of Darwin's theory back in the 19th century was a lack of mechanism for transmission. How did traits get passed from generation to generation? Genetics -- and later on, DNA -- provided the answer to that question.
But assume for the moment that the modern science of genetics doesn't exist, because there is no such thing as DNA. There's nothing at all to account for heritable traits. No genetic code. The more scientists study it, the less they find.
That would screw the theory of evolution. It would be a weakness so strong it couldn't be overcome. It looks like the mechanism is "magic." And it points, clearly, in one direction: intelligent design by a supernatural agent.
So are you really ready to admit that an "optimal genetic code" undermines evolution, but the LACK of such a code would undermine evolution even more?
Why the sudden invasion of Pox Day acolytes? Anyone know? By the way, Poxers, after you've fucked off back to Scumville, do come back on 5 November so we can all laugh at you over the pathetic failure of your fellow Christofascist, Governor Golly Gee Wilikins. You betcha!
BKD, I'm largely ignorant of the details of evolution, what can Darwinian mechanisms not explain? What is the best book on ID?
"Why is it that people can't grasp that "microevolution * successive generations = macroevolution"?"
That's simple, micro = 10^-6 and we'll take macro = 10^6, because nobody thinks that anything less than a million is of great size anymore. So microevolution = 10^-6 evolutions and macroevolution = 10^6 evolutions. Assuming microevolution occurs on average once every year, macroevolution must take 10^12 years, which is longer than the universe has existed. I await my Templeton Prize. :) (For those who cannot distinguish bad humour from real attempts at discrediting evolution, this was a bad and nerdy joke)
They "believe" for good reason: all evidence points towards common descent. But of course you know better, only 99% of scientists and almost all biologists who have all had decades of training and recearch are all somehow wrong and Behe who wouldn't even submit his idea for peer review is right... come off it.
As for evidence?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Bisch, changing subjects behaving like a cravenly coward. Please cite the articles from Science and Nature supporting your position, or shut up.
a couple points:
1. you act as if Science and Nature are the end-all for scientific proof of anything.
2. I came in wondering why Professor Myers wouldn't debate Vox. I've tried to stay on course and have been asked different questions to try to deflect disappointment from Professor Myers.
3. I don't believe in the Theory of Evolution by way of Natural Selection, but if that was the manner by which "God" had the universe and all us beings come about, I'm cool with it. My boy Francis Collins is an example of an evolutionist that is a theist.
So why is it again that Professor Myers won't debate Vox on radio? If I remember correctly, Vox even offered to let Myers pick the show (and therefore pick the moderators).
I am honestly not sure what you are trying to argue here. Your physics example is flawed, though: photons move at c precisely because they are massless; no object with mass can move at c.
It sounds like you're trying to approach the concept of Pantheism, perhaps?
One that I like is Doubt: A history, by Jennifer Hecht.
Dawkins includes a list of additional references, some of which are much weightier in philosophy than The God Delusion itself.
Not ducking but ignoring. Engage killfile.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/sorry_vox_i_dont_debate_craz…
I would think that if he had some zinger of an argument, there would be better ways to reveal it than on an obscure AM radio talk show in a debate with an equally obscure professor at a liberal arts college. He could, for instance, put it right at the top of his web page, where we could all marvel at it before rushing off to our much-neglected church.
So why is it again that Professor Myers won't debate Vox on radio? - Bisch
I've told you twice already. Are you suffering from Korsakov's dementia?
All of these examples of 'bad design' have already been refuted by people much smarter than you, or any other regular here, including the fat man with the greasy beard who runs this stinkhole. If this is your best objection to I.D. (it is), then it's no wonder you feel so threatened by it. You know your outdated world view doesn't hold up against it and that scares you. A lot.
"I am honestly not sure what you are trying to argue here. Your physics example is flawed, though: photons move at c precisely because they are massless; no object with mass can move at c."
Exactly, what I'm trying to say is that there may be factors other than the knowledge itself that make it appear as if an increase in knowledge is proportional to the complexity of the knower. In this case, mass could be several things, among them: brains or contingent existence. And massless could be things such as necessary existence or some mind independent of brain.
The best way to explain what I'm trying to say is that correlation does not imply causation but in this case the correlation at the lower end of the spectrum that we have knowledge of seems to imply causation, but if we could think about omniscience properly perhaps we would see that it need not be a complex being that achieved it through evolution because there's some other factor that causes the correlation at low levels of intellect that is not present in the omniscient being.
I do not think that the analogy requires this though, all I am saying is that perhaps some being can be necessarily omniscient, rather than achieve omniscience through some process of evolution. I think that in Plantinga's modal ontological argument he was trying to argue that God must possess each of his attributes necessarily. I'm not sure though, it was a year ago I read his book.
"It sounds like you're trying to approach the concept of Pantheism, perhaps?"
Not at all, either Deism or theism. My argument is about how omniscience need not be approached by successive generations of better intellects.
"One that I like is Doubt: A history, by Jennifer Hecht.
Dawkins includes a list of additional references, some of which are much weightier in philosophy than The God Delusion itself."
Okay, thank you, I will read that book and I will look at the back of Dawkins book, it's been three years since I read it and I may have a look at the book itself again. Hopefully they will be in the uni library.
Liar.
Hey, Hi...I heard there was a puppet show over here in this thread?
Jabbering trolls, is what I heard.
Is it any good?
ll of these examples of 'bad design' have already been refuted by people much smarter than you, or any other regular here, including the fat man with the greasy beard who runs this stinkhole. BKD
So give us the "refutations", moron. If it's already been done, that shouldn't be too hard even for you. Then fuck off back to Scumville.
Owlmirror, what do you expect from people who stress Vox Day being a member of Mensa?
Oh, I forget myself, rhetorical flourishes trump collected knowledge.
Oh,seems we had our own little Halloween party here,with lots of scarily deluded fundie morons !!
Respect to Nick and Owly for trying to argue with the brainwashed reason-impaired fools,I just cant muster the energy anymore.
More like the scurrying of roaches who've come in to eat the crumbs left behind by feeding trolls. Someone must've left the light off.
Objections to ID? Let's see.
It's rebranded creationism
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html
Irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
Behe is wrong
http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html
As is Dempski
http://bostonreview.net/BR27.3/orr.html
And ID is simply inadequate to explain things like:
Fused chimpanzee chromosome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
The Eye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye#Evolutionary_baggage
oooh, they are smarter than me. Too bad they aren't enough to convince the 99% of scientists who actually have trained and researched for decades in the field. Behe's arguments have been refuted repeatedly by many different scientists; irreducible complexity is not a problem of evolutionary theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
And Dempski's "No free lunch"? Well that was a flawed premise to begin with as Dawkins noted over 20 years ago!
Nah, just VoxDayites who don't understand the first thing about evolution. I wonder why Godbots spend so much time arguing a science they don't understand instead of sticking to arguments concerning God. Being an intellectual retard is hardly going to endear others to listen to you when it comes to the supernatual. Arguing from ignorance (or appealing to the ignornance of others) is hardly a convincing argument for the existence of God...
The problem with that is that it founders when analyzed closely, as do all theistic arguments.
One problem, of course, is that we have no model whatsoever, even a conceptual one, of how omniscience could simply exist with no precursor. All examples of representational knowledge that we have involve bootstrapping from ignorance.
If you arguing that this hypothetical "omniscience" isn't even representational, the argument becomes even less coherent. Where is this omniscience supposed to reside?
Your analogy is just that, an analogy, and bears no resemblance to anything testable or observable. Einstein and other physicists did, after all, find many ways to test how real-world particles act near lightspeed, or at it (in the case of photons).
Another problem is that such an entity, with genuine omniscience, would have no good reason to keep silent about its existence. It would both know of our lesser intelligences, and how to communicate with them — unless you want to postulate that it is either powerless to do so, or is utterly lacking in benevolence. I suppose that does get you to Deism, though.
I have a very low opinion of Plantinga. He can conjure up obscure and convoluted hypothetical scenarios all he wants, but I keep seeing obvious flaws in his arguments as presented.
"must possess each of his attributes necessarily" — and no-one has any empirical demonstration of these alleged attributes. Is this supposed to be convincing?
BeheKilledDarwinism (great nym, I guess CusterWonatLittleBigHorn was already taken) mentioned "...the optimal genetic code" @260.
Umm no. This topic was discussed at length in this post at Panda's Thumb. Basically, the code is optimal if it is product of natural processes. Remove that assumption and significantly better codes are possible.
No, that was just an objection to one particular strand of your overwhelmingly dumb fractal wrongness.
Probably the best objection to "ID", for laypeople, is that the best advocates that "ID" could muster had every chance to convince a conservative, religious, Republican, Bush-appointed judge that "ID" was indeed a valid scientific theory worthy of being taught.... and FAILED miserably.
The trial transcripts are all publicly available. The judge's verdict is available. Everything is out in the open.
Your side LOST. It didn't lose because the judge was an "activist" or a "liberal". It lost because "ID" has NO VALID EVIDENCE.
"ID" is nothing but FAIL.
There are more cogent arguments that could be made, but for starters....
More than that, the Discovery Institute refused to defend I.D. under oath. The cdesign proponentists would not defend their own theory when it came down to doing so when it mattered.
Kel @293 "More than that, the Discovery Institute refused to defend I.D. under oath. The cdesign proponentists would not defend their own theory when it came down to doing so when it mattered."
When danger reared its ugly head Dembski bravely turned his tail and fled. Brave,brave, brave Sir Dembski!
Yes, brave Sir Dempski turned about, and gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Dempski!
Hey OwlMirror, I cannot come up with what I would consider an adequate response yet, it's 2AM in the morning here and I have lectures starting at 9AM, so I must leave unfortunately. I will think about what you have written and come up with a response I think is worthy of the objections you have raised. I would be thrilled if when I have that response you would be willing to take a look at it and reply to it. Please do not think that this is a fruitless endeavour, I am sincerely interested in finding out the truth about these things and I will follow wherever rationality leads me.
I have saved an address to a few of your points, but I'd rather address them altogether, and a few were really tricky and require more thought. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to learn, I hope I learn as much in my lectures tomorrow (somehow algorithms and foundations of maths are not quite as interesting as questions about God).
The Discovery Institute (I'm ashamed they're based here in Seattle) aren't even competent propagandists. Has anybody read Are we Spiritual Machines?: Ray Kurzweil takes on critics of Strong AI? When somebody that I consider frankly something of a loon in his own right, like Ray Kurzweil, can completely demolish them like that, and They don't even realize it and publish it anyway, that really says something!
Vox Day: dragging down the reputation of Mensa since, what, 2006?
Has no-one mentioned Deacon Duncan, who has excruciated his way through TIA from the very beginning on the "TIA Tuesday" posts, and is currently up to chapter 11? Vox gave up at some point. :)
Has no-one mentioned Deacon Duncan, who has excruciated his way through TIA from the very beginning on the "TIA Tuesday" posts, and is currently up to chapter 11? Vox gave up at some point. :)
There was no longer any need to since I'd methodically demonstrated that all of Deacon Duncan's critiques covering the first five or six chapters were clueless and reliably off-base. This was not only my conclusion, but the conclusion of numerous atheists who visited his site as well. That's why no one mentions DD; his efforts are an embarrassment to the atheist cause.
It's interesting how people here think that Dembski chickened out, but brave PZ, well, he's just IGNORING. Do you not even see the hypocrisy of his excuse for failing to show up vs his post here? There is, after all, a great deal of evidence showing that Pharyngula is unfriendlier to Christians than the Northern Alliance Radio is to atheists. By his own standard, PZ is far more of a coward than these YouTube folks.
By the way, it's worth noting that Sam Harris has already graciously conceded the greater part of the seven points I raised directly with him in our email exchange. And the only point he even attempted to defend wasn't a successful defense due to his incorrect understanding of the genetic fallacy.
:)
Vox Day and Behe(&^(^(* are on my poop list. You know why? At #207 I wrote a hilarious(if I do say so myself) and true post about crackers; I am one, it's okay. Day and Behe, let's call them "beday" from here on out, have stolen my thunder. Come on everybody, go back up and read #207 and remember what this is all really about, mocking stupid people.
There's a big difference between failing to defend your theory under oath when it's on trial and debating someone over AM. Surely you have the intelligence to see that. If PZ was running away from a court case on the existence of God, you would have a point.
In reading the extended bio of Professor Myers from his site, I read this section...
...Myers couldn't resist. After all, Hinderaker is an attorney and political activist, not a biologist. In a blistering retort, Myers wrote:
"On strictly scientific grounds? Hindrocket [Hinderaker's now-defunct nom de guerre] doesn't know any science. The 'macroevolution' canard is stock mindless creationism. The real outrage here is that a clueless nitwit like Hindrocket can claim the entire field of biology is a fraud and cannot stand up to scrutiny; I'd be happy to mop the floor with him in a debate, if he wants to try....
So why would Professor Myers "be happy to mop the floor" with a clueless nitwit like Hinderaker, but not with a clueless nitwit like Vox Day?
There is, after all, a great deal of evidence showing that Pharyngula is unfriendlier to Christians than the Northern Alliance Radio is to atheists. - Venereal Disease
Ah, the lying Christofascist scumbag Mr Venereal Disease himself has turned up. You can come here and say what you like without interruption, shit-for-brains. But why do you have that ludicrous hairstyle? My guess is you're going bald, but refuse to face up to it.
Ah, the lying Christofascist scumbag Mr Venereal Disease himself has turned up.
So you dispute what he's saying?
Well, well....cover me in Squirty Cream, and call me slut - if it isn't VD. Now the fun begins.
Hi Vox, flirty wave!
Bisch, do you have the references from Science and Nature showing ID is a real scientific theory, or are you still believing in fair tales? Religion does not refute science. Only more science refutes science.
Oh for fucks sake. Who left the door open?
Bisch, why don't you have VD agree to debate in the science journals. All that is needed is that you and VD follow the rules of science. Oh yes, you have no scientific proof, so you must argue outside of the proper venues. TSK, TSK. It is tough being on the wrong end of the argument.
Bisch, do you have the references from Science and Nature showing ID is a real scientific theory, or are you still believing in fair tales? Religion does not refute science. Only more science refutes science.
Huh? Why is it that I ask why Professor Myers won't debate Vox Day and get questions about Science and Nature in return? Who's changing the subject?
Posted by: Bisch | November 3, 2008 10:39 PM
Huh? Why is it that I ask why Professor Myers won't debate Vox Day and get questions about Science and Nature in return? Who's changing the subject?
Because, you silly git, this matter is resolved by who has evidence. It is not resolved by who has the superior rhetorical skills.
And watch YAC (yet another creationist) trot out the Gish gallop?
I don't think so.
Eeewwww! I just went over and read VD's blog. It is troll central. Now I have kack on my shoes!
Their proof for god - die and you'll see.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
VD, #301, wrote:
A Xian apologist, trying to make an argument based on evidence? Now that's irony!
Posted by: Patricia | November 3, 2008 10:49 PM
Eeewwww! I just went over and read VD's blog. It is troll central. Now I have kack on my shoes!
Patricia, I was wrong to dismiss what you said as crazy talk. Such a site does exist. I curtsy to your superior sluttishness.
Everybody knows PZ doesn't have time to debate VD, he's too busy eating babies and fornicating. You idiot.
Bullshit. Pharyngula is unfriendly to idiots who come in spouting off assertions that they have neither the ability or the evidence to support. If they happen to be Christians, well, that's just a side note.
Bisch, why don't you have VD agree to debate in the science journals. All that is needed is that you and VD follow the rules of science. Oh yes, you have no scientific proof, so you must argue outside of the proper venues. TSK, TSK. It is tough being on the wrong end of the argument.
and
Because, you silly git, this matter is resolved by who has evidence. It is not resolved by who has the superior rhetorical skills.
I refer you to post #305, where I quote Professor Myers's linked bio. Professor Myers challenged the dude in the article, promising to wipe the floor with him in a debate. It appears disingenuous, that's all.
If Professor Myers had always had this self-imposed clueless-nitwit-debate ban, then even if he was viewed as cowardly, he'd still be considered consistent. With this information presented, he appears to be cowardly and inconsistent, that's all.
Thank You my dear, it was an ugly slog.
I thought about leaving them some choice bare breasted comments, but they'd have refused to print them.
Even though they think nothing of making sexist remarks here.
Puss Z Myers - nice one creep.
Bisch, if VD has any science to back him up, the scientific journals are the only place that the debate should take place. Then again, if VD is a liar and bullshitter, and thinks liars like Behe are great, then PZ is correct not to debate in venue where the lies cannot immediately be exposed, like on a radio talk show. So Bisch, either show ID is scientific through cited journal articles or take hike.
You sir are a fool.
VD, nor you, nor anyone else on the planet has any proof of god whatsoever.
As a dog returneth to it's vomit, so doth a fool to his folly. Dig in fool.
Nerd wrote:
But Nerd, that's not going to work - everyone knows that all scientific journals are simply fronts for the Evil Atheist Evolutionist Conspiracy™, which has been shutting down real, evidence-based religious scientific findings for years now.
Now, where's my tinfoil hat?
It's fairly simple. Theodore Beale is a wretchedly misogynistic, nasty piece of work. His creationist/religious views are relatively small issues in my decision not to engage with the guy (although I suspect it is his ignorant religious dogma that drives many of his repulsive ideas) -- I'm just not going to lend any credibilty to a petty thug with delusions of grandeur.
Then again, if VD is a liar and bullshitter, and thinks liars like Behe are great, then PZ is correct not to debate in venue where the lies cannot immediately be exposed, like on a radio talk show.
Nerd, off topic, I just searched "Behe" on Vox's blog and found 2 instances where he said in essence "I haven't read Behe." So I doubt he has much opinion for or against Behe.
As for venue, Vox offered to have a written debate by blog, which was also turned down by Professor Myers. Nerd, don't you agree that a written debate would be a good venue to have lies immediately exposed?
Try this paragraph for what Vox has offered...http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/06/that-settles-that.html
As for PZ, if he wishes to host a debate about the existence of gods on his blog, I'll be there. If he wants me to host a debate with him on the same topic here, then we can do that. But I'm not about to permit him to play hide-and-snipe, where he only speaks up if he thinks he's got something and feigns lofty ignorance when he doesn't. Unsurprisingly, ER doesn't understand the way in which PZ's "counter-proposal", if one can actually call it that, was designed to allow PZ to hide from being intellectually exposed. Considering how many times people have made fools of themselves by making baseless assumptions about my refusal to perform like a trained seal on their schedule, you'd think my critics would have learned by now that my refusal to show all my cards on demand has never, ever been an indication that I've got nothing.
So, Nerd, do you think Professor Myers would agree to have a debate on the evidence of the existence of God on his blog?
VD, nor you, nor anyone else on the planet has any proof of god whatsoever.
So then why doesn't Professor Myers debate him to settle it?
Bisch, your imaginary god doesn't exist, so why bother debating his existence. Now, if you have some evidence, like Moses' burning bush found in the Dead Sea, maybe. Until then, why debate with people who don't tell the truth, and wouldn't recognize it if they tripped over it.
It's fairly simple. Theodore Beale is a wretchedly misogynistic, nasty piece of work. His creationist/religious views are relatively small issues in my decision not to engage with the guy (although I suspect it is his ignorant religious dogma that drives many of his repulsive ideas) -- I'm just not going to lend any credibilty to a petty thug with delusions of grandeur.
Is there a leading theist that you would be willing to debate on the subject, Professor Myers?
Only if your god promises to show up and perform a few magic tricks to warm up the audience. Otherwise, what's the point?
You hardly need a debate with PZ Myers in order to prove the existence of your god.
I suppose we do need to distinguish between VD and one of his even more unsavory and moronic fans.
There is no evidence of the existence of God. There is only the argument from ignorance, constantly updated by stealing from science: "Wow, we don't know how that happened, therefore, God must exist".
It's all pathetic nonsense, no matter how erudite and convoluted the argument.
Bisch, go back to your master and tell him you failed miserably. No debate for your boss. What you need to do is to find the physical evidence for god first, such as the eternally burning bush in the Dead Sea mentioned in my previous post. Failure to find such evidence just says you and your boss have delusions, and we prefer to chat with sane people.
Only if your god promises to show up and perform a few magic tricks to warm up the audience. Otherwise, what's the point?
Aren't there really important issues at stake if God exists? If God exists, and you were sufficiently impressed by the proof that you were convinced (or even convinced that there was a decent possibility), wouldn't you live life differently, or attempt to live life differently? Wouldn't such a being have some impact on your worldview?
There is no evidence for your imaginary diety. And why that one out of the thousand or so created by humans over the years. Bisch, you are an atheist toward all other deities except your imaginary one. We just take the last step and become rational by disbelieving your god too.
Go home, and quit bothering us. No debates.
Bisch,
If god exists and wants me to believe in him he'd know exactly what it would take to change my mind. As he hasn't bothered to do so, I am content to live my life as if he didn't - whether he exists or not.
I refuse to stoop to being argued over by hominid ape descendants of my creation. If invoked, I will not manifest. If prayed to, I will not respond.
I don't exist to do anything for you, not even letting you know for certain that I exist. You exist solely to entertain Me.
So, shoo. Run along. Find something else to fiddle with in your lives, like maybe the genitalia I so thoughtfully provided you with. It will be more productive than debating about Me.
Pretty cool thread, overall. Rev BDC cracked me up @ 310, for one thing.
Whew, you guys are really confident. Cool.
I guess I don't get where the line is...Behe is a liar, but Professor Myers drove a couple hundred miles to address him. Vox is a yucky guy less desirable than a liar, and Professor Myers won't even address him. In the extended bio, Professor Myers said something to the effect that he viewed the defense of science and the rebuking of ID and such to be his obligation.
More to the point, seems like the cost-benefit analysis shows to be pretty clearly on the side of debating. What Professor Myers is saying in his post #325 is that the benefit of obliterating Vox's arguments on the existence of God is not outweighed by the cost of giving Vox some legitimacy. Wouldn't that legitimacy only be bestowed if Vox did well in the debate? Isn't the benefit tied so tightly to the cost that the confident Professor Myers has no choice but to debate? No doubt that Professor Myers has thought this through, so clearly there's no other conclusion to reach than to figure that Professor Myers is scared to debate a guy who wrote a book lambasting the paragons of New Atheism.
That I get.
Yes, Bisch, it would.
I was a pew jumpin', born again, True Christian Old Believer for 50 years. Then finally it dawned on me that I had wasted 50 years of my only life for NOTHING.
There is no god. Not now, not ever, and no rapture. I will accept any biblical proof of god. He flies thru the air in the bible, OK - fly over my house. He created the universe, OK create a new Matterhorn in Mexico. He turned Lots wife into a pillar of salt - let him turn me into a pillar of salt. Got anything yet?
Anything? No?
Slink back to your master and snivel. Toad.
And is VD promoting "ID", or is he arguing a vague and abstract Deism?
Is VD actively promoting "ID", in the sense of arguing that evolutionary biology, supported by 150-odd years of peer-reviewed science, is false? Or is his entire argument based on an imperfect understanding of cosmology, and arguing that cosmological "fine-tuning" is "evidence" of God?
Toad.
I guess by that I also get that you aren't interested in discussion. Do you call people toads in person when you disagree with them? Have I done anything that would warrant that?
That makes me sad.
Is VD actively promoting "ID", in the sense of arguing that evolutionary biology, supported by 150-odd years of peer-reviewed science, is false? Or is his entire argument based on an imperfect understanding of cosmology, and arguing that cosmological "fine-tuning" is "evidence" of God?
Why don't you ask him? I'm not really sure what he has up his sleeve. My curiosity is about why Professor Myers won't debate him.
Notice that Vox bravely turned and ran away, leaving his minion here to fend for himself. Some sword of righteousness.
Your master sucks Bisch. He can't even get passed the Ilk, and the sluts. God is not on your side, and neither is Vox.
There's a headline "Vox Day Slain by Sluts".
The weaker the claim about God, the less actual impact it has. Proof of a remote and indifferent Deist God, even if accepted, proves nothing else about what that God wants. It doesn't even prove an afterlife, let alone a heaven, let alone the truth of any particular religion.
Conversely, the stronger the claim about God, the easier it is to show that it is inconsistent with reality, or with itself.
Posted by: Bisch | November 4, 2008 12:16 AM
My curiosity is about why Professor Myers won't debate him.
Please refer to #325.
Bisch, Calling you a toad is the kindest name I have called a troll in ages.
PZ just answered why. Are you a complete idiot?
I'll discuss any part of god you want. I notice you swerve around what I posted earlier and focus on me calling you a toad. Your master left you to fend for yourself. How can you have one shred of respect for the coward? And where is your god? He's not saving you.
Have you asked yourself - why does VD come trolling here?
My curiosity is why God won't speak for himself.
Why does he need VD to argue for him?
It's been explained several times already. Are you thick?
If you had any linguistic knowledge, you would know that "debate" derives from debattre, meaning "to beat down", in a very physical sense.
VD has a sublimated urge to beat people up. The only way he can express this urge in this effete and overly-squeamish age is to debate with mere words.
Oh, and he's not doing it "for Me". He's doing it for himself, of course.
Basically, he's just a modified ape doing what modified apes do.
Dear well-meaning but stupid people whining about comments on her looks,
Shut up. Seriously. There's nothing wrong with saying someone is attractive unless you're using that to argue for or against the content. She's very attractive and very smart. There's nothing wrong with saying that. At all.
Nice point Owlmirror.
I always wonder that myself. Why does VD, or the pope, or Bullshit Bill need to attack PZ? Can't god do his own smiting? He always could before.
Ol' god must be scart the sluts will grab him and tickle and spank his old ass until he wets himself.
Do you not realise that ID is being rebuked in the academic arena: the place for scientific inquiry? ID's status as a credulous concept in science matters not one iota on the outcome of a radio debate, and if indeed Mr. Day wants to debate ID then he is free to participate in the scientific process. It would be dishonest to the scientific process to believe the outcome of debate in the public arena is a marker of truth, so while ID evangelises among gullible Christians it doesn't pass the scientific method.
yes, God's existence hinges upon the outcome of PZ and Mr Day duking it out on AM radio. Why can't Mr. Day show his definitive proof for God on his website, or better yet post it here for us all to ponder? Surely if he has proof not only of God but the Judao-Christian God then he'll be remembered in history...
Poor little minion abandoned by his slimy, coward of a master.
There is no god. None. Not Ra, not Thor, not Raven - none.
I actually pity you troll. Your master led you here, and then fled. We don't fear your master. Have him open his blog and drop the censorship. He is a coward.
PZ doesn't censor you christian freaks.
Bring it, my bible is always open.
Why am I getting a distinct Lord of the Rings visual here? I can really see Bisch as Grima Wormtongue and VD as Saruman. PZ, I think you need to grow a longer beard and start wearing a point hat...
VD explains how he didn't really chicken out:
Hee hee.
Well, I suppose sophistry, misdirection, obfuscation and denial counts as a method, but what he neglected to mention is that DD responded to his "critiques".
Here's a small sample of VD's "method" as quoted by DD on March 19, 2008, when DD addresses VD:
There's no comments to that entry by DD, after he addresses VD's method.
Amusingly, VD couldn't even distinguish between the blog name and the author's. Perhaps his mind is just too finely tuned...
Have him open his blog and drop the censorship. He is a coward.
PZ doesn't censor you christian freaks.
Vox doesn't censor, either. He doesn't even moderate. You're incorrect about that.
Bisch, what are you doing back here? Go back under your rock. And Bisch, all godbots and creobots lie, it just comes with the territory. To stop lying, give up all gods and embrace science.
Why can't Mr. Day show his definitive proof for God on his website, or better yet post it here for us all to ponder?
Vox's quote
As for PZ, if he wishes to host a debate about the existence of gods on his blog, I'll be there. If he wants me to host a debate with him on the same topic here, then we can do that. But I'm not about to permit him to play hide-and-snipe, where he only speaks up if he thinks he's got something and feigns lofty ignorance when he doesn't.
I think sums it up nicely. Professor Myers is known to hit and run in his comments. I think it's fair for Vox to want to have a little accountability in responding. Professor Myers's hitting and running may be just a matter of his being busy and not having time to comment on everything, but it appears that it's as Vox believes it is. Having Professor Myers agree to a debate thus guaranteeing the responses is fair and reasonable.
Your master led you here, and then fled.
So by that same standard, Professor Myers has fled, too, right? Why hasn't he responded to my question about whom he'd be willing to debate?
I'd say for Vox and for Professor Myers, it's not over.
Bisch, you are a liar and bullshitter. Nobody is going to debate your boss. Taunting won't work, and is the sign of a weak mind. Time to quit lying and bullshitting by going away, never to return.
Bisch, what are you doing back here? Go back under your rock. And Bisch, all godbots and creobots lie, it just comes with the territory. To stop lying, give up all gods and embrace science.
I'll take off soon...just seeing if I can get a satisfactory answer as to why Professor Myers refuses to debate Vox. So far, just a bunch of misdirection.
Bisch
It's easy.
Why doesn't Vox Day simply present the evidence for god in a peer reviewed, scientific paper.
If it is of any worth, he would probably get a Nobel prize. Or a saint hood.
Bisch, what part of no don't your understand.
You can ask for and explanation, and the answer is no comment. You have no authority to demand one.
Time to go and stay away.
Read Dr. Phelps answer to Ken Ham and you'll know why
The answer is very similar and very valid.
Bisch, you are a liar
Reference, please.
And, I fancy myself as an amateur psychologist, so it's truly just a matter of being fascinated by Professor Myers's being unwilling to debate someone he holds in such low regard, when, if the debate would be as one-sided as he says, he has very little to worry about. I'm just exploring that, nothing more.
Patricia @315
Regarding their "proof for god - die and you'll see."
Been there, done that. Twice. Once in 1987, the second time in 1996.
Guess what, no god.
Oh for dogs sake !
365 posts and counting...
Next thing you know we are going to be debating evolution with the schizophrenics in the local Psych ward,or the demented oldies in the nursing home...
Then again,might be more fruitful then debating VD,more fun for sure...
Bisch, you lie when you demand explanations. Show me from Miss Manners that you can demand and expect to get an explanation. I'll be the "no comment" is considered an appropriate response. Otherwise, your demand for an explanation is a lie. PZ doesn't have to talk to anybody. Period. End of story. So what part of no don't you understand?
Amateur psychologist, professional idiot. You've stated the answer yourself: "unwilling to debate someone he holds in such low regard". Think about it. Do you often have debates with cockroaches? Is it the case that the less you think of someone, the more willing you are to engage them?
I should warn you that if all you're going to do here is harp singlemindedly on this one issue, you're going to bore me. You're also going to be derailing comment threads with off-topic distractions. Can you spell B-A-N? Sound it out. You might be able to figure it out, eventually.
You have no authority to demand one.
I completely agree with you on this one. Of course I don't. However, I believe Professor Myers has opened the door to this line of questioning when he called cowards the people who tried to get his new young friend banned from You Tube.
And that brings up another salient point. Peer reviewed journals, you have no authority, etc. You don't have to even enter the discussion if someone can't get through the door, and the bouncer at the door is on your payroll! I don't blame you for wanting it this way. I'd want it that way, too.
I also agree with you that a verbal debate isn't a great way to discuss the issues. There's not enough time to formulate a thorough response. A written debate, though, seems to be a fair way to do it.
And Vox was specifically discussing proof of the existence of God, not anything specifically biological, so Professor Myers's study of Biology and Vox's lack thereof shouldn't be a problem.
I suggested months ago that a more reasonable debating match would be between Beale and PZ's stuffed pink octopus. Why has VD so far refused to take up the challenge? Huh? Huh? Scared of a little plush toy, is he?
Ask again bisch
Bisch, you have your answer. Time to crawl back under your rock like a good insect.
*sneaks a personal note in*
Hiya SC,
Im off to bed to wake up to a new President,all the best mate...:-)
Oh,and btw,someone pls get that Bisch thing killfiled,talk about trolling....
Amateur psychologist, professional idiot.
Figured that was coming.
You've stated the answer yourself: "unwilling to debate someone he holds in such low regard".
Big pile of bull. You wanted to debate that dude you responded to in your linked bio. So did you change your standards since the linked bio was written? You clearly didn't hold the subject of your response in high regard. You are so using how you feel about Vox to hide that you'd be the mopee and not the mopper.
Your response explains it all, Professor Myers. I'll call it good and leave you all alone, confident in the fact that you really are afraid of engaging Vox.
Good day to you all.
Hey, clinteas.
I'm off myself to vote in a bit. Beautiful day here - will take a walk on the beach afterwards. Good luck to all of us, and good night!
Professor Myers has opened the door to this line of questioning when he called cowards the people who tried to get his new young friend banned from You Tube. - Bisch
What a moron you are. Venereal Disease has his own blog, on which he can spew his filthy misogynistic vomit into your waiting mouth. He's also free to comment here. In other words, he has full freedom of speech. The cowardly shits who got this young woman suspended from YouTube are trying to suppress her right to free speech - as we know well you would do to all of us if you could.
And we'll remain confident that you have zero aptitude for reading comprehension and that Vox Day is a misogynistic moron who's ego is only the only thing bigger than his stupidity.
/waves
Just like a creobot/godbot to claim victory without one and leave. Just another Liar for JebusTM. Bisch, debating a nobody merely give the nobody credence. PZ ain't falling into that trap. So if your boss is ignored, it just means he is still a nobody.
A u-tube would be required.
You need a professional.
Think about what you're asking. Just think.
Why would someone not want to debate someone he holds in low regard? Maybe because he doesn't want to waste his time in the presence of someone he despises? His time, his own choice of how to spend it?
Just like VD doesn't want to spend his time debating Pharyngula commenters?
Just like you don't want to spend your time debating Pharyngula commenters, but would rather keep asking the same genuinely dumb question, rather like a whining mosquito buzzing around, except you suck time rather than blood.
Shoo, or you may be swatted.
May the Extenze target market bother us no more.
You just answered your own question again: PZ was willing, at that time, to go to extremes to defend evolutionary biology against the lies of "ID"iots.
And what happened since then is that he had a radio debate (see http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/sorry_vox_i_dont_debate_craz… ), and they went and gave the IDiot time on the show to spew his lies without rebuttal. Which made him cynical and suspicious of all radio debates.
VD wants to argue something PZ has far less interest in in the first place. And PZ finds VD repulsive.
Why should he debate?
And I am confident in the fact that you and VD are really afraid of engaging Pharyngula commenters.
Isn't it nice that we all have such low opinions of each other?
VD can go and debate himself.
That doesn't answer the question, that is just reasoning as to why he wants to debate. Why can't he just put up his proof for God on a website? Why can't he just tell the world that God exists and show how? Why does he need a dialogue with PZ or anyone in order to do so?
It's because it's not about being right, it's about winning. The existence of God doesn't depend in the slightest on the outcome of a debate, God either exists or doesn't and no amount of back and forth rhetoric is going to change that. This is why people mock the debate challenge, it's meaningless and deflects the issue. If Mr. Day truly has something that shows the existence of God, then surely he doesn't need Mr. Myers to debate that. If he can't do that, then he's just another intellectual coward.
Debates are the worst way to exchange information, it's just a battery of opinion where one hopes to beat the other into the ground using rhetoric. Why not lay the argument out where it can be considered and analysed?
Come on Mr. Day, best argument for the existence of God... bring it to the table.
Mr Day, are you there? I'd really like to hear that argument now.
I have no problem with a link in one's screen name that points back to a blog or site