Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Netherlands. Visit Amsterdam sometime. You might enjoy the lack of freedom. ;)
Thanks. Been there, done that.

p.s. Taking your last paragraph into account I still have no idea what guns have to do with anything. Police, I could imagine being relevant, if PZ and co turned out to be secret genocidal maniacs (which I do not for one second believe).
I agree PZ etal will not become a group to be concerned about. It's some future group with an effective leader that concerns me as a top-of-the-list elderly cis-gender social-conservative white male. I'd like to take a few of whoever shows up -- police, DHS, nat.guard, etc -- with me to death. I'd also like that group to be uncertain as to the guns they might be facing in any given residence.

Just because your not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. ymmv.
 
...It's some future group with an effective leader that concerns me as a top-of-the-list elderly cis-gender social-conservative white male. I'd like to take a few of whoever shows up -- police, DHS, nat.guard, etc -- with me to death...

Is there a joke here I'm missing?
 
Is there a joke here I'm missing?

Seems he's really worried about some group that's yet to be formed that will follow some agenda yet to be named that for reasons yet to be stated will come to his house en mass do actions unknown. His fondest hope is to die with his gun in his hand surrounded by bodies of dead enemies.

No paranoia here folks, move along.
 
Yeah, that's what it looks like, just extending that last psuedopod of the benefit of doubt just in case there's a vague, not really funny joke in that.
 
It would appear that there was a bit of excitement at the WiS2 conference this weekend, most notably with the CEO of CFI Ron Lindasy's opening speech. The analysis is still ongoing over at Skeptchick, The Slymepit, FtB and CFI's site and so far the funniest thing to come out of the whole affair is Submor's post over at A+ where he tries to make it all about him.

Next up we have The Roman who, over at A+, boasts about his wishes that people with a different political outlook than his be wiped off the face of the earth. I'll quote because, we all know how they like to edit.

So a couple of days ago one of my acquaintances added me to this facebook group... called Left vs Right... and... now I think I'm close to genocidal in my outlook on political opposition. I know that can't be healthy.

and

Me oh this is *********** stupid, I'm not going to waste my time with angry white boys. Just remember you are racist homophobic hicks, and I really hope you all die horribly somehow. Now I'm going to have a beer and finish watching inglorious bastards, bye...

Then he follows up with this....

Its really not easy. To a certain extent I feel obligated to say something when I see horrific things like that said. I mean wasn't this organization founded because similar comments were occurring on atheist websites?

So it would appear that to GaiusIuliusTaberna sexist jokes and homophobic trolling is somehow way worse than expressing a desire to commit genocide and telling people he wishes they'd die horribly.

No wonder left wingers wear masks to protests. Try as they may to hide the real face(s) of their ideology, quite often that face is revealed to be far uglier than the visible face of the institution they're in opposition to.
 
Seems he's really worried about some group that's yet to be formed that will follow some agenda yet to be named that for reasons yet to be stated will come to his house en mass do actions unknown. His fondest hope is to die with his gun in his hand surrounded by bodies of dead enemies.

No paranoia here folks, move along.
Some here don't pay attention to events.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...-government/0NVX3NAI5nEmUguKhp5Q0J/story.html

The most profound recent change, however, has been our current era’s rapidly advancing technology. Government now has the technological tools at hand to know far more about the details of citizens’ lives than ever before. If officials wanted to, they could use surveillance cameras to follow every one of us around through almost every moment of our lives. If they wanted to, they could use electronic eavesdropping to track every web search, text, social post, or phone call we make.

We’ve comforted ourselves in all of this with the belief that, while government might potentially have all of this power, it would rarely use it or that, when it did, its use would be well-intentioned and circumscribed. Plus we had rules and systems to stop any abuse: The Bill of Rights, the due process clause, oversight by the media and courts, the two-party system, and strong procedural requirements.

What the Benghazi-IRS-AP scandals suggest — and what victims of drone strikes and people such as Aaron Swartz might testify — is that these protections are inadequate. Rules can be bent or ignored, people are venal, and in the pursuit of what government officials think are good ends, any means become acceptable. Power, as the saying goes, corrupts, and absolute power — and surely, we’re getting close to that point, aren’t we? — corrupts absolutely.

The trio of current scandals has already caused heads to roll and, doubtless, more will. More broadly, they may also cause people to rethink the intrusiveness of government in their everyday lives.

IMO, SJWs are formulating the perfect society which will require force to emplace. But go ahead pretending all is well.
 
...
IMO, SJWs are formulating the perfect society which will require force to emplace. But go ahead pretending all is well.

Not when they spend so much time marginalizing themselves and specifically working to keep other people out of their pity-party.

You really consider the opinion you linked to be a coherent and reasonable piece?

Edit: NM I read your sig.
 
Last edited:
No wonder left wingers wear masks to protests. Try as they may to hide the real face(s) of their ideology, quite often that face is revealed to be far uglier than the visible face of the institution they're in opposition to.

Left wingers wear masks to protests? That's certainly news to me. Can you point to some examples?

Furthermore, I don't think you should conflate SJWs with "left wingers". I'm a left winger, by North American standards, simply by dint of not having a politically extreme position here either way.
 
I've been readdy Ally Fogg for a long time, and I'm a bit of a fan- he may not be a scientist but he is a fan of evidence based politics and ripping apart bad stats used in social and political debates (even, or perhaps especially, if it's from the side he agrees with). Ally Fogg is certainly not an advocate of "radical feminism", which is partly why I think his experiences at FTB may be interesting.

Oh crap! Will I now, due to disagreement, be declared a persona non-grata at this forum?

;)
 
"I fail to see how refusing to believe in God leads to the ‘logical conclusion’ of abandoning the belief that women exist to serve men."

Oh so that Justin Vacula thinks that women exist to serve men, does he!? SLYMEPIT HATRED RAAAAH!

The article makes the point that belief in gods does not necessarily have anything to do with positions on the status of women and that there are other secular and cultural reasons that people may cling to misogynist ideas about the status of women beyond "but the bible says so".

But no, Myers takes the quote out of context and his parrots run with it. Because that's what Free Thought is all about.

Well actually your worldview does impact on how you approach these issues, though it's more in an indirect way.

Take a read at Marriage and Fundamental Physics. Even though it's about gay marriage rather than women's rights, it's about the same basic point: Your worldview affects how you approach these issues.
 
Oh crap! Will I now, due to disagreement, be declared a persona non-grata at this forum?

;)

Yes. Could you please save time by placing all of your posts in spoiler tags yourself? Our mod overlords are overworked as it is.
 
No wonder left wingers wear masks to protests. Try as they may to hide the real face(s) of their ideology, quite often that face is revealed to be far uglier than the visible face of the institution they're in opposition to.

So, that's the face you want to put to your enemy? "Left wingers"?
 
Furthermore, I don't think you should conflate SJWs with "left wingers". I'm a left winger, by North American standards, simply by dint of not having a politically extreme position here either way.

Well, in the US, you're a crazy, left-wing extremist if you think that everybody should have health care.
 
Well actually your worldview does impact on how you approach these issues, though it's more in an indirect way.

Take a read at Marriage and Fundamental Physics. Even though it's about gay marriage rather than women's rights, it's about the same basic point: Your worldview affects how you approach these issues.

I don't think that anybody's arguing that being an atheist has NO effect on other beliefs, but that effect is hard to quantify. Certainly, FTB should be learning that atheism does not inevitably lead to social justice, for the simple fact that they keep running into atheists who disagree with many of the social justice arguments. You could be an atheist, but still believe that women are inferior to men based on, say, pseudoscientific reasons. (See some of the worst of evolutionary psychology, for instance.) Or, you could just have a bunch of prejudices about women, the same way that some people have a bunch of prejudices about a certain ethnic group. Just because you don't believe in gods, that doesn't automatically make you rational. In fact, I have met quite a few irrational atheists!

The point of the atheist movement, as I see it, is to gain recognition for atheism as a viable, ethical way of life, so that atheists can be treated like normal people and not pariahs. So that people will realize that while not all atheists are ethical, being an atheist does not preclude you from being ethical.

I'm sure that the gay movement has similar rifts. I'm sure that there are social justice warriors who put their feet down and say that they will not work with certain people due to political differences, and that those people should be drummed out of the movement. How do they handle it, I wonder?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom