Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
So I've joined FTBs. We'll see how long it takes my attempts to be reasonable to be noticed. I think I've been pretty reasonable so far, but I am drawing some flies.
Click to expand...

I'm putting ten dollars on 48 hours after your first comment before you're banned. This betting pool is now OPEN! Only whole numbers of hours allowed. ;)
 
Lorentz said:
I'm putting ten dollars on 48 hours after your first comment before you're banned. This betting pool is now OPEN! Only whole numbers of hours allowed. ;)
Click to expand...

When you go over to comment on one of PeeZee's posts and get called a "cupcake" with added foul-mouthed vitriol by a certain person , then you know you have both arrived and are on the way out, as the others pile in.
 
Rrose Selavy said:
When you go over to comment on one of PeeZee's posts and get called a "cupcake" with added foul-mouthed vitriol by a certain person , then you know you have both arrived and are on the way out, as the others pile in.
Click to expand...

A few years ago I'd often read Pharyngula, but even then I'd steer well clear of the comments. Those were - and probably still are - so toxic and bereft of reason, that in more than a few instances they made me feel physically nauseous.
 
Lorentz said:
A few years ago I'd often read Pharyngula, but even then I'd steer well clear of the comments. Those were - and probably still are - so toxic and bereft of reason, that in more than a few instances they made me feel physically nauseous.
Click to expand...

Some of the locker rooms I've been in would probably kill you outright.:boxedin::duck:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Help, I need a translation:

The exchange starts with post 103.

:confused:
Click to expand...

Revolution in the revolution. He's comparing the feminist battle with the French Revolution and saying that he'll stand behind the barricades over on the other side with his comrades and you should stand over here with yours. Or, as kellyb put it, you've got social justice cooties. No one criticizes The Watson or The Myers on FTB comments! It's just not done.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
We have three threads overlapping this latest kerfuffle.

PZ's grenade.
Click to expand...

WOW. Just when I thought PZ couldn't go any lower! Are we just supposed to believe this because PZ is such a reliable source of information? Or maybe it's his unbeatable ethics! I couldn't even finish reading the article, I was so disgusted. What was it Chris Hitchens said? "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Trolling people is one thing. Acccusing somebody of rape is a whole other ballgame, and you shouldn't do it unless you are damn sure! WTF. Is there nothing these people won't stoop to?!?
 
Dissolution said:
What's an innocent person supposed to do if they've been falsely accused, in that situation?
Click to expand...

Speak, don't silence. A defamation suit is not the proper response to someone who may be honestly mistaken or have a difference of opinion. It is only the proper response to someone who is maliciously lying about you and thereby materially damaging your reputation. Threatening to sue somebody is often used to shut that person up without regard to whether a statement actually comes close to defamation.

Foolmewunz said:
I was watching the thread, having no idea that someone would pull an Anti-Godwin (the first person who nails someone for comparing a hangnail to the Holocaust or Hiroshima WINS) and I honestly reckoned it had come time for them to take Serene down
Click to expand...

I don't perceive FrogSaga as trying to WIN the thread, nor was I, which was why I placed my comment in hidden-text and labeled it a derail.

squealpiggy said:
None of these things are in any way viable legal excuses for rape. If rape culture as defined existed then these things may be considered legal grounds for exoneration.
Click to expand...

Requiring a de jure defense seems like an unreasonable standard for me in the context of de facto barriers to prosecution. If police won't investigate, prosecutors won't file charges or juries won't convict, the lack of actual statutory language is irrelevant.
 
qwints said:
Speak, don't silence. A defamation suit is not the proper response to someone who may be honestly mistaken or have a difference of opinion.
Click to expand...

It is the proper response to someone defaming you.

Requiring a de jure defense seems like an unreasonable standard for me in the context of de facto barriers to prosecution. If police won't investigate, prosecutors won't file charges or juries won't convict, the lack of actual statutory language is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Police do investigate rape cases, prosecutors do file charges and juries do convict. On the other hand police generally do not investigate bicycle thefts. They take reports but they don't really do anything to catch a thief of a single bicycle.

Does this mean we live in a bicycle theft culture?
 
Foolmewunz said:
Turnabout is fair play.
Click to expand...

One line struck my funny bone:
I really wonder what will happen to JREF when Randi dies. How much control does he exert over the organization? How much of its libertarian philosophy is Randi's own?
Click to expand...

You're all libertarians? I'm shocked how well most of you have been able to hide this from me up to this point!
 
Dissolution said:
Just going over that thread again and I can't help but notice the bizarre logic going on there.
Apparently Schermer's a scumbag for hiring a lawyer to defend himself against rape allegations.
What's an innocent person supposed to do if they've been falsely accused, in that situation?

I'm not saying that he is innocent, by the way. I have no idea, either way.
Click to expand...

As a man he can't possibly be innocent. So no problem there. Because privilege.
 
qwints said:
Speak, don't silence. A defamation suit is not the proper response to someone who may be honestly mistaken or have a difference of opinion. It is only the proper response to someone who is maliciously lying about you and thereby materially damaging your reputation. Threatening to sue somebody is often used to shut that person up without regard to whether a statement actually comes close to defamation.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised that he wants to shut up people making third-hand accusations from anonymous victims of his supposedly predatory sexual advances.
Being lumped in with people that are being accused of rape is just an extra reason to take it in that direction.

How can he speak out against unidentified accusers? It's going to carry absolutely no weight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom