blobru
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 6,900

if one were to eat a peta member is that considered veganism?
Not sure. I know killing one is referred to as pesticide.
Last edited:
if one were to eat a peta member is that considered veganism?
Not sure. I know killing one is referred to as pesticide.
I always figured there was some way but never went looking. Thanks, although it eliminates one excuse I had for writing something despite a complete absence of knowledge or evidence on the subject. I don't think this will stop me though, I will just need to find another excuse.
No worries; I sometimes make a post without saying much rather than just subscribing; in some cases that seems the better option, maybe to let people know that you're interested. But it's nice to have the choice.
Maybe the JREF wasn't nutty enough? Or she caught Randi eating a baloney sandwich.
.We've had enough racism, if you don't mind. Or even if you do mind.
We've had enough racism, if you don't mind. Or even if you do mind.
Well she's still listed on the JREF site staff list with her email & phone contact etc
Perhaps they need a Director of Communications so someone can direct a new communication to update the page.
I would think that whatever Carrie's reason for resigning, it would be private.
Indeed. Stating publicly that you are taking an action "in protest" causes people to naturally question your reasons. But didn't she delete that tweet?In which case she should have just said in her twitter "resigned from JREF" and nothing more. A potential employer sees that and they might think she might bad mouth THEM.
Indeed. Stating publicly that you are taking an action "in protest" causes people to naturally question your reasons. But didn't she delete that tweet?
So she wants everyone to know that she resigned in protest, but doesn't want to air dirty laundry by going into details. Fair enough.She no longer mentions JREF in the tweet but the words resigned and protest are still there. Or rather here https://twitter.com/CarriePoppyYES/status/273502255708250112
So she wants everyone to know that she resigned in protest, but doesn't want to air dirty laundry by going into details. Fair enough.
It is, a little, yes. But speculating about her motives will do more to mislead and little to enlighten. She protested, which means that she was not happy with something. We know that the JREF has some... shall we say "management issues" right now. I'm content with knowing as much as I know now - I don't think we'll learn much more from the source. Anything else is just gossip.If you don't let others know what the reason is, does it do any good to resign in protest? It would be like hanging around in from of Coca-Cola and telling people you're protesting against Coca-Cola, but then not telling them why.
But speculating about her motives will do more to mislead and little to enlighten.
I used to work with someone who talked about mission creep. My response was "You're a mission creep."
Poppy: if our goal isn't to end suffering, achieve social justice, then what *is* our goal?
TB, you're inferring an awful lot from very, very little.
Carrie: Have to ally yourself with social justice movements — that’s the goal. Goal is to promote happiness and end suffering. It’s inherent in any movement to trend toward social justice. Not popular opinion, but interfaith work is a great place to ally ourselves. Grew up a believer, and there was a stepping down process involving becoming a liberal religious person. Liberal religious friends were important allies. Wise to ally with the liberal religious. Downsides – very hard to get people to listen to you when you’re proving more than one point at a time. Good to think about what you have in common. As far as mission creep goes, I used to work with someone whose name I won’t say (HAH!) who would often talk about mission creep and my response was “YOU’RE a mission creep!” *uproar*
Do you have a more logical conclusion to reach from the information? I think my logic is sound, although I agree that the amount of information Ms. Poppy provided for her "protest" action in quitting was laughably minuscule.
A source this weekend told me it was because they wanted her to sign a non-disclosure agreement, and she balked. Seems odd. Those are pretty standard these days.
A source this weekend told me it was because they wanted her to sign a non-disclosure agreement, and she balked. Seems odd. Those are pretty standard these days.
For non profit where no tech or patent is involvved ? That would be odd and creepy.
For non profit where no tech or patent is involvved ? That would be odd and creepy.
Carrie Poppy "tells all" to PZ
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/07/carrie-poppy-tells-all/
As this is a skeptical forum for an organization that promotes skepticism, allow me to respond:It appears to me that the JREF has been criticized quite a bit for their failure to participate in as much drama as feminists would like to have created.
Meh. Sorry, not interested. I'm quite comfortable with The JREF declining to become a feminist mouthpiece every time some guy decides to do some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate. I'm all for treating women appropriately, but trying to play power publicity games with these situations is disgusting. The second I get the impression that feminism is one of JREF's purposes for existing, I will no longer be interested in supporting it. The way I see it, most feminists don't want equal treatment for women. They want superior treatment. They are more anti-man than pro-woman nowadays.
As this is a skeptical forum for an organization that promotes skepticism, allow me to respond:
1) It is fair and reasonable to be skeptical of the claims being made about inappropriate behavior; but it is also fair and reasonable to be skeptical of claims of innocence. You do not (so far as I'm aware) know any of the actual details of the events in question...yet you are more than ready to conclude that they are just "some guy deciding to do some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate". If it's a case that the guy just hit on her, I might agree; but if it's a case that he was drunkenly groping her, then I'd very much disagree. I don't know what happened. Neither, so far as I can tell, do you. It is rather telling about your own perspective that you simply seem to assume that the actions in question were minor and not worthy of complaint or action.
(...)
2) There are lots of guys out there who feel that grabbing a woman's ass, or making blatantly sexual overtures, fall within the range of "some random thing that some woman finds inappropriate". So for the sake of rational debate/discussion, could you please actually define where you'd draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior?
3) This should go without saying, but your apparent attempt to lump all feminists together, based on the actions of a few, are rather lacking in skeptical foundation, also. There are quite a few feminists who take issue with and disagree with some of the more 'radical' voices within the feminist movement.
4) Feminism belongs firmly within the purview of the JREF's mission, where feminist issues coincide with skeptical issues. If feminist issues that had nothing to do with skepticism were to become a focus of the JREF, then you might have a point...but considering that I don't see this happening at all, this seems to be a pure straw man argument.
5) There is no doubt whatsoever that the "skeptical movement" in North America is still a predominantly white male's movement. Go to any skeptical conference, or check out the membership of the JREF forums, and you'll find that the ratio of male to female is grossly skewed. And representation of non-whites is even more grossly skewed. It would seem to me to be incumbent upon any organization dedicated to skepticism to take a skeptical look at why these numbers are so disproportional, and to take action to address them.
3) This should go without saying, but your apparent attempt to lump all feminists together, based on the actions of a few, are rather lacking in skeptical foundation, also. There are quite a few feminists who take issue with and disagree with some of the more 'radical' voices within the feminist movement.
Call it a stereotype if you want, but women are more concerned with how they feel about things than the question of whether something is actually true or not... as compared to men, anyway.
Can you show that that is true? Or is it good enough for you that it feels true?
It's quite readily observable in the media they tend to consume.
If you want a study I'm quite sure that there's a few out there (and this notion probably came from an actual source at some point), but you can probably google it a bit easier than I can. I'm also pretty sure that the verbal vs spacial difference in the sexes has been publicized often enough to be common knowledge. It is only a small jump from there.
But yeah... the statement seemed obvious to me
Feel free to actively and honestly disagree with it, rather than role playing your "I'm an in-group personality on a skeptical forum" song and dance. Perhaps then we could actually have an honest conversation.
Not definitively, no. I'm not even sure if that's the correct way to say it. Perhaps a better assessment would be that they are more interested in questions of unquantifiable social relationships (does he really love you? Take our survey and find out!) than they are of observable facts and material challenges (Is it possible to kill an elephant with a firecracker?). Again, relatively speaking, and without applying general trends to individuals.None of that seems solid enough to say that women are more likely than men to be concerned with feelings over facts.
Yeah...I don't think I'm in any in groups around JREF. Just a single person pointing out (honestly, BTW) a comment that I thought you might want to think about a little bit more. Questioning our assumptions is a good thing, right?
Not definitively, no. I'm not even sure if that's the correct way to say it. Perhaps a better assessment would be that they are more interested in questions of unquantifiable social relationships (does he really love you? Take our survey and find out!) than they are of observable facts and material challenges (Is it possible to kill an elephant with a firecracker?). Again, relatively speaking, and without applying general trends to individuals.
I suspect that few readers will have difficulty identifying which sex will be more likely to be interested in each example given.
To the final question: absolutely! I do it all the time. However, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." (Freud)