Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Empress said:
That thread is full of the "hugs if you want them" and "hugs if they're welcome" posts that are so common at A+. You have some people that are so well-off that their biggest problem is having to do laundry after international travel, and other people that are apparently so damaged that cyber hugs can cause such severe emotional harm that they have to be offered conditionally. It amazes me that these people have the ability to open the door and walk out of their homes.
Click to expand...

Just remember that over there hugs are serious business.

brodski said:
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.
Click to expand...

I doubt that it'll be as crazy as when Thunderf00t joined.
 
Empress said:
That thread is full of the "hugs if you want them" and "hugs if they're welcome" posts that are so common at A+. You have some people that are so well-off that their biggest problem is having to do laundry after international travel, and other people that are apparently so damaged that cyber hugs can cause such severe emotional harm that they have to be offered conditionally. It amazes me that these people have the ability to open the door and walk out of their homes.
Click to expand...

Yeah I noticed that on A+ as well, wondering why everybody added the conditional qualifier. While there, it was also implied to me that sending an unsolicitied pm is likened to the terror of a guy asking a girl to step outside for a talk in private (which, apparently, was understood by everyone there). :eye-poppi

Smells like Clone-Spirit.

I felt like I was in an asylum of sorts, talking to very unstable and angry patients where I found myself always at odds on how not to set them off into lunacy.
 
Last edited:
brodski said:
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.
Click to expand...

So far I'm liking this guy :)
 
Jono said:
I've often heard bisexuals use variants of the above as if the attraction they experience for someone else is somehow less physical than it is for heterosexuals. As I see it, the attraction felt for someone is just as much based on gender for the former as it is for the latter, it's just that a bisexual's field-of-scope is not based on just one gender but two.
Click to expand...

I can't say I understood that statement to mean anything other than "I'm more evolved that you" or something to that effect. Sure I can understand the doubling your chances for a date on Saturday night but the idea that the attraction is somehow more noble? Awwww come on.
 
Stout said:
I can't say I understood that statement to mean anything other than "I'm more evolved that you" or something to that effect. Sure I can understand the doubling your chances for a date on Saturday night but the idea that the attraction is somehow more noble? Awwww come on.
Click to expand...

It's because heterosexual and gay people are, in their own small way, prejudiced. Don't fancy women? Bigot! Me? I fancy everybody! Therefore I art more liberal than thou. Kneel, scum.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It's because heterosexual and gay people are, in their own small way, prejudiced. Don't fancy women? Bigot! Me? I fancy everybody! Therefore I art more liberal than thou. Kneel, scum.
Click to expand...
You jest sir, but arguments like this support the core of my thesis that 4chan is among the most effective tools for social tolerance in the world today (though all parties involved will vehemently deny this). Simply put, once you truly comprehend the imagination-defying spectrum of things that people will voluntarily choose to get off to, normal sexual "deviancy" sounds like so much AM vs FM hair-pulling.
 
lol kudos B-bud. It is truly bizarre. And to think it all stems from the ultimate driving force of our DNA; replication. Guess it fits in with sending millions of sperm cells when only one is required. Many dead ends. :boggled:
 
Oh hai, looks like Peezus has found another way to resurrect one of this Two Minute Hate targets, Justin Vacula:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/05/15/i-think-we-call-that-an-own-goal/#comments

It was based on this article from the Houston Chronicle which appears to be a religious blogger's take on women in the atheist movement. But for PZ he'll use a religious blogger as an ally in his fight against an atheist Nonperson. The post referenced in the Chronicle is from Vacula on Skepticink and is this one.

They are banging on about this quote:

"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.
 
Empress said:
That was absolutely disgusting. Just when I think he's hit rock bottom, Myers burrows into the bedrock and sinks lower and lower.
Click to expand...

What do you expect? Myers has put all his eggs in the A+ basket. If he didn't regularly make up lies to fire up the A+ drones, he would be completely irrelevant to the world.

He's Alex Jones with a beard.
 
squealpiggy said:
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.
Click to expand...

This was the first time I've read the given quote (and context). I immediately took it to mean exactly how you put it. Myers brain comes, increasingly, across as a Jekyll (the good scientist) and Hyde (the numbskull radical zealot) kind of organ.
 
Last edited:
squealpiggy said:
Oh hai, looks like Peezus has found another way to resurrect one of this Two Minute Hate targets, Justin Vacula:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/05/15/i-think-we-call-that-an-own-goal/#comments

It was based on this article from the Houston Chronicle which appears to be a religious blogger's take on women in the atheist movement. But for PZ he'll use a religious blogger as an ally in his fight against an atheist Nonperson. The post referenced in the Chronicle is from Vacula on Skepticink and is this one.

They are banging on about this quote:

"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.
Click to expand...

Do you think women exist to serve men?

I ask because you seem to be defending that quote.
 
theprestige said:
Do you think there's a logical connection between atheism and gender equality?

I ask because you seem to be attacking that quote.
Click to expand...

I think equality in general should be the default position. JV seems to think that just because he's abandoned a god belief he doesn't have to give up the god commands.

Removing the god belief takes away one more reason to favor inequality.

Do you think woman exists to serve man?
 
tsig said:
I think equality in general should be the default position. JV seems to think that just because he's abandoned a god belief he doesn't have to give up the god commands.

Removing the god belief takes away one more reason to favor inequality.

Do you think woman exists to serve man?
Click to expand...

That straw man didn't stand a chance. Nice work!
 
tsig said:
I think equality in general should be the default position. JV seems to think that just because he's abandoned a god belief he doesn't have to give up the god commands.

Removing the god belief takes away one more reason to favor inequality.

Do you think woman exists to serve man?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure religions provide excuses and "reasons" for bigotry, but are not the core causes in and of themselves (especially if you believe men create gods in their own images.)

Lot's of atheist scientists used to be incredibly racist and sexist. They wrapped it in science (bad, bad science we'd call pseudoscience today, but still), and it's one of the reasons some feminists distrust all evo psyche to this day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom