Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[luchog]

Note that luchog's post is completely without citation, despite making repeated factual claims. So my response to requests for citation are going to be, you first.

You made the initial claims, which you failed to support. I simply responded to your claims. Since the initial claims were yours, the burden is on you to provide evidence to support your claims, not mine to provide evidence to refute unsupported claims. If and when you provide supporting evidence, I will, if necessary, provide contrary evidence. Until then, "Claims that can be made without evidence, can be refuted without evidence."

That said, every claim I've made has been well supported by evidence posted by others earlier in the thread. Before you go all self-righteously demanding that others do their homework, see that you do yours, or you make yourself a hypocrite.

As an aside, the "dashist" language I'm referring to from the APlussers is the constant use of sexual and anatomical references to denigrate opponents, while at the same time stridently insisting that others daring to use similar sexual and anatomical references is evidence of "rape culture", and anyone use them is a "rape apologist". The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4422&start=25#p78237


I like how that was delivered without a hint of irony. (With respect to the amount of jargon they require people to learn before participating.)

That was my first thought as well!

Clearly I'm a Banned member...

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

qmartindale is doing an excellent job on negative utilitarianism in a thread that Hamilton was in, even after ceepolk's threats to normal philosophical arguments:

so i kinda don't think going straight to death is a reasonable solution. in fact, I think it's kinda wanky, in a "playing devil's advocate with your basic humanity" kind of a way. I need to make sure you know about that, because I *am* getting irritated with these responses and that's why, and i'm hoping there's a way for me to keep the patience that I *usually* don't have for philosophy.

Linky.

I don't like imaginary hypothetical thought games to illustrate points. can you come up with an example where you don't control all the variables?

Linky.

And ApostateltsopA:

This is an interesting conversation. I'm not an organ doaner. I have deliberately chosen not to because that is a choice I want to make when I am sure I am done with my body, and not a choice I want to leave open to someone who has three patients he can save if he lets me go. It's absolutely selfish, but it's also my existence and I'm not willing to give the choice of ending my time to anyone else.

You know that a myth, right?

 

[Humes fork]

I know, it's worthy of The Onion. It was hard to google for the quote so I was worried that ceepolk had come to her senses and deleted it, but there it remains. Her "no, no, no, don't look at brown peoples' religion" makes me wonder if she actually follows one she doesn't want examined. The quote was brought up here before, and it was pointed out that Christianity, AFAIK, started as a brown people's religion. Correct me if I'm wrong.

However, I really don't think religions should be judged by the skin colors of their originators or adherents.

Right. The Earth was not created in six days even if a brown person says so.

I wonder what they would this of the below tweet, retweeted by Dawkins. I mean, brown people are doing it. How dare those white bigots criticize it? Have the whales asked for not being hunted?

"It's time we took on the Japanese on the matter of their killing of dolphins and whales. It's unacceptable to hunt these sentient beings."

 

[squealpiggy]

Oh my....

Used Hamilton was banned last night by global moderator ceepolk with the following explanation.



Then global moderator Flewellen hits it out of irony park and completely dehumanizes Hamilton with the following comment.




Thread

SJWs....demanding so much but delivering so little.

Such a bizarre thread anyway. "I am just starting an introductory Economics course. Can anyone recommend something in economics from a feminist perspective?"

How about you go to your course and listen to your tutors and maybe explore a feminist perspective once you know the basics?

Unless she (zzzkreeee?) wants to be the person in the class who interjects with unwanted exposition about women being oppressed ACTUALLY every time the lecturer takes a breath.

 

[Humes fork]

Such a bizarre thread anyway. "I am just starting an introductory Economics course. Can anyone recommend something in economics from a feminist perspective?"

How about you go to your course and listen to your tutors and maybe explore a feminist perspective once you know the basics?

Unless she (zzzkreeee?) wants to be the person in the class who interjects with unwanted exposition about women being oppressed ACTUALLY every time the lecturer takes a breath.

Or how about learning about the subject without looking for ideological blinders?

 

[squealpiggy]

Or how about learning about the subject without looking for ideological blinders?

I think that exploring the subject from the point of view of a feminist (or a socialist, or an ethnic minority, or a comic book fan) is a fine goal, certainly something to look at for your undergraduate dissertation.

But the introductory or 101 courses are intended to teach the basics. They are for learning how to study the subject. Trying to get a perspective that confirms your biases before you even enter the course is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Diogenes]

...Trying to get a perspective that confirms your biases before you even enter the course is putting the cart before the horse.

I shudder to think what Feminist Biology 101 would look like.

 

[squealpiggy]

Picture after picture of cell organelles each with the caption of "This. Just... this."

 

[Humes fork]

I shudder to think what Feminist Biology 101 would look like.

It's a fallacious concept. Liberal Biology, Conservative Biology, Libertarian Biology, Anarchist Biology, Communist Biology, Fascist Biology... it's a mistake to trapping the study of something onto an ideology.

Speaking of ideology, a common complaint from the plussers seem to be that there are so many skeptics who are libertarians, someone (I think a commenter on McCreight's blog) even claimed that a skeptic is a libertarian who doesn't believe in Bigfoot.

I must be doing something wrong, because I don't see those armies of libertarian skeptics. I'm familiar with a few skeptic/atheist forums (and no, the aplus forum is not a skeptical forum) and the majority tends to be liberally inclined. You can typically find a few libertarians, but they are far from being the majority.

Perhaps they get this impression from that a few big names (Shermer, Jillette) are libertarians, but they are obviously in a minority position. A less kind interpretation of this phenomenon is that the plussers are so insecure in their political viewpoints that the existence of any single libertarian is too many libertarians.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Most social sciences can be studied from a view point, but it's a factor of how you look at the facts. Most hard sciences no.

 

[s_pepys]

thunderf00ts reply to carrier and meyers articles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ69BhfiC6g

 

[adamwho]

thunderf00ts reply to carrier and meyers articles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ69BhfiC6g

Some of the true believers are coming out to ironically denounce an atheism+ critic as being narcissistic?

 

[Quinn]

Speaking of ideology, a common complaint from the plussers seem to be that there are so many skeptics who are libertarians, someone (I think a commenter on McCreight's blog) even claimed that a skeptic is a libertarian who doesn't believe in Bigfoot.

I must be doing something wrong, because I don't see those armies of libertarian skeptics.

I think you'll find an answer if you recalibrate your definition of "libertarian" to mean "anyone to the right of the average U.C. Berkley Gender Studies major."

 

[Mr. Scott]

thunderf00ts reply to carrier and meyers articles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ69BhfiC6g

That's neat, and I'm reminded that the A+ logo looks like a pro-theism logo. That it was created and approved by them gives testament to their lack of competent leadership.

 

[Humes fork]

I think you'll find an answer if you recalibrate your definition of "libertarian" to mean "anyone to the right of the average U.C. Berkley Gender Studies major."

Oh, that explains it. Thanks!

 

[Stout]

Oh, that explains it. Thanks!

There's also the assumption that extremists make that posits anybody opposed to your philosophy is automatically just as extremist as them but in the opposite direction. See feminists and their complaints about MRAs for a further example of this. One can be opposed to femininism's more ridiculous assertions yet not even know what the letters MRA stand for.

As to A+ being not a skeptics forum, I wholly agree. Check out this conspiracy theory hatched by ceepolk and the Aplussers lapping it up

And I think that's why a lot of young women say things like "I don't really get along with a lot of women because I'm so different from most women," which is fantastic for the patriarchy. Using media to alienate women from each other keeps them much more isolated and without the support of other women, which makes them much more useable for the benefit of men.

Thread

So much for those lived experiences with real people it's all about the fictional characters now

 

[Stout]

Uh oh..

We have socialjusticewarriorspeak fail.

In a thread with one of the most bigoted titles I've ever seen global moderator submor declares bigotry can't be eliminated without government intervention.

So do you believe that bigotry could be more quickly eliminated from the social fabric without government intervention?

(I don't believe it's even possible without it, but let's just start with that question.)

That's racism, that's sexism there submor. Remember those sociological definitions ? What's next, do I have to start reading the SJW playbook to this guy ?

So we have bigots demanding somebody else end their bigotry for them.

 

[s_pepys]

there is just no pleasing rebecca watson.

http://skepchick.org/2013/04/an-open-letter-to-secular-community-leaders/

she is so damn divisive! all the time!

 

[ApostateltsopA]

You made the initial claims, which you failed to support. I simply responded to your claims. Since the initial claims were yours, the burden is on you to provide evidence to support your claims, not mine to provide evidence to refute unsupported claims. If and when you provide supporting evidence, I will, if necessary, provide contrary evidence. Until then, "Claims that can be made without evidence, can be refuted without evidence."

I responded to your post.

That said, every claim I've made has been well supported by evidence posted by others earlier in the thread. Before you go all self-righteously demanding that others do their homework, see that you do yours, or you make yourself a hypocrite.

No it hasn't. See how easily I refuted that unevidenced claim?

As an aside, the "dashist" language I'm referring to from the APlussers is the constant use of sexual and anatomical references to denigrate opponents, while at the same time stridently insisting that others daring to use similar sexual and anatomical references is evidence of "rape culture", and anyone use them is a "rape apologist". The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

I disagree, however since you didn't respond to any of my points, except to claim some kind of high road that allows you to post whatever you like unevidenced, I am now going to disregard you.

Personally I'm quite willing to have a discussion on nearly any topic however I'm not going to play google-fu with you and a quote factory. However all I have seen from you is unevidenced claims and hyperbole. I don't see any reason in any of your posts to take you at all seriously.