Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[s_pepys]

The crazy thing is that she won the negotiation. He gave in to her demand that they have sex with a condom only. At that point, sex was spurious to her conquest. Her ego was satisfied.

She fulfilled her obligation to tell a dirty "godless perv" story that dissed a religion.

After watching a few other videos from skepticon 6 and looking at the listed titles of the talks and speakers. I can't help feeling rather depressed. Is this the future of skeptical conferences and meetings? I hope not.

One of the best presentations was pz on the Cambrian, surprisingly. For the most part it seems to be a mutual back slapping, personal anecdote based non event. Like. A+ has finally got their own conference.

For example , Greta Christina waffling about avoiding activist burnout was embarrassing. Wish hitch was still around to counter all this softball nonsense.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

After watching a few other videos from skepticon 6 and looking at the listed titles of the talks and speakers. I can't help feeling rather depressed. Is this the future of skeptical conferences and meetings? I hope not.

There's nothing I've ever seen or heard about from any sceptic event that has made me even remotely interested in attending one.

 

[Morchella]

You know that maybe condoms are not 100% effective for birth control but they are great for stopping transmission of HPV, HSV and lots of other STDs. The fact that the guy resisted using a condom when asked tells me he is a stupid dick and not worth the time. It's her body so if she decides to tell him to take a hike then that's OK with me and if you disagree then you are a misogynist POS.
I know it's just a few on this forum contributing to this thread but the continued whiney conversation only makes you all look ever more incorrigibly ignorant about women and human rights.
I see nothing wrong with the idea of A+. I like PZ from reading his blog. I can't slag a guy for being a feminist. There is nothing wrong with that either. A+ is only humanism for atheists who don't want to be bothered with all the other humanists who are spiritual and religious. It's just another term for secular humanism. PZ is right. You can't be a skeptic and religious at the same time. It's classic cognitive dissonance.
Rebecca was right, I get it. The guy in the elevator was being a creep. Why all the blowback. I only know Rebecca from listening to SGU. I like her contribution and enjoy her personality. All the vitriol directed towards her is just a bunch of guys having a hissy fit over nothing. Get a life.
This thread will have to go on without me for now. I doubt I killed it because incorrigible stupidity is human and the continuation of this thread proves it.

 

[s_pepys]

You know that maybe condoms are not 100% effective for birth control but they are great for stopping transmission of HPV, HSV and lots of other STDs. The fact that the guy resisted using a condom when asked tells me he is a stupid dick and not worth the time. It's her body so if she decides to tell him to take a hike then that's OK with me and if you disagree then you are a misogynist POS.
I know it's just a few on this forum contributing to this thread but the continued whiney conversation only makes you all look ever more incorrigibly ignorant about women and human rights.
I see nothing wrong with the idea of A+. I like PZ from reading his blog. I can't slag a guy for being a feminist. There is nothing wrong with that either. A+ is only humanism for atheists who don't want to be bothered with all the other humanists who are spiritual and religious. It's just another term for secular humanism. PZ is right. You can't be a skeptic and religious at the same time. It's classic cognitive dissonance.
Rebecca was right, I get it. The guy in the elevator was being a creep. Why all the blowback. I only know Rebecca from listening to SGU. I like her contribution and enjoy her personality. All the vitriol directed towards her is just a bunch of guys having a hissy fit over nothing. Get a life.
This thread will have to go on without me for now. I doubt I killed it because incorrigible stupidity is human and the continuation of this thread proves it.

As already stated above, in her own words he didn't resist wearing a condom he just wanted to know if she was on the pill for extra protection. You could explain why that is so bad and why it's even relevant to skepticism. Or you could carry on the a+ tradition of ad Homs, racism and never making a coherent argument as per your post. Bye then.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You know that maybe condoms are not 100% effective for birth control but they are great for stopping transmission of HPV, HSV and lots of other STDs.

They are. Not 100% effective, though.

The fact that the guy resisted using a condom when asked tells me he is a stupid dick and not worth the time.

You're right, which makes it even stranger that Watson was still prepared to have sex with him after his initial resistance. It's only after she's overcome his resistance and he agrees to wear a condom that she refuses to have sex with him.

It's her body so if she decides to tell him to take a hike then that's OK with me and if you disagree then you are a misogynist POS.

Of course it's her right to not have sex with someone. This particular story of her not having sex with someone, however, doesn't paint either of the people described in it in a particularly good light.

I know it's just a few on this forum contributing to this thread but the continued whiney conversation only makes you all look ever more incorrigibly ignorant about women and human rights.

Any examples in particular?

I see nothing wrong with the idea of A+.

Neither do I, other than that the two ideas it's supposed to be encompassing seem to have nothing in common. No, it's not the idea that's the problem, it's the execution.

I like PZ from reading his blog.

And that is your right.

I can't slag a guy for being a feminist.

Neither can I. I can, however, have a problem with people held up to be rational thinkers consistently saying irrational things.

A+ is only humanism for atheists who don't want to be bothered with all the other humanists who are spiritual and religious. It's just another term for secular humanism.

No it's not, it's a specific movement which is separate from secular humanism.

You can't be a skeptic and religious at the same time.

You can, however, be irreligious and lacking in critical thought and sceptical thinking at the same time.

The guy in the elevator was being a creep. Why all the blowback.

Stef McGraw.

I like her contribution and enjoy her personality.

Good for you.

All the vitriol directed towards her is just a bunch of guys having a hissy fit over nothing.

All of it? Not one single criticism of Watson has any merit? Not one single woman has criticised Watson?

If you only know Watson from SGU, then I'd suggest that you don't have enough context with which to make such a statement.

Get a life.

This is an insult, not an argument.

This thread will have to go on without me for now.

Of course, the rational thing to do would be to stay and defend your arguments, rather than insulting people and running away.

 

[Meed]

...snip...

*applauds*


Morchella, why not stick around? I would actually prefer to see more dissenting opinions in this thread. I've given some of my own, as have others.

 

[Dissolution]

Of course it's her right to not have sex with someone. This particular story of her not having sex with someone, however, doesn't paint either of the people described in it in a particularly good light.

What did the ex-Mormon do wrong, other than contemplate having sex with Watson?
Hang on, I retract the question.

 

[wareyin]

The fact that the guy resisted using a condom when asked tells me he is a stupid dick and not worth the time.

The fact that this is completely false tells me that this is an uninformed, angry rant. "Incorrigible stupidity", indeed.

 

[s_pepys]

The fact that this is completely false tells me that this is an uninformed, angry rant. "Incorrigible stupidity", indeed.

well put.

at no point did him wearing a condom come into question. or did i miss something?

 

[Humes fork]

dont know what that means but thanks. here is the link again hopefully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFKTekTUxo

So utterly stupid.

 

[Mr. Scott]

What did the ex-Mormon do wrong, other than contemplate having sex with Watson?
Hang on, I retract the question.

The ex-Mormon didn't always say "yes, Rebecca." That was his mistake.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The fact that this is completely false tells me that this is an uninformed, angry rant. "Incorrigible stupidity", indeed.

It's not completely false that he resisted. He was asked to wear a condom and, rather than saying yes, he asked whether she was on birth control. The correct thing to do is to put on a condom. In fact, the correct thing to do is to put on a condom without being asked. And to have brought your own.

This is very, very basic sex education that anybody who is sexually active should know.

 

[Humes fork]

You know that maybe condoms are not 100% effective for birth control but they are great for stopping transmission of HPV, HSV and lots of other STDs. The fact that the guy resisted using a condom when asked tells me he is a stupid dick and not worth the time. It's her body so if she decides to tell him to take a hike then that's OK with me and if you disagree then you are a misogynist POS.
I know it's just a few on this forum contributing to this thread but the continued whiney conversation only makes you all look ever more incorrigibly ignorant about women and human rights.
I see nothing wrong with the idea of A+. I like PZ from reading his blog. I can't slag a guy for being a feminist. There is nothing wrong with that either. A+ is only humanism for atheists who don't want to be bothered with all the other humanists who are spiritual and religious. It's just another term for secular humanism. PZ is right. You can't be a skeptic and religious at the same time. It's classic cognitive dissonance.
Rebecca was right, I get it. The guy in the elevator was being a creep. Why all the blowback. I only know Rebecca from listening to SGU. I like her contribution and enjoy her personality. All the vitriol directed towards her is just a bunch of guys having a hissy fit over nothing. Get a life.
This thread will have to go on without me for now. I doubt I killed it because incorrigible stupidity is human and the continuation of this thread proves it.

Meh. A+/FTB are a highly tribalistic bunch, not good representatives of secular humanism. The only blog there I occasionally check out is the one of Richard Carrier.

 

[wareyin]

It's not completely false that he resisted. He was asked to wear a condom and, rather than saying yes, he asked whether she was on birth control. The correct thing to do is to put on a condom. In fact, the correct thing to do is to put on a condom without being asked. And to have brought your own.

This is very, very basic sex education that anybody who is sexually active should know.

Since Ms. Watson teased him for thinking he has super sperm, I interpreted that to mean he was asking for birth control in addition to a condom. Why else would she make fun of him in that manner?

I didn't hear that he balked at, or refused to use, a condom.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Since Ms. Watson teased him for thinking he has super sperm, I interpreted that to mean he was asking for birth control in addition to a condom. Why else would she make fun of him in that manner?

I didn't hear that he balked at, or refused to use, a condom.

Having re-watched it, you're absolutely right. She asks him to use a condom and he asks if she's on birth control. She tells him that he must use a condom. He says that (in her words) "that's fine" but asks again whether she's on birth control. She says that she's not but will get the morning after pill if the condom breaks (or whatever). He agrees, and she throws him out.

So, it seems, that her only problem is that he thought about whether the risks were acceptable to him (and, possibly, about whether he was okay with the idea of her taking the morning after pill - some aren't, as it's not the same thing as a condom or the pill. It works by a different process, and some people feel that it's different, morally, because of that). So he's supposed to be the bad guy in this story because he thought about the implications of his actions before he acted.

Even stranger, according to her, he'd been giving considered answers to her questions all night. The implication is that she found this annoying all evening. However, she hadn't found this annoying enough to not have sex with him when the things he'd been considering were of no consequence. It was only annoying enough to not have sex with him when the thing he was considering was actually important.

So I take it back, the story told doesn't paint both people in a bad light, it only paints Watson in a bad light.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Having re-watched it, you're absolutely right. She asks him to use a condom and he asks if she's on birth control. She tells him that he must use a condom. He says that (in her words) "that's fine" but asks again whether she's on birth control. She says that she's not but will get the morning after pill if the condom breaks (or whatever). He agrees, and she throws him out.

So, it seems, that her only problem is that he thought about whether the risks were acceptable to him (and, possibly, about whether he was okay with the idea of her taking the morning after pill - some aren't, as it's not the same thing as a condom or the pill. It works by a different process, and some people feel that it's different, morally, because of that). So he's supposed to be the bad guy in this story because he thought about the implications of his actions before he acted.

Even stranger, according to her, he'd been giving considered answers to her questions all night. The implication is that she found this annoying all evening. However, she hadn't found this annoying enough to not have sex with him when the things he'd been considering were of no consequence. It was only annoying enough to not have sex with him when the thing he was considering was actually important.

So I take it back, the story told doesn't paint both people in a bad light, it only paints Watson in a bad light.

This illustrates the problem people have with radical feminism. The guy did the right thing -- negotiated. The guy wanted to protect himself from a lifetime of supporting an unwanted child. Condoms do break. I know from personal experience. Rebecca won the negotiation, but that wasn't enough. Watson had to get her way without negotiating. She punished the guy for it by evicting him in the rudest manner.

Rebecca had to have her way without negotiation. This is what scares people about radical feminism. It demands female domination and male subjugation. They're shooting the moon and are doomed to failure. It's already poisoned rational feminism.

 

[Stout]

Having re-watched it, you're absolutely right. She asks him to use a condom and he asks if she's on birth control. She tells him that he must use a condom. He says that (in her words) "that's fine" but asks again whether she's on birth control. She says that she's not but will get the morning after pill if the condom breaks (or whatever). He agrees, and she throws him out.

So, it seems, that her only problem is that he thought about whether the risks were acceptable to him (and, possibly, about whether he was okay with the idea of her taking the morning after pill - some aren't, as it's not the same thing as a condom or the pill. It works by a different process, and some people feel that it's different, morally, because of that). So he's supposed to be the bad guy in this story because he thought about the implications of his actions before he acted.

Even stranger, according to her, he'd been giving considered answers to her questions all night. The implication is that she found this annoying all evening. However, she hadn't found this annoying enough to not have sex with him when the things he'd been considering were of no consequence. It was only annoying enough to not have sex with him when the thing he was considering was actually important.

So I take it back, the story told doesn't paint both people in a bad light, it only paints Watson in a bad light.

That's pretty much my take on it too. Unless he was seriously under educated, asking if she could get the pill means he was wondering if she could and would take action if the rubber broke. Super sperm,...yea right.

If she really did order "one of everything" at the bar her recollection of the night's events most likely tended towards the make it a-more-interesting-story version.

She also fails at SJ at the beginning of her talk. First she calls the man a boy, then she objectifies him. Think I'll go register an account at A+, drop the term "hot girl"...and see what happens

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That's pretty much my take on it too. Unless he was seriously under educated, asking if she could get the pill means he was wondering if she could and would take action if the rubber broke. Super sperm,...yea right.

Actually, there's two things about the "super sperm" thing. First, you do not need "super sperm" to make someone pregnant whilst using a condom correctly. This link says this:

During a year of typical condom use, between 10 and 15 out of 100 sexually active women will become pregnant. During a year of perfect condom use, that number drops to between 2 and 3 out of 100 sexually active women becoming pregnant.

[...]

Perfect use means using a condom during intercourse consistently and correctly every single time, and reflects the effectiveness of condoms themselves.

So, even using a condom completely correctly, it's possible to impregnate someone. Not highly likely, given that it's 2-3% of women per year, but still possible. Another site gives the average number of times to have sex in a year at 103, meaning that the percentage change of this actually happening will be somewhere around 0.002-0.003%.

Either Watson does not know this, or she considers those odds to be more acceptable than the ex-Mormon did.

And, secondly, some people really do have high fertility rates. My parents had unprotected sex once before my mother had a hyterectome and I was the result. My brother was conceived even though my father was using a condom.

Given that genetic legacy and the fact that I never want children, I've always been very careful about contraception. I don't think this makes me egotistical or someone who is disrespectful of women and their wishes but, instead, someone who isn't stupid or irresponsible.

She also fails at SJ at the beginning of her talk. First she calls the man a boy, then she objectifies him.

No, that's "punching up". That's fine and not a fail at all.

 

[tsig]

Actually, there's two things about the "super sperm" thing. First, you do not need "super sperm" to make someone pregnant whilst using a condom correctly. This link says this:



So, even using a condom completely correctly, it's possible to impregnate someone. Not highly likely, given that it's 2-3% of women per year, but still possible. Either Watson does not know this, or she considers those odds to be more acceptable than the ex-Mormon did.

And, secondly, some people really do have high fertility rates. My parents had unprotected sex once before my mother had a hyterectome and I was the result. My brother was conceived even though my father was using a condom.

Given that genetic legacy and the fact that I never want children, I've always been very careful about contraception. I don't think this makes me egotistical or someone who is disrespectful of women and their wishes but, instead, someone who isn't stupid or irresponsible.



No, that's "punching up". That's fine and not a fail at all.

Fellows if there's one thing I'm profoundly NOT interested in it's Watson's sex life, if you feel you must discuss it please take it elsewhere.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The "super sperm" aspect of the story is 100% in Rebecca Watson's imagination and therefore a straw man tactic. Her misandry is a perfect replica of misogyny -- hating men yet sexually attracted to them. She was not like that before her short, very public marriage.