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

cornsail said:
I didn't say anything about whether Myers would consider it hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Yes you did. You said that in order to call his statement hypocritical we would need to know what his definition of "a haven for rapists" was.

But that's not true. If I am greedy while denouncing greedy people then whether or not I define the word "greedy" in a manner which includes myself is irrelevant to whether or not someone else can consider me a hypocrite. Same goes for Myers - whether or not he'd define the term "haven for rapists" in a manner which includes his own blog (and would therefore consider his own statement hypocritical) is irrelevant to whether or not someone else can consider him a hypocrite for making such a statement while running the blog he does in the manner he does.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Yes you did.
Click to expand...

It's very clear from rereading my own post that I did not. Certainly not explicitly. Maybe you think I was implying it? But I'm in a better position than you are to know what I was or was not implying and I happen to know that I was not implying that. So, dismissing the ideas that I explicitly said it or intentionally implied it, I guess you must mean that it logically follows from my post (unbeknownst to me)?

You said that in order to call his statement hypocritical we would need to know what his definition of "a haven for rapists" was.

But that's not true.
Click to expand...

True or not, you realize this is not the same as saying that we need to know whether or not Myers would consider his own comment hypocritical, right?

If I am greedy while denouncing greedy people then whether or not I define the word "greedy" in a manner which includes myself is irrelevant to whether or not someone else can consider me a hypocrite. Same goes for Myers - whether or not he'd define the term "haven for rapists" in a manner which includes his own blog (and would therefore consider his own statement hypocritical) is irrelevant to whether or not someone else can consider him a hypocrite for making such a statement while running the blog he does in the manner he does.
Click to expand...

I disagree. But let's say you are correct. Then would you at least agree that the literal meaning of something is often times not the meaning that a reasonable person would understand from the use of a term? I wouldn't describe someone who once opened a gift he/she hated and said 'thank you, this is very nice' as "a liar". I wouldn't describe someone who 'needs' coffee in the morning as "a drug addict". I wouldn't describe PZ's blog "a haven for rapists". Maybe you would. But I would hope that your reasoning is not simply based on whether or not it can be deemed literally true.
 
cornsail said:
True or not, you realize this is not the same as saying that we need to know whether or not Myers would consider his own comment hypocritical, right?
Click to expand...

No it isn't different. If Myers believes his blog to be a haven for rapists and then disparagingly criticises a different blog for being a haven for rapists, then Myers will think that his own comment is hypocritical.

Then would you at least agree that the literal meaning of something is often times not the meaning that a reasonable person would understand from the use of a term? I wouldn't describe someone who once opened a gift he/she hated and said 'thank you, this is very nice' as "a liar". I wouldn't describe someone who 'needs' coffee in the morning as "a drug addict". I wouldn't describe PZ's blog "a haven for rapists". Maybe you would. But I would hope that your reasoning is not simply based on whether or not it can be deemed literally true.
Click to expand...

I don't think either of your examples are comparable.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
No it isn't different. If Myers believes his blog to be a haven for rapists and then disparagingly criticises a different blog for being a haven for rapists, then Myers will think that his own comment is hypocritical.
Click to expand...

You must assume a sufficient amount of logical thinking and honest self-reflection on Myers' part to make the leaps you are making. Since I wasn't assuming this, I wasn't saying what you claimed I was saying. Nor does it logically follow. Anyone who is truly a hypocrite should be capable of recognizing their own hypocrisy, given sufficient logical and honest self-reflection. If not, then they are probably not someone I'd consider a hypocrite.

I don't think either of your examples are comparable.
Click to expand...

Unless you'd like to elaborate I can't really respond to this.
 
cornsail said:
You must assume a sufficient amount of logical thinking and honest self-reflection on Myers' part to make the leaps you are making. Since I wasn't assuming this, I wasn't saying what you claimed I was saying. Nor does it logically follow. Anyone who is truly a hypocrite should be capable of recognizing their own hypocrisy, given sufficient logical and honest self-reflection. If not, then they are probably not someone I'd consider a hypocrite.



Unless you'd like to elaborate I can't really respond to this.
Click to expand...

hyp·o·crite
noun \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\

: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs

I see nothing there about "logical and honest self-reflection". In fact, I think a lack of "logical and honest self-reflection" is actually what allows people like Myers to be hypocrites.
 
cornsail said:
You must assume a sufficient amount of logical thinking and honest self-reflection on Myers' part to make the leaps you are making.
Click to expand...

Now you seem to be arguing that Myers is a hypocrite.

I honestly think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, now.
 
Stout said:
Oh well...at least we can say he tried

After mounting a spirited defense of FtBlogger Avicenna that included calling those people who were concerned that Avicenna might be plagiarizing racists and trools. Myers must be enjoying a rather stressful brunch consisting entirely of crow.

Avicenna has 'fessed up and issued an apology.

So much for the shoot the messenger approach, again.
Click to expand...
It's lucky none of Myers' position is predicated on people not telling big stupid public lies for trivial reasons, and taking things on trust.
 
Stout said:
Oh well...at least we can say he tried

After mounting a spirited defense of FtBlogger Avicenna that included calling those people who were concerned that Avicenna might be plagiarizing racists and trools. Myers must be enjoying a rather stressful brunch consisting entirely of crow.

Avicenna has 'fessed up and issued an apology.

So much for the shoot the messenger approach, again.
Click to expand...

Like I said about the UVA "rape" case - you'd think the Warriors would be so humiliated by one public embarrassment after another that they'd maybe learn something about skepticism and evaluating evidence, but they don't. While everyone else laughs at them, they just move on to the next rage blog post. They're like the Energizer Bunny - they keep going and going and going...
 
Stout said:
Oh well...at least we can say he tried

After mounting a spirited defense of FtBlogger Avicenna that included calling those people who were concerned that Avicenna might be plagiarizing racists and trools. Myers must be enjoying a rather stressful brunch consisting entirely of crow.

Avicenna has 'fessed up and issued an apology.

So much for the shoot the messenger approach, again.
Click to expand...

Nah, PZ has washed his hands of Avicenna.

This is a network of writers. Plagiarism is not a forgivable sin here. After reviewing the incidents, and getting Avi’s explanation, we’ve had to conclude that these were not a few one-off accidents, but part of a long term pattern of slipshod writing.

For that reason, we have had to regretfully remove Avicenna from our network.

https://archive.today/gkEcJ#selection-3735.0-3747.1
Click to expand...
 
wareyin said:
hyp·o·crite
noun \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\

: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs

I see nothing there about "logical and honest self-reflection". In fact, I think a lack of "logical and honest self-reflection" is actually what allows people like Myers to be hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. That is why what I said is not equivalent to saying that Myers would only be a hypocrite if he considered himself to be a hypocrite.


Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Now you seem to be arguing that Myers is a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Sigh. No... You've either misunderstood me, which is possibly my fault for not expressing myself more clearly, or you've lost the train of the argument if you think I'm saying that. However, I appreciate you using the word "seem".

I honestly think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, now.
Click to expand...

No, I'm trying to clarify, because you keep responding to me insisting that I'm saying something that I'm not or saying that I seem to be saying something that I'm not and I find that a little frustrating. It takes two to argue, so there's no need to scold me for being argumentative when you've spent just as many posts in the exchange as I have. I have made a couple of simple points, both of which I'm pretty certain are correct. One, that the intended meaning of the speaker is relevant to hypocrisy. Two, that strictly literal interpretations are not necessarily reasonable when judging hypocrisy. Unfortunately, it would seem that I've failed to express them clearly. Anyway this is a very unimportant argument so I'm happy to leave it unresolved.
 
Last edited:
Stout said:
Oh well...at least we can say he tried

After mounting a spirited defense of FtBlogger Avicenna that included calling those people who were concerned that Avicenna might be plagiarizing racists and trools. Myers must be enjoying a rather stressful brunch consisting entirely of crow.

Avicenna has 'fessed up and issued an apology.

So much for the shoot the messenger approach, again.
Click to expand...

I left a comment on Avi's blog once. Shortly after he did a new blog called "I get mail" in which he quoted my comment and responded to it. I thought that was weird, because, though it was addressed to him, it wasn't mail. Then someone informed me that he responds to "mail" that wasn't really sent to him as mail all the time, even stuff from outside of his blog that isn't addressed to him at all. Can't say I'm shocked that he's also a serial plagiarizer.
 
I was going to post the yeti stuff when it first came out but I found it rather unwieldy as in...links that were supposed to go to letters to the editor went to the homepage of the newspaper and by the time I was half way through part one I came to the realization that I really didn't give much of a rip.

So the guy wanted content for his blog and was presetting topics under the pretense that those were topics that were sent to him rather than topics he went out and hunted down. Not a huge offense IMO

It was funny watching the FtB commentators react to where the content came from rather than the content itself.

It wasn't until Hemant Mehta got involved did they take things seriously.
Then the FtBloggers and commentators pretty much ate him alive. No more facebook, no more Twitter, the guy just disappeared today and I hope he's a better doctor than he was a blogger.
 
cornsail said:
I must admit to enjoying gefan's videos.

Also, this is kind of mind boggling: https://storify.com/Tolvo/how-totalbiscuit-tried-to-ruin-a-charity-stream

TotalBiscuit apparently "tried to ruin" a charity stream and "terrorize" the people running it through the monstrous act of promoting it with a retweet.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp

Sweet FSM, I had to stop reading it at points because I was laughing so hard at the complete lack of self awareness the poster of that story has. I love how they characterize TotalBiscuit's initial retweet as being made without malice & probably just to promote the charity but their first reaction to seeing it is to insult him. Then in true SJW form, they blame him for the **** storm that their insulting him for noticing them brought down on them. They should read up on the Streisand effect.
 
Last edited:
cornsail said:
Also, this is kind of mind boggling: https://storify.com/Tolvo/how-totalbiscuit-tried-to-ruin-a-charity-stream

TotalBiscuit apparently "tried to ruin" a charity stream and "terrorize" the people running it through the monstrous act of promoting it with a retweet.
Click to expand...

It's because he'd have attracted the wrong sort of people to the charity stream, people from GamerGate who just love to weaponise charity instead of good SJWs who would donate to charity because... uhhh... they need some kind of points?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom