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

Rrose Selavy said:
.

You're still not striving enough. What limitations? Your own bloodymindedness or some sort of lack of intelligence? Do you have some sort of physical disability? Others pointing out the obvious in your post and suggesting solutions to make your posts more readable (even if not actually more intelligible or coherent) is not "ridiculous hypotheticals".
So far You're the one being ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Perhaps (s)he has some sort of physical limitation (s)he'd rather not reveal.

In the end, you're always free to not read the posts.
 
surreptitious57 said:
I shall see if I can try and make them somewhat more acceptable
Although that shall take me more time and is why I do not bother
This matter is now closed since it has nothing to do with feminism
You are not going to get a great insight into Rebecca by analysing
my posting style. Which is a boring thing to comment on any way
Click to expand...

The recent issue was with your proposed moral directives, how they're inconsistent and how you yourself fail to abide by them. The formatting of your posts was just a banal example of how that moral directive could be enforced.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is going around and around.
Click to expand...

I think that's because you aren't actually reading my posts. Or are misreading them. For instance, you claimed that I said "getting asked for coffee meant a request for sex" and I pointed out that I never said this (in fact I even argued against it). A simple "sorry, I now see that you didn't actually say that" would go along way toward reducing confusion and showing good faith. I still have no idea if you believe that's something I've said.

You also said "I was under the impression you were defending her assumptions", which I pointed out was false.

Then you asked me "What makes RW's assumption right when you wouldn't have made the same assumption?" A question based on the false premise that I think RW's assumption is right.

Me pointing out that you misunderstood me shouldn't lead to "going around and around".

Is asking for coffee and talk a request for sex? No.
Can RW read minds? No
Was asking for coffee and talk a request for sex under those circumstances? According to RW it was.
So what was RW going on besides her imagination?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking me? Maybe ask RW?

And if the answer is who knows, then how is any guy supposed to know when it is OK to ask a girl out for coffee and talk?

If the question is unanswerable, then you are essentially saying it's never OK because there is no way to know when it is or isn't OK.
OR
It's always OK because there is no way to know when it is or isn't OK.
Click to expand...

I would love to know where you think I said this. And yes I realize you're arguing that I'm saying it through implication rather than directly, but since your argument failed to quote me or bring up anything I've actually said, I still have no idea what it's based on. It's especially weird considering I've never even taken the position that EG's proposal wasn't okay.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Why do you assume that there is exactly one thing that I wanted to point people towards?
Click to expand...

What I assume is that you were attempting to point to a) something relevant and b) something that people would actually be motivated to read. If I was mistaken in either of those assumptions then I apologise for being mistaken, although I am once more led to the conclusion that not linking to anything at all would be just as worthwhile.

And you do have the habit of linking to a google search, even if you're attempting to link to just one article, and even if that article is authored by you and is on your own website. So you can't exactly claim that this is something you've done for just this one instance in order to save you individually typing out the links to the more than one articles that you wanted to reference. And I'm still left with the question of why, given the issues I listed above.
 
Last edited:
Watson had apparently spent the day in question stating very categorically why men must not hit up on women
Then you can imagine her frustration when a man that apparently was present at the time she said it then went
and did that very thing. However I shall reference from Ginger who is more knowledgeable on this than I that it
was her overreaction to a post on her blog which precipitated the avalanche and not her original video comment
Though that does not invalidate her legitimate reaction to the actual incident The only other thing I would say is
she cannot speak for all women only those who actually agree with her. But that aside I fully empathise with her

Regarding the split with in the American atheist community that Damion referenced : any movement that has a strict
ideological foundation is inevitably going to have division for such is the nature of those organisations. Very often the
position on any thing is presented as a simple binary between those who agree with it and those who do not. But this
is really a false dichotomy for the spectrum is one of shades of grey rather than the twin absolutes of black and white
And no one either collectively or individually has a monopoly on wisdom. Which is why I try to take from all sides with
out having a preference for one over the other. I do not recommend this approach to others though as it is not for me
to tell anyone how to think as one has to do that themselves. I say this again for it is something I hold to be very true
 
Last edited:
surreptitious57 said:
Watson had apparently spent the day in question stating very categorically why men must not hit up on women
Then you can imagine her frustration when a man that apparently was present at the time she said it then went and did that very thing. However I shall reference from Ginger who is more knowledgeable on this than I that it
was her overreaction to a post on her blog which precipitated the avalanche and not her original video comment
Though that does not invalidate her legitimate reaction to the actual incident The only other thing I would say is
she cannot speak for all women only those who actually agree with her. But that aside I fully empathise with her

Regarding the split with in the American atheist community that Damion referenced : any movement that has a strict
ideological foundation is inevitably going to have division for such is the nature of those organisations. Very often the
position on any thing is presented as a simple binary between those who agree with it and those who do not. But this
is really a false dichotomy for the spectrum is one of shades of grey rather than the twin absolutes of black and white
And no one either collectively or individually has a monopoly on wisdom. Which is why I try to take from all sides with
out having a preference for one over the other. I do not recommend this approach to others though as it is not for me
to tell anyone how to think as one has to do that themselves. I say this again for it is something I hold to be very true
Click to expand...

The highlighted bit is where you go wrong. According to Watson's own claims, she is 'face-blind', that is unable to recognize faces. If that is true, she has absolutely no way of knowing if this man was one of many in the crowd. No one else ever saw this man in the small, almost empty bar that he supposedly spent hours in with them, so no one else is able to corroborate her claim that he was at the talk.
 
d4m10n said:
Why do you assume that there is exactly one thing that I wanted to point people towards?

The phenomenon referred to as "deep rifts" goes back for years and has become a term of art at FtB. It means, roughly, the division of (American) movement atheism into Atheism Plus and Atheism Less.
Click to expand...

I don't think Atheism Plus is even a thing anymore.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I don't think Atheism Plus is even a thing anymore.
Click to expand...

I'm using the term as Richard Carrier does, as convenient shorthand for the entire social justice wing of movement atheism.

wareyin said:
According to Watson's own claims, she is 'face-blind', that is unable to recognize faces. If that is true, she has absolutely no way of knowing if this man was one of many in the crowd.
Click to expand...

She could have known if he followed her from the bar to the elevator even if he were wearing a full scramble suit.

wareyin said:
No one else ever saw this man in the small, almost empty bar that he supposedly spent hours in with them, so no one else is able to corroborate her claim that he was at the talk.
Click to expand...
The talk is irrelevant if he was listening to her holding forth in the bar.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Unfortunately the output might be just binary.

Heck, even object-oriented atheism is just too objectifying.
Click to expand...

Machine Atheism is just too complicated, with cis-binary issues.
Assembly Atheism is processor based, but many processors did not support it.
Atheism was an interpreter, which was simple and approachable. However, it was slow (deciding how to interpret everything), and was Hierarchical (which upset egalitarians), all problematic.
Atheism + was compiled and object oriented, which was faster (no interpretation necessary) but, as pointed out, objectifying everything was problematic.

The ultimate solution, of course, was to abandon atheism and move to a Social Justice platform, which (similar to SQL) is based on viewing data the way you want.
 
It has been suggested that whether Elevator Guy actually existed or not is completely irrelevant to the
issue of unwanted male attention which females attract in public spaces on a regular basis. Now this is
actually a fair point as the overall debate should be about that rather than the specifics of one isolated
incident. For even if Watson has fabricated it it still has legitimacy with in the wider context. If she has
then she should openly acknowledge it. But in all fairness there is no evidence to contradict her on this
 
surreptitious57 said:
It has been suggested that whether Elevator Guy actually existed or not is completely irrelevant to the
issue of unwanted male attention which females attract in public spaces on a regular basis. Now this is
actually a fair point as the overall debate should be about that rather than the specifics of one isolated
incident. For even if Watson has fabricated it it still has legitimacy with in the wider context. If she has
then she should openly acknowledge it. But in all fairness there is no evidence to contradict her on this
Click to expand...

At first I didn't think Rebecca was making it up
Now, I'm not so sure. I mean, it makes sense
that some guy, somewhere would claim it was
him, just for the fame and lulz. But that hasn't
happened, at least as far as I know. Although I
don't follow any Warrior blogs, nor, to be fair,
any blogs at all. Has there been any theories on
who it was?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Now, I'm not so sure. I mean, it makes sense
that some guy, somewhere would claim it was
him, just for the fame and lulz. But that hasn't
happened, at least as far as I know. Although I
don't follow any Warrior blogs, nor, to be fair,
any blogs at all. Has there been any theories on
who it was?
Click to expand...

Personally, I blame Tony Ryan.
Although to be fair, that is
mostly just racial profiling
 
Last edited:
surreptitious57 said:
It has been suggested that whether Elevator Guy actually existed or not is completely irrelevant to the
issue of unwanted male attention which females attract in public spaces on a regular basis. Now this is
actually a fair point as the overall debate should be about that rather than the specifics of one isolated
incident. For even if Watson has fabricated it it still has legitimacy with in the wider context. If she has
then she should openly acknowledge it. But in all fairness there is no evidence to contradict her on this
Click to expand...

What evidence can we have to contradict Watson about a person that only she claims to have encountered? Short of a video of her entire 10 second elevator ride, I suppose we would have to have an admission by her that she made the whole thing up. Do you have any other evidence that would fit in mind?

Personally, I know how hard it is to prove a negative (EG doesn't exist), so I'd rather the person who claims he does prove it. We have photos of the room she claims he was in, she should be able to pick him out. We have several other people who spent all night with her; she could describe whatever it was about him that enabled her to recognize that he was at her talk and there all night to these people for another witness.

Right now, all we have is one person who had and has an agenda to push, who was also up all night drinking. Her story has inconsistencies, and she has had to claim a rare cognitive disorder that she has never claimed before, nor ever shown evidence of, as a way to gloss over some inconsistencies while creating more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom