ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags atheism , Atheism Plus , Free Thought Blogs

Reply
Old 8th November 2013, 04:53 PM   #1
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,353
Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Mod InfoOriginal thread closed due to size, and can be found here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=242361
Posted By:Locknar


This one is just too funny

Not wanting to miss out on being a victim too, our chemgeek relates a highly improbable story about her experience of passing through airport security.

Quote:
Let's not forget also that women are more likely to be selected than men for "random" pat-downs and invasive screenings - something I discovered as a teenager when two middle-aged men threatened to strip-search me if I didn't walk through a metal detector on a badly sprained knee that couldn't carry my weight.

... Frankly, honey? No sympathy, Dawkins.

EDIT: I haven't seen any studies confirming it, but I wouldn't doubt that the phenomenon of women being more likely to be selected for screenings by male TSA agents is intersectional
Then, having gotten a bite on her "story" she continues......


Quote:
Maybe if they're going to do "random" screenings, have them truly be random - set up a random generator. Take the TSA agents out of "randomizing" entirely, since we know they don't do their "random" screenings randomly - they profile based on race and, in the case of male agents, whether or not they feel like sexually harassing/assaulting a woman under the shield of their job. If they want to "randomly" screen 5 or 10% of passengers or what have you, fine. Set up a random program that gives "screen" or "no screen" as responses and have screen be programmed a certain percentage of the time.

I guarantee you, if they implement that, TSA reform will happen within weeks. The privileged don't like it so much when the shoe's on the other foot
Uh, chemgeek, patdowns are conducted by members of the same gender as those being patted down and those being searched are even allowed to bring their own witness to the procedure. I mean really, sexual assault ? You've never been on a plane in your life have you ?

Last edited by Locknar; 10th November 2013 at 08:57 AM.
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 03:08 AM   #2
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 38,565
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
This one is just too funny

Not wanting to miss out on being a victim too, our chemgeek relates a highly improbable story about her experience of passing through airport security.



Then, having gotten a bite on her "story" she continues......




Uh, chemgeek, patdowns are conducted by members of the same gender as those being patted down and those being searched are even allowed to bring their own witness to the procedure. I mean really, sexual assault ? You've never been on a plane in your life have you ?

And remember follks.... this person was made a moderator because of zeeb's clear and lucid thought processes.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 03:13 PM   #3
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 52,920
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
The plussers are going to start meetups!
Please let one be in St. Louis, please let one be in St. Louis, please let one be in St. Louis, please let one be in St. Louis....

<reads post>

DAMMIT!!!!
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2013, 10:17 PM   #4
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 38,565
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
Please let one be in St. Louis, please let one be in St. Louis, please let one be in St. Louis, please let one be in St. Louis....

<reads post>

DAMMIT!!!!
Well, but it's in London.... We have a whole lot of UK members is those environs. I wouldn't crash their party (if two people and a third lost on the tubes en route can be called a party), but seeing as to how Oolon is there, couldn't something done along the theme of zir's blockbot?

Grease the publican with a tenner to tell them, "Oh, I'm sorry but our computer system tells us that you once angered someone in another country who doesn't know you or us, but our policy is to avoid potential discomfort and not serve people who have different sensibilities and sensitivities than we have."

Now that'd make a great podcast!
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 10:01 AM   #5
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 40,732
Well, I'm only a few miles from Louis, but I'll be re-organising my belly-button lint collection on those dates...
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 10:21 AM   #6
Dissolution
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,306
I live in London. I'd be worried about having so many nutters near me, going by that thread, but I doubt they leave their homes very often.
Dissolution is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 11:25 AM   #7
Humes fork
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,358
The ****! I wanted the original thread to continue forever, to eventually have more views than the populations of minor countries, to be found in the remains of human civilization once it has passed into oblivion.


Edited by zooterkin:  Editing for rule 10. Do not attempt to evade the autocensor.

Last edited by zooterkin; 10th November 2013 at 11:48 AM.
Humes fork is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 11:37 AM   #8
Rrose Selavy
Stranded in Sub-Atomica
 
Rrose Selavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,395
Originally Posted by Dissolution View Post
I live in London. I'd be worried about having so many nutters near me, going by that thread, but I doubt they leave their homes very often.
So do I. Frankly if everytime I went on the Tube we had to take account of any possible trigger warnings if they were broadcast, we wouldn't get very far.

-
Rrose Selavy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 05:20 PM   #9
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,706
Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy View Post
So do I. Frankly if everytime I went on the Tube we had to take account of any possible trigger warnings if they were broadcast, we wouldn't get very far.

-

Hearing the recording of the posh lady saying 'Cockfosters' made me giggle.

I think some SJW might not be able to use the Tube because of it.
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 03:55 AM   #10
s_pepys
Muse
 
s_pepys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 761
Rebecca Watson decides the best way to raise money for cancer is to insult half the audience with gender based slurs and make jokes about male genitalia. Hypocrisy? I get the impression she is just after hits for herself. Not donations. Imagine turning a cancer charity drive into a way to push her dramas further. Terrible form IMO.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-XWjkqh...%3D-XWjkqh85pw

Any thoughts?
s_pepys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 04:41 AM   #11
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 43,802
As for random screenings when they do it too random people complain about 3 year olds geting searched.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 05:07 AM   #12
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,519
Originally Posted by s_pepys View Post
Rebecca Watson decides the best way to raise money for cancer is to insult half the audience with gender based slurs and make jokes about male genitalia. Hypocrisy? I get the impression she is just after hits for herself. Not donations. Imagine turning a cancer charity drive into a way to push her dramas further. Terrible form IMO.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-XWjkqh...%3D-XWjkqh85pw

Any thoughts?
I thought the opening was pretty funny actually.

Also, she's doing something good for a wonderful charity. Here's an idea that might be a bit radical: Don't crap on everything someone you don't like does just because you don't like them.

I know, crazy idea right? But just think about it. Maybe, just maybe, instead of constantly whining about everything she does and attempting to twist what was a short, nice video about a group doing a genuinely decent thing into something it isn't. I think she's an attention whore of the highest order, but I don't think that everything she does at all times is to get attention. Sometimes people do things publicly because it is the right thing to do.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 05:48 AM   #13
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
I thought the opening was pretty funny actually.
Maybe to a feminist that thinks everyone is just out to get women, even other women. Everyone else just rolls their eyes.
But Rebecca can't help but feed those who she knows will post horrible things in response to her, because that's what gives her a career as a professional victim.
Without them, she'd still be a relative nobody. Same with lots of these people, like Anita Sarkeesian, her whole career has been on the backs of the pushback against her ridiculous kickstarter campaign.

Last edited by Edx; 11th November 2013 at 05:53 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 06:34 AM   #14
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,909
Originally Posted by s_pepys View Post
Rebecca Watson decides the best way to raise money for cancer is to insult half the audience with gender based slurs and make jokes about male genitalia. Hypocrisy? I get the impression she is just after hits for herself. Not donations. Imagine turning a cancer charity drive into a way to push her dramas further. Terrible form IMO.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-XWjkqh...%3D-XWjkqh85pw

Any thoughts?
As a guy, I laughed. I'm glad that someone's able to crack jokes about this absolute nonsense that arose over her complaining about some weird guy cornering her in Ireland or wherever.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 06:36 AM   #15
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Thunderfoot on Watson's video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
I'm glad that someone's able to crack jokes about this absolute nonsense that arose over her complaining about some weird guy cornering her in Ireland or wherever.
So in other words you don't really understand why people were upset with her and her group.

Last edited by Edx; 11th November 2013 at 06:37 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 06:59 AM   #16
RayG
Master Poster
 
RayG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,660
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
I thought the opening was pretty funny actually.
Funny how? If a male skeptic made a youtube video to help raise money for pancreatic cancer, would it be funny for him to make disparaging remarks about female skeptics and their vaginas?

Quote:
Sometimes people do things publicly because it is the right thing to do.
Yes, and some people even do the right thing without trying to denigrate others.

RayG
__________________
Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts.
--------------------
Scrutatio Et Quaestio

Last edited by RayG; 11th November 2013 at 07:05 AM.
RayG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 07:16 AM   #17
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,568
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Thunderfoot on Watson's video:
Not one of his best. Plenty of straw, and he spends so much time saying that unevidenced claims are worthless yet seems to forget to provide evidence for some of his claims - such as that people who self-identify as feminists "tend to poison" things.

He's good at science vlogging and taking down Creationists. He should really leave the feminism thing alone. He doesn't do it well, and it mostly comes off as sour grapes over the whole FtB business, which he also didn't come out of well.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 07:25 AM   #18
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Not one of his best. Plenty of straw, and he spends so much time saying that unevidenced claims are worthless yet seems to forget to provide evidence for some of his claims - such as that people who self-identify as feminists "tend to poison" things.
Assuming we ignore the examples he did provide, what kind of evidence and how much of it would you need?

Also, where is the strawmen btw?

Last edited by Edx; 11th November 2013 at 07:29 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 07:37 AM   #19
s_pepys
Muse
 
s_pepys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 761
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
I thought the opening was pretty funny actually.

Also, she's doing something good for a wonderful charity. Here's an idea that might be a bit radical: Don't crap on everything someone you don't like does just because you don't like them.

I know, crazy idea right? But just think about it. Maybe, just maybe, instead of constantly whining about everything she does and attempting to twist what was a short, nice video about a group doing a genuinely decent thing into something it isn't. I think she's an attention whore of the highest order, but I don't think that everything she does at all times is to get attention. Sometimes people do things publicly because it is the right thing to do.
I also thought it was quite funny. My point is that it was misjudged. If her aim was to attract donations she immediately alienated at least half the you tube audience.

My apologies if my post came across as whining. I'll step out here I think.
s_pepys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 07:40 AM   #20
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,909
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Thunderfoot on Watson's video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

That's also hilarious. The same guy screaming that "free speech" means that people have to listen to you regardless of what you say, is now whining about jokes based on what many women get in their YouTube comments? Frankly, that's even funnier than Watson's joke.

Really, he should stick to using hard science to attack creationism. Whenever he he steps to "feminism" , it leads to nonsense like him claiming that Princess Peach from the Super Mario series is fully empowered.

Quote:
So in other words you don't really understand why people were upset with her and her group.
Probably not. But I've been watching, off and on, for a couple of years now, and I can't help but think that this entire fight is absurd.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 07:46 AM   #21
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,568
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Assuming we ignore the examples he did provide[...]
I don't think that providing a couple of examples of people who self-identify as feminists acting in a manner which he determines to be toxic goes any way towards establishing the claim that most people who self-identify as feminists are toxic.

Quote:
[...]what kind of evidence and how much of it would you need?
Well, to start, we'd need a solid definition of "toxic" and "poison" which could be determined with objective criteria. Then we'd need some form of objective analysis. Perhaps picking the names of 20 feminist writers out of a hat and then doing a content analysis of their writings, or having an independent survey company survey people who self-identify as feminists.

Quote:
Also, where is the strawmen btw?
Saying that there is normalisation of the sexualisation and infantalisation of women through pervasiveness in media is not the same as saying that violence in media causes real-life violence. That's the basis of his entire argument.

Which is not to say that the argument that Sarkeesian presents is valid - I've only watched the first of her videos, and that just the once a while ago, and remember thinking that it was flawed, although I forget how - just that thunderf00t hasn't actually addressed it, instead inventing his own Aunt Sally which he then proceeds to knock down as if he is addressing her argument.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 07:52 AM   #22
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
That's also hilarious. The same guy screaming that "free speech" means that people have to listen to you regardless of what you say, is now whining about jokes based on what many women get in their YouTube comments? Frankly, that's even funnier than Watson's joke.
Did you have to think for a long time to come up with this excuse? No one said she has to listen to those who were mean to her, or the trolls who trolled her. If you are claiming that her joke is just as bad as a troll on her video then you must admit that she is as bad as the trolls she complains about. Sadly for you no one is even defending the trolls who made sexist jokes or said she should get raped or anything. So are her trolls just as bad as this "joke"? Or does this mean the trolls are not that bad? Or maybe you can't just handwave his point with an argument that comes back to bite you even harder.

Quote:
Really, he should stick to using hard science to attack creationism. Whenever he he steps to "feminism" , it leads to nonsense like him claiming that Princess Peach from the Super Mario series is fully empowered.
What was "nonsense" about this video?

Last edited by Edx; 11th November 2013 at 08:17 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 08:03 AM   #23
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I don't think that providing a couple of examples of people who self-identify as feminists acting in a manner which he determines to be toxic goes any way towards establishing the claim that most people who self-identify as feminists are toxic.
He didn't say all feminists. He said feminists. There are feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers who identify as an "equity feminist" and recently wrote a book called "Freedom Feminism" which she calls for a new agenda for feminism based on factual reasoned based positions and egalitarianism. Yet, she still talks about feminists and feminism in exactly the same generalised way Thunderfoot does.

For example, here is Diana Furchtgott-Roth where in the latter half we have this exchange, just after she promotes Christina Hoff Sommers' book "Freedom Feminism":

Anchor: Do you think feminism is anti-male?
Furchtgott-Roth: Oh, absolutely!

So here a self-identified feminist that mere moments earlier advertised her friends book promoting her version of feminism, still talks disparagingly and negatively about feminism.

Quote:
Well, to start, we'd need a solid definition of "toxic" and "poison" which could be determined with objective criteria. Then we'd need some form of objective analysis. Perhaps picking the names of 20 feminist writers out of a hat and then doing a content analysis of their writings, or having an independent survey company survey people who self-identify as feminists.
His video did not claim to prove that. The video simply provides a few examples to illustrate the kind of thing he is talking about. Of course, even if he had chosen 20 feminists and analysed their work, you would still say that not all feminists are like that, and that he'd need to have some kind of magical knowledge of every person who identifies as feminist in order to make the claim.

Quote:
Saying that there is normalisation of the sexualisation and infantalisation of women through pervasiveness in media is not the same as saying that violence in media causes real-life violence. That's the basis of his entire argument.
How you can misunderstand such a simple point I don't know. He is saying that if you claim that people are influenced to be sexist towards women through playing a game like Mario, then you must also believe that people are influenced to become more violent through playing a game like Call of Duty.

I'm always amazed at how so many people who defend feminists don't seem to understand the difference between saying feminists literally believe a thing, and saying the consequence of following feminists logic and argumentation equally and consistently will lead to X conclusion. He didnt say that feminists believe that violence in media causes real-life violence, he is saying the argument that it does is the same one they are using except that instead of violence its sexism. So, do you believe that violence in media causes real-life violence? If not, it means you don't agree with Anita. If you do say you agree with her anyway, then you are in a quandary trying to justify one position but not the other.

Last edited by Edx; 11th November 2013 at 08:21 AM. Reason: Forgot to link video!
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 08:27 AM   #24
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 52,920
The SJW's are the gift that keeps on giving!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdi...ws-latest-lie/
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 08:41 AM   #25
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,568
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
He didn't say all feminists.
I didn't say he did. I said he said most feminists. Which he did.

Quote:
So here a self-identified feminist that mere moments earlier advertised her friends book promoting her version of feminism, still talks disparagingly and negatively about feminism.
Does she show her working? Either way, I'm not really sure what you think that this proves. It certainly doesn't magically make thunderf00t have provided the evidence which he is berating others for not providing.

Quote:
His video did not claim to prove that.
No, it just treated it as an unquestionable truth with no evidential backing, all the while dismissing other arguments for having no evidential backing.

Quote:
Of course, even if he had chosen 20 feminists and analysed their work, you would still say that not all feminists are like that, and that he'd need to have some kind of magical knowledge of every person who identifies as feminist in order to make the claim.
It's amazing that you can quote me directly and then immediately afterwards misrepresent it so thoroughly.. If you want to address what I actually wrote, feel free to do so. Using a straw man in a discussion about straw men isn't the best move.

Hint: start by reading what I actually said I would consider evidence towards the claim he is making, then try replying to that.

Quote:
How you can misunderstand such a simple point I don't know. He is saying that if you claim that people are influenced to be sexist towards women through playing a game like Mario, then you must also believe that people are influenced to become more violent through playing a game like Call of Duty.
That is the straw man he's presenting, yes. I've explained why it's a straw man. Feel free to address that, if you wish.

Also, can you please quote where in my post I was "defending feminists"? Seems like another position you've just made up.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 11th November 2013 at 09:22 AM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 09:37 AM   #26
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I didn't say he did. I said he said most feminists. Which he did.

What he said was...

"This is why people like Madonna disassociate themselves from 'feminism', instead preferring to call themselves humanists. For the simple reason that those people who vocals associate themselves with feminists tend to be so toxic they tend to poison absolutely everything they come into contact with, including the very term feminism."

Clearly "vocally associating" is referring to people that have the mentality such as like those in the public eye like Rebecca Watson and Anita Sarkessian, which cause people to associate feminism with crazy irrational people who see themselves as victims at every opportunity that seem to believe bad men are waiting to oppress and rape them behind every corner.

Now he can go into more on this point, but he isnt trying to prove this point. He is giving popular examples atheists and gamers know which is why the main 2 examples are Watson and Sarkeesian. This isnt some massive thesis. He's just showing some simple examples those on YT and his subscriber base will know.

Quote:
I'm not really sure what you think that this proves.
Clearly you didnt watch the video, but at any rate, it was to show that people who are against mainstream feminism but still want to call themselves feminists and advocate for "feminism" to be a word used to mean equality and fairness still talk about feminism in these broadly negative brush strokes. Clearly they are not referring to themselves when they talk about feminism negatively in this way, how much sense would that make?

Quote:
It's amazing that you can quote me directly and then immediately afterwards misrepresent it so thoroughly.. If you want to address what I actually wrote, feel free to do so. Using a straw man in a discussion about straw men isn't the best move.

Hint: start by reading what I actually said I would consider evidence towards the claim he is making, then try replying to that.
You said you'd have to start by defining your terms. Yes, quite right, Im with you so far. And then you said you'd be okay with analysing the content of 20 feminist writers. Oh yes you gave an alternative "or", "having an independent survey company" carry out a survey. But if you would be happy with an analysis of 20 feminists then clearly your survey doesn't need to be very broad either. Oh and there'd be problems with a survey you propose for reasons I won't get into here. So are you saying that if one did analyse 20 feminists and if you could show that their beliefs and behaviours met the definition's previously agreed upon, that you would agree with the position Thunderfoot has? Because as I said Im pretty sure that at this point you would say that not all feminists are like that and you'd need a lot more than 20. Frankly I think you'll say that no matter what, and then at some point just refer to the dictionary and pull a "no true scotsman" out of your bag and declare that all those that are like this are not true feminists anyway by definition.

Quote:
That is the straw man he's presenting, yes. I've explained why it's a straw man. Feel free to address that, if you wish.
No there is no straw.

Do you think there is a practical difference between "normalisation of the sexualisation and infantalisation of women through pervasiveness in media" and "people are influenced to be sexist towards women through playing a game like Mario" or "sexism in media causes sexism towards women in real life"? If so, then in what way is "normalisation of sexualisation and infantalisation of women" a problem at all? You wrote this, you chose to use the word normalisation. It will be argued by those who believe that violent video games cause people to be violent in real life because they think these games "normalise" violence in the same way. If games can be said to normalise sexism, why doesn't it also normalise violence? If games don't actually cause people to be violent in real life, then why will games cause people to treat women any differently in real life?

You said it was not the same, so go ahead, tell me what it is. And no you didnt do that in your last reply, all you did is make the claim that it is not the same. Nowhere did you explain "why" at all.

Last edited by Edx; 11th November 2013 at 09:50 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 09:49 AM   #27
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,519
Originally Posted by s_pepys View Post
I also thought it was quite funny. My point is that it was misjudged. If her aim was to attract donations she immediately alienated at least half the you tube audience.

My apologies if my post came across as whining. I'll step out here I think.
Meh, I overstated it a bit for you, I was more talking to the crowd in general before they arrived. Oh and look at that, they did.

Originally Posted by RayG View Post
Funny how? If a male skeptic made a youtube video to help raise money for pancreatic cancer, would it be funny for him to make disparaging remarks about female skeptics and their vaginas?
You do understand hyperbolic self referential humour right? She wasn't attacking every male atheist on youtube and she also, and this is just between you and me, wasn't being serious. I know right! She's always super serious and doesn't have a sense of humour so how can she make a joke!

Originally Posted by RayG View Post
Yes, and some people even do the right thing without trying to denigrate others.

RayG
If you think that was a genuine attempt to denigrate other people you have got to have the thinnest skin around.

Oh no wait, this guy does.

Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Maybe to a feminist that thinks everyone is just out to get women, even other women. Everyone else just rolls their eyes.
But Rebecca can't help but feed those who she knows will post horrible things in response to her, because that's what gives her a career as a professional victim.


Jesus H Christ seriously? It's obviously self referential humour based on the crap that has happened to her. She's not Lex Luthor she's a real human being who is sometimes allowed to be snarky. Just because you have a raging hate boner for her doesn't mean everything she does is automatically terrible.

I think she's an attention whore as much as the next person and I've criticised her and A+ SJW's in the original thread several times so it's not like I'm a RW fanboy or anything but this is really just silly.


Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Without them, she'd still be a relative nobody.
She still is, although again I will point out that she's attempting to do something good for a quality charity here and yet you still can't help yourself but get into a frothing rage about a small self referential joke. It's sad that even something as small as a joke is used to bash her over the head. It's worse when it's a joke appended to a good cause.


You know, when people in this continued thread make fun of the FTB/A+ hypersensitivity and magical ability to turn even the most innocuous comment, or obvious bit of self referential silly humour into a terrible example of rampant sexism, it isn't a behaviour to be emulated. Yet here we are with people trying to claim that an obviously not serious joke is so damning that she's denigrating half the people who might want to donate to a worthy charity, and is making serious gendered insults and attacking the genitalia of male sceptics.

Please. I thought they were supposed to be the sad crybaby paranoiacs, not us.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.

Last edited by MarkCorrigan; 11th November 2013 at 09:51 AM.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 09:52 AM   #28
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,568
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
"This is why people like Madonna disassociate themselves from 'feminism', instead preferring to call themselves humanists. For the simple reason that those people who vocals associate themselves with feminists tend to be so toxic they tend to poison absolutely everything."
Which is an assertion without evidential support.

Quote:
Clearly you didnt watch the video, but at any rate, it was to show that people who are against mainstream feminism but still want to call themselves feminists and advocate for "feminism" to be a word used to mean equality and fairness still talk about feminism in these broadly negative brush strokes.
Yes, but it has no relevance to anything I've said.

Quote:
You said you'd have to start by defining your terms. Yes, quite right, Im with you so far. And then you said you'd be okay with analysing the content of 20 feminist writers. Oh yes you gave an alternative "or", "having an independent survey company survey". But if you would be happy with an analysis of 20 feminist feminists then your clearly your survey doesn't need to be very broad either. Oh and there'd be problems with a survey you propose for reasons I won't get into here. So are you saying that if one did analyse 20 feminists and if you could show that their beliefs and behaviours met the definition's previously agreed upon, that you would agree with the position Thunderfoot has? Because as I said Im pretty sure you would say that not all feminists are like that and you;d need a lot more than 20. Frankly I think you'll say that no matter what, and then at some point just refer to the dictionary and pull a "no true scotsman" out of your bag and declare that all those that are like this are not true feminists anyway by definition.
That's a very long-winded way of calling me an irrational liar.

And with that you've proven to me that I was correct a few pages ago when I refused to engage with you on issues related to feminism. This is, within the space of 2 posts, the 3rd time you've completely made something up and then acted as if what you've made up is what I think. If you cannot argue rationally, and stick to discussing things I say and views I hold, I will not discuss this any further with you. It's entirely up to you.

Quote:
You said it was not the same, so go ahead, tell me what it is.
The sexualisation of women in media is actual sexualisation of women. The killing of people in media is not actual killing of people.

Oh, and perhaps you missed the edit to my previous post, but please answer this for me:

Quote:
Also, can you please quote where in my post I was "defending feminists"?
Remember, do so without making anything up.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 11th November 2013 at 09:55 AM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 09:58 AM   #29
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
I think she's an attention whore as much as the next person and I've criticised her and A+ SJW's in the original thread several times so it's not like I'm a RW fanboy or anything but this is really just silly.
Whats silly? Thinking its not funny? Or putting it in context with what we know she actually believes because we've actually been paying attention to whats been going on?

Quote:
She still is, although again I will point out that she's attempting to do something good for a quality charity here and yet you still can't help yourself but get into a frothing rage about a small self referential joke. It's sad that even something as small as a joke is used to bash her over the head. It's worse when it's a joke appended to a good cause.
Thunder's point is that she poisons something as innocuous as a cancer research fundraiser with her "joke". We know she likes the attention, its what gave her a career and she never seemed all that bothered or scared by these thousands of rape and death threads she says she's received over the years. Here she comes back after a year and this is the very first thing she does. What a good way to get people pissed off with her again, just in case they stopped caring.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 10:02 AM   #30
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 43,802
I realized after hearing how people make money trolling YouTube that pz and Rebecca are just trolls. They say controversial things for page hits just like trolls earning $20, 000 trolling youtube.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 10:14 AM   #31
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,519
Thunderfoot is as bad as she is, if not worse. He's great at tackling creationism, he's awful at the social sciences.

If you take thunderfoot for your ideas on feminism, you might as well take Pat Condell for your ideas on Islam. They're both reactionary dolts.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 10:19 AM   #32
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Which is an assertion without evidential support.
He had on the screen an article in Salon with quotes from various famous women saying they don't identify as a feminist. Some are more out of context than others, so you cant find exactly why they think that for most of them. At least 5 different women out of 12 can definitely be said to be saying what Thunderfoot said, that they associate feminism with being extreme, with negativity, and being anti-male. A few more allude to it. The others we don't have enough information.

Quote:
Yes, but it has no relevance to anything I've said.
Even those who still self identify as feminists can still not see a problem with criticising feminism and feminists with broad negative brushstrokes, makes me not care if anyone does it.

Quote:
That's a very long-winded way of calling me an irrational liar.
Interesting that you arent denying it. Are you, or are you not, saying that if I picked 20 feminists and showed that they were "toxic" you would agree that feminism is toxic? Are you saying that 20 feminists would be enough of a sample to justify this? Are you saying that after being shown 20 examples, you would not say "not all feminists are like that" and say the sample size is too small? edit: I wonder if you would be happy to include Rebbeca Watson, PZ Myers and Anita Sarkeesian and Adria Richards as examples. That's 4 already.

Quote:
And with that you've proven to me that I was correct a few pages ago when I refused to engage with you on issues related to feminism. This is, within the space of 2 posts, the 3rd time you've completely made something up and then acted as if what you've made up is what I think. If you cannot argue rationally, and stick to discussing things I say and views I hold, I will not discuss this any further with you. It's entirely up to you.
All you had to do is tell me you really do believe that 20 examples of feminists being toxic would be enough to prove the point.

Quote:
The sexualisation of women in media is actual sexualisation of women. The killing of people in media is not actual killing of people.
I said violence, not murder. Violence and aggression takes many forms. Try again:

If games can be said to normalise sexism, why doesn't it also normalise violence?
If games don't actually cause people to be violent in real life, then why will games cause people to treat women any differently in real life?

Forget the rest and just focus on this, because I cant see how you'll ever get out of this.

Quote:
Oh, and perhaps you missed the edit to my previous post, but please answer this for me:

Remember, do so without making anything up.
Since I am arguably "attacking" feminists, you are defending them and their arguments. How else can you characterise what you're doing here? before the split in this thread you also said I dont speak for you on gender issues, because apparently you didnt like my characterisation of feminism, but said you didnt want to get into why. So again since I am "attacking" feminism, you must be defending them in some way or we'd be in agreement.

Last edited by Edx; 11th November 2013 at 11:24 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 10:23 AM   #33
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
If you take thunderfoot for your ideas on feminism,.
You're right. Thunderfoot doesn't go nearly far enough...
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 10:26 AM   #34
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,519


Seriously? What would you advocate then?
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 10:28 AM   #35
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post


Seriously? What would you advocate then?
Thunderfoots criticism of feminism has thus far only touched the surface.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 10:39 AM   #36
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,909
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Did you have to think for a long time to come up with this excuse?
I noticed it years ago.

Quote:
No one said she has to listen to those who were mean to her, or the trolls who trolled her. If you are claiming that her joke is just as bad as a troll on her video then you must admit that she is as bad as the trolls she complains about.
Nope, she isn't as bad as her attackers - or at least, not in that video, I an't read up on everything she writes. What Thunderf00t is howling is "feminism poisoning everything", is really just Watson laughing at his claim that anyone who blocks you on twitter or disables Youtube comments is some sort of evil villain who is violating your free speech rights. He's simply championing the Sarah Palin view of free speech, where he and his affiliates get to say whatever nonsense they want, and nobody gets to laugh at them for doing so.

Whatever. When you throw a rock into a kennel...

Quote:
Sadly for you no one is even defending the trolls who made sexist jokes or said she should get raped or anything.
False. Then you rage against people being blocked on Twitter, as Thunderf00t has, then that is exactly what you are defending.

Quote:
What was "nonsense" about this video?
Well, the first problem was about 37 seconds in, when he claims that an joke aimed at at him and his "All speech is free, unless I'm bothered by it!" nonsense is an attack on all men - or all atheist men on Youtube. After that, he started going in on the Feminist Frequency woman again, and I just can't be bothered to listen to another one of those rants. As an atheist male, I laughed at her joke, partly because it's true, and yeah, partly because I immediately knew that it wasn't aimed at me to begin with.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 10:44 AM   #37
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,909
Originally Posted by s_pepys View Post
I also thought it was quite funny. My point is that it was misjudged. If her aim was to attract donations she immediately alienated at least half the you tube audience.

My apologies if my post came across as whining. I'll step out here I think.
Not quite so fast.

Who, exactly, are this half of her audience that she alienated? It's clearly not "men", since plenty of us atheist guys laughed at it. It's not "Followers of Thunderf00t", since they were never her audience to begin with.

Just something for you to think about - but I doubt that anyone who is enraged by her joke is a part of her target audience in the first place.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 10:54 AM   #38
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
Nope, she isn't as bad as her attackers - or at least, not in that video, I an't read up on everything she writes. What Thunderf00t is howling is "feminism poisoning everything", is really just Watson laughing at his claim that anyone who blocks you on twitter or disables Youtube comments is some sort of evil villain who is violating your free speech rights. He's simply championing the Sarah Palin view of free speech, where he and his affiliates get to say whatever nonsense they want, and nobody gets to laugh at them for doing so.

Whatever. When you throw a rock into a kennel...
Where did Thunderfoot say or imply that "anyone who blocks you on twitter or disables Youtube comments is some sort of evil villain who is violating your free speech"? Now what he probably said is that those that block and ban with ease with anyone that disagrees with them shows they don't like criticism. We know that is the case with people like Watson and Sarkeesian because they act like the only criticism they have ever received has been hateful trollish "death and rape threats".

Quote:
Quote:
Sadly for you no one is even defending the trolls who made sexist jokes or said she should get raped or anything.
False. Then you rage against people being blocked on Twitter, as Thunderf00t has, then that is exactly what you are defending.
Your emotional exaggeration doesn't make it true. Thunderfoot has never defended those who wrote "death and rape threats" to Watson. Although it does need to be said that most of Watsons "rape and death threats" are not actually threats.


Quote:
Well, the first problem was about 37 seconds in, when he claims that an joke aimed at at him and his "All speech is free, unless I'm bothered by it!" nonsense is an attack on all men - or all atheist men on Youtube. After that, he started going in on the Feminist Frequency woman again, and I just can't be bothered to listen to another one of those rants. As an atheist male, I laughed at her joke, partly because it's true, and yeah, partly because I immediately knew that it wasn't aimed at me to begin with.
"All speech is free, unless I'm bothered by it!" is a sentiment common to feminists, ironically. Not sure where you keep pulling that out of. Also whats interesting is you say she aimed the joke at HIM, in what way does what she say at all relate to what Thunderfoot has said about Watson? Has Thunderfoot sent Watson a death or rape threat? Has he advocated for people to send her death and rape threats? or has he just said that she won't honestly engage her critics preferring to paint them all as hateful rapists and raving misogynists so she can handwave them?

We who actually have been paying attention which you admit you have not, actually understand her comments better because we're putting them in context. She is part of a group that thinks buying a woman drinks is evidence you're a rapist.

Last edited by Edx; 11th November 2013 at 11:23 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 11:00 AM   #39
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,353
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
The SJW's are the gift that keeps on giving!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdi...ws-latest-lie/
For the life of me I can't figure out what was going on there but no worries, the comments section provided plenty of lulz.

I like this one

Quote:
Hate when controlled and examined, when tended with care and cooled with reason and compassion, can be a magnificent force for good. This on the other hand, is what happens when hate is fed carelessly and allowed to grow out of control.
So the next time we see the SJWs on about "the haters".......
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 11:13 AM   #40
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,353
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
I can't help but think that this entire fight is absurd.
Of course it is, that's the attraction.

The goal here is to point out just how when and where social justice types are unable to live up to the moral standards they demand from society at large. Under their own rules of engagement a comment like RW makes at the beginning of her charity video would elicit howls of outrage from the SJ crowd were the genders of both the speaker and the butt(s) of the joke reversed.

But of course they've written themselves special rules to allow this sort of behaviour. Rules like women can't be sexist because sexism=prejudice+power so making a bigoted joke against members of a group who are perceived to have power is OK because it's all part of the fight for equality.

Check it out.

Quote:
"That totally ~ist thing I just said was just a joke!" (sexist, racist, ableist, cissexist, fattist, something-phobic, etc.)

jinxybunny wrote:More Than “Just a Joke”: The Prejudice-Releasing Function of Sexist Humor-- Exposure to (or repeating of) sexist humor makes men who have sexist attitudes more likely to discriminate against women
Exposure to Sexist Humor and Rape Proclivity: The Moderator Effect of Aversiveness Ratings-- Exposure to and enjoyment of sexist humor increases rape proclivity
The Enjoyment of Sexist Humor, Rape Attitudes, and Relationship Aggression in College Students-- Enjoyment of sexist humor was positively correlated with rape-related attitudes and beliefs, the self-reported likelihood of forcing sex, and psychological, physical, and sexual aggression in men.
Social consequences of disparagement humor: a prejudiced norm theory-- Disparagement humor (e.g., sexist jokes) creates a normative climate of tolerance of discrimination


ischemgeek wrote:No, it's not. It's really not. Disparagement humor serves to normalize and trivialize prejudices.
SJ writes the rules and it's our job to make sure they stick to those rules. Luckily for us, they can't.
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.