Comments that seem to me to be in violation of the game rules will be moved here, and closed to further comment.  Do not regard having your post moved here as a reprimand, merely as a referee’s whistle. :)

Feel free to comment on them at any other peanut gallery of your choice.

1,131 thoughts on “Guano

  1. Gregory,

    This thread raises a moral question re: saving a baby or frozen embryos. Nevertheless, the fact that “rude, mean, insulting” communication is not only condoned, but actually called “very pretty” (a “tripping balls” acid-taking theory of ‘design’) is rather damning. TSZ is certainly far from the ‘moral high road’ compared with UD, a site I criticise as strongly and directly as anyone at TSZ.

    Despite hotshoe_’s self-identification as “rude, mean, and insulting”, I saw none of that in the comment you are referencing. Here it is again, for your convenience:

    Hint: you CAN’T prove it, Mung. It only takes one black swan to disprove a claim that “every swan is white”.

    Sorry, kiddo, I’m at least one black swan, whom you know personally (for an internet value of “personally”).

    I only think the natural world looks “designed” when I’m tripping balls.

    I do think that acid tells a kind of truth, but when acid tells me that every leaf is an individually designed jewel of green perfection … I can pretty much be sure that’s the opposite of reality.

    In reality, I think that the natural world is messy, ad hoc, ill-fitting, scabrous, greedy, exploitative, and evolved. Sure, I also think it’s beautiful and wonderful (we do have hummingbirds, after all) but that’s orthogonal to thinking it’s “designed”. Never, as a little kid chasing dragonflies, did I ever think that it was “designed” — or “planned” or any other synonym for “designed”. And as soon as I was old enough to understand the basic biology, I knew that the theory of evolution was correct in the overall picture of how the magnificent oak grows the way it does while the wild roses grow the way they do.

    Getting into college level inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, and molecular biology, there has never been any need to postulate a designing agent that said to itself “I’ll just stick these two things together; they’ll work better that way”. I see molecules. I don’t see “design”.

    Sorry, your “objective fact” is neither.

    Rather than spewing invective, how about explaining, with reference to specific quotes, what you find objectionable about this arguably pretty post?

  2. If we’re really going to have a conversation about varieties of ‘design/Design’, patrick, that’s best for another more concentrated thread. As for an even playing field of communication (since you have repeatedly shown yourself as an anti-religious atheist too), first tell what you interpret as “spewing invective” in my comment:

    Right now, this place feels very, very unfriendly; it feels like a loud, angry, mean, rude, insulting (and rather PROUD of it!) den of anti-religious atheists (not mere ‘skeptics’) ready to chomp at any hint of (natural) theology.

    “the natural world looks ‘designed’ [only] when I’m tripping balls.”

  3. Gregory: Right now, this place feels very, very unfriendly; it feels like a loud, angry, mean, rude, insulting (and rather PROUD of it!) den of anti-religious atheists (not mere ‘skeptics’) ready to chomp at any hint of (natural) theology.

    “the natural world looks ‘designed’ [only] when I’m tripping balls.”

    Oh for Maude’s sake, Gregory, if you continue to have problems with my comment, either take them back to the Natural Religion thread where I said that, or take it to Noyau.

    Or even start a new thread. I’d be happy to talk about mind-expanding drugs for a while.

    You are capable of participating in a responsible way. That is, I think you are. You could prove that you are.

    If you aren’t, then at least don’t derail this specific thread about baby-saving morals with your endless horrified fascination with me.

  4. Whatever one thinks about the ethics of abortion, I find it extraordinary that anyone can compare the moral issues raised with the issue of whether one finds a piece of writing “pretty”, I did think it was a rather lovely post, and the one following it too. Is Gregory shocked because someone said balls?

  5. “Is Gregory shocked because someone said balls?”

    Lol! 😉 :) Your views of ‘design’ are filtered through apostasy, Lizzie. Canadians laugh rather well compared with stiff, haughty USAmericans, thank you very much. 😉

    ‘Tripping balls’ and doing ‘acid’ may set a standard of ‘pretty’ for you, Lizzie. But most people would disagree (not having done acid and rejecting the desire). I’m simply surprised at how far you will go to defend atheism against theism to ignore the beauty and ‘pretty’ in a theistic worldview. You must have been really badly damaged mentally (cognitively) by reading Dennett’s “Freedom Evolves” to have leapt from religious faith in your 50s into such a chaos of aesthetics, politics, ethics, metaphysics and even ontology as ‘skepticism’ provides you now.

  6. So, I responded to Lizzie and then got blamed by her for it. This is a moderation joke!

    “Is Gregory shocked because someone said balls?”- Lizzie (this thread)

    Lizzie gets to derail, but others can’t? Resist the urge. And don’t rub it in as a Moderator after you’ve guano’d yourself as if you were not an instigator.

  7. Alan Fox,

    For goodness sake, Alan, then it’s about time you get this “shitted up” moronic USAmerican bitch off me.

  8. “I say, for example, that a given pattern of fitnesses “selects for” a particular allele? / Is that the kind of ‘agency’ you mean?”

    No, ‘patterns’ are not AGENTS.

    (A moderator at TAZ is now acting as an AGENT to protect walto from his ‘shitted up’ comment)

  9. These recent days, Alan, you should just send to noyau or guano immediately anything ‘walto’ writes about or addressed to me because he is a diabolical ‘man on a mission’ to oppose anything and everything I say. He is a depraved atheist bureaucrat who happens to teach philosophistry. Iow, he is mad.

    My fair and clear question to Joe remains.

  10. walto,

    Angry, angry condescending walto. Not a teacher. Just a bureaucrat angry atheist. (But hey, why not keep his posts, TAZ moderators and guano mine? They will support atheists and NEVER caution them.)

    “Somehow, I’ve managed to avoid getting thrown out of the house.”

    Yeah, they’re gullible because you’re an atheist – it’s preferential treatment at TAZ.

  11. Just a well meaning request to people who tell me or other nonbelievers what we really think or believe:

    Please eff yourself with broken glass.

    I talk about what i think and believe. I do my best to refrain from psychoanalyzing other posters. I may think they are wrong or silly or even stupid, and I may say so, but I do not tell them what they really think.

    If I do want to know what someone thinks, I ask.

  12. Hey hotshoe

    I love you to. You are kinda cute when you talk dirty. 😉

    Do you kiss Darwin with that mouth?


  13. William,

    “Blurt and backpedal” is an accurate description of your MO. Fercrissakes, you’ve blurted out entire books that you’ve later regretted writing:

    Unfortunately, I’m the author of the books Anarchic Harmony and Unconditional Freedom. I don’t recommend them.

    Blurt and backpedal.

  14. keiths,
    Keith consistently quote-mines me in order to mischaracterize my worldview and philosophy. I’ve corrected him multiple times but he refuses to accommodate those corrections. I’m not going to continue spending my time looking for past threads from which keiths is quote-mining and in which I’ve already corrected him afterwards. I’ll be happy to explain my worldview if there are any serious inquiries, but this post is to let others know that keiths characterization of it should not be taken seriously.

  15. keiths: Blurt and backpedal.

    There are pretty big dollops of babble and bloviation in there too. I might go with “Blurt, babble, bloviate, and backpedal.”

  16. walto: There are pretty big dollops of babble and bloviation in there too.I might go with “Blurt, babble, bloviate, and backpedal.”

    So, why is it that you need to say things like this? I don’t see any reason for it other than to attempt to marginalize and ridicule another person. Is that it?

  17. It’s interesting that even though walto has often been at the recieving end of keiths’ quote-mining and mischaracterizations, here he is apparently all too willing to jump in with keiths when he’s doing it to someone else.

    Oh well. I guess the need to ostracize and ridicule some common “other” outweighs any moral restraint for some people.

  18. I’m sorry; you’re right. There’s no need for ridicule of that type. I could just think that stuff without posting it.

    And anyhow, who the hell am I to chastise anybody for babble OR bloviation? Those two are among the five things I do best!

  19. I will say, though, that I haven’t seen you tee off on Gregory for his practices. (He’s running at about 94% ridicule on this site.). Mung either. Y’all are both quick to criticize “the other team” only. At least I’m an equal opportunity pain in the ass. keiths is too, for that matter.

  20. walto,

    At least I’m an equal opportunity pain in the ass. keiths is too, for that matter.

    William just provides more opportunities than most. He feels like he’s being singled out. TSZ can be a unpleasant place for those who find it rectally painful to have their mistakes noticed.

    ETA: Insert a Richardthughes “butthurt” joke here.

  21. Gregory’s probably bored out of his skull about now. Not that this thread isn’t just all exciting and interesting and captivating and all. *retch*

    ok, walto, two of the other things you do best aren’t allowed on this site. So what’s the one thing that’s left?

  22. An amusing instance of William quote mining himself, from 2013:

    You know things are getting tough for William when he stoops to quote-mining his own comments. (BTW, moderators — please don’t move his comment to Guano, even though he does falsely accuse me of lying. I’d like the accusation to remain in full view) :

    So now you are just flat-out lying. From YOUR OWN link where I supposedly “recommended to us just last year as a current account of his beliefs.”:

    BTW, I don’t know which book you ordered, but they don’t equally examine the views I express here. Anarchic Harmony is more of a 100-page anti-authority, anti-convention rant than anything else, but I’ve always been fond of Robert Anton Wilson’s introduction. Unconditional Freedom is a more in-depth explanation of my views. Please keep in mind that I wrote both of those about 20 years ago, so my views have changed and developed over that time.

    As William knows perfectly well, the embarrassing quotations don’t come from either of those two books. They come from a third book, Instant Enlightenment, that he recommended to us in the very same comment that he quotemines above:

    Both of those books are now out of print and are now only available via the second-hand market. For something more current, you might try “Instant Enlightenment”, available as a digital download from Cheap, at $2.50, and brief (as the term “instant” indicates) at 40 pages.

    So the embarrassing quotations don’t come from something written 20 years ago. They come from a book that William recommended to us on this very blog as “something more current.”

    Your behavior is pitiful, William.

    I admit I have some fault in this – I had completely forgotten about “Instant Enlightenment”, and for whatever reason your reference to it didn’t even register.

    More “blurt and backpedal”. William blurts out an accusation…

    So now you are just flat-out lying.

    …and then has to backpedal once again.

  23. Rich’s reaction to William’s powers of “manfestation”:

    And in this fearless framework you can develop amazing powers:

    * Move slowly forward in time
    * Become completly visible, even in full daylight
    * Change your philosophy constantly whilst accusing others of sophistry


  24. fifth,

    I myself find all of this discussion incredibly boring. I’m only answering questions.

    Oh, really? That contradicts what you just told us:

    On the contrary I have spent a lot of time on this. I’ve racked my brain Ive talked to non-christian theists Ive done word studies on the role of Christ in the OT

    I’m even researching the topic right now. That is why I keep asking you how you know things in your worldview.

    Do you think that Jesus approves of your lying when it is done for Christianity’s sake?


    I would much rather be discussing something we could potentially agree on like science.

    Of course you would rather change the subject. You are being asked questions about your faith that you are unable to answer. It’s embarrassing.

    For you, belief clearly comes first. Poor attempts at post-hoc rationalization come only later, after your facile beliefs are challenged.

Comments are closed.