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.
@ Gregory
Just for the record, it wasn’t me who moved your comment to guano. Where your posts let you down is you keep assuming what others are thinking rather than asking them.
Looks like gauno to me.
No, I asked for another method to reliably determine that “category B” exists. You just repeated your appalling belief in junk that can’t be reliably studied, as if that were in question.
Why don’t you just admit that you have nothing but your bias to commend your tripe?
Glen Davidson
keiths,
Keith, was this comment intended to illustrate my point?
Please edit this out or I’ll have to move the comment.
ETA
In response to Keith’s comment immediately below, you are assuming Walto is upset and that it is affecting his judgement. It’s unnecessary and provocative. It’s directed at the commenter not the comment.
OK, Alan, but I don’t see how asking someone to calm down is against the rules.
Walt,
Yeah, who cares about a few Yiddish-speaking socialists? As long as I myself can freely criticize the government, who cares if a few Yids get jailed for protesting the draft? They’re Yiddish-speaking, and socialists, and their liberties aren’t important the way mine are.
Jesus, Walt.
Yeah, that’s what I meant, obviously.
This is why it’s stupid to interact with you. You’re a shmuck, pure and simple.
And ridiculous accusations of keiths(hmendric’s) kind are exactly the kind of shit that should be pulled, and for which posters should be disciplined. It’s hurtful and he’s an annoying dildo that spends most of his time here baiting people.
And incidentally, you stupid asshole, my father was a Holocaust survivor.
Moderators,
Please don’t move Walt’s two comments above to Guano. Yes, they’re clearly in violation of the rules, but no one needs to be protected from them.
ETA: It looks like I was too late. Here’s a link to the Guano’ed comments.
ETA2: Also, I’d like to hear an explanation of why my comment was Guano’ed.
But, of course, the world is a better place for these kinds of interchanges, as Hitchens eloquently points out.
keiths,
keiths,
Right. As I’ve said here a couple of times, getting called names like shmuck or crazy aren’t actually hurtful. Other stuff is, though. Besides, (i) you’re anonymous, and (ii) I’m guessing you’re aware of these traits of yours. So what the hell? Make a ruckus, get a thrill, who gives a shit.
Thanks for that link. But no links are needed for pointers to keiths’ sophomoric know-it-allisms: you can pretty much pick any thread and any comment of his at random. He’s full of shit pretty much everywhere you look.
“….than on the issue supposedly being discussed.”
But just what IS the issue being discussed? You were discussing my character, and I’m discussing your character.
There is nothing of any intellectual worth here. I think you’re a sophomoric nudnik who likes to bait people. You think I hate “Yids.” My view is correct, yours is ridiiculous, but so what? It’s my view the whole confab is useless fighting, Drivel. The theory of this site is that “it’s all good.” Moderators move stuff they don’t like–like “Calm down, Walt” and leave other stuff, because, as I’ve said, it’s impossible to set forth rules against being obno. So if no one is thrown out, one of us will leave. And you will be able continue to tell people just how much smarter you are than Alvin Plantinga (which I know is very important to you) without me calling bullshit on your bogus “arguments.” So, congrats.
I moved that, and the others. I’ll shortly move some more. It should be obvious why I moved those.
I have (I think) removed the ability of keiths and walt to post. I’ll revisit that tomorrow. Consider it a 24 hour cooling off period.
[I moved this to Guano, too, since it is a reply to a message in Guano.]
“What does that have to do with our dispute? You told us that you’re “with Holmes on this matter”, and that you need something “better” than the false imprisonment of “a few Yiddish speaking socialists” to make you reconsider.”
Yeah, right, dickhead, I wrote that I need something “better” than the false imprisonment of a few “Yiddish speaking socialists” to make me reconsider. Excellent use of selective quotation. Go “fuck” yourself.
And, I remind you, what our dispute is actually about is our respective characters. I say that you’re an arrogant asshole, and you say that I’m disrespectful of “Yids.” I invite everyone here to judge for themselves on this terribly important matter which illustrates the extreme importance of Hitchens’ “argument” regarding the horror of prohibiting people from yelling “fire” in crowded theaters where there is no fire. My “counterargument” (I know you love those) is that you are a sophomoric asshole with no real interest in much except baiting people with whom you disagree because you enjoy this kind of thing.
Neil, what you did was eminently sensible. I would have continued to point out keith’s stupidity and dickishness for another half-hour to no one’s benefit except my own. As to your suggestion that we continue this via email, I think that’s also very sensible, and I’d be happy to do that if I had keiths’ email address. He, however, enjoys making a public dick of himself, so I’m guessing (and his re-baiting above confirms this) that he’d much prefer to continue here.
Sorry, boyo, your questions are as boring as Christopher was.
IF you’d like, do feel free to be more interesting.
Condensed version of my exchange with hotshoe:
hotshoe:
keiths:
hotshoe:
Well, that was persuasive. You could’ve taught Hitchens a thing or two about rhetoric, couldn’t you, hotshoe?
Heh, exactly the response I (privately) predicted from you.
Can’t you at least try to be a little interesting in the future?
Patrick, to walto:
Yes, it’s really all about taking responsibility.
Hotshoe sneers at “Christopher’s brand of illogic”, which is fine. But when she’s asked to take responsibility and support her statement, she suddenly finds the question too “boring” to answer.
It’s a shame that it’s so boring to take responsiblility for your statements, isn’t it, hotshoe?
Neil volunteers for the role of moderator, oversteps his authority, and is called on it. Yet there is not a word of explanation from him for why he felt free to invent a new rule instead of sticking to Lizzie’s. No word from him on whether he still feels he was right to do so, or whether he now recognizes that he was wrong and will refrain from inventing new rules in the future. And still no explanation from him of why he Guano’ed my two comments, whether he still thinks that was the right decision, and why; or if not, whether and when he will rectify it.
Like hotshoe, Neil is refusing to take responsibility.
And walto, of course, throws out accusations without taking responsibility for them, as I just demonstrated. And though he claims I am wrong about Plantinga, he refuses to say why. Like hotshoe, he enjoys tossing out criticisms without taking responsibility for backing them up. Perhaps he is as bored by this sort of responsibility as she is.
The three of you are responsible for what you write (and in Neil’s case, do) here, just like the rest of us. If we accept responsibility for our statements and actions, why won’t you?
GUANO.
I see this whole comment of yours is guano.
If you are not getting replies which satisfy your demands, that still does not give you warrant for breaking the very first rule of this site:
Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.
No sign of William for a couple of days.
I wonder if he has become “satisfied with the debate” and left with his tail tucked satisfyingly between his legs.
Qualifies for guano.
petrushka,
But since you agree that less moderation is better, you don’t want to see it moved.
Correct?
Bollocks!
That could be the idiotic title of this Blog by Elizabeth Liddle, yes. She’ll come back eventually of course, not as busy as many others who are more philosophy competent and engaged than she is.
Steve,
Lol, the anonymous poster known here as ‘keiths’ appears to be incorrigibly obtuse and dispiriting (thinking that loud and repetitive equates with right). It’s proud, posturing and arrogant obtuse and materialistic, granted. But it sure doesn’t seem to be what Elizabeth Liddle had in mind calling this site TSZ, as quasi-Buddhist as she is.
Whatever happened to Elizabeth Liddle? She was hot!
I suspect that she has been distracted by the real world.
How unfortunate a loss for us all.
(She was hot! Did I say that?!)
Jesus fuck, Rock. Are you an ignorant sexist pig or are you a deliberate sexist pig?
walto:
C’mon, walto. The idea of a god isn’t incoherent — it just isn’t supported by the evidence. Likewise for the idea that terrestrial life is designed, or that the Texans will win the Super Bowl this season.
Making stuff up doesn’t score you points, it just makes you look pitiful. Is that what you want?
Trust me, it’s very hard for any of us to come to terms with the fact that we may look pitiful, when we know you’re so pretty.
BTW, my own (pitiful looking) mind has often (no doubt confusedly!) suggested to me that most ideas of God–including those seen in these parts–actually ARE incoherent. But you non-pitiful-looking people probably know better, being all obvious, unequivocal, incontrovertible and, especially, pretty.
Best wishes always,
W
Gregory,
Will you ever present a coherent argument instead of shitting on your keyboard?
OF course it is a problem: YOU STILL DON’T GET THAT THE WHOLE POINT IS ANALYZING IF CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUALS INCREASE THEIR SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTIVE RATES.
You not getting the point is a huge problem when we try to debate with you.
Fitness is not an absolute condition, imbecile!!!!
“In this contexts, “fit” refers to “most well adapted to the current environment,” which differs from common notions of the binary ‘fit’ and ‘unfit.’”
That you are an idiot who doesn’t understand that survival depends on the conditions an individual faces.
Yes, it is: your question is extremely vague and you pretend to make a point with that. We described you a real experiment, asshole. And you also asked about the conditions of the experiment. And if we ask about the conditions of your example it’s wrong? You are an asshole, man.
NO, ASSHOLE: WE NEED TO KNOW MORE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION AND ITS ENVIRONMENT TO FIGURE OUT IF THIS ANEMIA WOULD INCREASE FITNESS. If you give no details we can give no definitive answer, moron.
Way to go, fucking genious. A medical diagnosis changes from patient to patient, and you don’t know it until you study the patient and know the diagnosis. Medicine is not science, according to you? Is medicine a tautology?
No, you arethe idiot who has ignored our answer: SAMPLE SIZE!!!!!
Yes, you moron!!! The point is checking if it depends on the characteristics of the organisms. How many times are we gonna have to say this for you to get it?
Good!! Because it’s fucking wrong!!! Survival is the way WE DETECT the best. But they are the best because of their characteristics!!
Again, chloroquine example. Chloroquine resistant parasites have a higher survival rate: they are the best. They are the best BECAUSE THEY ARE RESISTANT TO CHLOROQUINE, ASSHOLE, NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER SURVIVAL RATE!!!
Guillermoe,
There is a reason why I don’t bother responding to you most of the time. It is clear to me that you are not well educated on the subject I am discussing, so its kind of pointless. You think that if you just read wikipedia, you must have some kind of answer. Everything you have ever believed you have learned, you get from wikipedia, or you just make some wild guess and hope it sounds right.
You write things like this, without knowing what it even means:
“the testable hypothesis that such fitness-impacting heritable variations actually exist”
How do you test if something is fitness impacting? I will tell you, you test it by seeing if it survives. Therefore everything that survives and passes on its genes is fit. Because the definition of being fit is surviving and passing on your genes. Just because Steve says that unfit organisms survive, and fit ones sometimes don’t doesn’t make it so. If an unfit organism survives, by what standard are you saying it is unfit? Because previously other organisms with the same genes didn’t survive?
Again, I am not really asking you because I a waiting for you to answer this, I am simply showing you that you are wrong. But it gives me no pleasure to show when you are wrong. Its boring. Its pointless. You have no ideas to present which pose a dilemma or starting point for discussion. You post things, and then ask Steve or Joe or Jock, Is that right, did what I say make sense?
You can google wikipedia, that is the extent of the contribution you can provide here. I got news for you, Wikipedia is not the final word on knowledge. Its not even an accurate source of knowledge. In fact Wikipedia is INTENTIONALLY a biased source of information, with an actual agenda to promote a worldview in line with its founder. That is not a conspiracy theory, its well documented. But you don’t know this, because you don’t think, you copy and paste. Wikipedia can’t make you think.
The fact you actually think Wikipedia is an accurate source of knowledge shows me just how uneducated you are about the subject. Before I didn’t really feel like insulting you by telling you how dumb I think you are. But now I don’t mind.
Richardthughes,
Richard,
I don’t mean to brag, but my Aunt one time gave Billy Beanes father a blow job in the back of his Volkswagen van, so I think I know a little more about Sabermetrics than you do!
BTW, do you know WHY Beane got a job as a scout? Because he was PREDICTED to be a baseball star as a first round pick, and flopped. Whoops Keith!
“I follow Brandom too closely”
Well, indeed that’s possible.
It’s ironic that Carl Sachs is currently employed by Marymount University with its “Direct Us by Thy Light” (Tua Luce Dirige) motto as he continues to push naturalism (cum empiricism) and atheism/agnosticism in his works. The disenchantment from TSZ’s resident philosophist still reverberates electronically. Like Georgetown before, they must have been desperate for philosophistry.
Any suggestions that KN could possibly elevate seem to hit rock bottom. The secular Jewish story KN told of himself here seems to anchor the disenchantment. ‘Skeptical’ in this sense means skeptical of theism, not skeptical of atheism. Even skepticism has its limits in this worldview.
Return again to hugging KN at TSZ, cherish the disenchantment, because elevation of spirit is obviously not what his nihilistic philosophistry has to offer. Elsewhere perhaps you’ll find what his ‘Kantian Naturalism’ is blind to recognise and embrace.
“I don’t care if Wikipedia is a propaganda mill for skeptic liars who don’t want to allow the truth of science to be presented fairly”
Allan, Socle, Omagain, Petrushka, Walto
At least now we finally get the truth from you guys, you don’t give a shit about honesty.
Well, some people think its important that the truth be told, whether it be about evolution, governments, or if Columbus discovered America.
I have zero respect for the principals of skeptics con men like you. But at least now we agree on one thing, your side is the one that censors, not UD.
Lizzie made a site full of partisan liars that even she can’t stand to read.
Science is presented fairly at wikipedia.
By the way it would be honest that you didn’t put words in the mouth of the others. A more fair statement would have been:
“I don’t care if Wikipedia is considered propaganda by self-called “skeptic” liars who don’t want to allow the truth of science to be presented fairly”
I think Allan, Socle, Omagain, Petrushka and Walto would adhere to this new statement. I do.
By you inventing what they say? What a case..
The irony is so massive it could turn into a black hole. Be careful.
Please, tell it. I am anxiously waiting to read it.
Because we consider wikipedia is not making significant censorship and UD is making significant censorship and we condemn censorship but you are defending censorship in UD, WE are on the side of censorship. Kind of not making sense.
But better that than being next to you on the side of overwhelming stupidity.
Now, enlighten us with the truth wikipedia won’t let us know, please.
phoodoo,
No phoodoo. I don’t care about Lee Harvey Oswald and Kennedy. Try and keep up.
And yet you can post pretty much what you like here. Go figure. Your beef is with Wikipedia, not me or TSZ. I find its reporting on subjects I know well to be reasonably accurate. Where it isn’t, I change it. I don’t pursue my worldview through its pages, so I don’t really mind if my edits die the death. I accept it for what it is. You want it to be something else. You have zero respect for me because I don’t happen to agree that it should be something else, and be more disparaging of evolution and lone-gunman-isers (say) and less implicitly disparaging of morphic-resonance-peddlers and ID? Boo fucking hoo. The truth is fine as long as you get to say what it is. I see.
This post is not outside any forum rules. You are a partisan hack Alan. Much worse things are side by posters who share your worldview:
“I don’t care if Wikipedia is a propaganda mill for skeptic liars who don’t want to allow the truth of science to be presented fairly”
Allan, Socle, Omagain, Petrushka, Walto
At least now we finally get the truth from you guys, you don’t give a shit about honesty.
Well, some people think its important that the truth be told, whether it be about evolution, governments, or if Columbus discovered America.
I have zero respect for the principals of skeptics con men like you. But at least now we agree on one thing, your side is the one that censors, not UD.
Lizzie made a site full of partisan liars that even she can’t stand to read.
Alan Fox,
No, I didn’t say they didn’t post in good faith, I said they are people who support lies, censorship, and scientific deception. So you are incorrect to move my comment. They have already supported the idea that they could care less what the truth is about Oswald, and other theories that they don’t care about. They are scientific liars, that is a fact.
phoodoo,
Lying requires some knowing distortion of fact. It is a fact that I could(n’t )care less about Oswald, and that either way it has no bearing upon science. See you in Guano!
“I don’t care if Wikipedia is a propaganda mill for skeptic liars who don’t want to allow the truth of science to be presented fairly”
Allan, Socle, Omagain, Petrushka, Walto
At least now we finally get the truth from you guys, you don’t give a shit about honesty.
Well, some people think its important that the truth be told, whether it be about evolution, governments, or if Columbus discovered America.
I have zero respect for the principals of skeptics con men like you. But at least now we agree on one thing, your side is the one that censors, not UD.
Lizzie made a site full of partisan liars that even she can’t stand to read.
Allan Miller,
Not caring about what is true or not true in science, and only caring about what you what to be preached getting preached makes one scientifically dishonest.
I can certainly understand why Lizzie can’t stand her own site she created, it is full of people who are scientifically dishonest, and who simply want a world which preaches their worldview.
phoodoo,
Why is it dishonest to have no opinion on Oswald? You trying to tell me what to think?
No, we don’t. What we support is the idea that “lies, censorship, and scientific deception” cannot surpass the filter of Wikipedia to a signifcant level. Of course, when it does, it’s despicable.
Now, it would be appropriate that you explain how WE condemning censorship at UD and at other sources is more “censorship-suporting” than you defending censorship at UD.