Noyau (2)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

[to work around page bug]

2,941 thoughts on “Noyau (2)”

  1. Alan Fox: Prediction confirmed. Again! I ask myself is there any point in engaging with Keiths.

    Absolutely. It removes all doubt. But if I ever wanted a captain that was sure to go down with his ship …

  3. “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”

  4. Evidence and argument, Mung. You’ll never get the respect you crave if you don’t learn to provide evidence and argument for your claims.

  5. Mung: keiths doubled down. And tripled down. And continues to try to spread that lie, even when corrected. It’s a sickness, I think.

    Oh look, a keithism. I quote myself to show how right I am.

  6. keiths: Evidence and argument, Mung. You’ll never get the respect you crave if you don’t learn to provide evidence and argument for your claims.

    And unless and until you support your claims you are squarely in the hypocrite category.

  7. Alan Fox: I’d be more offended if I thought mung thought his sound-bite would actually deceive anyone into thinking Lawrence Krauss had had a dramatic conversion to IDism. Are any ID skeptics here that stupid?

    They are not that stupid. But Patrick tried going there, so I could be wrong. There is for certain some other dynamic at play. Witch-hunt came to mind.

    Maybe I haven’t been reading closely enough but I thought he’d already hinted at that. It might be handy at this point if mung could just clarify if he was just yanking chains or does he indeed think we would take his soundbite as evidence that Krauss had converted.

    And I went further and did more than hint at it.

    here

    here

  8. walto,

    Comedies take a step up IMO when they drop the laughter track. Even then there is a particular type of comedy actor – and I do find Americans more guilty than Brits on average – of telegraphing a joke to an overplayed degree.

    It has a similar kind of effect as a smiley – LAUGH NOW. THIS BIT’S FUNNY. I do it plenty, to avoid being misunderstood. But trusting the intelligence of your audience to get it – or being prepared to play a percentage game – makes for a more engaging spectacle IMO.

    That’s why I don’t mind over-much when someone who occasionally displays a sense of humour says something that can be interpreted ambiguously (if not, necessarily, by a given individual!). I feel I am being given credit without the dots requiring joining up. And if I’m wrong occasionally – meh, it’s a percentage game.

  9. Mung,

    There is for certain some other dynamic at play.

    The ‘dynamic’ is simple. People are tired of your chronic dishonesty.

    Dishonesty in service of an attempted ‘gotcha’ is still dishonesty. You got caught quotemining yet again, you got called on it, and you don’t don’t like that. Stop being dishonest and the problem goes away.

    The same goes for Alan. Neither of you actually likes the consequences of your dishonesty, yet you both persist in it. It’s stupid. It doesn’t serve your interests, and it annoys your fellow commenters and wastes their time. In Alan’s case, it further undermines his credibility as a moderator.

    Why not give honesty a shot?

  10. keiths: People are tired of your chronic dishonesty.

    Surely you came prepared with evidence to support your accusation of chronic dishonesty.

    keiths: Some friendly advice from a Yank: gather your evidence and think things through before posting.

    Follow your own advice, a Yank.

  11. Mung,

    Surely you came prepared with evidence to support your accusation of chronic dishonesty.

    How much time do you have? We could be here for days.

  12. Allan Miller:

    I was looking forward to experiencing that much vaunted British irony before I first moved there. Turns out, Brits quite like potty humor.

    Oh, irony abounds. You just can’t tell …

    😀

  14. keiths: How much time do you have? We could be here for days.

    I thought you kept a record of everything. I imagine that you have a directory on your hard drive named “Mung Dishonest Quote-Mines” or some such and that it was just chock full of history. I certainly expected you to come prepared..

    Or do you just hand out advice to others that you don’t actually heed yourself.

  15. Alan Fox: I followed your links and your comments are clear. That’s fine for me.

    Now you’ll never really know, and people can believe me or not, but OMagain in the original thread asked directed by what. I would have answered by natural selection. But before I got around to doing so I saw Patrick’s post, and the rest, as they say, is history.

  16. Mung,

    I thought you kept a record of everything. I imagine that you have a directory on your hard drive named “Mung Dishonest Quote-Mines” or some such and that it was just chock full of history. I certainly expected you to come prepared..

    Or do you just hand out advice to others that you don’t actually heed yourself.

    So unless the comments are already typed in, waiting for me to click ‘Post Comment’, then I’m not prepared, and I’m being hypocritical?

    You just provided a textbook example of Mung dishonesty. You’re pretending that ‘prepared’ means something ludicrous in order to justify a bogus criticism.

    It’s a waste of time. Give honesty a chance, Mung.

  17. Allan Miller,

    Humour is difficult to translate! A joke explained is no longer funny.

    An example:

    Our postman, Tino, regards himself as a community service, checking on elderly residents, sharing the gossip, offering advice on gardening and so on. He had a parcel for us that had to be signed for and my wife didn’t hear him knock (she’d just finished showering). So he opens the back door and shouts, at the same time noticing that the parsley plant in her herb bed was looking particularly healthy due to the good spring weather.

    My wife, having quickly dressed, arrives to find him collapsed in a heap, helpless with laughter. He manages to gasp: “ma femme va me tuer!”
    Eventually he explains that, without thinking he had shouted; “Eh, Suzanne! Tu as du bon persil!”

  18. keiths: Some friendly advice from a Yank: gather your evidence and think things through before posting. It will save you some embarrassment.

    I love keiths. Endless hours of amusement.

    And the best he can do is attack a statement made after the fact. That’s his evidence of my prior history of dishonest quote-mining. You absolutely cannot make this stuff up.

    Am I allowed to say pathetic?

  20. Mung:

    And the best he can do is attack a statement made after the fact. That’s his evidence of my prior history of dishonest quote-mining.

    In case anyone is wondering: No, I am not paying Mung to make my point for me.

    He actually thinks that rapid-fire lies will help defend against charges of dishonesty.

  21. Patrick,

    Yes. The second I read as tongue-in-cheek.

    Why, when it essentially just recapitulates the first, which was clearly not tongue-in-cheek?

  22. keiths: A guy with a long history of dishonesty and quotemining…

    The prosecutor is unprepared to make his case and requests a continuance.

  23. Mung: They are not that stupid. But Patrick tried going there, so I could be wrong. There is for certain some other dynamic at play. Witch-hunt came to mind.

    And I went further and did more than hint at it.

    here

    here

    If you meant what you said in those two comments then you would retract your original quote mine and apologize for not quoting Krauss accurately (and you would have done so as soon as the full context was provided). Simply saying that you didn’t intend to misrepresent him while at the same time continuing to claim “That’s what he said.” doesn’t demonstrate respect for the truth.

  24. [ Copied here from the President Trump thread. ]

    walto,

    Wow, thanks for the excellent example of your extreme sanctimony. When I think you’ve already exhibited the holier than thou stuff to the max, you always manage to surprise me by dialing it up to eleven. You are most awesome!

    . . .

    But who cares about evidence. Let us leave that stuff alone now, You have bigger fish to fry! Let me instead close by thanking you for all you do in attempting to improve the morality of others by insulting them. It’s consistent with your libertarian ideals, and your whitewashing of Trump, in addition to your own deep glorious sanctimony. The only thing that makes me sad is that you deserve the same sort of credit that keiths does for your noble work in that area, and I fear I may have lavished more on him than I have on you. For that, I sincerely apologize.

    That’s it, that’s it, let the self-loathing flow through you (sure, you’re interpreting it as anger now, but deep down you know what it is). It’s rough, but the only way to accept and change is to re-experience everything you’ve pushed down, every moral compromise you’ve made, every time you deliberately avoided thinking about how you were living at the expense of others. Get it all out (keep projecting if you must) and then maybe, just maybe, you’ll come to a place where you can try to begin making amends.

  25. [ Copied here from the President Trump thread. ]

    walto,

    Anyhow, getting back to the subject at hand, you asked for (not that you actually want, of course), evidence that you had supported libertarianism here. I.e., I wrote,

    In the libertarianism thread you made claims about the merits of that perspective that YOU would not back up upon questioning by (I believe) cubist.

    to which you responded:

    No, I did not. If you disagree, provide links to such claims.

    Recent defenses of yours are easy to find. There are many older ones too, but I’m too lazy. The best batch come from what I like to call “Patrick’s Christmas, 2015 sentiments.” They appear on the Noyau, in a discussion that led Neil to create the Libertarianism thread so we could continue there.

    So right off we see that I made no claims in the Libertarianism thread. You’re as sloppy with your accusations as you are with your ethics (but I still have hope for you).

    They all support libertarianism, and, as frosting, also display your extremely high opinon of yourself:

    No one who has asserted that government force should be used against people who are not harming others, purely to achieve some goal that person thinks desirable, has any moral standing to criticize those of us who value honesty, integrity, and honor. [Noyau, 12/25/15 at 8:01 PM]

    That describes my personal view of you and hints at my personal morality. It has nothing to do with libertarianism (my political views arise from my morality, not vice versa).

    My personal morality is that other people are their own ends, not means to my ends. I don’t care if you call yourself the Crips, the Cosa Nostra, or the government, once you start using force against people who aren’t harming you, you’re on the wrong side.

    More about my personal morality.

    An authoritarian who supports that initiation of force, who thinks that it is acceptable to have a career using government coercion to interfere with otherwise peaceful people, and who was paid in tax dollars has the ethics of a thief. Such a person should be spending his time figuring out how to atone for living at the expense of others, not providing unsolicited advice to people who value integrity and honor. [Noyau, 12/27/15 at 10:54 PM]

    More of my personal morality, applied to your behavior.

    I see a lot of people with knee-jerk reactions to libertarianism, but for me it comes down to the idea that interactions between people should be mutually consensual. Live and let live, treat others as you’d wish to be treated, an’ it harm none do as ye will — however you want to phrase it, it’s a matter of working together voluntarily rather than at the point of a gun. [Noyau, 12/27/15 at 11:48 PM]

    My personal views.

    The morality underlying the libertarian political movement is the non-coercion principle. Frederic Bastiat summarized the consequences nicely: “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.”

    I suppose you could call this a claim, but it’s just a statement of fact. You can look it up on the Libertarian Party’s website.

    Finally, libertarians make a point of investigating the actual costs of government programs, including unintended consequences. Statists look only at the intended (not even actual) benefits. [Noyau, 12/28/15 at 2:21 PM]

    I’ll give you half a point for this one, since the second sentence is based on my experience. To clarify, please consider it prefaced with “In my experience . . . .”

    Those all regard what you take to be the merits of libertarianism.

    Nope. They are statements about my personal morality combined with a few easily verifiable facts about libertarianism.

    You received questions and criticisms about those claims and descriptions from (at least) me, cubist and hotshoe, but repeatedly refused to answer them. Just like erik.

    Erik repeatedly made a claim about objective reality and refused to either support it or retract it. I wrote about my personal beliefs and applied them to your behavior. I’m glad it’s stuck with you for so long. Maybe you will reach the point where “honesty”, “integrity”, and “honor” are more than just words to you.

    I’m rooting for you, alto!

  26. There is something else here for which keiths hasn’t given a shred of evidence.

    keiths: The same goes for Alan. Neither of you actually likes the consequences of your dishonesty, yet you both persist in it. It’s stupid. It doesn’t serve your interests, and it annoys your fellow commenters and wastes their time. In Alan’s case, it further undermines his credibility as a moderator.

    keiths here insinuates that fellow commenterS are annoyed with Alan because something he does wastes THEIR time. And he goes on to suggest that Alan’s credibility as a moderator has been undermined.

    Where is the EVIDENCE that anybody but keiths has been annoyed, or that anybody but keiths believes that anybody but keiths is wasting their time with this nonsense, or that anybody but keiths has assigned Alan a lower credibility than he’d ever had.

    It’s all just wishful thinking and nasty innuendo on keiths’ part as far as I can tell. No evidence at all has been brought. I take the fact that keiths repeats something a dozen times doesn’t imply that anybody but keiths believes it. Where are the links we can evaluate on these matters?

  27. Patrick:
    [ Copied here from the President Trump thread. ]

    walto,

    to which you responded:

    Recent defenses of yours are easy to find. There are many older ones too, but I’m too lazy. The best batch come from what I like to call “Patrick’s Christmas, 2015 sentiments.” They appear on the Noyau, in a discussion that led Neil to create the Libertarianism thread so we could continue there.

    So right off we see that I made no claims in the Libertarianism thread.You’re as sloppy with your accusations as you are with your ethics (but I still have hope for you).

    That describes my personal view of you and hints at my personal morality.It has nothing to do with libertarianism (my political views arise from my morality, not vice versa).

    More about my personal morality.

    More of my personal morality, applied to your behavior.

    My personal views.

    I suppose you could call this a claim, but it’s just a statement of fact.You can look it up on the Libertarian Party’s website.

    I’ll give you half a point for this one, since the second sentence is based on my experience.To clarify, please consider it prefaced with “In my experience . . . .”

    Nope.They are statements about my personal morality combined with a few easily verifiable facts about libertarianism.

    Erik repeatedly made a claim about objective reality and refused to either support it or retract it.I wrote about my personal beliefs and applied them to your behavior.I’m glad it’s stuck with you for so long.Maybe you will reach the point where “honesty”, “integrity”, and “honor” are more than just words to you.

    I’m rooting for you, alto!

    Absolutely pathetic, Patrick. Just what one would expect from you. No honesty, no integrity, just evasion of clear facts and EVIDENCE. And, of course, lots of sanctimony. I think I’ll frame it.

    Also, I wouldn’t just post it on two threads–I’d post it on EVERY thread. It’s just so…..YOU!

  29. walto:
    Absolutely pathetic, Patrick.Just what one would expect from you.No honesty, no integrity, just evasion of clear facts and EVIDENCE.And, of course, lots of sanctimony.I think I’ll frame it.


    Also, I wouldn’t just post it on two threads–I’d post it on EVERY thread.It’s just so…..YOU!

    Responding in bold and messing up the blockquotes — good for you, walto. Really get into that rage. Feel the shame you’ve brought on yourself. You’ll get through this. I’m in your corner!

    Enlightenment occurs when you realize you are responsible for everything.

  30. Wow, i’m even responsible for YOUR disgraceful behavior, Patrick. I should be ashamed of myself!

    And the bold print too!!! Reprehensible,I tell you! Between your crass evasions and my typeface choices, I’ve got a lot of splainin’ to do, man.

    And I do soooo want enlightenment if it will make me more like you. 🙁

  31. walto:
    And I do soooo want enlightenment if it will make me more like you.

    The goal would be for you to be less like you. Recognize that you’ve been using others as means to your ends and figure out how to make up for even a small portion of the harm you’ve done in the time you have left.

    When you’re done raging at me and work through the issues you’ve created by your unethical choices, I hope you find some compassion for yourself.

  32. Wow, psych advice too. What fabulous service you and keiths provide–and for no recompense. And nobody seems to appreciate it. So sad and inappropriate. Two masters give, give, giving, and everybody thinks they’re just making assholes of themselves.

  33. Patrick, to walto:

    The goal would be for you to be less like you.

    That would be good. And less like Mung, too.

  36. Mung: The prosecutor is unprepared to make his case and requests a continuance.

    After the continuance, the defendant was convicted on all counts.

  38. keiths, let’s review:

    DNA_Jock March 25, at 11:30 am

    walto,
    I agree, walto. Alan might even apologize in all sincerity, but throw in a little playful exaggeration to add levity to the situation.
    It is keiths who is claiming to have an infallible irony detector; I suspect he’s fried its sardony-circuits completely during interactions with Mung. Whatever the reason, it is evidently malfunctioning.

    keiths March 25, at 5:02 pm

    DNA_Jock…For the record, and using your superior irony-detection ability, was Alan’s apology ironic? Was his second comment ironic?

    Alan Fox March 25, at 5:10 pm

    keiths: For the record, and using your superior irony-detection ability, was Alan’s apology ironic? Was his second comment ironic?

    OK, I’ll bite! *suspends resolution to self*
    First comment was intended to be somewhat sarcastic with a hint of gritted teeth.
    Second comment was intended to be ironic with a hint of Jewish self-deprecation.
    Does that help? Probably not.

    DNA_Jock March 25, at 5:17 pm

    Alan Fox,
    [taps gauge. Smiles.]
    Yup, all meters functioning within spec.

    Keiths repeats his demand for an answer : March 25, 5:30 pm and March 26, at 8:29 am
    Are you even paying attention, keiths?
    You should probably just declare victory and move on.
    😉

  39. keiths: Don’t forget to answer my question.

    keiths: Ditto for DNA_Jock and Neil.

    Hey, what about me? Alan already told you what he intended by what he wrote, so now you’re just being an ass. Pretty much everyone seems to see this but you.

    If you can’t abide by the site rules, leave.

  40. DNA_Jock,

    Rather than doing an unhelpful “review”, why not just answer the questions directly and unambiguously?

    For the record, and using your superior irony-detection ability, was Alan’s apology ironic? Was his second comment ironic?

  41. OMagain: After the continuance, the defendant was convicted on all counts.

    Convicted without evidence, in true skeptical style.

  42. Patrick: Enlightenment occurs when you realize you are responsible for everything.

    Patrick: Recognize that you’ve been using others as means to your ends and figure out how to make up for even a small portion of the harm you’ve done in the time you have left.

    The irony here is so thick.

  43. DNA_Jock: You should probably just declare victory and move on.
    😉

    Not to worry, In accordance with his his normal practice, keiths declared victory right at the outset, indicating that everybody concurs with whatever his latest insult entails, because, you know, everybody except his target (and others in some evil axis) must be on the keiths/Patrick “Truth, Justice and Free Psychological Tips” team.

  44. keiths: DNA_Jock,

    Rather than doing an unhelpful “review”, why not just answer the questions directly and unambiguously?

    Because I find the way that you are behaving like a complete and utter twit entertaining, and I would like to see the behavior continue. It’s a weakness of mine.
    I quite understand why you did not find the review “helpful”.

    For the record, and using your superior irony-detection ability, was Alan’s apology ironic? Was his second comment ironic?

    My first statement on this topic was (re Alan’s second comment)

    I’m with Neil on this one: even with my irony detection meter turned all the way down to “kairosfocus”, it still detected Alan’s ironic “The lying; it’s an emotional response that I’m learning to curb. At least no one else affects me in this way.”
    Mind you, it bent the needle on my statements-that-will-be-misinterpreted meter. I may have to get that sucker re-calibrated…

    Regarding the ‘apology’ comment, my unhelpful review quoted my comment:

    Alan might even apologize in all sincerity, but throw in a little playful exaggeration to add levity to the situation.…

    I made these comments before Alan’s reveal (see ‘unhelpful review’, above) which stated:

    First comment was intended to be somewhat sarcastic with a hint of gritted teeth.
    Second comment was intended to be ironic with a hint of Jewish self-deprecation.

    So for the record (wtf, are you channeling kf?):
    In Alan’s first comment, my meters picked up exaggeration for humorous effect.
    In Alan’s second comment, my meters picked up full-blown sardony.
    [Taps gauge. Smiles]
    OTOH, my semite detector stopped working in elementary school. Thankfully.

  45. Mung:

    Hey, what about me?

    Your opinion is not of interest.

    Alan already told you what he intended by what he wrote, so now you’re just being an ass.

    Alan’s reply was ambiguous — perhaps deliberately so:

    First comment was intended to be somewhat sarcastic with a hint of gritted teeth.

    Hence my question to him:

    You identified your poor behavior, you explained why you shouldn’t have made your false accusation, and you apologized for it and said that you would try to do better:

    Apologies to Keiths for my admittedly poor behaviour in remarking that his quote of Ernst Mayr was a “quote mine”. Of course I should have considered that Keiths had a copy of What Evolution Is before voicing my suspicion that he lifted it from a secondary source. Being irritated over his exchange with Joe Felsenstein is no excuse for this poor behaviour and I’ll try to control my irritation in the future.

    For the record, are you actually denying that your statement above was sincere?

  46. keiths: Your opinion is not of interest.

    Because I disagree with you. Ah, finally, a level playing field. 🙂

    Let’s see if we can take that next important step in learning how to play together. Do you realize yet how deluded you are?

  47. How disappointing. My funny story seems to have gone down like a lead balloon. I must work on my timing!

  48. Mung: Convicted without evidence, in true skeptical style.

    I was there. I watched it happen. Whatever you meant it as, it appeared to be a quote mine in the context of the thread. My asking you guided by what was noted by you in your defense but not in the thread itself.

  49. Mung: Convicted without evidence, in true skeptical style.

    For someone who makes claims about WEASEL without having written one…

  50. Alan Fox,

    How disappointing. My funny story seems to have gone down like a lead balloon. I must work on my timing!

    Sorry – any response would have looked like sarcasm. Damn the printed word!

    Here’s a story en revanche. I spent a lovely evening in a charming small French restaurant with my wife, run by a young couple – she cooked, he did front-of-house. My French isn’t as bad as most Englishmen, but that’s not saying much. The lady – more a girl – came round after and asked if I had a motorbike. In rapid French, that is “Est-ce que vous avez un moto?” “Un moto?” I said, puzzled. “Oui”, she replied. “Non”, I said “euh … nous marchons”. She looked perturbed, but said no more.

    Only later in the evening did it dawn on me – her words were almost certainly “Est-ce que vous avez eu du bon temps?”. Mortified at how my response must have seemed.

Leave a Reply