Noyau (1)

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

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

2,559 thoughts on “Noyau (1)”

  1. It was something about noses, right? Anyhow, this is why YOU’RE the guy for the job, not me (or anybody like me). I mean, just look at my avatar!

  3. I’m gonna change that thing. I want one like keiths’ that looks like I’m calling my broker.

  4. walto,

    I’m gonna change that thing. I want one like keiths’ that looks like I’m calling my broker.

    ‘Cept I’m holding a banana. Come to think of it, maybe that’s why my portfolio hasn’t been doing too well.

    My inspirations were Ray Comfort (of course) and the Hempel’s Paradox thread at AtBC, which Rich fondly remembers.

  5. keiths:
    Mock all you want, walto. The fact remains: You got caught red-handed.

    I think that red hand came from spanking your ass.

  8. Since watching the latest episode of (the nearly unwatchable) 2nd season of True Detectives. I’m feeling quite louchey.

    Also my aura seems inadequate compared to Colin Farrell’s.

  9. walto: I honestly don’t think you can enjoy yourself on the internet unless you are haranguing someone. Why not just put up a little sign by your computer that says “Hah, they just won’t admit that I’m right and they’re wrong, even though they know it!” Then, instead of posting you can just stare at your sign or read it aloud or something. I have the distinct sense it would make the world a slightly more pleasant place for everyone.

    and

    walto: FWIW, I think Gregory should just go for his dream job and become a preacher already.

    It would have already been worth logging into my computer this morning, just to read those. Thanks, walto.

  10. Well, walto, I could have added that I wouldn’t stoop to call you a philosopher at all, even though you teach philosophy. You simply haven’t imo displayed ‘love of wisdom’ (Sophia) on this site. Indeed, an intended conversation about ‘wisdom’ with you would probably collapse into ‘knowledge’ and then merely ‘analysis’ pretty quickly. Though, perhaps, with your disgust of inappropriate labels, you probably don’t even consider yourself a ‘philosopher’, which would please me.

  11. Gregory,

    Well, I don’t consider you a social scientist, if that helps. I think of you as a dim-witted preacher wannabe, and a weirdly angry one at that. Someone who thinks his own status is elevated by insulting others. Likely, you’re not capable of much more than that. Dunno.

    As I’ve said, we all do pretty much what we can. I don’t consider myself wise, and, unlike you I’ve reached an age at which it’s unlikely my wisdom will be increased much, regardless of my wishes. You, OTOH, might actually learn something if you are capable of that. I think, though, that you’d also have to stop spending such energy and wit as you have on being an asshole.

    I have my doubts both about your capabilities and your willingness to try to learn anything, but as we’ve agreed, I’m not particularly wise, so maybe I’m wrong. We’ll see.

  12. Angry only at evil and defenses of it, as you appear to do (albeit relativistically).

    One can speak about ‘wisdom’ at age 4 or 6 or 8-10 with more depth of person than you display here, walto. You’ve ‘devolved,’ degraded, grown disenchanted with age.

    Try your hardest to put me down. ‘New atheist’ despair ends in humiliation, not humility, especially the ‘warrior’ types. Your pomp has the sting of a pom pom.

    But in the USA, where philosophy is impoverished, they actually pay you, an insurance salesman, to teach philosophy! So you probably consider yourself a ‘philosopher’, WITH PRIDE, though you detest labels, accurate as they may be, that describe your personality. In this case, the label is not hated.

  13. Insults, insults, insults.

    We’ve all heard that bilge before–I guess you take it to be a sign of your religiosity or advanced thinking or something.

    Anyhow, what I’ve expressed my curiosity about is whether you can actually do anything else than spew insults (and whether the fact that you do nothing else here is a product of adolescent anger, intellectual incapacity or both). As I said, I have my doubts that there’s anything more there, and this was certainly a very inauspicious start, but we’ll see. Some people can grow.

  16. Gregory:
    Angry only at evil and defenses of it.

    Well, on behalf of the entire world, thanks. I know it’s a rough (and until now thankless) job, combating evil (and defenses of it) by insulting people on the internet, but I guess somebody has to do it. We’re all in your debt.

  17. walto: I think, though, that you’d also have to stop spending such energy and wit as you have on being an asshole.

    walto, my dear conductor of light! When you said this, I got an insight into the problem which has been nagging at me these last few months: why does Gregory expend such energy against me?

    Because he wants to be me!

    But lacking my natural flair and my experience, the best he can do is practice his puppy yapping in the hope that one year he’ll be worthy of the title “Europe’s Number One Mean Rude Arse”.

    Like you say, it’s such a mistaken effort. He’d be far better off himself if he went to seminary and officially became a preacher.

    He could be a Hell Fire type preacher in some evangelical denomination — which could satisfy his competitive spirit in meanness and could make him buckets of money, too.

    Doesn’t even take “wisdom”, just the wit to notice that he should make a career change before he gets too much older.

    Too bad Gregory doesn’t trust you anymore than he trusts me, or he might take your good advice.

  18. Don’t know why I thought that participation in Noyau was strictly voluntary.

    If the posts break the rules they go in Guano.

    If they don’t then they should be left alone.

    There is nothing in the Rules about posts being moved to Noyau.

    And now I shall proceed to hound Neil mercilessly until he puts everything back.

  21. But, admit it mung, YOU care whether the universe cares whether or not petrushka cares.

  23. [I put this here – WJM]

    ELsaid:

    It seems to me to comprise precisely the very thing you accuse me of. Yes, I thought you were using the word in the sense with which I am familiar (not an “obscure” sense at all, btw)

    Yes, it is obscure. It’s not in any dictionary I’ve looked in.

    How could you possibly think I was using the word in the sense that you were familiar when I outright told you “that’s not what it means, look it up”? At that point you had to know that I didn’t mean it the way you were understanding it and had defined it for me. Correct?

    In turn, the least you can do is to grant me the return courtesy of assuming that the sense in which I took it was not driven by bias against you, but by my own understanding of the term in the context of debate. I did not “cherry-pick” an “obscure meaning”.

    I didn’t say the bias was evident in the original misunderstanding; I said the bias is on display after I said “that’s not what it means, look it up.” At that point any reasonable person not driven by bias would think, “okay, if that’s not what he means, is there some other definition of equivocate he’s thinking of?”

    This is where I think the bias begins affecting your judgement: you seem to have skipped over the part of the Wiki entry that would have clued you in to what else I might mean by the word. You apparently didn’t bother checking any other source – you know, like actual dictionaries, especially considering the source you were using.

    No, it seemed like you were more intent on “being right” about “what equivocate meant” and not at all interested in finding out what I meant after I told you that what you thought it meant was incorrect. See my point?

    You should examine your own default assumptions, William, before casting stones at mine.

    Here’s the difference between you and I, EL. When you first said what “equivocate” meant, my reaction literally was “Holy crap! Am I using the wrong word?” I then went straight to Merriam-Webster, Oxford, and the other dictionaries you can look through online. Your definition wasn’t to be found in any of them. Had I been wrong, I would have said I was mistaken. Had I found your definition anywhere I looked, I would have said that that’s not the way I’m using the term. Since I didn’t find your definition anywhere I looked, I said “that’s not what it means, look it up”.

    I checked multiple sources to (1) see if I was mistaken, and (2) see if what you said was in any dictionary. That’s why I told you to look it up and didn’t even bother to say where or provide the quotes and links – I had already checked several dictionaries and they all said basically the same thing and none had your definition.

    But, what did you do when your notion of what “equivocate” means was challenged? Did you check multiple sources? Apparently not. Apparently, you didn’t even read the first definition of the only source you did check in order to find out what else I might mean by the term “equivocate” since I had made it clear the definition you were using was not the one I was using.

    So no, it doesn’t add up that it was just a charitable misunderstanding after that point because you insisted on your obscure definition even after I made it clear that was not the definition I was using and you didn’t check any other source and you ignored or missed the first definition provided at the very source you yourself linked to.

    You don’t get to say “that’s what I thought you meant” after I directly told you that was not what I meant; at that point, you knew that’s not what I meant, but you were apparently on a crusade at that point to be “right” about “what equivocate means” instead of actually thinking “whoa, I might be wrong, let me look into this.”

    So, to be clear: I used the correct term. You thought it meant some obscure specified sub-definition only listed, apparently, in wiki. I did my self-correcting due diligence and looked through several dictionaries. I then told you “that’s not what it means” and to look it up, thereby directly informing you that your definition was not what I meant when I used the term. You apparently didn’t care to find out what I meant; instead, you doubled down on your obscure definition, and then tripled down on it, by insisting that you did not “equivocate” in terms of your definition when you were already aware that was not the definition I meant when I said it. You smugly advised me to look it up myself – unaware that I already had looked it up on several dictionaries.

    You, apparently, could not be bothered to “look it up” beyond a tiny, specified sub-definition on a non-dictionary site (well-known for errors and problems) that agreed with your version in a charitable search for what I meant after you were made aware I was not using the definition you thought he was.

    Where was your humble, charitable, self-corrective due diligence? If I had to guess, I’d say it was swamped out by a smug sense of superiority fostered by the very ideological bias I’ve been talking about, where your opponents must always be wrong and there’s no point in even bothering to check your own definition against a dictionary, for crying out loud.

  24. William J. Murray: How could you possibly think I was using the word in the sense that you were familiar when I outright told you “that’s not what it means, look it up”? At that point you had to know that I didn’t mean it the way you were understanding it and had defined it for me. Correct?

    Well, no, William. I did look up “equivocation”, when you asked, and a number of dictionaries confirmed my interpretation.

    However, as I said, I accept that you did not mean it in the sense that I assumed. The sense I assumed is very widespread, particularly in the context of debate. The “fallacy of equivocation” is a well-known fallacy.

    I think the difference is that you looked up “equivocate”, which seems to generate a different set of definitions on google. “Equivocation” pretty well turns up meanings similar to the one in wikipedia – either the “informal fallacy”, or connotations of “intention to mislead”.

    Anyway, I can only say what I thought and what I did. I made an assumption that you meant it in the sense of “using a word to mean two different things within the same argument”, because that is the use I am most familiar with.

    You have now clarified that you simply meant that I was using an ambiguous word, and I am happy to accept that.

    William J. Murray: If I had to guess, I’d say it was swamped out by a smug sense of superiority fostered by the very ideological bias I’ve been talking about, where your opponents must always be wrong and there’s no point in even bothering to check your own definition against a dictionary, for crying out loud.

    Well, that “guess” of yours would seem to be a far more egregious instance of the very “bias” you are accusing me of.

    I am not smug; I do not assume my opponents are always wrong; there is plenty of evidence of that here at TSZ, indeed, in my conversations with you.

    At least that’s the way it looks from here.

    Can I therefore suggest, that just as I appear to you to be “swamped out by a smug sense of superiority” fostered by ideological bias, that you may similarly appear that way to me?

    Possibly neither of us are correct – I hope we are not. But I do suggest that we both learn that how we appear to others is not necessarily the way we think we appear.

    I would however, point out that the meaning of “equivocation” that I assumed you had intended is not at all “obscure”. It is actually the most common use of the term in my experience.

    It’s possible that the difference is a transatlantic one. But you should not infer that I was deliberately looking for an obscure interpretation of your words. I simply took them at what I thought was face value.

  25. Well, no, William. I did look up “equivocation”, when you asked, and a number of dictionaries confirmed my interpretation.

    Links? Quotes?

  26. Collins

    Dictionary.com

    the fallacy files

    And for “equivocate” many dictionaries give as a primary meaning, e.g. Oxford:

    Use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself:

    And as you have brought it up: I was not using ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth – I was using a word in a slightly metaphorical sense (no more so than the sense in which you used it) with no intention to conceal or mislead – which is why I kept on explaining just why I had chosen that word (because of the effect natural selection aka heritable variance in reproductive success has on aggregating different advantageous sequences in the same individuals, aka “building them up” in the population genotype).

  27. Anyway, I apologise for misunderstanding you. I will do my best to try to interpret your words as diligently as I can – and more diligently than I seem to have done here.

  28. What is one of my long philosophical comments doing in moderation? Does it contain naughty words or what?

  29. Erik: What is one of my long philosophical comments doing in moderation? Does it contain naughty words or what?

    That would be the “or what?” I’m pretty sure that it is because of the number of links. This has actually happened several times before, but I released them quickly enough that you didn’t notice. I put a short note in the other thread (where this occurred) with a suggestion on how to avoid the problem.

  30. I’m sort of pleased to see Noyau getting some use!

    I think there probably is a use for a place where people can let off steam a bit. It can be frustrating to have to stick with the rules sometimes.

  31. As I mentioned to Neil, I can breathe more freely here.

    FWIW, it really stinks over in Guanoland. It’s like dry heave junction.

  32. Voluntary threads are great. Moderators moving comments — not so great.

    Lizzie, you might want to clarify whether moderators are allowed to move comments to Noyau, and if so, add that to the rules. Mung was asking about that above.

    (I’d personally prefer no new rule, of course.)

  33. keiths,

    Voluntary threads are great. Moderators moving comments — not so great.

    Lizzie, you might want to clarify whether moderators are allowed to move comments to Noyau, and if so, add that to the rules. Mung was asking about that above.

    (I’d personally prefer no new rule, of course.)

    Seconded. There is currently nothing in the rules about moving comments to anywhere but Guano, so moderators who do so are violating the rules as written.

  34. My recommendation is to make Noyau completely voluntary and allow social pressure to do it’s work: “Take it to Noyau or get a room, you two!”

  35. Patrick:
    My recommendation is to make Noyau completely voluntary and allow social pressure to do it’s work:“Take it to Noyau or get a room, you two!”

    I like this. This is what we will do.

  37. Is there a random thread picker program that can be used to send all the stuff that was moved here by moderators to other discussions?

    I think that’s the fairest thing, myself. Also the most aesthetically pleasing.

  38. walto,

    Besides the comments from you and Gregory that Neil moved, are you aware of any others that were moved here by moderators?

    I thought Lizzie already moved the others back.

  39. Yes, all the others were moved into regular threads. I just left Mung’s as the header of this one, as it seemed like a good opener.

  46. “I see you refuting yourself like this in approximately every second post, if not more often.”

    That’s just KN’s disenchanted and disenchanting philosophistry coming to a middle. 😉 Wallow on skepticism then…

  47. “I see you refuting yourself like this in approximately every second post, if not more often.”

    Gregory: That’s just KN’s disenchanted and disenchanting philosophistry coming to a middle. Wallow on skepticism then…

    Except that he didn’t “refute himself,” Gregory. Erik misrepresented what KN actually wrote.

    Look, I know you have very little interest in substance, preferring your patented repetitive insults on every thread to which you “contribute” (i.e., spread guano), but, so you know, there is actually a difference between saying that our initial take on things is sometimes mistaken and that “wherever we see truth there is actually no such thing.” They aren’t even a little similar.

    Now, while I’m not sure if Erik intentionally misrepresented KN, it’s pretty easy to be absolutely confident that you have nothing to offer but name-calling and associated adolescent bullshit. But that’s not all to the bad. I guess you deserve some thanks for making your shortcomings so obvious to all every single time you type a word here.

    With all my love,

    Your evil, atheist, myopic, philosophist and insurance salesman (Stop in for some of our weekly Specials on Municipal Liability Coverage!!),

    Walto
    Farmington, Missachuziel

  48. “Your evil, atheist, myopic, philosophist and insurance salesman” – Walto

    If that deviant, pathetic label fits, then continue to wear it…

  49. …and if not, I can just attribute it to Gregory! Because, as all here know, everything he says is angry nonsense!

    ETA: BTW, thanks for the tip on getting “deviant” and “pathetic” into my closing next time. Good stuff!

  50. Nice to see you’ve got a troll fetish, walto, given your ‘philosophistry’ is so obvious! Apparently it’s a ‘natural’ thing for insurance salesmen, superficial atheists.

Comments are closed.