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. Reciprocating Bill: I don’t recall you ever raising an objection to Barry similar to that you raise to Walto’s post.

    So?

    You didn’t find evidence to support your hypothesis, therefore …

  4. Neil Rickert:

    hotshoe_: I was taught decent manners as a child. I was taught that people with manners never discuss religion in public.

    That seems a bit too strong.

    Two people from the same church ought to be able to discuss the latest sermon while sitting on a park bench.

    Well, yearh, if they’re going to be able to keep it quiet enough not to involve unwilling bystanders – not start talking loudly, not start preaching there and then to whomever happens to be passing by, not wave banners, not hold up posters for the world to see – yeah, then it’s “in public” only in a nominal sense because it’s a “private” discussion between only the consulting parties. Different from having the exact same discussion while waiting in line at the store, or in the crowded doctor’s office, or wherever it’s difficult to pitch the level of the conversation low enough that nobody else has to hear it … but of course christians trot out their religion while waiting in line and in the doctor’s office and everywhere else in public all the time without a second thought.

    Since they can’t be trusted not to be divisive, sectarian, and hostile, they should just learn to shut up about religion in public and keep it for genuinely private spaces. It’s a pretty easy rule to live with, for anyone with a little patience and empathy for the witnesses.

  6. Mung: As with so many other things in modern society, you might acknowledge your debt to the other religious faiths that grant you your life and freedom. If you want to be an atheist, at least be a grateful atheist.

    Hell, no!

  7. Mung: So?

    So I find hypocritical your response to Walto, given that you remained silent as BarryA curled his turds regarding school shootings and Darwinism onto UD.

    But perhaps I missed a post or posts in which you similarly objected to Barry. If so, I’ll stand corrected.

  8. hotshoe_: they should just learn to shut up about religion in public and keep it for genuinely private spaces.

    Or government will take the necessary action to make them shut up. Correct?

    peace

  9. fifthmonarchyman: So you would agree that prohibiting religious instruction is consistent with the tenets of atheism. Correct?

    What are you talking about? Both atheism and theism are consistent with both religious instruction and the prohibition of religious instruction. Where are you getting these crazy political entailments from?

  10. Mung: you might acknowledge your debt to the other religious faiths that grant you your life and freedom.

    Oh thank you so so much for letting me live.

  11. fifthmonarchyman:

    hotshoe_: they should just learn to shut up about religion in public and keep it for genuinely private spaces.

    Or government will take the necessary action to make them shut up. Correct?

    Don’t be more of a paranoid rude asshole than you have to be, fifthmonarchyman.

    The shut-up-about-religion “Or else” I’ve used to my own satisfaction is just to point and mock the assholes whenever I feel like it (which isn’t often, because I’m actually more polite than you). I’ve never felt the need to have a law against your particular brand of assholery.

    Nor, as far as I know, has any other atheist ever wanted a law against your kind.

    Quite unlike Abrahamic theists, who have passed laws against every kind of theism they don’t happen to like and made it a capital offense to be openly atheist in some places and times. “Blasphemy” is still against the law in some so-called civilized nations. The last person hanged for blasphemy in Scotland was almost within living memory. Don’t forget all the witch-burnings which christians are inciting in Africa right at this moment.

    Go fix your own brethren’s heinous anti-atheist and sectarian persecution before you start getting all paranoid that you’re about to receive some much-deserved but completely non-existent anti-theist persecution.

  12. Reciprocating Bill: So I find hypocritical your response to Walto, given that you remained silent as BarryA curled his turds regarding school shootings and Darwinism onto UD.

    Again I ask, so what? If the point of your post was to say “Mung’s a hypocrite” it really belongs in Guano, because it attacks the poster.

    But perhaps I missed a post or posts in which you similarly objected to Barry. If so, I’ll stand corrected.

    I have no intention of trying to correct you. It’s your argument. It’s up to you to make it. Maybe you just missed the post. Maybe it isn’t there. It really doesn’t matter either way because whether or not I was being hypocritical is irrelevant. Or Guano.

    Perhaps you’re saying that walto should have kept his mouth shut, like Mung. I agree. Perhaps you’re saying that walto is like Barry. I’ll let the two of you work that one out. Perhaps you’re argument is that the atheists here should have spoken out, but only that hypocrite Mung had the guts to do so. Probably because he’s a Christian.

    What, exactly, is your argument, if you have one?

    By the way. “Mung’s a hypocrite” isn’t an argument. It’s an objective fact. But still Guano.

  13. Reciprocating Bill: So I find hypocritical your response to Walto, given that you remained silent as BarryA curled his turds regarding school shootings and Darwinism onto UD.

    But perhaps I missed a post or posts in which you similarly objected to Barry. If so, I’ll stand corrected.

    I reject that analogy anyhow. Darwinists may have just about killed Samuel Butler, but that’s about it. OTOH, people have been murdering the innocent in the name of their various gods through all of recorded human history. If Arrington actually suggested that Darwin thesis, he was just talking nonsense. My post was nothing but a fairly obvious truth.

  14. walto: Oh thank you so so much for letting me live.

    Well walto, if it helps, if I were Lord of the Universe you would be one of the people I let live. You are too old to breed, right? I have to factor that in.

  15. Mung, I’ve gotta ask you this too. What the hell are you talking about? Do you always get this weirdly defensive every time some radical theists kill innocents in the name of their religion? That stuff has happened nearly every day for the past couple thousand years. Better get over it.

  16. walto: My post was nothing but a fairly obvious truth.

    Actually no. See my response to Elizabeth. Oh, wait. You did see it.

    Factual nature aside, it was in very poor taste and the timing absolutely sucked. By your own admission they had not even completed the tally of the injured and dead. But you thought you could score points in the culture wars. Or whatever.

    You really disappointed me man. But in most cases I try to have a short memory. Can we hug? You’ll have to wear a burka though.

  17. Mung: Well walto, if it helps, if I were Lord of the Universe you would be one of the people I let live. You are too old to breed, right? I have to factor that in.

    What you said is that we should be thanking theists generally for putting up with atheists. Also, as you indicated that by telling a simple truth I was the lowest of the low, I’m particularly grateful for your forbearance. So thanks again.

  19. William J. Murray: You didn’t even notice the bait and switch in your own quote; they switched from talking about murder to a study of homicide. Murder is not the same thing as homicide. There is such a thing as a legal or justifiable homicide, such as in the defense of one’s life, especially in one’s home. I’m sure there is an increased risk of homicide, and not murder, when there are guns in more homes being used to protect life and property.

    While there “is such a thing” as justifiable homicide, it’s a tiny fraction of gun deaths.
    Self-murder, on the other hand, features quite prominently. If you keep a gun in your house, and it is used to kill someone, then in most cases it will be used to kill a member of your household. Whether murder or self-murder.

    Lott and Mustard have sold you a bill of goods, William.

    Across the basic seven Index I crime categories, the strongest evidence of a statistically significant effect would be for aggravated assault, with 11 of 28 estimates suggesting that RTC laws increase this crime at the .10 confidence level. An omitted variable bias test on our preferred Table 8a results suggests that our estimated 8 percent increase in aggravated assaults from RTC laws may understate the true harmful impact of RTC laws on aggravated assault, which may explain why this finding is only significant at the .10 level in many of our models. Our analysis of the year-by-year impact of RTC laws also suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults. Our analysis of admittedly imperfect gun aggravated assaults provides suggestive evidence that RTC laws may be associated with large increases in this crime, perhaps increasing such gun assaults by almost 33 percent.
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443681

    Your claims about gun ownership and violent crime are yet another example of your reliance on “truthiness” rather than truth. I did enjoy your claim that the French police are unarmed. You really need to get out more.

  20. Mung: it was in very poor taste and the timing absolutely sucked. By your own admission they had not even completed the tally of the injured and dead. But you thought you could score points in

    When shit like that happens, my first thought isn’t for the delicate feelings of theists around the world. No doubt you’re more sensitive than I am about what’s really important at such times. Again, so sorry.

  21. walto: What you said is that we should be thanking theists generally for putting up with atheists.

    That’s not what I said. Though if I ponder a little bit more maybe it’s not too far off. Let’s say your presence is tolerated while not shattering the myth of religious intolerance. Is that even possible? What’s more, you have a right to be an atheist.

    Now go try that out in Saudi Arabia.

    Atheism is utterly not tolerated in Islam, it is punishable by death. Christianity is not. Judaism is not. Who stands in the gap, walto, between you and the Islamists? Religious people. Christians. Jews. Even other Muslims. I know it sucks. But those are the facts.

  22. It IS what you said before, and let me again, give many many thanks for letting me and my loved ones live.

  23. walto: Both atheism and theism are consistent with both religious instruction and the prohibition of religious instruction. Where are you getting these crazy political entailments from?

    I linked to an argument from 1644 that claimed that that any restriction on religious practice would be totally inconsistent with the tenets of Christianity.

    It was penned by a devout Christan “fanatic” long before the age on enlightenment. The author not only wrote in this manner but lived by his convictions when the chips were down.

    You must have missed it.

    The Truth of William’s argument has come to be almost universally accepted by Christian theologians of all stripes

    Long story short Religious persecution is consistent with Atheism and not consistent with Christianity.

    peace

  24. fifthmonarchyman: Long story short Religious persecution is consistent with Atheism and not consistent with Christianity.

    Which certainly explains why christians in the USA are still persecuting atheists while atheists in the USA never persecute christians. Unless you count being forced to remove your Ten Commandments statues from the courthouse as “persecution”.

    Again, go fix your brethren’s persecution and sectarian violence against anyone (atheist or theist) who doesn’t happen to belong to your christian approved sects. Then afterwards feel free to come back here and whine at us some more about how “religious persecution is consistent with atheism”.

    Or just shut up about it altogether. Suit yourself, you always do.

  25. fifthmonarchyman: I linked to an argument from 1644 that claimed that that any restriction on religious practice would be totally inconsistent with the tenets of Christianity.

    It was penned by a devout Christan “fanatic” long before the age on enlightenment.

    Wow, six years beforehand, by the reckoning of many (approximate at best).

    Well, no doubt it was a long six years, and was totally unrelated to the the forces that gave rise to the Enlightenment.

    Glen Davidson

  28. fifthmonarchyman: I linked to an argument from 1644 that claimed that that any restriction on religious practice would be totally inconsistent with the tenets of Christianity.

    It was penned by a devout Christan “fanatic” long before the age on enlightenment. The author not only wrote in this manner but lived by his convictions when the chips were down.

    You must have missed it.

    The Truth of William’s argument has come to be almost universally accepted by Christian theologians of all stripes

    Long story short Religious persecution is consistent with Atheism and not consistent with Christianity.

    peace

    Evenif ‘true Christianity’ as you understand it is as tolerant and forbearing as our own mung, not all theists are true Christians, are they? Hence, not all theists must be tolerant–and, as we all know, they aren’t.

    These arguments of yours are passing strange, fifth. Your conflating muscle is in overuse!

  29. Mung: Again I ask, so what? If the point of your post was to say “Mung’s a hypocrite” it really belongs in Guano, because it attacks the poster.

    You’re right on both counts. The point is that your post was hypocritical, and that comment belongs in Guano. I’m all packed.

  30. fifthmonarchyman: I linked to an argument from 1644 that claimed that that any restriction on religious practice would be totally inconsistent with the tenets of Christianity.

    It was penned by a devout Christan “fanatic” long before the age on enlightenment. The author not only wrote in this manner but lived by his convictions when the chips were down.

    You must have missed it.

    The Truth of William’s argument has come to be almost universally accepted by Christian theologians of all stripes

    Long story short Religious persecution is consistent with Atheism and not consistent with Christianity.

    peace

    I understand that he wasn’t truly a Scotsman, however.

    So how are we to believe him?

    Glen Davidson

  31. GlenDavidson: Don’t you just feel God’s love here and now?

    Is this one of those famed atheist arguments based on reason? Because if it is, I don’t get it. Are you an atheist because you don’t feel God’s love, or do you not feel God’s love because you are an atheist?

  32. Mung: Is this one of those famed atheist arguments based on reason? Because if it is, I don’t get it. Are you an atheist because you don’t feel God’s love, or do you not feel God’s love because you are an atheist?

    Poor Mung, can’t figure out the import of a simple statement.

    Glen Davidson

  34. Mung: Poor Glen. Doesn’t have an argument, so blames someone else.

    So I don’t have an answer to your deliberately misleading “question”? Of course not, it wasn’t honest, decent, or responsive to the point.

    So you make more false accusations. What else should I expect of such a “Christian”?

    Glen Davidson

  36. Our analysis of admittedly imperfect gun aggravated assaults provides suggestive evidence that RTC laws may be associated with large increases in this crime, perhaps increasing such gun assaults by almost 33 percent.

    I guess that as long as you have a possible association based on admittedly imperfect data, that’s enough to maintain one’s preferred perspective in the face of indisputable facts available for anyone to find that demonstrate murder and violent crime rates go down as more people carry firearms.

    Good grief – even criminals come right out and say they prefer unarmed targets and will avoid areas, homes and people they think are armed. It’s common sense that law-abiding citizens are safer if they are armed, especially those who more easily overpowered physically.

    You have to do mental gymnastics, abandon facts and common sense, appeal to “possible associations” and “admittedly imperfect data” and conflate “murder” with “homicide” in order to twist things around in order to hold the position that lawful firearm ownership makes the community less safe.

  38. Heresy is any provocative belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs. A heretic is a proponent of such claims or beliefs. Heresy is distinct from both apostasy, which is the explicit renunciation of one’s religion, principles or cause, and blasphemy, which is irreverence toward religion.

    Apostasy, is the formal disaffiliation from, or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person. It can also be defined within the broader context of embracing an opinion contrary to one’s previous beliefs. One who commits apostasy (or who apostatizes) is known as an apostate. The term apostasy is used by sociologists to mean renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person’s former religion, in a technical sense and without pejorative connotation.

    Gregory is right, then. And Elizabeth is wrong.

    And Glen? Off in left field. I thought we were talking about atheism, and Glen thought we should instead talk about heresy and apostasy. But why?

    If, as is loudly and repeatedly proclaimed here at TSZ, atheism is simply lack of belief in God or gods, then atheism can be neither heresy nor apostasy.

    But somehow my questions were misleading and thus could not be answered. A statement from Glen, no evidence offered, no argument given.

    And I’m accused of making false accusations. Another statement from Glen. No evidence offered. No argument given.

    Opinions.

  39. Mung:
    Heresy is any provocative belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs. A heretic is a proponent of such claims or beliefs. Heresy is distinct from both apostasy, which is the explicit renunciation of one’s religion, principles or cause, and blasphemy, which is irreverence toward religion.

    Apostasy, is the formal disaffiliation from, or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person. It can also be defined within the broader context of embracing an opinion contrary to one’s previous beliefs. One who commits apostasy (or who apostatizes) is known as an apostate. The term apostasy is used by sociologists to mean renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person’s former religion, in a technical sense and without pejorative connotation.

    Gregory is right, then. And Elizabeth is wrong.

    And Glen? Off in left field. I thought we were talking about atheism, and Glen thought we should instead talk about heresy and apostasy. But why?

    If, as is loudly and repeatedly proclaimed here at TSZ, atheism is simply lack of belief in God or gods, then atheism can be neither heresy nor apostasy.

    But somehow my questions were misleading and thus could not be answered. A statement from Glen, no evidence offered, no argument given.

    And I’m accused of making false accusations. Another statement from Glen. No evidence offered. No argument given.

    Opinions.

    Well, dumbass, the evidence exists in this thread, and was what was being referenced.

    So you’re lying again. Kind of your thing, apparently.

    Glen Davidson

  40. GlenDavidson: Well, dumbass, the evidence exists in this thread, and was what was being referenced.

    So you’re lying again. Kind of your thing, apparently.

    Some things at “The Skeptical Zone” never change.

    The evidence refuting Mung exists somewhere … I can’t be bothered with specifics.

    Mung is lying again … Evidence forthcoming.

    Or not.

    I guess it’s ok to post porn in this thread? And to out people?

  41. GlenDavidson: Well, dumbass, the evidence exists in this thread, and was what was being referenced.

    So you’re lying again.Kind of your thing

    Mung is nothing if not consistent.

  42. Seriously, if the gloves are truly off in this thread and the best you all can do is:

    1. Mung is a hypocrite
    2. Mung is a liar.

    You are truly pathetic.

  45. Glen, it’s just not my problem if you cannot distinguish between atheist, heretic and apostate.

  47. Mung:
    Glen, it’s just not my problem if you cannot distinguish between atheist, heretic and apostate.

    It was about persecution, dumbfuck. so quit lying through pedantic equivocation.

    You really never get above your slimy dishonest self, do you?

    Glen Davidson

  48. GlenDavidson: Quite.

    For most IDiots it seems that it really is about word games, if you win them ID/God is true.

    Which seems…doubtful.

    Glen Davidson

    IDiot Creationists like Brave Sir Mung have nothing of scientific value to offer. Childish word games are all they’ve got.

  49. Elizabeth is a liar. This entire site was based on a lie. You all are self-deceived liars who bought into the lie. Isn’t Noyau fun!!!

    Next up. Post your porn here! Out your most hated ID proponent. I know your RL name, your email, and where you work! Isn’t Noyau fun!!!

    Given the lack of evidence or argument, “The Skeptical Zone” way is reasonable because … we don’t need no stinking reasons …

    Message received

Comments are closed.