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. Patrick: Oh, and if you have a complaint about any of my moderation actions, please raise it in Moderation Issues where it will be fairly considered despite you being a disingenous troll.

    LoL!!!

  2. Alan Fox: Would those objecting to Sal’s action like to comment on whether John West’s action is justified?

    I’d be happy to start an OP on that. Oh wait, that thread got closed to comments.

  3. Mung,

    Exactly. You should have gone for quality over quantity and switched up from ‘moderation butthurt’ for a while.

  4. Richardthughes: You should have gone for quality over quantity and switched up from ‘moderation butthurt’ for a while.

    I posted a quality OP. It was closed to comments. So now I’m waiting for the new rules to be published, because I simply can’t stand posting at a site where arbitrary admin actions are the rule rather than the exception. But you don’t care about that.

  5. While I am at UD I expect one thing. While I am at TSZ I expect something different.

    It seems a difficult concept for people here to grasp.

    Or is TSZ just another UD in disguise?

    Here at TSZ we have THE RULEZ! LOL!!!

    Actually, what we have are admins making up and enforcing their own rules as they go along.

    Then we have admins who demand respect for Lizzie’s wishes while flagrantly violating them!

    And then we have the regulars here at TSZ who could just care less, because, you know, they are on the home team.

    I am not posting porn, malware, or outing anyone. Why am I being censored?

  6. Mung:
    While I am at UD I expect one thing. While I am at TSZ I expect something different.

    When you act like a petulant asshole at UD Barry gives you a wink and a nod. When you act like a petulant asshole here you get called on it.

    It seems a difficult concept for you to grasp.

  7. Mung,

    I am not posting porn, malware, or outing anyone. Why am I being censored?

    You’re not. You’re being asked to keep meta discussion to the thread dedicated to that topic. Is that really so onerous?

  8. Patrick: You’re being asked to keep meta discussion to the thread dedicated to that topic. Is that really so onerous?

    Ah, a new narrative! Always willing to consider a new story.

    I’ve violated no rule. Yet I’m being censored. Now I’m asked to believe that it is because I’ve declined to submit to the new [not a rule] rule regarding meta discussions.

    There is no such rule. But if Patrick can post for our edification the communication he received from Elizabeth delineating precisely what constitutes a “meta discussion” we can perhaps conduct an empirical examination.

    What is a “meta discussion,” Patrick?

    What is it that limits “meta discussions” to “Moderation Issues”?

    Nothing? Probably.

  9. Patrick,

    Let me tell you how its going to be Patrick, you are not going to tell me what to post or where to post anything on this site, here, ever. I will put things wherever and whenever I want here, about anything I want, and if you don’t like it tough shit.

    How’s that for an idea you fucking dimwit? Is that clear enough for you, you little weasel?

  10. Mung,

    Meanwhile Patrick spammed the forum for weeks and nothing happened to him.

    I was persistent in asking Erik to answer questions about his claims or withdraw them, in accordance with the goals of the site.

    You are free to skip any of my comments you find not worth your time.

  11. Mung,

    There is no such rule. But if Patrick can post for our edification the communication he received from Elizabeth delineating precisely what constitutes a “meta discussion” we can perhaps conduct an empirical examination.

    What is a “meta discussion,” Patrick?

    What is it that limits “meta discussions” to “Moderation Issues”?

    Nothing? Probably.

    I just answered this in the Moderation Issues thread, complete with a link to and quotes from Lizzie’s comment.

    I’m actually mostly in agreement with you on this issue.

  12. phoodoo,

    Let me tell you how its going to be Patrick, you are not going to tell me what to post or where to post anything on this site, here, ever. I will put things wherever and whenever I want here, about anything I want, and if you don’t like it tough shit.

    Good luck enforcing that. This is Lizzie’s site with Lizzie’s rules.

    How’s that for an idea you fucking dimwit? Is that clear enough for you, you little weasel?

    You should take some of those tissues you use for catching your dribbling ejaculate as you rub your needle dick between thumb and forefinger to images of Barry Arrington and wipe the spittle off your monitor. Your reading comprehension is bad enough without being able to see the writing clearly.

    Please feel free to print out the preceding paragraph and tape it to your desk as an example of the difference between your grade school name calling and how adults flame.

  13. Hmmm. GAs create CSI and IC structures:

    I used to defend the concept of CSI. With all the revisions it’s gotten bad. I’ve sided with Patrick/Mathgrrl on the issue, and I’ve been sympathetic to Tom English and Joe Felsenstein on COI.

    I guess I’m breaking the unstated 11th commandment not to openly and publicly disagree with other IDists. Oh well…..

  14. stcordova: I guess I’m breaking the unstated 11th commandment not to openly and publicly disagree with other IDists. Oh well…..

    You’re such a maverick Sal. A real rebel. Give us a yell please.

  15. Mung: You’re such a maverick Sal. A real rebel. Give us a yell please.

    At least you can tell he’s a rebel, what he’s rebelling against and why. Remind me again, do you even actually believe in ID?

  16. keiths: Says Mung, who is afraid to call Barry out on his dishonesty.

    It’s amazing. I suspect he is a bot. For example.

    Can anyone find a comment from Mung that’s not within the capabilities of a bot?

  17. keiths: Says Mung, who is afraid to call Barry out on his dishonesty.

    I do love it when atheists whine about what other people ought to do. Subjective keiths.

  18. OMagain: Remind me again, do you even actually believe in ID?

    Feel free to start an OP.

    You’re one of the greatest trolls this site has ever seen yet none of the admins seem to care about that. You must have some special secret for staying on the right side of the rules that are not rules. We’re reduced to WWLD here at TSZ, where rules are only guidelines and guidelines are rules.

    Laughable, really.

    Your friendly MungBot.

  19. Quotes from William Murray. They are provided here so that you can begin your research into what he thinks:

    good and bad are entirely subjective commodities.

    if I think a thing is right, it is as right as is possible for moral right to exist.

    the holocaust was a good and moral event

    UD Source

    Bare quotes, you know, not the slightest bit quotemines, never mind how they were snipped out of context.

    If you can believe that you’re as incapable of proper judgment as Murray is.

    Realize, however, that I included a very easily accessed link, rather than the references to the various books and articles that are normally provided in creationist quote mines, that most creationists won’t find convenient to check. But of course this is because I only mean to show what a quote mine is, rather than to seriously take Murray’s words out of context. What he writes is bad enough in context.

    Glen Davidson

  20. Picking up from here.

    First let me acknowledge Keiths’ large contribution to Lizzie’s blog. The records show him having made nearly 7,000 comments and over 70 opening posts. That is an impressive contribution. And I suspect I am in broad agreement with him on many substantive issues.

    I should also mention that I think The ethos that Lizzie has tried to cultivate here is something rare in the blogosphere and worth working for, which is why I was happy to help out with the admin here when she asked me. One point she has made that makes sense to me is escalation vs. de-escalation. Taking this as a prime directive, I see no reason to intervene in a thread except when escalation is happening.

    Bearing this in mind, we then have a situation where two of our members, one of them Keiths, become embroiled in an escalating situation which shows no sign of abating. Lizzie had been absent for some time and I decided that stronger action than sending rule-breaking comments to guano was needed. So I set up a new permanent thread, which I titled “The Wine Cellar” (not a good fit with penguin-themed titles so Lizzie later changed it to noyau) and moved the last few flaming comments there, suggesting this flame-war could carry on happily there without detracting from other’s enjoyment of the rest of the blog.

    The fact that the noyau thread has accumulated around 2,500 comments since its inception indicates it’s fulfilling a need. If anyone has got this far and wants a feel of what I’m referring to, I guess they could glance down a few comments here.

  21. Mung: You must have some special secret for staying on the right side of the rules that are not rules.

    TSZ is not UD you know. I can see how years of imprisonment there can warp your outlook, but you are free now. Free to make as many bible OP’s as you like. Oh, wait now….

  22. Those who don’t understand why philosophy is important, or who think it doesn’t play an important role in science and every-day life, are IMO dangerously ignorant or deluded.

  23. William J. Murray: Those who don’t understand why philosophy is important, or who think it doesn’t play an important role in science and every-day life, are IMO dangerously ignorant or deluded.

    From someone who’s philosophy includes the existence of ghosts, aliens that visit and cancer cured by faith healers, I’m not sure you are in a position to call anyone else ignorant or deluded.

  24. William J. Murray:
    Those who don’t understand why philosophy is important, or who think it doesn’t play an important role in science and every-day life, are IMO dangerously ignorant or deluded.

    Educate us. Science students take philosophy courses as electives at university because it is easy to get good marks with very little effort.

    Let’s keep it simple. How is philosophy important to the study of chemistry? Or physics? Or molecular biology? Pick any one of these and describe to us the advances that philosophy has made in these fields.

  25. William J. Murray: Those who don’t understand why philosophy is important, or who think it doesn’t play an important role in science and every-day life, are IMO dangerously ignorant or deluded.

    What particular ignorance or delusion leads people here at TSZ to mock those who argue for the law of identity and self-evident truths?

  26. stcordova: Yeah Mung, what do you say to that!

    I say it’s odd that it’s censorship when it happens at UD but it’s not censorship when it happens here. 🙂

  27. Mung,

    If you were responding to me, my question was rhetorical. I can’t read what you write any way since I have my anti-troll device activated (the ignore button) to block your flimsy responses.

    The issue is why you spend so much time at TSZ complaining, but not any time complaining about Arrington’s conduct.

    Funny thing, when I deleted and modified your posts (something I wouldn’t have done if UD had guano), you never complained to Arrington. Why is that? Here is what I surmise. If Barry came out and said, “it is immoral to delete and modify posts” he’d have to admit he was being immoral to do that to me and others (which he has done). But you won’t raise that issue with Barry will you.

    What do you think of my name being put on display at UD and me not having a chance to respond at UD? At least Barry can come here and respond, I can’t over yonder at UD. Yet you complained and complained about Barry being mentioned in a title of a post and being the object of criticism.

    So why do you complain about censorship here when at UD, I’m censored. I still have people, including UD authors, that didn’t like Barry’s actions. So why no complaint from you?

    I could paraphrase Rich and ask about someone’s ovaries being in Barry’s purse, but I won’t, I leave that to Rich. 🙂

  28. Mung,

    I say it’s odd that it’s censorship when it happens at UD but it’s not censorship when it happens here.

    I say it’s odd that you complain about it here but not at UD.

    Or maybe you do. With your brown nose implanted firmly in Barry’s and KF’s asses, your voice gets muffled. It’s hard for us to make out what you’re saying.

  29. Acartia: Science students take philosophy courses as electives at university because it is easy to get good marks with very little effort.

    That happens with professors who are bad (lazy, incompetent) teachers. It isn’t indicative of the field as a whole. I believe that’s what we call a hasty generalization.

    Let’s keep it simple. How is philosophy important to the study of chemistry? Or physics? Or molecular biology? Pick any one of these and describe to us the advances that philosophy has made in these fields.

    That’s like a “when did you stop beating your wife?” kind of question. Of course philosophy doesn’t make first-order empirical discoveries about the world. That’s not the point.

    But philosophy of science is useful for clarifying what is at stake when we ask in what sense general relativity advances over classical mechanics, or if Mendelian genetics is reducible to molecular genetics. Philosophy of mind is useful for exposing and examining the assumptions about mindedness that implicitly structure cognitive science, psychology, and computer learning. Logic is useful for computer science. Ethics is useful for understanding why obligation, responsibility, and goodness of character are conceptually independent of religious belief. Social and political philosophy is useful for understanding how ideology functions to legitimize systematic oppression and injustice.

    In other words, philosophy can be useful for many legitimate projects without being the same as science.

  30. Mung: What particular ignorance or delusion leads people here at TSZ to mock those who argue for the law of identity and self-evident truths?

    In the case of “the law of identity,” I only pointed out that if we consider the examples from the history of philosophy such as Heraclitus and Nietzsche (and there are a few others), then the law of identity is indeed optional — at least on a first pass. The question then is to consider what function “the law of identity” plays in our discourse.

    My rough-and-ready sense is that the law of identity is neither more nor less than the explication of a pragmatic norm to which we are necessarily committed if we are to speak about objects. But the process philosophers show how to avoid speaking about objects. The only question then is whether it is useful to talk about objects or not. (I think it is, actually.)

    My position on “self-evident truths” follows Sellars on the Myth of the Given. To avoid rephrasing that argument yet again — I’ve done so many times at TSZ — I shall confine myself to remarking that Sellars argues at length and in detail that the very concept of “self-evident truths” conceals an equivocation. When that ambiguity is highlighted and exposed, one sense of “self-evident truths” is true but not interesting and certainly inadequate for securing foundationalist hopes, whereas another sense of “self-evident truths” turns out to be incoherent.

    Again, this is not a matter of disdainful contempt but a matter of philosophical argument. One is free to examine that argument to see if it is valid and sound, and of course many philosophers are not convinced by it. But I myself think it is wholly correct, which is why I take the attitude towards “self-evident truths” that I do.

  31. keiths: I say it’s odd that you complain about it here but not at UD.

    If TSZ is no different than UD you might have a point. But TSZ was founded to be the anti-UD, yet here we are with Elizabeth closing threads to comments. You go by what Elizabeth says and I go by what she does.

    It’s rather hilarious that you can castigate Alan and remain silent about Elizabeth. I guess it’s probably because she didn’t do it to one of your threads.

  32. Mung,

    It’s rather hilarious that you can castigate Alan and remain silent about Elizabeth. I guess it’s probably because she didn’t do it to one of your threads.

    I did criticize her:

    I agree that closing threads is a form of censorship, and I was disappointed that it happened here. However, it is rare at TSZ and rampant at UD.

    I look forward to hearing you complain at UD the next time KF does it.

    To characterize Lizzie as “wanting censorship” is grossly unfair when, apart from a few missteps, she has been consistently against it.

    Pay attention, Mung.

  33. Acartia: Let’s keep it simple. How is philosophy important to the study of chemistry? Or physics? Or molecular biology? Pick any one of these and describe to us the advances that philosophy has made in these fields.

    FWIW, I don’t think philosophy is important to the study of chemistry or physics. Neither are the studies of anthropology, sociology and economics. If scientists don’t want to learn any philosophy I don’t see why they have to; the only way it hurts them within their fields, IMHO, is that they might be more likely to make invalid inferences or get into areas that they wrongly think ARE within their expertise.

  34. walto: FWIW, I don’t think philosophy is important to the study of chemistry or physics. Neither are the studies of anthropology, sociology and economics. If scientists don’t want to learn any philosophy I don’t see why they have to; the only way it hurts them within their fields, IMHO, is that they might be more likely to make invalid inferences or get into areas that they wrongly think ARE within their expertise.

    Good answer (IMO). However, it is unclear whether you implying that learning some philosophy could lead to invalid inferences, or not learning philosophy could lead to invalid inferences.

    I assume the latter. But you might want to clear that up.

  35. walto,

    I largely agree, with one qualification: While the study of philosophy (as practiced by philosophers) isn’t essential to being a good chemist or physicist, scientists do need to understand and apply certain philosophical principles on which good science depends, such as

    1) nullius in verba,
    2) the value of experimentation,
    3) Occam’s Razor,
    4) the importance of reproducibility,

    …and so on.

Comments are closed.