Sandbox (3)

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

This is also a continuation of previous Sandbox threads (1) and (2) that have fallen victim to the dreaded page bug.

1,007 thoughts on “Sandbox (3)

  1. So you want it both ways? They hate the truth that has not yet been determined? Is that seriously your claim? Can’t you just tell me what this “truth” is that you mentioned in your first comment? How can they hate it if you can’t explain what it is?

    stcordova: As a card carrying creationist, I thought the treatment of this evolutionary biologist was reprehensible. What do you think?

    I think you set the bar low a long time ago when you misrepresented the views of a 17 year old because of who her father was. Fair game huh?

    https://udoj.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/salvador-cordova-asshole-of-the-year/

    I’m refraining commenting on the morality of human-animal sex in this post, but human animal sex just sounds plain icky, ICKY with a capital “I”. Imagine you are the proud parent of a young lady, and then she introduces you to her prospective fiance, the “man” she wants as her husband:

    And as such you have no basis to complain about the behaviour of others. You’ve been slandering people for years.
    http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/05/02/sal-cordovas-rank-dishonesty/

    It is curious that Charles Darwin, perhaps medicine’s most famous dropout, provided the impetus for a subject that figures so rarely in medical education. Indeed, even the iconic textbook example of evolution–antibiotic resistance–is rarely described as “evolution” in relevant papers published in medical journals [1]. Despite potentially valid reasons for this oversight (e.g., that authors of papers in medical journals would regard the term as too general), it propagates into the popular press when those papers are reported on, feeding the wider perception of evolution’s irrelevance in general, and to medicine in particular [1]. Yet an understanding of how natural selection shapes vulnerability to disease can provide fundamental insights into medicine and health and is no less relevant than an understanding of physiology or biochemistry.

    After his highly dishonest quote mine, he then provides this absurd analysis:

    Darwinists claim how important Darwinism is to science, but MacCallum’s editorial makes an embarrassing admission of Darwinism’s irrelevance to medicine.

    So don’t play the academic freedom card now. It just ain’t gonna work.

  2. https://web.archive.org/web/20080106113229/http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/161

    But why is PZ mad? I quoted Skatje’s words accurately. Skatje articulated the Darwinist view of what humans are in relation to animals.

    I already said I’m refraining from commenting on the morality of human-animal sex. I’m merely reporting what Darwinists believe.

    If these inconvenient Darwinist beliefs puts Darwinism in a bad light, I think that’s a good thing. PZ is probably mad that painted him and his fellow Darwinists in a bad light.

    Not only is Darwinism bad science which originated from the feeble mind of math-challenged Darwin, but it’s an icky ideology and view of humanity. [What? Darwinists don’t like the fact that I point out Darwin was a bit dull mentally? My critics have no inhibition about making statements about my mental faculties. Ah the hypocrisy.]

    But even apart from the issues of morality, which view of humanity will be more appealing? I’m merely exploiting the natural appeal of the idea that “humans are special”. Too bad for the Darwinists if their worthless ideology is disgusting when taken to its logical conclusion.

    I advocate the hypothesis of Intelligent Design versus Brainless Darwinism. I advocate the idea that humans, for all their flaws, are special in God’s sight and live on a Privileged Planet.

    Not only are the facts consistent with the idea that humans are special in God’s sight, it is an idea people wish to ponder. Too bad for PZ, the majority of humanity would prefer to see themselves as special.

    Thus, I’m quite happy to point out the disgusting aspects of Darwinism taken to its logical conclusion. PZ obviously despises this line of argumentation. Good. There will be more to come on why “Darwinism is Disgusting”.

    Is this the truth you mention, about what Darwinists believe? If Darwinism is bad science which originated from the feeble mind of math-challenged Darwin then what does that make ID given the comparative success of the two ideas?

  3. OMagain:
    I think you set the bar low a long time ago when you misrepresented the views of a 17 year old because of who her father was. Fair game huh?

    This is what Skatje said:

    Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets…

    Skatje Myers at 17

    How would you like me to represent her statement?

  4. OMagain:

    Like a man.

    Yes indeed, the notion of “MAN” as in adult MALE, is still symbolic of archetypal ideals. Don’t you think your statement is a bit anti-feminist and sexist?

  5. stcordova: Yes indeed, the notion of “MAN” as in adult MALE, is still symbolic of archetypal ideals. Don’t you think your statement is a bit anti-feminist and sexist?

    If you were a woman I’d have said like a woman instead.

    You know, instead of like a child. A child you can excuse from ignorance, but a grown adult?

    You, sir, have no honor.

  6. stcordova: Don’t you think your statement is a bit anti-feminist and sexist?

    Do you believe that women are equal to men in all ways? Do you believe feminism is a good thing? I do, on both counts. Equality for all genders beyond the binary is also a good thing, agreed? I already know your opinions on these matters however. I can’t wait until you have a transgender child, then you’ll gain some empathy. Until then, FOAD.

  7. It’s hard to believe the long time bigot is asking if I think what I’ve said is anti-feminist and sexist. Why, do I get to join your bigot club if so Sal?

  8. She’s saying she’s not surprised about it given that humans clearly have deep relationships with their pets (countless families have a pet dog or cat that they literally love in the same way siblings might love each other, as a close family member you trust and as a friend), not that she believes humans and animals should have sex.

    She’s right of course. Given that humans have deep emotional relationships with their pets, it should not come as a suprise that some people manage to turn this sexual.

    It isn’t “Darwinism” that makes it the case that humans typically love their pets as if they were family members. In fact that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it.

    Sal wants and deliberately tried to make it seem like she was advocating or arguing for sexual relations with animals. And the fact that she and her father is a “Darwinist” is what Sal hopes he can tie together with a desire for sex with animals.

    Sal knew that everything he did was wrong. Because he really is a worse person than most.

  9. Rumraket: Sal knew that everything he did was wrong.

    It seems knowing something is wrong does not prevent them from repeating it endlessly. The things Sal has been corrected on then continues to misrepresent is legion.

  10. Rumraket: She’s saying she’s not surprised about it given that humans clearly have deep relationships with their pets…

    That would have been a reasonable way to represent her views Sal. You have asked for “sympathetic readings” many times in the past for your claims, yet it seems you are not able to extend that option to others.

  11. stcordova: That’s a picture of the regressive left wing Stalinist, Maoist post-modern neo-Marxist truth hating garbage that is now invading western culture.

    “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”

  12. OMagain: . I can’t wait until you have a transgender child, then you’ll gain some empathy. Until then, FOAD.

    Don’t bet on it, plenty of transgendered children live in a repressive households.

  13. Quote-mining a seventeen-year-old in order to smear a whole group of people is despicable, in my opinion.

  14. Do you believe that women are equal to men in all ways? Do you believe feminism is a good thing? I do, on both counts.

    Man-hating is a bad thing. Why not humanism instead of feminism? Feminism only pretends to argue for equal rights, but it is veiled man hating.

    https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9197

    •A University of Hawaii professor recently claimed that universities should “stop hiring white cis men” until “the problem goes away.”

    •Mathematics professor Piper Harron never gets around to specifying which “problem” would be solved by culling cis white males from academia, but insists that “real solutions require women of color and trans women.”

    You think that sort of feminism and transgenderism is right?

    Do you believe that women are equal to men in all ways?

    They are equal in rights but not in anatomy and physiology. An ovary is not the same as a testicle. Men on average are heavier than women. Men are over represented in terms of combat deaths. Are you eager to equalize the numbers of female combat deaths?

    Do you have problems with the over abundance of male plumbers and roofers and female nurses? Is that the result of the conspiracies of the “patriarchy”?

    Men are disproportionately represented in prisons. One report said there are 13 times more men than women in prison. If you take numbers as evidence of injustice, would you be happier if there are 50% females in prisons? Or do you think that is somewhat a result of biology?

    Do you think the IQ distribution curves are identical for men and women are the same even assuming the average IQs of men and women are the same? That is can the AVERAGE be the same between men and women but the VARIANCE from the mean different? If the VARIANCE is greater in men, that explains why there are more male geniuses than females. But that isn’t politically correct science is it?

  15. I reported what Skatje said. Rumraket agreed with it. Skatje said:

    Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets…

    Skatje Myers at 17

    So you apparently agreed with Skatje, maybe all the Darwinists here. Does any Darwinist here disagree with that statement by Skatje? How about “Fair” Witness?

    The context was that I was describing how a man died after he had relations with a horse. Then Skatje saw my blog post about the incident and said:

    Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me.

    A man died from having relations with a horse and Skatje isn’t shocked by it? C’mon guys, you’re just taking her side of the argument because you don’t like me.

    I’d think a wiser thing for her to say would have been:

    You know, it can be life threatening for men to have relations with horses since that is not physiologically feasible.

    –what Skatje might have said instead at age 17

    But nooooo, I get demonized for reporting what she actually said in response to a man dying after having relations with horse that killed him:

    Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets…

    Skatje Myers at 17

    And actually, what that man did can be considered abuse and cruelty to animals and forcible rape. Did she comment on that? Nooo, instead she said:

    Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets…

    Skatje Myers at 17

  16. Sal,
    Feminism is the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. Do you disagree or agree with feminism?

    It seems you disagree.

    stcordova: But nooooo, I get demonized for reporting what she actually said in response to a man dying after having relations with horse that killed him:

    One day you will understand. Perhaps. But not for a long long time.

    stcordova:
    Do you have problethe advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.ms with the over abundance of male plumbers and roofers and female nurses? Is that the result of the conspiracies of the “patriarchy”?

    Likewise the overabundance of people of color in prison demonstrates that they are more likely to commit crime then whites. Right?

  17. stcordova: Do you have problems with the over abundance of male plumbers and roofers and female nurses? Is that the result of the conspiracies of the “patriarchy”?

    Fundamentally, yes. It’s the same reason we had girl and boy toys. Boys play with soldiers and girls play with pink nurses, right?

    However, old man, such attitudes are changing.

  18. stcordova: But nooooo, I get demonized for reporting what she actually said in response to a man dying after having relations with horse that killed him

    You reported it in the same way Fox “news” reported about Benghazi.

    Nobody has a problem with you quoting someone else. That’s kind of missing the entire point. But I’m not surprised that’s what you are fixated upon, I’d be putting some serious psychological avoidance tactics in at this point were I you.

  19. Here is the baseball bat patrol of Ever Green Students trying to “protect” the campus from white male privilege. Do they want to “protect” the campus from white jewish evolutionary biologists teaching the classes students enrolled in?

    That’s white-hating feminazi-ism on full display. It would be intolerable for a bunch of white guys to wield baseball bats to drive out female a black teachers out of the class room, but it’s OK by these students to drive a white male jew from campus merely because he’s a white male jew.

    https://heatst.com/culture-wars/evergreen-state-is-launching-a-masters-in-social-justice-program-with-guaranteed-jobs-for-graduates/

  20. stcordova: That’s white-hating feminazi-ism on full display. It would be intolerable for a bunch of white guys to wield baseball bats to drive out female a black teachers out of the class room, but it’s OK by these students to drive a white male jew from campus merely because he’s a white male jew.

    Any evidence his religious affiliation is relevant? I don’t see any evidence to picture is actually college students reaction to the professor, any further link beyond heatstreet?

  21. stcordova: Man-hating is a bad thing. Why not humanism instead of feminism? Feminism only pretends to argue for equal rights, but it is veiled man hating.

    You seem to harbor some hate toward leftist garbage, is that a bad thing as well?

  22. stcordova: Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets…

    Can you supply a link the whole response without the ellipses ?

  23. stcordova

    As a card carrying creationist, I thought the treatment of this evolutionary biologist was reprehensible.What do you think?

    I think you’re still the major league A-hole who changed other people’s posts on both UD and your own blog, deleting their thoughts and adding words the posters never said without attribution to make it look like they agreed with you.

    To this day that’s still one of the most despicable things I’ve ever seen a Creationist do. What do you think?

  24. Adapa: I think you’re still the major league A-hole who changed other people’s posts on both UD and your own blog

    Once, when I embarrassed him at ARN, he changed his own post, and then made a big deal of how I’d gotten him wrong.

    Salvador, if you want to be taken for a good guy these days, then you’ve got some confessing and some apologizing to do.

  25. stcordova,

    As a card carrying creationist, I thought the treatment of this evolutionary biologist was reprehensible. What do you think?

    Seems more like, as a card carrying conservative, you find the actions of the left reprehensible. Surely the discipline of the individual concerned, and its relation to your own biological inclinations, are wholly immaterial?

  26. stcordova: That’s a picture of the regressive left wing Stalinist, Maoist post-modern neo-Marxist truth hating garbage that is now invading western culture.

    1. Marxism and postmodernism are incompatible.

    2. Hysterical paranoia is not a good substitute for sociological and economic analyses.

  27. 1. Marxism and postmodernism are incompatible.

    Incompatibility doesn’t prevent creation of incoherent unions of thought. A case example of incoherent unions joining “intellectual” forces are sharia-loving Islamic terrorists being co-leaders of feminist women’s marches:

    http://freedomoutpost.com/islamic-terrorist-and-womens-march-leader-rasmea-odeh-will-be-deported-lose-us-citizenship/

    The baseball bat gestapo at Evergreen State aren’t exactly shining examples of systematic coherent intellect.

  28. stcordova: The baseball bat gestapo at Evergreen State aren’t exactly shining examples of systematic coherent intellect.

    Not sure about them but no doubt about you. You auditioning for some kind of right wing media welfare position?

  29. OMagain:

    If you were a woman I’d have said like a woman instead.

    You know, instead of like a child. A child you can excuse from ignorance, but a grown adult?

    You, sir, have no honor.

    So why didn’t you use the gender neutral term ADULT instead of MAN? The Feminazis and pronoun gestapo might have issues with your sexist language.

    Maybe they can file a complaint against you in the Montreal Human Rights commission for your sexist language.

    Oh, that’s the other thing about the pronoun gestapo. If a man insists he be called a man, according to New York law a fine of $250,000 can be imposed for violations of that. Ironically, then, the law can be used to require sexist references. So much for coherent thinking.

  30. stcordova: Incompatibility doesn’t prevent creation of incoherent unions of thought. A case example of incoherent unions joining “intellectual” forces are sharia-loving Islamic terrorists being co-leaders of feminist women’s marches:

    http://freedomoutpost.com/islamic-terrorist-and-womens-march-leader-rasmea-odeh-will-be-deported-lose-us-citizenship/

    As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Odeh was associated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which is a secular Marxist group about as far from political Islamism as one can get.

    The baseball bat gestapo at Evergreen State aren’t exactly shining examples of systematic coherent intellect.

    They’re kids. Kids do dumb stuff. I was a student activist and did a lot of dumb stuff. The problem wasn’t my worldview, but that I had more passion than common sense.

  31. stcordova: So why didn’t you use the gender neutral term ADULT instead of MAN?

    It’s interesting that you don’t dispute your behaviour was unethical but rather focus on the words used to call you out on said behaviour.

    stcordova: The Feminazis and pronoun gestapo might have issues with your sexist language.

    They might, and then again they might have bigger problems. Problems like you, for example. Someone who won’t say if they believe in equality (hint: that means you don’t).

    stcordova: Maybe they can file a complaint against you in the Montreal Human Rights commission for your sexist language.

    Yes, those pesky human rights. As noted, you seem to class some people as sub-humans and I’ve already asked you what color star they should wear to indicate that.

    stcordova: . If a man insists he be called a man, according to New York law a fine of $250,000 can be imposed for violations of that.

    http://gothamist.com/2016/05/19/gender_pronouns_false_fine.php

    stcordova: Ironically, then, the law can be used to require sexist references. So much for coherent thinking.

    Said the YEC.

  32. http://www.harpersbazaar.co.uk/culture/culture-news/news/a42066/cambridge-university-bans-sexist-flair-brilliance-genius-words/

    According to a history faculty academic, Cambridge University’s history department has been warned against using the words “flair”, “brilliance” and “genius” when assessing students’ work, reports The Independent.

    Lucy Delap, a lecturer of British History at the university told the newspaper that the department discouraged lecturers against using these words as they “carry assumptions of gender inequality” and “have a very long intellectual history […] associated with qualities culturally assumed to be male”.

    So “flair”, “brilliance”, and GENIUS are associated with men, therefore Lucy says we should stop using the words. Ok so how about the words “thug” and “prisoner” and “criminal” or “tyrant”, that’s associated probably associated with men more than women, how come they don’t suppress those words too? Not exactly a fair and balanced policy, imho.

    Ok so this was really about what to tell students in giving them feedback, so what I said wasn’t exactly accurate as far as students, but is regarding general word usage.

    Her man-hating is on display…

  33. I see the ‘pizzagate’ gunman was sentenced today.

    Humorous that he wasn’t any more gullible than a couple of the right-leaning nitwits that post here. Just has more balls than they have….

  34. stcordova:
    So “flair”, “brilliance”, and GENIUS are associated with men, therefore Lucy says we should stop using the words.

    Not all men ,amigo.

    Ok so how about the words “thug” and “prisoner” and “criminal” or “tyrant”, that’s associated probably associated with men more than women, how come they don’t suppress those words too?

    Dunno, maybe the fact that professors rarely use those words in student evaluations which was the point Lucy was discussing

    Not exactly a fair and balanced policy, imho.

    Is your hypothesis that men actually have it worse, that women monopolize most positions of power, that women restrict what a man’s doctor can tell him?

    “Novelist Margaret Atwood writes that when she asked a male friend why men feel threatened by women, he answered, “They are afraid women will laugh at them.” When she asked a group of women why they feel threatened by men, they said, “We’re afraid of being killed.””

    Ok so this was really about what to tell students in giving them feedback, so what I said wasn’t exactly accurate as far as students, but is regarding general word usage.

    Why say it then? Just to keep in practice of saying inaccurate things?

    Her man-hating is on display…

    Maybe not all men, but in your case I am sure she would make an exception

  35. walto:
    I see the ‘pizzagate’ gunman was sentenced today.

    Humorous that he wasn’t any more gullible than a couple of the right-leaning nitwits that post here. Just has more balls than they have….

    I fear for democracy

  36. When she asked a group of women why they feel threatened by men, they said, “We’re afraid of being killed.””

    Yes because men on average commit more violence. There are 13 times more men in jail than women.

    But, there are 7 more male geniuses for ever 1 female genius, and maybe even more in the realm of super geniuses in specialized fields.

    There is plenty of bad and sublime in the population of males. Just because there is plenty of bad in a population of men, does not justify all the feminazi man-hating and jealousy of men going around.

    The fact that men commit more violence than women and the fact that there are 700% more male geniuses than women doesn’t justify trying to force men via quotas and affirmative action to stop holding positions of prominence in certain fields like physics and roof repair or fire fighting or being CEOs.

    Feminazi’s have said this imbalance is due to a social construct of patriarchy and systematic discrimination. I’m for removing systematic discrimination, but that won’t necessarily remove the imbalances.

    On a related note regarding imbalances of race, what happens when race is removed from considerations of college enrollment?

    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21669595-asian-americans-are-united-states-most-successful-minority-they-are-complaining-ever

    Yet in California, where public universities are allowed to use economic but not racial criteria in admissions, 41% of Berkeley’s enrolments in 2014 were Asian-Americans and at the California Institute of Technology 44% were (see chart).

    Asian families have a different culture that emphasizes academic achievement and tend to produce students and adults that tend to be a somewhat nerdy and studious rather than having the entrepreneurial spirit of some of their non-Asian counterparts that become CEOs. Their over-representation in Berkely and Cal Tech has nothing to do with systematic discrimination, imho. It is part of the culture of Asian immigrants to the USA to be studious.

    I recall during my college years one young lady friends (half-asian) almost complaining that her fully Asian roommates did nothing but study. They didn’t seem to want to do anything else!

  37. stcordova: Feminazi’s have said this imbalance is due to a social construct of patriarchy and systematic discrimination. I’m for removing systematic discrimination, but that won’t necessarily remove the imbalances.

    The link I have just provided seems to show that some unknown factor can greatly reduce the disparity.

    On a side note, have you come out yet?

Leave a Reply