RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (39) < ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 >   
  Topic: Vox Day: Alpha Fail., Rich veins of untapped Tard< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2011,19:52   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Sep. 01 2011,04:37)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 01 2011,05:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 31 2011,13:50)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,13:41)
In regard to gnostic writings, please bear in mind the late dates that most of those were written in comparison to the books that were included in scripture.

Also, back to the early church fathers.  Certain books were not accepted for good reason...some didn't even yet exist...others obviously were in total contrast to what 1st hand witnesses attested to in their writings.

Name one first hand witness of Jesus that can be shown to have written a book of the Bible (any Bible).

Plenty evidence of that, but I'm sure you've read it all, as you seem to think you're a theologian.  I'm not offering anymore links...find them yourselves.  Most refuse to read and those who do scan and throw up strawmen.  

Then again, anything you read that supports early writers and witnesses, you'll wave off as incorrect even if you have no solid evidence to refute the fact.  Get into the early church father's.  Eye opener.  

Carry on....

You keep talking about the Church fathers as though they are totally reliable. For the most part we don't even have copies of what they wrote but rely on what Eusibus wrote in the fourth century

Wasn't Eusebius the biggest liar in history, as many scholars consider him?  Or was that Iranaeus?  I've been listening to science and skepticism more than biblical history, so it's gone to the back part of my memory right now.  The one I'm thinking of is one of the candidates considered to have written the forged (or pseudepigraphical) Pauline letters.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1021
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2011,20:59   

Quote (Badger3k @ Sep. 01 2011,19:49)
Again, that says nothing about its accuracy - its relationship to reality.  I can bet that there are a lot of copies of early comic books - does that mean that Peter Parker existed?  Will future woo-merchants look back on ancient comics and wonder at our religion that worshipped a wall-crawling human?  He certainly was persecuted enough.

Future woo-merchants will go on the brain-nets and claim that since the ancients texts clearly show Uncle Ben died for our sins, then there is just as much evidence for that as for the existence of jellyfish.  And that being nice to gay people eventually leads to throwing pumpkin bombs at children.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
Quack



Posts: 1755
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2011,02:56   

Quote
Freke and Gandy have been criticized by biblical scholars (and others) in their "looseness" with the facts.  They have some good stuff, but anything they say should be checked out with other sources.  There is no excuse for shoddy scholarship.

I think it is more about their obvious agenda than shoddy scholarship. I think they could have done a more scholarly treatment if they wanted to but that would also have made it less of a good read. It helps that they reference their sources and that list is impressive.

BTW, IIRC, it was Robert M Price that I was stung by at t.o. once when I referred to TJM; he appeared as rather arrogant and asked why I would believe two journalists. He struck me as having an agenda too.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2011,06:21   

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 02 2011,02:56)
Quote
Freke and Gandy have been criticized by biblical scholars (and others) in their "looseness" with the facts.  They have some good stuff, but anything they say should be checked out with other sources.  There is no excuse for shoddy scholarship.

I think it is more about their obvious agenda than shoddy scholarship. I think they could have done a more scholarly treatment if they wanted to but that would also have made it less of a good read. It helps that they reference their sources and that list is impressive.

BTW, IIRC, it was Robert M Price that I was stung by at t.o. once when I referred to TJM; he appeared as rather arrogant and asked why I would believe two journalists. He struck me as having an agenda too.

I don't know about arrogant, but he seems to make wild leaps, esp regarding languages, that I don't think are justified (based on what I know).  Some things I think he is good on, other stuff....  He also seems to like any idea, and since he doesn't think we'll really know one way or another (and to an extent I agree), he thinks that any hypothesis is good.  Kinda like George Nouri.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Henry J



Posts: 4059
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2011,11:43   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 01 2011,19:59)
Future woo-merchants will go on the brain-nets and claim that since the ancients texts clearly show Uncle Ben died for our sins, then there is just as much evidence for that as for the existence of jellyfish.  And that being nice to gay people eventually leads to throwing pumpkin bombs at children.

But keep in mind, with great power comes great responsibility!

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2011,17:17   

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 02 2011,17:56)
Quote
Freke and Gandy have been criticized by biblical scholars (and others) in their "looseness" with the facts.  They have some good stuff, but anything they say should be checked out with other sources.  There is no excuse for shoddy scholarship.

I think it is more about their obvious agenda than shoddy scholarship. I think they could have done a more scholarly treatment if they wanted to but that would also have made it less of a good read. It helps that they reference their sources and that list is impressive.

BTW, IIRC, it was Robert M Price that I was stung by at t.o. once when I referred to TJM; he appeared as rather arrogant and asked why I would believe two journalists. He struck me as having an agenda too.

I think that they are all like that. There is so little evidence that it is easy to build fanciful towers in the air. It used to annoy me on IIDB that everybody used to shoot down everybody else's fanciful tower as it lacked evidence while they fiercely defended their own. It is worse in the FTK world as they hide and distort evidence to pretend that we know that Jesus exists.

So what do we know - In the first century we have Josephus who mentions Jesus. This is an obvious interpolation. (Also Eusiebius has a Josephus quote which is different from the copied document we now have.

In the second and third centuries we have some scraps of manuscripts and some mentions by Romans (quite a few disputed though), so we know that there was some kind of Jesus movement and that the gospels were close to what we have now.

In the fourth century we start to see the church as we know it now. Eusebius writes his history of the church, where we learn about FTK's precious church fathers. He quotes a lot of documents that no longer exist as even copies.
Now some of Eusebius's contemporaries say that he was dishonest - but why should you believe them anymore than you believe that Eusebius honestly wrote down the history of the church.

  
the_ignored



Posts: 50
Joined: Mar. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2011,11:28   

For the record, these are what I tried posting on Vox's site: though my browser or something keeps mutilating my comments:


VD
Quote
Answer this question. If science produces technology, and not the other way around, why was technological advancement almost completely frozen in the Soviet Union for fifty years when they devoted a larger percentage of their GDP to science research than the United States did?


"Technological advancement almost completely frozen"?  Their space program sent a satellite and a man in space before the americans did. They got the bomb (atomic and hydrogen) very soon after the states did.

"Completely frozen"?  Not always.  Only when their ideology ruled the day.  For example, that Lysenko guy didn't believe in the chromosomal theory of heredity and got Stalin convinced of his views, and from there on, their agriculture got screwed.  As well, many geneticists were executed.  

Science has to be free to go wherever the evidence leads, that's how science works.  It won't work if you suppress it!

VD
Quote
I further note that your argument that one must know science to create technology is disproven by your own statements. You previously asserted that I know less science than a fifth-grader, and yet I have been a successful, ground-breaking professional technology designer for 20 years.

So a second question: is science unnecessary for technological development or am I, in fact, a master of science?


Let's look at some of your "groundbreaking" work shall we?  The one game that you designed by yourself bombed, and other games like Rebel Moon Rising didn't seem to do very well.

Care to explain just what ground you broke?

As for new or "ground-breaking" ideas, how's the "Failmouse" uh, sorry "Warmouse" thing working out?  

Science is necessary for technological development and you're not a "master" of anything.


Speaking of you and PZ Myers, didn't you once say that Myers didn't have the guts to go through with his cracker desecration idea?
Quote
The saltines are safe, for just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there is no vow that the militant atheist will not violate if he perceives any risk to his material well-being.


"No athiests in foxholes"?  Really?



===========
So, less than one full day and you go and make a post about how I have not answered any of your questions?  

Not only is that impatient as hell, but that's dishonest.  I have answered several of your questions.  
You just find some excuse to disregard them (see your post above) and then claim that I've never answered them.

I was warned that you were a dishonest prick, looks like they were right.  


From the previous post:
Quote
2. If science produces technology, and not the other way around, why was technological advancement almost completely frozen in the Soviet Union for fifty years when they devoted a larger percentage of their GDP to science research than the United States did? (Your attempt to argue that Soviet technology was essentially equal to the USA is false.)


Did you miss the reason I gave about what happened when ideology got thrown into the mix?

"Contradictory assertions" about science and technological develpment?  Huh?  Care to spell out what they were?  I said that technology is dependent on science.  It's basically applied science, really.  Like with the computer:  

Regardless of motives, one still needs to understand materials science, conductivity, etc. to be able to devise the plans to build one.


Let's see:  "bleeding edge technology developer"?  Is that why you have so many patents?  Or is that why your're still trying to get that ergonomic monstrosity of a "warmouse" going after a few years?  If it's so "bleeding edge" why are the reviews so mixed?  The only positive review I found was one saying that maybe for a niche market it'd be ok   But for the most part, they'd prefer some other kind of mouse.

You even quote from the post where I do answer at least some of your questions at 8/29/11 9:59 AM, but you keep claiming that I haven't answered them?  Even if you consider my answers wrong, which you say you do in this post, that's NOT the same damned thing.
-------------------------------------------------

For the questions I haven't already answered:
Quote
1. Would you seriously consider it meaningful, or even remotely relevant, if JD were to debate me on Paul Zachary's behalf, so long as he felt he has a good understanding of Paul Zachary's words?

JD agrees with you, not with PZ.  I'm trying to get him to accept PZ's challenge to see if he can back up the claims that Coulter made in her book since he seems to believe that her book is accurate.  In other words, he agrees with her.  That's where your question falls apart.  

Paul seems to want to know why people would think that, since he and other actual scientists have taken her book apart.


Quote
4. Now that I have answered all his questions and proved that "marital rape" can be reasonably defended under the principle of Common Law, is he willing to admit that by his own metric, the adjectives "inane" and "unworthy" no longer apply to me as a potential debate opponent for Paul Zachary Myers?

Your defense of marital rape through the use of common law?  As George, I'd love to see you try that in a real court of law.  "inane" and "unworthy" still apply to you as a person.  

I'll leave it up to Myers whether he wants to deal with you or not.  Lord knows you're certainly odious enough just through this medium.  In person, holy crap.


------

Gee, I guess I'll have to try harder...

  
the_ignored



Posts: 50
Joined: Mar. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2011,11:38   

For context, Vox had asked me questions in that post of his, and I tried answering them. You can see how badly formatted my replies came out there, but nevertheless that's what they are.

:p

  
Quack



Posts: 1755
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2011,14:01   

I believe what the Germans applied to technology production during WW2 was science and nothing but science.  How much of it was greedily picked up by the US and Soviet?  A Norwegian student sent to Germany early in WW2 to study engineering, but actually for spying.  He went to Peenemünde and could observe what was going on but the Brits didn't believe him. He stayed in Dresden until the end of the war. During the last days of the war drove a car all the way to Hamburg in a corridor between the Allied and Soviet armies.  Bought a Mercedes from a German officer in Hamburg on his word to pay after the war. Drove it over the Danish border as the first of the Allied forces.
Link (Fixed)

ETA:
The article from Aftenposten is very interesting , and I translate a piece:  
Quote
We had warned the people in England but they didn’t believe us. After the war the British themselves gave the answer why they for a long time did not believe the reports from Rosbaud and Bergh. They thought the Germans could not possibly have developed a fuel of sufficient density and light enough to fuel a rocket from Germany to England. But the British were wrong. The German scientist’s formula was a mixture of liquid alcohol and oxygen.


--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2011,15:05   

Quote (the_ignored @ Sep. 03 2011,06:38)
For context, Vox had asked me questions in that post of his, and I tried answering them. You can see how badly formatted my replies came out there, but nevertheless that's what they are.

:p

Bear in mind I am English by birth and have never visited the USA, though I have met some very charming Americans in Europe, and also that the internets are rather subdued on my usual subject of interest - has "Intelligent Design" come up with a theory yet.

Presumably the "Vox Day" thread has figured quite prominently recently because of lack of other news and I followed the link. Having taken a shower and a large tincture, I feel restored enough to ask: do the views expressed by the author and (his wife?) space Bunny and other apparently enthusiastic commenters represent anything approaching a significant minority view in the US?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2011,15:17   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 04 2011,15:05)
Quote (the_ignored @ Sep. 03 2011,06:38)
For context, Vox had asked me questions in that post of his, and I tried answering them. You can see how badly formatted my replies came out there, but nevertheless that's what they are.

:p

Bear in mind I am English by birth and have never visited the USA, though I have met some very charming Americans in Europe, and also that the internets are rather subdued on my usual subject of interest - has "Intelligent Design" come up with a theory yet.

Presumably the "Vox Day" thread has figured quite prominently recently because of lack of other news and I followed the link. Having taken a shower and a large tincture, I feel restored enough to ask: do the views expressed by the author and (his wife?) space Bunny and other apparently enthusiastic commenters represent anything approaching a significant minority view in the US?

That's a really good question that deserves some serious thought.

I think that the majority of US citizens don't think about it and don't care.  If it's not a bog block V-8, involve a football (a real one, not a soccer ball), or a trip to the beauty salon most Americans don't give a crap.

The ones that do think about would probably tend to think that there is some sort of designer (God) and then the thought drifts away from their mind like beautiful cloud.

The people that are actually capable of giving this some thought are the ones that think ID is an utter load of hokum.  

Does that help?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2011,15:31   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 04 2011,10:17)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 04 2011,15:05)
 
Quote (the_ignored @ Sep. 03 2011,06:38)
For context, Vox had asked me questions in that post of his, and I tried answering them. You can see how badly formatted my replies came out there, but nevertheless that's what they are.

:p

Bear in mind I am English by birth and have never visited the USA, though I have met some very charming Americans in Europe, and also that the internets are rather subdued on my usual subject of interest - has "Intelligent Design" come up with a theory yet.

Presumably the "Vox Day" thread has figured quite prominently recently because of lack of other news and I followed the link. Having taken a shower and a large tincture, I feel restored enough to ask: do the views expressed by the author and (his wife?) space Bunny and other apparently enthusiastic commenters represent anything approaching a significant minority view in the US?

That's a really good question that deserves some serious thought.

I think that the majority of US citizens don't think about it and don't care.  If it's not a bog block V-8, involve a football (a real one, not a soccer ball), or a trip to the beauty salon most Americans don't give a crap.

The ones that do think about would probably tend to think that there is some sort of designer (God) and then the thought drifts away from their mind like beautiful cloud.

The people that are actually capable of giving this some thought are the ones that think ID is an utter load of hokum.  

Does that help?

Thanks Ogre, but I have only read the comments that Reynold/the ignored linked to upthread. My astonishment was more general  and more in relation to the remarks about whether a wife could be a victim of rape by her husband.

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2011,22:50   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 04 2011,15:31)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 04 2011,10:17)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 04 2011,15:05)
   
Quote (the_ignored @ Sep. 03 2011,06:38)
For context, Vox had asked me questions in that post of his, and I tried answering them. You can see how badly formatted my replies came out there, but nevertheless that's what they are.

:p

Bear in mind I am English by birth and have never visited the USA, though I have met some very charming Americans in Europe, and also that the internets are rather subdued on my usual subject of interest - has "Intelligent Design" come up with a theory yet.

Presumably the "Vox Day" thread has figured quite prominently recently because of lack of other news and I followed the link. Having taken a shower and a large tincture, I feel restored enough to ask: do the views expressed by the author and (his wife?) space Bunny and other apparently enthusiastic commenters represent anything approaching a significant minority view in the US?

That's a really good question that deserves some serious thought.

I think that the majority of US citizens don't think about it and don't care.  If it's not a bog block V-8, involve a football (a real one, not a soccer ball), or a trip to the beauty salon most Americans don't give a crap.

The ones that do think about would probably tend to think that there is some sort of designer (God) and then the thought drifts away from their mind like beautiful cloud.

The people that are actually capable of giving this some thought are the ones that think ID is an utter load of hokum.  

Does that help?

Thanks Ogre, but I have only read the comments that Reynold/the ignored linked to upthread. My astonishment was more general  and more in relation to the remarks about whether a wife could be a victim of rape by her husband.

I think, and hope, that they are the minority position, but we do hear that idea that a man cannot rape his wife sometimes, mainly from the heavily bible-based/fundie religious.  I say I hope they are in the minority, because we have the Quiverfull movement and others that reinforce the man-dominant/woman-virtual-slave ideology.  I think it's a dying viewpoint.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
the_ignored



Posts: 50
Joined: Mar. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2011,01:14   

Well, it looks like Vox is not at all interested in my answers, but is instead going to hand wave them away and not even allow me to post on his blog:

Quote
I haven't needed any excuse to disregard his answers because he hasn't actually answered any of the four questions. Unlike his fellow Pharyngulan, Mhich, who appears to grasp the basic concept of first answering the question and only then proceeding to justify his answer, Reynold has produced nothing but incorrect, unsubstantiated, and invalid excuses for why he shouldn't have to answer the questions. Is he being evasive because he fears being pinned down or is he simply that stupid? At this point, it's a tough call. In any event, he will not be commenting here anymore unless and until he provides unequivocal, straightforward answers to the four questions, as per the publicly posted Rules of the Blog.


I'll let you guys be the judge of that...look at what I've already posted and what I'm about to post below.  Maybe if I try to explain in more detail, Vox will consider his questions "answered".  If not, well, that's why I'm posting them here, with just a link at his site to the reply here:  At least it's guaranteed that the reply is out there...


VD
Quote
1. Would you seriously consider it meaningful, or even remotely relevant, if JD were to debate me on Paul Zachary's behalf, so long as he felt he has a good understanding of Paul Zachary's words?

As I tried to say earlier:  Your question is invalid.  Why?  JD agrees with you, not with PZ.  Why would he debate you in PZ's stead if he doesn't agree with PZ??  

Otherwise, if he had a good understanding of someone's words then I'd have no problem with him debating on that other person's behalf.  For instance, Ann Coulter.  However, JD was stupid enough to not even bother to read her sodding book before agreeing with her.  The challenge was up, so I decided to call JD on it.  He said he would at some point (a lot later then the few days you gave me before you started going on about how I "never" answered your questions.) but so far, he's done nothing.



Quote
2. If science produces technology, and not the other way around, why was technological advancement almost completely frozen in the Soviet Union for fifty years when they devoted a larger percentage of their GDP to science research than the United States did? (His attempt to argue that Soviet technology was essentially equal to US technology on the basis of the stolen atomic bomb and the space program is verifiably false. I am also willing to accept an answer which substitutes why the technological level of the Soviet Union "fell significantly behind that of the United States" in lieu of its technological advancement being "almost completely frozen".)

I told you previously:  ideology and politics.  I gave the Lysenko guy as an example with Sov world genetics.

That's why their technological development fell apart in some areas...They wound up going with what they wanted to be true (ideology) as opposed to bothering to find out what the reality truly was.  If the science didn't back up what their ideology was, they suppressed it.  That is NOT how science works, I had said...you have to go where the evidence leads.

I say again:  If you hate "science" so much, then forgo everything from computers to modern medicine, transportation, etc.  You won't though, because you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Whether you accept that answer of not, I don't know.  As I said, that's why I'm only posting a link to the (second attempt) at an answer to your blog.  Even if you don't publish that comment, it's still out there.

  
the_ignored



Posts: 50
Joined: Mar. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2011,01:41   

Well, on the the third question.  This has got to be a classic example of how a creationist will use quotes.  Read on:

 
Quote
3. Is science unnecessary for technological development or am I, in fact, a master of science? (This is in response to his contradictory assertions that science drives technological advancement and my supposed ignorance of science. As he questioned my technological credentials, which are well-known in the game industry, I referred him to Engadget, which described one of my various technology designs as "the most advanced they had ever seen.")

As I've said before, science is needed for technological development.

I like how he cherry-picked the review on that site.  

Here's another excerpt from apparently the same review:    
Quote
Getting the Meta set up really isn't the struggle here. Nope, the struggle is all in remembering what you set each of the buttons to do. It's not that we have the memory of a goldfish, but trying to recall what 14 different buttons and each of their double click functions – yes, you can actually program this to do up to 48 shortcuts or commands per mode – requires an incredible amount of brain power. In practice we only ended up using a few of them: we got the hang of using A2 to copy, A4 to paste, B7 to open Engadget, and B5 to open a Google search in Firefox.


From their conclusion:
   
Quote
However, at the end of the day we can't help but wonder who could possibly remember how to use so many buttons on a single gadget. Sure, there's niche appeal for designers or gamers, but if you have $80 to spend on a mouse we'd honestly go with a more ergonomic option, like the Logitech MX 1100, and if you are a gamer the $130 Razer Mamba is rated amongst the top.

Get that?  The very same site that you used to show off your "technological superiority" is the same site where the reviews basically say that they'd rather use something else!

Yeah, that's real "bleeding edge" all right!

But hey, it's not all bad:
   
Quote
But hey, if you have a stellar memory and need a mouse with 18 buttons that can manage more shortcuts than anything else out there, there's nothing quite like the WarMouse Meta.



So yeah Vox, you're a master of nothing.


On a different article on that same site, I found (if one enables the comments):

   
Quote
After years of trying, someone finally made a mouse worse than Apple's Hockey Puck. Congrads. There is an entire ring of Hell reserved just for you.


 
Quote
OpenOffice mouse? The uncomfortable interface makes it more like a GIMP mouse.


   
Quote
Or you can pay $60 to get a 3-PC license Office 2007 Home and Student, and $15 for a cheap wireless mouse


   
Quote
Or for $5 less you could just get MS Office! Isn't the whole point of OpenOffice that it's free?



VD:
   
Quote
4. Now that I have answered all his questions and proved that "marital rape" can be reasonably defended under the principle of Common Law, is he willing to admit that by his own metric, the adjectives "inane" and "unworthy" no longer apply to me as a potential debate opponent for Paul Zachary Myers?

Nope:  You can't "reasonably defend" something based on a law that's all but outdated.    Yet the title of your post dealing with that topic said that there is no marital rape, period.  If that was the fucking case, then there would not be laws against it.  

Horrifyingly, as you no doubt know, this part of "common (or English) law" is rather recent:

   
Quote
Since the 1970s, the marital exemption has been under attack. The conclusive presumption that a wife always consents to sex with her husband, regardless of circumstances, is obviously untenable. Modern apologists for the exemption argue instead that in cases of marital discord, criminal sanctions represent an intrusion that could disrupt "the ongoing process of adjustment in the marital relationship" (American Law Institute, pp. 344–346). In addition, they argue, the harm of forced intimacy is less serious when the victim and the offender have "an ongoing relation of sexual intimacy."

Opponents of the exemption attack both claims. As to the first, they note that the marital exemption in its traditional form applies even when the parties are legally separated; moreover, when the parties are living together, legal sanctions for assault apply in cases of domestic violence, so there is no reason why other violent offenses within marriage should not be subject to punishment as well. As to the second claim, opponents of the exemption note that "wife rape can be as terrifying and life-threatening as stranger rape. In addition, it often evokes a powerful sense of betrayal, deep disillusionment, and total isolation" (Russell, pp. 190–191, 198–199).


All things that Vox doesn't seem to give a fuck about...but at least he's no atheist!  This is nuts.  Shouldn't the "good xians" be the first people in line to support these new laws while trying to foist the blame for the old ones on "darwinists and atheists"??

Anyway, here's where it's shown to be out-of date:

cont'd
 
Quote
Responding to these criticisms, many states have abolished their marital exemption completely, either by legislation or by judicial decision reinterpreting the common law. At least one court has ruled the marital exemption unconstitutional on equal protection grounds (People v. Liberta, 474 N.E.2d 567 (N.Y. 1984)).

Nonetheless, the exemption survives in modified form in most of the states. Though only fifteen states have abolished all distinctions between marital and nonmarital rape, many states still treat marital rape as less serious than other rapes or permit prosecution for marital rape only when aggravated force was used; some states permit prosecution only when the parties are legally separated or permit prosecution only when the parties are living apart (Shulhofer, pp. 43–44).


So, at best for you, Vox, you'd get a lesser sentence than he otherwise would for raping his wife.

Never mind that the UN has a higher opinion of the value of women's lives than Vox does:
   
Quote
In December 1993, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women[10]. This establishes marital rape as a human rights violation.


Meanwhile the good libertarian christian Vox sees nothing wrong with it.  


The real kicker is is this story in the Bahamas where they're trying to outlaw marital rape.  Guess who's fighting against it, and on what basis?

 
Quote
Some local religious leaders have argued that a man cannot rape his wife claiming the Bible dictates that a wife must physically submit to her husband.

Controversial pastor Cedric Moss has vocally opposed the legislation claiming the amendment would create a "society of rapists." Citing the "word of God", Mr Moss argued that rape cannot be committed in marriage because the couple

gave each other authority over the other's body and agreed to open-ended sexual consent in the marriage contract. He argued that including spouses as potential rapists would contradict the sacrament of marriage.

"But can it be right to bring married people under such a law designed for unmarried people? No, and a thousand times, no! It is not right and it can never be right to bring all married couples under this definition of rape whereby moment by moment consent is required for every stage of every act of sexual intercourse.



So yeah, Vox, you are still "inane" and a misogynit prick from what I've read of your constant rantings about women on your blog,  though I concede that how big a prick you are has no bearing on your debating ability...wait, scratch that.  It probably makes you better at debates.

  
the_ignored



Posts: 50
Joined: Mar. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2011,01:56   

Well, I just posted a link to Vox's blog see the 9/5/11 1:43 AM post where I link to my replies just above.  Whether he keeps that post up or not, I don't know...but at least the answer (both attempts at it!) are up now.

  
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2011,03:37   

Some other guy called George:  
Quote
VD,

I think you are right.



I just want to note that the George over at VD's place is a different one.

I feel grubby now.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2011,03:43   

Quote (the_ignored @ Sep. 04 2011,20:56)
Well, I just posted a link to Vox's blog see the 9/5/11 1:43 AM post where I link to my replies just above.  Whether he keeps that post up or not, I don't know...but at least the answer (both attempts at it!) are up now.

I hope Badger3k is right about this being a dying viewpoint. I was just amazed that, in the 21st century, even a few supposedly civilised humans could express themselves in this way unashamedly. Maybe crazies like Vox Day should just be monitored rather than argued with. Surely not every randomn thought from anyone with with loony views and access to a keyboard needs a rebuttal?


  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2011,03:45   

Oops deleted double post

  
the_ignored



Posts: 50
Joined: Mar. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2011,14:12   

You know what's funny?  One of Vox's acolytes, JD Curtis (goes by Phineagal or something on Vox's blog) made a hypocrite of himself with this entire mess.

How so?  Read what he says here:

 
Quote
The aggregate amount of “Free Thought” here is dizzying.


and compare it with what he does on his own blog:

 
Quote
Comment moderation is now enabled. Way to 'Strike a Blow for Free Speech', Chumley.


Well, he'll be relieved to read this thread if Voxytoad decides to leave my link up.  He'll see that I've answered twice.  Though of course, he'll deny it (He is after all, mister "Where's the Birth Certificate?")

His remarks about "social autism" strike me as ironic:  Look at all the things his hero Vox has said about women, and all the insults he constantly spews against anyone he agrees with.

  
the_ignored



Posts: 50
Joined: Mar. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2011,19:12   

You all remember the rape apologist Vox Day, right?  Well, hold on to your hats, here's another one.

Quote
I don't believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it is surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is demonstrably more attractive to women than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.


Don't forget:  It's ATHEISTS who are the socially incompotent assholes here!

Even worse, check out the posts at the blog he links to!  It seems to be another one of his.

Holy shit.

  
khan



Posts: 1482
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2011,19:27   

Quote (the_ignored @ Sep. 29 2011,20:12)
You all remember the rape apologist Vox Day, right?  Well, hold on to your hats, here's another one.

 
Quote
I don't believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it is surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is demonstrably more attractive to women than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.


Don't forget:  It's ATHEISTS who are the socially incompotent assholes here!

Even worse, check out the posts at the blog he links to!  It seems to be another one of his.

Holy shit.

Holy Jesus Fucking Shit indeed.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Henry J



Posts: 4059
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2011,22:06   

To paraphrase a certain movie line:

"This guy keeps using words. I don't think they mean what he thinks they mean."

Henry

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2011,04:56   

Quote (the_ignored @ Sep. 30 2011,01:12)
You all remember the rape apologist Vox Day, right?  Well, hold on to your hats, here's another one.

 
Quote
I don't believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it is surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is demonstrably more attractive to women than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.


Don't forget:  It's ATHEISTS who are the socially incompotent assholes here!

Even worse, check out the posts at the blog he links to!  It seems to be another one of his.

Holy shit.

I am genuinely ashamed to share a clade with this fuck-knuckle. I wonder how his fangirl FTK feels about his misogyny?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2011,11:25   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 30 2011,04:56)
Quote (the_ignored @ Sep. 30 2011,01:12)
You all remember the rape apologist Vox Day, right?  Well, hold on to your hats, here's another one.

 
Quote
I don't believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it is surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is demonstrably more attractive to women than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.


Don't forget:  It's ATHEISTS who are the socially incompotent assholes here!

Even worse, check out the posts at the blog he links to!  It seems to be another one of his.

Holy shit.

I am genuinely ashamed to share a clade with this fuck-knuckle. I wonder how his fangirl FTK feels about his misogyny?

Louis

He's a member of the "right side", right?  She probably loves it as what side you're on is all that matters.  And people (is that the right term?) like Vox know this and use it to their advantage.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
the_ignored



Posts: 50
Joined: Mar. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2011,10:07   

And now, the pot calling the kettle black.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 780
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2011,14:41   

Quote
....found a strong link between utilitarian responses to these dilemmas (e.g., approving the killing of an innocent person to save the others) and personality styles that were psychopathic,...

Ergo, God is a psycopath.

  
the_ignored



Posts: 50
Joined: Mar. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,16:02   

Let's face it: misogyny is built into the abrahamic religions.  For example, orthodox rabbis assaulting girls going to school.

Jesus H. Christ

  
the_ignored



Posts: 50
Joined: Mar. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2011,02:50   

Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 05 2011,14:41)
Quote
....found a strong link between utilitarian responses to these dilemmas (e.g., approving the killing of an innocent person to save the others) and personality styles that were psychopathic,...

Ergo, God is a psycopath.

I know it's not quite on topic, but if you want an example of god (or at least his servants) being psychopaths, get a load of of this example here

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10116
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2011,14:00   

How many wrongs can you spot here:

Quote
"To give another example, if evolution were a real science, biologists would be able to predict what the next species to evolve would be, as well as which population groups within a species were more evolved than the norm. "



?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
  1157 replies since July 31 2008,17:11 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (39) < ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]