Bollocks! That done made me teared up good.

"Bollocks. I muffed it. Let's do that again!"

Yeah, I was actually waiting for the reveal at the end where he explained how that is all bollocks.

Maybe resizing, but no conservation of mass? Completely bollocks.

Bollocks

Looks total bollocks

*promote Billy Big Bollocks! heehee

Somewhat disappointed that he didn't include my personal favorite argument against Pascal's Wager: conflicting faiths.

Instead of a 4-cell chart (2x2 from believe/don't believe and god exists/doesn't), the chart should arguably be a LOT bigger. Plenty of individual branches of Christianity will tell you that *their* specific brand is the only one that will get you into heaven. And that's just relatively minor distinctions -- different sorts of Protestants, or Protestants vs Catholics, etc. We haven't even got to Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam -- all of which fall under the "Abrahamic" umbrella -- but very few Christian faiths think that Jews or Muslims are just as eligible to enter heaven as they are (or vice-versa). From there you can get to things as disparate as Hindu vs Ancient Egyptian vs Zoroastrianism, and everything else.

With that sort of chart, it is just as easy to say that choosing to believe in the *wrong* god could possibly be associated with a more negative outcome than washing your hands of it and going Atheist. Maybe I chose to believe in Ra the Sun God when Zeus ends up being the one true deity. Come to find that Zeus, as it turns out, tolerates people who don't believe in him as long as they don't believe in one of his competitors (like Ra). Therefore I get a lightning bolt to the keyster and a trip to Hades while my nonbeliever buddy gets a ticket to Elysium.

Of course it's all a load of bollocks, but if your argument is a load of bollocks (like Pascal's wager) you don't get to complain when somebody flips it on its head and uses it to argue the exact opposite...

What fucking moron came up with the idea that condoms can be used as evidence against a sex worker?

FFS, of all the wrong-headed, moronic, puritanical bollocks.... that is just painfully stupid.

Prohibition never works. Didn't work for alcohol, doesn't work for drugs or prostitution.

I was right with you up to this point. I'm going to give you a the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a typo rather than a pointless antisemetic tangent and address the point directly.

Criticism of a piece of art does not equal desire to suppress or censor that art. I thought Twilight was a fucking awful piece of writing; and yeah, part of that was because of the horrendously misogynistic abstenience promoting bollocks. Would I ban it? Fuck no.

Sarkeesian and her ilk 100% have the right to criticise lazy sexism in video games, and they don't have to "have the skill to make themselves" to criticise it.

There's a difference between dictation and criticism.

I lose. I stopped watching this racist bollocks about 1 minute in. I even skipped to the end to see if there would actually be a point, but nope, it's just more racism with an added dash of misogyny and right wing assholery for extra spice.

This is fucking *terrible.

Many self professed feminists believe it is about hating men too, but I assume "no true feminist" would ever do that right?

I wasn't trying to wilfully misunderstand you, but rather to pursue my whole contention about any political/social argument:

Individual People and specific arguments over ideologies always.

When the reverse is true and ideology is placed before people or the specific merits of an argument, the result is dehumanising and anti-intellectual (even if by the slimmest margins sometimes).

That's not to say that, where mutual understanding already exists, ideological terms are completely useless. But the moment individuals disagree, those ideological assumptions are going to get in the way of a productive dialogue.

My whole point I guess is that this seems rather anti-humanist if you will pardon the irony of taking an ideological position.
If as a humanist one believes that the optimal way is for everyone to be judged only on the merits of their individual words, deeds and capacity.

Rather than by culture, race, gender or some other involuntary and/or irrelevant factors.

Assuming you agree in principle with that definition of humanism in terms of goals, then what we are arguing here really is collectivism vs individualism.

You are suggesting we can get better results by pushing the "right" version of said ideology and suppressing the "wrong", correct?

I am arguing ultimately that we seem to get better results in the long term, by encouraging free and critical thought and allowing all ideas (no matter how egregious) a fair fight.

This puts me contrary to many tenets of the various feminist ideologies and concordant with others. Sometimes wildly so.

If I want to try to be a good humanist, I have no choice but to try and understand each on their own terms.

When someone describes themselves as a "Feminist", that could mean anything from "kill all men" to "women should have fundamental legal equality".

It seems almost as redundant as racial and cultural epithets, it tells me very little really important about you or how you really think, to know you are Black, or White or Asian or Polish, Spanish etc. etc. It's just another excuse to put an idea above the person in front of you or to not have to think too much about ones own.

i.e. Collectivist thinking.

I think this may represent the very antithesis of intellectual progress.

However I am a Hegelian and I just defined a Thesis-antithesis relationship............ That means the next great breakthrough should lie in the synthesis of the two.......

................

Collective individualism! All we should need is a mass movement of free critical thought and.....bollocks.

It's over people, we have officially peaked as a species! I'm calling it

Just out of interest, do you actually have any facts or even something approaching a reasoned argument to back up your ad hominem? Or are you just spouting the usual Fox News bollocks? 'Cos you see, I had citations and sources for what I said and you just have opinion.

I was perfectly polite to you when you mistakenly posted your nonsense to my profile and I attacked your argument, not you.

But now it's pretty clear that I was wasting my time. When you're ready to debate like a grownup, let me know.

Meh, really don't care what you think; it still looks like shit.

I didn't need to see twilight to know it was bollocks and so far, there's nothing here that even vaguely interests me. Maybe when it comes out and other people whose job it is to sit through this garbage give it a good review, I might change my mind, but until then I will retain a healthy dose of cynicism.

*bollocks