>> ^westy:

why the nanana wanking?
i think this is the first Dub Step style beat box i hurd 10 pionts


Looped but good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpCfDHbUmvM

why the nanana wanking?

i think this is the first Dub Step style beat box i hurd 10 pionts

@SDGundamX

I hope I've done the tag properly. I prefer notifications to be set to 'off' because I get enough junkmail from the other bazillion websites I'm registered to as it is, so yeah I don't pay much attention to that stuff.

Anyway, on to your reply!

Speaking of assumptions...

Oh boy! Here we go!

...I’m noticing that you tend to make a lot of them. You assumed, for instance, that I was a Christian. You assumed that I was trying to defend a particular religion or religious practice.

Yes, I did, as I've already admitted. It was a fine display of all the common symptoms of a religious apologist/troll, touting all the usual old and tired canards I've heard repeated ad nauseum; unjustified and arrogantly pronounced assertions with no evidence to ground them to reality, a blatant false equivocation, and flat out wrong characterizations of Hitchens et al's position. I'm genuinely sorry I had you falsely pegged but when it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck...well, y'know. In other words, you probably could have done a better job of elucidating and then justifying your opinion.

You assumed (and continue to assume) that I am calling Hitchens and the rest fundamentalists. I am not. I could not. Atheism by its very definition cannot be “fundamentalist” as this article explains. What I said was:

I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against.

Your words are right there above mine. They are zealots that rival the fundamentalists they are opposed to, in their zeal to exterminate (I call bullshit on this, they seek to marginalize it not destroy it) religion. On what planet is this not a false equivocation? On what planet am I to not take you at your word? You still haven't provided evidence for this or the other claim that they even wish to exterminate religion, as well. Because they don't. If you don't stand by your wording then retract it. You really haven't read anything from them other than what you have learned from secondary, tertiary sources, have you?



...that they refuse to revise their absolutist statements about religion being the cause of evil or the spreading hatred even when faced with evidence of religion instead bringing good into the world (on the blog—the story of Hitchens and the taxi driver who went to great lengths to return Hitchens’ lost wallet because the driver’s religion demanded he do so).

This evidence exists in heaps and bounds—I would guess (though I don’t know for sure, granted) in equal amounts to the evidence that religion spreads hatred. Regardless of the amount, in the face of the fact that such evidence exists at all, Hitchens’ previous statement (the one made in this clip about religion being the primary cause of hatred) becomes wholly untenable.


Are you seriously attributing the fact that moral people can exist within the institution of a religion and still be moral, to the religion itself? Could you name a single decent thing a religious person can do that a non-religious person couldn't? What kind of morality do you think preceded the origins of the Muslim cab driver's religion? The exact same morality that has always existed between humans and other humans on some level, that of mutual altruistic behavior, the "golden rule" and that the Abrahamic religion has co-opted into the rest of their vile ideology. You have your causes and effects here reversed, human morality is what it is in spite of religion, and to invoke religion where its not even a necessary requirement is to trivialize the very thing that enabled homo sapiens, as inherently social animals, to get to where we are today in this technological age without destroying ourselves in the process.


In regards to the so-called ad hom: I feel this applies to your post because you appear to be dismissing my argument before even considering it since you start off suspecting I don’t think clearly.

Well, you are wrong. I obviously read your whole reply before I responded. What you feel is irrelevant. Did you just read that one line and then ignore everything else I said? I mentioned the "not thinking clearly thing" purely as an aside, I then went on to address your points. Ad hom doesn't apply, sorry. It would've if that was all I supplied as the basis of my argument; I didn't say "You do not think clearly, therefore you are wrong". Ad hominem isn't what you wish it to be so stop abusing the term.

This brings us back to the Gnu Atheist’s confrontational tactics—in that link you gave me, the writer explicitly endorses being rude. I’m not here to tell you it isn’t a valid tactic—it most certainly is.


Being unflinchingly truthful and not kowtowing to the religious lies/claptrap and ridiculing those whose faith is threatened (who would have no qualms about being as rude and demeaning as possible in telling me so) by my sole existence is rude now. You should tell those uppity gays to be more polite and not stand up for equal treatment, in whatever way they choose as long as its non-violent/within the boundaries of the law, maybe their oppressors would stand down. No, confrontation is the answer if you want to change speak out and "business as usual". I consider lies to be harmful and rude and demeaning to an individual deserving of being treated like an adult in the marketplace of ideas, even the most comfortably benign, fluffy touchie-feelie ones.


I’m here to question it’s efficacy.

It was already pretty clear to me but thanks. It looked to me like you had already decided. You may NOW be appearing to question that, but again, what you may have meant certainly isn't what you wrote and to expect others to be able to know is dickish. I agree it's a good question still but haven't provided evidence to show its efficacy. So let's refrain from the assumptions. All I know is it wasn't some accommodationist, overly polite wank, unwilling to get his hands dirty to enlighten me, that stirred the feelings I've secretly held for so many years about my existence and God, it was someone who was NOT afraid of confrontation in surgically disillusioning my cherished notions of reality, of showing just how ridiculously absurd the whole thing is. It is a matter of ethics to value truth more than(key words) some default arbitrarily designated level of respect.

So, what I was trying to say in my original post is that it annoys me that Hitchens and the rest continue onward with their blanket absolutist statements despite the fact that there exists evidence to the contrary.

Saying religion, of all kinds, is the primary (meaning secondary and tertiary factors also contribute but don't even approach the monopoly religion has on spreading misery, violence, and hatred) isn't really a controversial statement at all to me. History tells us much. Can you think of any other more divisive human social construct that has caused more strife throughout history? Shall we play the game of "add up the bodies"? It boggles the mind to think of where humanity might be right now if not for the Dark Ages.

For instance, just because some people use communism to establish totalitarian regimes, doesn’t make communism evil.

Communism is as much an ideology based on fantasy as religion. In so far as it is not based on evidence and reason and being willfully enforced/propagated, it is harmful.

So, my question for you is, is being rude and disrespectful to people an effective arguing technique? Let’s be clear, I am not saying we need to respect other people’s ideas.


It certainly can be effective. I have no real evidence besides anecdotes and the correlative fact that religious membership levels in the US/Britain have been slowly declining since around the time the Gnu Atheists began to speak out and be more prominently featured in the media/Internets in general. The level of ridicule should be in proportion to the level of bat-shit insanity of the beliefs held. No one is championing a one-size-fits-all approach.

To tie all this together, let’s talk about one last assumption you made. You assumed I didn’t want to reply to your questions because I was trying to dodge the issue. I’d like us to be clear on my true reasons for not replying (so you won’t have to assume anymore).

I (like you, I imagine) happen to be a very busy person. I work full-time and put in a lot of unpaid overtime. I also have a beautiful family and good friends that I want to spend my free time with. This limits the amount of time I can spend on the Internet. So I have to choose when and how to respond to posts wisely.

Fair enough, I wouldn't accuse someone of dodging for being busy. I do not expect replies either, I hold you to nothing except your own words. I accused you of dodging because, when asked, you didn't provide much in the way of evidence to justify your assertions or a flat-out retraction. I could say this in any number of polite ways, you simply didn't.

You, from the very start of your post, set out to pick a fight.

Guilty as charged!

You made completely unfounded assumptions and then attacked an imaginary opponent that you mistook for me.

I made the assumption you were religious and was wrong, the rest still stands. You don't want others to take your word for it? Then add some more words! What you may have "meant" is not what I got pissed off at and responded to, understand this already.

Why should I spend it defending or searching the Internet for proof for an argument I never actually made (the “reality/validity” of Christianity; the fundamentalism of atheists like Hitchens)? Why should I try to reason with someone who from the very outset displays such misguided behavior?

That's my whole point! You shouldn't have said anything at all if you didn't have anything truthful to say in the first place. You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about when you talk about them and you rightly got called on it. I already addressed where I made any assumptions about you, the rest is through your own doing. You have NOT shown that they rival those fundamentalists they oppose, you have NOT shown that they wish to eradicate religion, you haven't even shown how they are zealots. You are being incredibly dishonest to the point of absurdity!


Thanks for reading this to the end. As a footnote, here is a link to a discussion on that web site you gave me that I found very interesting. Most of all, I found JoiletJake’s comments interesting—see posts #139 and #146 in particular, as I believe they are similar to my views on religion.


I've already read them and just re-read. Joilet comes off as incredibly honest, humble considering his position, and its pretty plain to see that the response he got, while initially bumpy, gradually warmed up to him as he elaborated and made it well known he is relying solely on his personal feeling in the matter and not trying to assert an attribution of those feelings onto actual reality. I think its great your attitude aligns with his, it may not be logically consistent but at least it's pretty harmless on the whole. Notice he wasn't tossing out baseless assertions, straw manning, or falsely equivocating.

I'd really enjoy it if you were to paste/copy what you said on Pharyngula and see how different the reaction would be. Such tasty schadenfreude! My guess is you would be entertainingly dismantled, rudely perhaps, but dismantled nonetheless. Welcome to the Internets.

I really have no interest in continuing this conversation, as lovely and downright tedious as it has been. I am done responding the minutiae of your several attempts at special pleading. Think whatever you want about the Gnu Atheists, whatever keeps the cognitive dissonance at bay.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'louis, louie, hilarious, gestures, gesturing, wank, masturbation' to 'louis, louie, hilarious, gestures, gesturing, wank, masturbation, hulk comedown' - edited by calvados

Pornography may be mainstream with easy access to alright 20 minute scenes ; but it is not absolutely accepted. I've lived in fairly open homes where girlfriends, girls who were in opposition to porn and in general could walk in and out freely so I had to be fairly careful with my own porn consumption.

Not only were there women around who had great disdain for porno but in the household were men who also hated the thought of porno. Now, mind you - KINK.COM's "huge fucking castle" was the next block down in a very very liberal part of town. On the same block was some orgy house where some of it's participants every now and then thought our front door was the entrance to their ultimate fantasies. I always knew which way to point them, "Oh, I think I know what you're looking for..."

Everyone knew I watched porn and I stuck up for other men's porn habits but I still had to be on edge all the damn time to get a wank. It just wasn't right! Sometimes your gf isn't in the mood, sometimes you're pissed at your gf and you're not in the mood, sometimes there just isn't enough time... I don't like the thought of my politics in porno so I say fuck - let it be; and let me watch it if I so choose. If a girlfriend doesn't like it - just encourage her to go watch some.

I swear that being anti-porn is the beginning of the progessive pendulum swing back to being tie-jerking conservatives and we just don't need any more of those.

Well, if we're honest: pr0n is not the issue here. Most folks have some, many folks don't mind others knowing about it. Infact, not even two months ago, my neighbour consulted me on a copyright infringement claim he received concerning gay fetish porn. How about them apples ...

Besides, we introduced the concept of a wank-drive (ext HD + TrueCrypt) for a reason.

No, the issue in my opinion is browser history + bookmarks. If someone were to sift through all our bookmarks and our recent browser history, someone who doesn't understand the unique character of the internet, some of us would be in the psych ward and on a terrorist watchlist quicker than you can say buttplug. You know what an hour of bash or 4chan does to an "unspoiled" person, imagine what a shitstorm a best-of collection would cause.

That reminds me: back around '01, a friend of mine discovered the magic of rotten.com and ratemypoo.com in my Netscape history ... she didn't talk to me for a month. Good times.

Sweet! I was watching How I Met Your Mother, and they did a parody of it. When I saw it, I had to remind myself of the awesomeness that is Aleksey.

In reply to this comment by bleedmegood:
found an embed http://videosift.com/video/Impossible-is-Nothing-self-congradulatory-wanking

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
Oh, never mind. It's *dead

found an embed http://videosift.com/video/Impossible-is-Nothing-self-congradulatory-wanking

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
Oh, never mind. It's *dead

Yeah, wanking doesn't count.

LSD + WANKING = OMFG

I know a few people actually, who miss out on subtitled movies, because they really struggle keeping up with them, be they dyslexic or whatever. So I do think it's great that they choose to remake them, but hideous when they wank them up. I really am hopeful with this one though

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^marinara:
PROMOTE COPS NEED TO BE PROFESSIONAL NOT THUGS

Just like Teachers (Having sex with students,) and Preachers (Having sex with children,) and politicans (having sex with anything with a vagina) and children (Dope dealing disrespectul shits,) and fathers and mothers and civilians (Omg, don't make me list their actions...)
Maybe you have too high of a responsibilty level for humanity? Just a guess. But blame the cops, if that get's you off...
Woot, glad I am not a cop and the center of the hate of the world. In fact, the only ones hated more than cops are those who believe in god. Lolz.

You're forgetting obtuse apologetic wanks.
It's OK because everyone else does it wasn't an acceptable rationale when I was 6 years old.



IT IS NOT OKAY BECAUSE everyone does it. Who said that? Only a moron, idiot, or a douche would think that it's okay. Only someone looking to hate everything about my posts BEFORE they understand my posts would misunderstand my post because they have a vendetta against me and just wish to downvote everything I do...

I never said it was okay in any fashion. Did you read that? Point it out to me AFC... I will wait. The proof of your intellect will be nice to see.

I think cops who break the law should go to jail, be fired and that's that. I never professed anything different. Just like teachers and preachers. Throw them all in jail and hold the same accountability and rage towards them all! Hang em all equally!

You remind me, in a small manner, of George W. Bush... A left George Bush, but a Bush nevertheless... Never apologize! Down with all the insane people of religion! Down with police in general!

This is my pretend conversation with AFC. "Lawdeedaw, your arguments are *Making up lies about arguments* wrong on all accounts. How dare you say stuff that I pretend you speak." Me, "I am outta here. Have fun playing with just yourself man *Or girl, I am not really sure.*"

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^marinara:
PROMOTE COPS NEED TO BE PROFESSIONAL NOT THUGS

Just like Teachers (Having sex with students,) and Preachers (Having sex with children,) and politicans (having sex with anything with a vagina) and children (Dope dealing disrespectul shits,) and fathers and mothers and civilians (Omg, don't make me list their actions...)
Maybe you have too high of a responsibilty level for humanity? Just a guess. But blame the cops, if that get's you off...
Woot, glad I am not a cop and the center of the hate of the world. In fact, the only ones hated more than cops are those who believe in god. Lolz.


You're forgetting obtuse apologetic wanks.

It's OK because everyone else does it wasn't an acceptable rationale when I was 6 years old.

Why am I not surprised that the she's morally outraged at this? She didn't like Epic Beard Man either, and uhm, dang, I forgot what they other thing was that she was all "wah wah" about too. She needs to mellow out, man.

That said, it's a bit iffy with the dresses and suggestive dancing. If the parents allow it and the kids want to do it, let them have their fun. Pervs are gonna wank to stuff no matter what anyway, don't be afraid because someone might take it the wrong way - that's no way to live your life.

How's the direct to DVD movie doin' wank-toweller?