This video got kinda surreal.

I've got a bag of these (www.myspicesage.com). I don't really care for spicy (hot) food and certainly don't understand the whole hot pepper pain machismo thing. I ordered them on a goof and tried just one small flake (they're dried) on my tongue. That was plenty to sate my curiosity forever, and now they've been sitting in a cupboard in their ziplock bag for over a year. I've given some to friends who wanted to try them in food, but other than that, it's not exactly an item you (read:I) could go through a lot of quickly.

Hey there, and and a semi-belated (sorry about that) thanks! High praise indeed coming from a fellow Sifter I'd describe in pretty much the same terms; I always enjoy reading your well thought out and reasoned comments. Your presence is very much appreciated, as least on my end. Still sorta feel I maybe gave the wrong impression and was misread as a result (a bit too strident maybe?), but oh well. I never quite feel like I'm describing things the way they appear in my brain, but what can ya do?


In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Thank you for speaking my mind with much more eloquence and brevity than I ever could've!

In reply to this comment by AnimalsForCrackers:
>> ^xxovercastxx:

I don't support the idea that you have to respect every opinion but calling people idiots doesn't help either.
One of the things I've come to hate about debate is people are less interested in discussing, comparing and evaluating ideas than they are about thumping their chests and insulting people. Even women are apparently not immune to machismo.
Does anyone really think this is going to help? Will we (atheists) be more accepted/trusted/respected if we just call enough people idiots? Will theists see the errors of their ways if only we insult them enough?
There's a reason argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy; it's a failure to make any relevant argument and often a sign of incompetence.
The objective of debate is to sway people to your side (though not necessarily the people you're arguing against) and you don't do that by forcing them to shore up their defensive wall.


But...but... calling people idiots and addressing the argument aren't mutually exclusive propositions.

Simple insults aren't ad hominem unless they're used as a substitute for actual reasoning. Calling someone an idiot doesn't magically negate the relevant criticism that preceded it.

"Your argument is wrong because you're an idiot, liar, or some other negative human characteristic picked out of a grab bag to give the appearance of discrediting you and thus, your entire argument." = ad hom

Sure, I suppose you could make that argument that even a biting, rational critique interspersed with some choice derogatory flourishes can undermine any attempt at bringing the other person to reason, but I disagree that a definitive statement like yours can be made on whether it's ineffective on everyone; I like to think there's multiple paths of approach. Often the target of ridicule isn't the one you convert, but the people on the sidelines watching.

Thank you for speaking my mind with much more eloquence and brevity than I ever could've!

In reply to this comment by AnimalsForCrackers:
>> ^xxovercastxx:

I don't support the idea that you have to respect every opinion but calling people idiots doesn't help either.
One of the things I've come to hate about debate is people are less interested in discussing, comparing and evaluating ideas than they are about thumping their chests and insulting people. Even women are apparently not immune to machismo.
Does anyone really think this is going to help? Will we (atheists) be more accepted/trusted/respected if we just call enough people idiots? Will theists see the errors of their ways if only we insult them enough?
There's a reason argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy; it's a failure to make any relevant argument and often a sign of incompetence.
The objective of debate is to sway people to your side (though not necessarily the people you're arguing against) and you don't do that by forcing them to shore up their defensive wall.


But...but... calling people idiots and addressing the argument aren't mutually exclusive propositions.

Simple insults aren't ad hominem unless they're used as a substitute for actual reasoning. Calling someone an idiot doesn't magically negate the relevant criticism that preceded it.

"Your argument is wrong because you're an idiot, liar, or some other negative human characteristic picked out of a grab bag to give the appearance of discrediting you and thus, your entire argument." = ad hom

Sure, I suppose you could make that argument that even a biting, rational critique interspersed with some choice derogatory flourishes can undermine any attempt at bringing the other person to reason, but I disagree that a definitive statement like yours can be made on whether it's ineffective on everyone; I like to think there's multiple paths of approach. Often the target of ridicule isn't the one you convert, but the people on the sidelines watching.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I don't support the idea that you have to respect every opinion but calling people idiots doesn't help either.
One of the things I've come to hate about debate is people are less interested in discussing, comparing and evaluating ideas than they are about thumping their chests and insulting people. Even women are apparently not immune to machismo.
Does anyone really think this is going to help? Will we (atheists) be more accepted/trusted/respected if we just call enough people idiots? Will theists see the errors of their ways if only we insult them enough?
There's a reason argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy; it's a failure to make any relevant argument and often a sign of incompetence.
The objective of debate is to sway people to your side (though not necessarily the people you're arguing against) and you don't do that by forcing them to shore up their defensive wall.


But...but... calling people idiots and addressing the argument aren't mutually exclusive propositions.

Simple insults aren't ad hominem unless they're used as a substitute for actual reasoning. Calling someone an idiot doesn't magically negate the relevant criticism that preceded it.

"Your argument is wrong because you're an idiot, liar, or some other negative human characteristic picked out of a grab bag to give the appearance of discrediting you and thus, your entire argument." = ad hom

Sure, I suppose you could make that argument that even a biting, rational critique interspersed with some choice derogatory flourishes can undermine any attempt at bringing the other person to reason, but I disagree that a definitive statement like yours can be made on whether it's ineffective on everyone; I like to think there's multiple paths of approach. Often the target of ridicule isn't the one you convert, but the people on the sidelines watching.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was calling you an accomodationist. The idea that we shouldn't call spades spades, nor imply that having faith is idiocy (what Kate does) is, however, a typical argument of the "don't be a dick" stance, which I and many others disagree with. Being direct - even insultingly so - about the absurdity of certain beliefs can and does cause certain viewers to snap out of the comfort of their beliefs and question them. It has the added benefit of getting attention, as @bareboards2 mentioned above. As for the "why debate?" question, I think you know the answer to that.

Of course, just calling people idiots is no way to argue a point, and is in fact counterproductive. That is not, however, what Kate does. The "I don't believe shit by faith because I'm not an idiot" phrase comes as a shocker conclusion to the argument for why faith is idiotic, i.e. it is believing something (and relies on the foisting of that belief upon others) without a shred of evidence.

If she would have said "I personally don't believe in Santa because I'm not a three year old" no one would be up in arms. The truly scandalous thing is that so many grown adults still believe something equally stupid and much more dangerous. A 3-yr-old who believes in Santa is simply deluded. An adult who does is an idiot (or, to be nice, a deluded individual).

Being forthright and even "rude" is only one among many ways of communicating an idea. Just because it's confrontational does not make it an invalid one. I look forward to the day when treating faith as the idiocy that it is will be as un-scandalous as calling geo-centrists idiots is today.

edit: @FlowersInHisHair, you say she immediately turned the other debatees against anything else she might have said, and anyone in the audience who was on the fence would have chalked it up against her, too. Better would have been to say that faith wasn't good enough for her, or that she demands more than faith, or that she values evidence above faith. The fact that she called them idiots makes her look inarticulate, sarcastic and angry.

Firstly, while she does turn the debatees against her (as if they weren't already), that is not necessarily the case for the viewers. People will not necessarily immediately side with the ones implied as being idiots... they might think about it a bit first. Saying that faith "isn't good enough for her" allows for the interpretation that it's okay for other people... not exactly the point being made imo. Finally, just because someone implies that someone else is an idiot doesn't necessarily make the speaker of the insult appear inarticulate or angry... Randi calls charlatans all kinds of names, why is no one up in arms against that? Why should religious nuts/beliefs get special treatment?


>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^hpqp:
I don't think there's a chance in hell that the people she's debating will ever be convinced to change their religious views. People that are watching, however, might be shocked out of their tradition-following torpor and realise just how idiotic faith is.
Then why debate at all? With probably a few exceptions, the only people who will be amused or impressed by this woman are already atheists. She could have made the same argument but stayed on topic (ie. attacking faith) and it would have carried far more weight.
The first article Myers links to (which he says he agrees with) in the article you linked above defines accommodationism as:

Refusing to make arguments against religion — not because you personally don’t enjoy them, but because you think it’s inherently disrespectful to criticize people’s religious beliefs, and/or because you think religion is in a special category of ideas that ought not to be criticized. And trying to convince other atheists that they shouldn’t do it, either.

This is not at all what I am promoting. You attack their argument and their ideas, viciously, but you don't attack them with childish name-calling and insults. Myers actually makes a nearly identical argument to mine in that article. He even makes reference to the "high-horse tactic" ("And then there’s the usual high-horse tactic, where whatever it is he is doing is superior.") which is quite similar to what I called machismo earlier.
So am I still an accommodationist? Do you feel I'm accommodating you by only attacking your argument? Would my argument be better if I also said you were a deluded moron?
(To be clear, I don't think you're a deluded moron. I'm just trying to make my point.)
Also, I'm not above mocking religious people from time to time, I'm just saying it's counter-productive in a debate or anywhere else that you might hope to sway opinion.

>> ^hpqp:

I don't think there's a chance in hell that the people she's debating will ever be convinced to change their religious views. People that are watching, however, might be shocked out of their tradition-following torpor and realise just how idiotic faith is.

Then why debate at all? With probably a few exceptions, the only people who will be amused or impressed by this woman are already atheists. She could have made the same argument but stayed on topic (ie. attacking faith) and it would have carried far more weight.

The first article Myers links to (which he says he agrees with) in the article you linked above defines accommodationism as:

Refusing to make arguments against religion — not because you personally don’t enjoy them, but because you think it’s inherently disrespectful to criticize people’s religious beliefs, and/or because you think religion is in a special category of ideas that ought not to be criticized. And trying to convince other atheists that they shouldn’t do it, either.

This is not at all what I am promoting. You attack their argument and their ideas, viciously, but you don't attack them with childish name-calling and insults. Myers actually makes a nearly identical argument to mine in that article. He even makes reference to the "high-horse tactic" ("And then there’s the usual high-horse tactic, where whatever it is he is doing is superior.") which is quite similar to what I called machismo earlier.

So am I still an accommodationist? Do you feel I'm accommodating you by only attacking your argument? Would my argument be better if I also said you were a deluded moron?

(To be clear, I don't think you're a deluded moron. I'm just trying to make my point.)

Also, I'm not above mocking religious people from time to time, I'm just saying it's counter-productive in a debate or anywhere else that you might hope to sway opinion.

I don't support the idea that you have to respect every opinion but calling people idiots doesn't help either.

One of the things I've come to hate about debate is people are less interested in discussing, comparing and evaluating ideas than they are about thumping their chests and insulting people. Even women are apparently not immune to machismo.

Does anyone really think this is going to help? Will we (atheists) be more accepted/trusted/respected if we just call enough people idiots? Will theists see the errors of their ways if only we insult them enough?

There's a reason argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy; it's a failure to make any relevant argument and often a sign of incompetence.

The objective of debate is to sway people to your side (though not necessarily the people you're arguing against) and you don't do that by forcing them to shore up their defensive wall.

That's the thing with machismo--when it fails, it fails HARD.

CliffyB is full of douchery and follows the money, not the gamers. This is why the develop mainly for the consoles.

We all know true hardcore gamers play on PCs.

>> ^entr0py:

>> ^Deano:
While this parodies the tedium of CoD rather well I still can't help but recall that Epic give us Gears of War which features OTT machismo and gravelly voiced marines who look like steroid-abusing body builders.
Bulletstorm is a bit ridiculous but having played the demo I'm not seeing much long-term interest for me. Brink on the other hand intrigues me a bit more.

Lucky guy. PC gamers won't be getting a demo. Reportedly because Cliffy B thinks we suck and are, like, super lame.
http://www.bluesnews.com/s/117742/cliffyb-on-no-pc-bulletstorm-demo

>> ^entr0py:

>> ^Deano:
While this parodies the tedium of CoD rather well I still can't help but recall that Epic give us Gears of War which features OTT machismo and gravelly voiced marines who look like steroid-abusing body builders.
Bulletstorm is a bit ridiculous but having played the demo I'm not seeing much long-term interest for me. Brink on the other hand intrigues me a bit more.

Lucky guy. PC gamers won't be getting a demo. Reportedly because Cliffy B thinks we suck and are, like, super lame.
http://www.bluesnews.com/s/117742/cliffyb-on-no-pc-bulletstorm-demo



I don't think you should lose much sleep to be honest It does feel like a console title through and through.

It does remind me of Gears though but it's an FPS and you've got that leash. So no getting stuck to the scenery when you least want it, so that's an improvement. On the other hand it's so OTT I wonder if the ATD crowd who this is aimed at will be able to cope.

>> ^Deano:

While this parodies the tedium of CoD rather well I still can't help but recall that Epic give us Gears of War which features OTT machismo and gravelly voiced marines who look like steroid-abusing body builders.
Bulletstorm is a bit ridiculous but having played the demo I'm not seeing much long-term interest for me. Brink on the other hand intrigues me a bit more.


Lucky guy. PC gamers won't be getting a demo. Reportedly because Cliffy B thinks we suck and are, like, super lame.

http://www.bluesnews.com/s/117742/cliffyb-on-no-pc-bulletstorm-demo

While this parodies the tedium of CoD rather well I still can't help but recall that Epic give us Gears of War which features OTT machismo and gravelly voiced marines who look like steroid-abusing body builders.

Bulletstorm is a bit ridiculous but having played the demo I'm not seeing much long-term interest for me. Brink on the other hand intrigues me a bit more.

I like these standoffs with Umpires and Coaches...I don't get why all the machismo in such a boring sport.

EDIT: Also saying "I just want to him to tell me what I said" and then proceeding to verbally abuse the Umpire yelling at him Fucking this fucking that fuck you you fucking blah blah blah. None of that gives you a clue as to who is in the wrong here? Is any of that ok for the Umpire to say to you?

hilarious to begin with and the choice of music just adds to the overall supremo machismo of it all.

>> ^spawnflagger:
"Ah that was nothing" reminded me of "it's just a flesh wound!" from monty python.
Lions are not meant to be played with. Look at Siegfried and Roy who worked with huge tigers daily for years and years, and still (nearly fatal) incidents can happen. This reporter had a little too much machismo for going in there in the first place, and it could have ended much worse.
But I'm sure he got laid that night


Does that make this eia?