|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 07/20/2011 : 09:07:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dude:
The same kind of thinking that lets me dismiss anything Ken Ham has to say. |
No. We dismiss what he has to say based on the merits of his arguments. That they happen to be often idiotic does not mean we get to ad hom the guy. If you want to ignore him, that's your business. But you can't say that because in your view he is a corrupted source, his arguments are false. Ignoring him is one thing, but dismissing his arguments "out of hand" because of how you feel about him is ad hominem.
And just so you know, RW is an asset to the skeptical atheist community. I don't know where you get this "attention seeking tabloid hack" stuff. She has done more to bring woman into our community than probably any other person. I don't understand your animosity toward her, but that doesn't really matter. The reason you gave to "dismiss" what she has to say "out of hand" without considering the merits of her argument is an ad hominem. It's a classic ad hominem, right down the pike.
|
I disagree that it is unacceptable to dismiss an unreliable source. Once you establish yourself as a fraud, no one is obligated to listen to anything you have to say. I will happily dismiss Ken Ham out of hand, without ever bothering to look at his arguments ever again. Especially when he has such a long established track record of lies and misinformation.
I dismiss Watson because she is a tabloidist. I'm sure you remember her character assassination of Lawrence Krauss? The one where she was factually wrong on almost everything she said in her blog? Where is the retraction, admission of error, and apology? Oh, that's right, in true tabloid style, she never bothered to do any of those things.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 07/20/2011 09:08:19 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2011 : 10:12:43 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
I dismiss Watson because she is a tabloidist. I'm sure you remember her character assassination of Lawrence Krauss? The one where she was factually wrong on almost everything she said in her blog? Where is the retraction, admission of error, and apology? Oh, that's right, in true tabloid style, she never bothered to do any of those things. |
That's it? So you can't just argue against her argument on that one? Now everything she says can be dismissed? You do know that the crux of the argument was that Krauss, while defending his friend, invoked his status as a scientist as though that gave his defense of his friend more merit. That was what most people, including RW and Myers and a whole lot of other folks got their knickers in a bind about. And yeah, the side issues were not particularly helpful. So now when a skeptic goes too far, or says something you have a problem with, they can be dismissed no matter what they are talking about? Come on...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2011 : 10:53:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
| But you agreed that she was justified in finding EG creepy at one point in time, and that's the only behavior she was complaining about. |
That is actually the exact opposite of what I said. |
Did you or did you not say, "Some paranoia may be justified when he hits on her...?"| Good to know that you are so lost here that you have nothing left but douchebaggery. I said that you have to cherry pick his behavior in order to call it creepy. |
All that's being called creepy is the one behavior! Of course we're going to focus on it, it is the whole point!| You literally have to ignore half of his actions. |
No, his other actions do not make his creepy behavior suddenly not creepy.| Then, as Mab also pointed out, maybe they guy just wanted to chat? You have to view the whole proposition through our jaded cultural point of view in order to decide it was a sexual proposition. Without this assumption your entire position becomes nothing but hysteria and hot air. |
Sorry, you agreed to that assumption in your OP, with "want to come to my room for coffee? At 3am that is a proposition, no doubt." Now you're trying to distance yourself from even that, in order to keep on characterizing Watson as sexist. Wow!| Nobody is trying to do so. Nobody is assessing the probability that "a man" will commit a sexual assault, we are rightly assessing whether any man could do so, and taking into account the details of a particular encounter. |
Bullshit. You and Plait are saying that elevator guy is a potential rapist. |
No, I've said clearly that everyone is a potential rapist, and that the full context of events around EG justified increased (as in "above normal") caution for a (hopefully short) period of time.| In this thread you have even tried to apply group trend statistics to make the argument that EG could be a rapist. |
Do you have any evidence that EG could not possibly be a rapist?| Just admit you are worng, that you didn't understand and misused probability, and move on. |
Why should I, when I was not, nor am I now, wrong? My points on that matter are completely correct, you just seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the word "potential."| Are you listening to yourself? You are actually trying to justify your error. "A random man" is still "a man". Singular. You are still making a unit of measure error. You are a smart guy Dave, do you really want to sacrifice your credibility because you don't understand probability? |
But I do. A standard, shuffled, face-down deck is 1/52nds Eight of Diamonds. That doesn't change if we look at each face-down card individually. Each individual face-down card has a 1/52nd chance of being an Eight of Diamonds. If you have evidence that it does change the odds, then you need publish your work.| Exactly. I'm sayin that you have to examine the entire thing together. If you cherry pick, then you are using bad logic to justify your hysterical claims. |
But you said, "Some paranoia may be justified when he hits on her." That's all anyone has claimed here. That's all Plait was saying. When you say it, you're somehow not being hysterical?| You don't tolerate it when the 'tards cherry pick, so I'd advise you not to do the same thing. |
I'm not.| When you put it together with your failure to understand probability you are not doing well here. |
And when others look at your stuff here, they facepalm at how badly you've done to engage the actual arguments.| Your cultural bias is the only thing that lets you say his invitation was anything other than a harmless invitation. |
No, your OP lets me do that, too.| Personally I agree that it was probably a proposition, but at least I can recognize why I think that and admit that it could be incorrect. |
It's actually irrelevant to what happened, but you refuse to acknowledge most of it, instead cherry picking the acceptance of a rejection which you have to assume happened.| I am not judging by the second behavior alone. I'm taking them both into consideration... |
No, you split them apart with "Some paranoia may be justified when he hits on her," but are now insisting that we should ignore that in favor of his later behavior.| ...and the conclusion is simple. When you look at the situation in total, at no time was Watson actually in danger. |
Irrelevant. Nobody is claiming that she was actually in danger. "Potential" doesn't mean "actual," no matter how much you seem to want it to.| Her initial feeling of being creeped out was unjustified. |
No, you said it was, with "Some paranoia may be justified when he hits on her."| At no time was she actually in danger of being sexually assaulted by EG. |
Irrelevant, and assumes without evidence that it was impossible for EG to sexually assault Watson. Or did you mean "no more danger than from any other randomly selected man?" The fact that EG was male and not female justified increased caution to begin with.| The worst you can say, if you assume he was propositioning her for sex, is that he is an insensitive dumbass. |
And that's what Watson meant by "don't do this:" don't be an insensitive dumbass. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2011 : 11:08:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dude:
I dismiss Watson because she is a tabloidist. I'm sure you remember her character assassination of Lawrence Krauss? The one where she was factually wrong on almost everything she said in her blog? Where is the retraction, admission of error, and apology? Oh, that's right, in true tabloid style, she never bothered to do any of those things. |
That's it? So you can't just argue against her argument on that one? Now everything she says can be dismissed? You do know that the crux of the argument was that Krauss, while defending his friend, invoked his status as a scientist as though that gave his defense of his friend more merit. That was what most people, including RW and Myers and a whole lot of other folks got their knickers in a bind about. And yeah, the side issues were not particularly helpful. So now when a skeptic goes too far, or says something you have a problem with, they can be dismissed no matter what they are talking about? Come on...
|
PZ and company did not include all the extra feminist outrage based on false information either, nor did they report all that extra false information about Krauss' friend, nor did they imply that Krauss was complicit in the completely invented crimes of his friend. PZ also has a long track record of being reliable source of information.
Watson not so much. I have no problem with feminism, no problem with the use of hyperbole/profanity/insult/etc when commenting on retarded shit, I have no problem at all with pointing out sexist attitudes held by men (when you are right). The problem is that she is a tabloidist. She doesn't fact check before dropping a giant load of shit on people, even well respected people who probably deserve a little more consideration. No retraction of factual errors, no apology for misplaced character attacks... put it all together and it is too much to ignore even if you credit her with being an actual contributor to the skeptical community.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2011 : 11:12:03 [Permalink]
|
| Did you or did you not say, "Some paranoia may be justified when he hits on her...?" |
Now you are going to cherry pick me?
If you can't be bothered to not engage in this kind of childish logical fallacy, if you are ok with the level of disrespect and insult such behavior implies, then I can no longer be bothered to respond.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2011 : 11:52:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
| Did you or did you not say, "Some paranoia may be justified when he hits on her...?" |
Now you are going to cherry pick me? |
No, I'm asking you about the events which made Rebecca Watson feel threatened. His question made her feel creeped out, and you agreed that his question provided a justification for her to feel "some paranoia." Thus, you agree with me on the central question of whether her feeling threatened was sexist: it wasn't.
That you want to make this about something else (the "sum" of EG's behavior) is not my childishness, but your own pathetic attempts to salvage your angst (primarily by willfully ignoring the meaning of the word "potential"). The very idea that you have grounds on which to pontificate about disrespect and insults when your own argument is nothing but fallacy-based disrespect is ludicrous. If you can't be bothered to respond any more due to your massive hypocrisy, it's no skin off my nose. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2011 : 11:53:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
...nor did they imply that Krauss was complicit in the completely invented crimes of his friend. |
When the hell did Rebecca Watson do that? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2011 : 12:20:36 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
This (largely) tête-à-tête thread is one of the most interesting in months. I have followed the do-si-do with fascination. You appear to be familiar with most of the referred characters (Watson, Plait, etc.); do you know if similar heated controversy concerning the Rebecca/EM Close Encounter is currently raging in any other skeptical venues than SFN?
Do you know if any of the principal players have continued to comment on or blog about the incident (Dawkins, Watson, Plait, Otis Elevators, etc.}? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2011 : 14:43:28 [Permalink]
|
If anyone wants to see a Rebecca Watson hate-fest, check out Abbie's blog. Seems that Dawkins worked out a deal to bring child care to future TAMs, and that this deal (on which work began long before Elevatorgate) somehow means that Dawkins' dumb remarks weren't dumb. All it really means is that Dawkins isn't a petulant child who will spit in the eye of his critics. He's being lauded for behaving like he should: as an adult. If that's all it takes, I want a friggin' trophy for failing to challenge Dude to a fist fight.
I mean, it'd be fine to applaud the guy for his efforts to bring child care to TAM by themselves, but many of the people over there are basically saying, "Richard Dawkins is a hero to hundreds, so Rebecca Watson is a poopy-head." They'd already made it clear that they think little of Watson, Myers, McCreight, Laden (etc.), so this news about Dawkins is being used as nothing more than an excuse for more excrement-tossing at the feminists. Dawkins doing something good is really incidental. They'd probably have the same anti-Watson reaction if Dawkins had helped a little old lady across the street.
(By the way, Greg Laden made a link farm about Elevatorgate a couple of weeks ago.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2011 : 15:34:50 [Permalink]
|
No, I'm asking you about the events which made Rebecca Watson feel threatened. His question made her feel creeped out, and you agreed that his question provided a justification for her to feel "some paranoia." Thus, you agree with me on the central question of whether her feeling threatened was sexist: it wasn't.
|
You only get there by cherry picking me. You have to ignore every other thing I said to get there.
Get back to me when you are willing to own up to your misuse of probability, stop cherry picking, and stop throwing red herrings left and right.
I would agree that her reaction, within those first moments, wasn't sexist. But you can't remove the context to make your argument, you don't get to cherry pick. Her reaction is sexist when the full situation is considered.
| When the hell did Rebecca Watson do that? |
Right here. I'll quote the imortant part.
From Watson, she is doing her usual thing where she puts words in other people's mouths, because that is totally the skeptical thing to do (tabloid skepticism anyway):
Did Jeffrey Epstein Pay For Sex with Underage Girls?
Purpose
My rich friend went to jail for paying for sex with underage girls, but he seems like such a nice friend and funder of scientific research.
Hypothesis
Those girls were totally 18. At least!
Procedure
I observed the subject (Jeffrey Epstein) for several hours over several days over the course of several years. I paid close attention to what girls he was with, and I guessed approximately how old each girl sort of looked. I assumed that whenever he was out of my sight, he was doing the same things he did in my presence.
Results
All those girls I saw totally looked at least 18. Wait, let’s say 19 because “18#8243; sounds a little too on-the-nose.
Conclusions
There is no way that the subject had sex with anyone under the age of 18.
Recommendations
Jeffrey Epstein should be free from any further civil or criminal prosecution and hell, he should probably be given a humanitarian award for all the money he’s given to scientific research.
|
She puts Krauss in a room full of allegedly underage girls with Epstein. If his friend had sex with them, as she implies, then that makes Krauss guilty of knowing that a felony sex crime was being committed and not reporting it to the police. She even invents a motive for his complicity, money. She implies that he is an accessory to the crime. Maybe "alludes" is a better word choice. It is still unfounded character assassination, based on bad information, and a thing she has never apologized for or retracted.
Then there are all the simple errors of fact that whole post contains. It gets just about everything wrong, including the crimes Epstein actually was charged with.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 07/20/2011 15:37:34 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2011 : 16:58:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
You only get there by cherry picking me. You have to ignore every other thing I said to get there. |
Hardly. Is it accurate to say that your argument is that it is irrational to report having felt threatened in a situation which turned out later to have a happy ending?| Get back to me when you are willing to own up to your misuse of probability... |
You have yet to show me that I'm wrong. Simply stating that I'm wrong (which is all you've done) isn't good enough.| ...stop cherry picking... |
I haven't, but you should stop your own cherry picking, too.| ...and stop throwing red herrings left and right. |
Projection.| I would agree that her reaction, within those first moments, wasn't sexist. |
Fantastic! What's left to say?| But you can't remove the context to make your argument, you don't get to cherry pick. Her reaction is sexist when the full situation is considered. |
How does his turning out to not be a rapist make her earlier non-sexist apprehension of a threat into something sexist? Is it because she reported that she felt threatened without reporting that everything turned out okay?| When the hell did Rebecca Watson do that? |
Right here. I'll quote the imortant part.From Watson, she is doing her usual thing where she puts words in other people's mouths, because that is totally the skeptical thing to do (tabloid skepticism anyway):
Did Jeffrey Epstein Pay For Sex with Underage Girls?
... |
She puts Krauss in a room full of allegedly underage girls with Epstein. If his friend had sex with them, as she implies, then that makes Krauss guilty of knowing that a felony sex crime was being committed and not reporting it to the police. She even invents a motive for his complicity, money. She implies that he is an accessory to the crime. Maybe "alludes" is a better word choice. It is still unfounded character assassination, based on bad information, and a thing she has never apologized for or retracted. |
That's just bizarre. Krauss says that the girls he saw with Epstein were all legal and tries to leverage his science background to make his observations stick. Watson reports this as a snarky "science report" and you make up all sorts of bullshit about how she's implying that he's complicit? WTF?
Again, all she was saying there was that Krauss was acting like an idiot with his, "As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I’ve never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people" nonsense. She was making fun of his insistence upon science, and only that. You are the one who is inventing things there.| Then there are all the simple errors of fact that whole post contains. It gets just about everything wrong, including the crimes Epstein actually was charged with. |
I only asked about one thing. I never disagreed that some of her reporting was sloppy, only that the bit about her implying that "Krauss was complicit in the completely invented crimes of his friend." Watson never did any such thing with that "science report" you quoted. It's a ludicrous over-reaction to her point. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2011 : 18:13:00 [Permalink]
|
It is interesting that discussions about gender and gender inequality lead to such strong emotions for some people. I thik for some it becomes a zero sum game... Watson is right, Dawkins is wrong and vice versa. Or if she wins, he loses.
Feminism is just one word but it has so many connotations to different people. For some it means women having equality with men. For some it means only focusing on women's needs, so then men lose out.
Dude, you seem to strong emotions about this topic to the point you are labeling Watson as a tabloid hack and that you hate her. It seems Dawkins also took what Watson said personally. In his response he put her down by saying she was overreacting, etc. It would have been better if he stated that what she said bothered him because.... or asked her why the incident was a big deal to her. In any case, I don't judge Dawkins based on what he said. I certainly wouldn't call him names.
Yet, Dude, you are doing that to Watson. Can you put yourself in her shoes? I understand what Watson is saying - that men in the skeptic/atheist community are not listening to the women in the community. I am not sure what Dawkins is thinking but I can understand that he was bothered by what Watson said. |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2011 : 19:39:45 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Nobody has to be right or wrong in those debates, either. There's no universal, objective obligation for us to teach our children well, we just feel obliged to do so based on an assessment of societal well-being, and thus insist that a proper science education is a good thing. |
Oh c'mon, are you just trying to miss my point? My point was that there is a big difference between debates about proper attitudes, rhetoric, and social behavior and debates about facts about objective reality. You are right, there is no objective obligation to teach our kids any certain way - because that isn't a discussion about facts either. The claim that evolution happened IS a factual claim, and that's why I used it as an example to make my point.
| In the case of Elevatorgate, there is also a clear right and wrong. It is clearly wrong to label people "sexist" and/or "hysterical" based upon a dismissal of context, an ignorance of statistics, a denial of facts and a bizarre focusing upon a single facet of the story while insisting that it is the "sum" of them which tells the whole tale. It is even more wrong to do so while accusing others of failing to engage in proper critical thought. |
I disagree with you. Frankly I think you and Dude are both so worked up by your argument that neither of you care about what we can learn from "Elevatorgate". Personally I think what we can learn from considering the truth and emotions on both sides is more valuable than anything else in this whole mess.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2011 : 20:22:35 [Permalink]
|
OFFC wrote:
I have a question, what's the difference between someone who wants equality for men and women and a feminist? |
Feminism is not just wanting equal opportunity, it is being willing to take some sort of action to achieve that goal.
| The reason I ask is because today, in most developed countries, I would expect the vast majority of people to say they believed in equal rights for men and women. I don't know how many would also define themselves as "feminist" |
Equal opportunity isn't just about equal rights. Rights are defined and protected by the state. Equal opportunity extends to social norms and general attitudes in mainstream culture, too.
However, I know what you are getting at. You are saying that there are lots of people who fit the definition of a feminist would never call themselves a feminist. This is definitely true.
I think if they changed the terminology it would benefit them. "Feminism" sounds more pro-female than pro-equality. And for men, pro-female can sound a heck of a lot like anti-male.
|
Whether you are right or wrong in this suggestion depends on the real reasons why the term "feminism" got a bad rap in the first place, and also on the current state of gender equality.
If feminism got a bad rap just because it sounds like it is about being pro-woman to the detriment of men, then changing the name would solve the problem. However, I very much doubt that is the case. Instead, I would suggest that feminism got a bad rap because it was met with resistance from anti-feminists who were quite good at demonizing the movement by only highlighting the most extreme (and rare) players in the feminist movement.
Then there is the matter of what is the state of gender equality today. Many middle and upper class women of younger generations in America take our equality for granted since we have no first hand experience with blatant, institutionalized sexism. Just like it is easy to look things like the OJ Simpson trial and Barack Obama's election, ignoring the obvious racism that is pervasive against lower-class blacks and say "See, racism in America is pretty much over." it is easy to think sexism is over if we turn a blind eye to the disproportionate difficulties faced by lower-class women. Also, much of sexism is so deeply ingrained in our attitudes that we don't even see it. Unless we cultivate an awareness of how stereotypical attitudes (which are disproportionately harmful to minorities and women) are formed in ALL of our minds by entertainment, advertisements, and the way people speak in casual company, we might not even be aware of them and how they influence our behavior. In other words, a person (man or woman) can behave like a sexist without even realizing they are doing so. Feminism makes people in that position especially uncomfortable since it challenges us to become aware of our own hypocrisy. For one example, this whole Elevatorgate thing has caused me to realize that while I've been hit on in somewhat inappropriate settings, I would never have done what Watson did and complain about it publicly exactly because I'd fear the reaction she got. Instead I just take that sort of inappropriateness for granted and have felt that I just need to accept it and not complain except in private to other women. I'm grateful to Watson for bringing that to my awareness. It is a small thing, sure, but it is the accumulation of small things that slowly changes both individuals and society over time.
For another example, during a training session while working with inner city youth, I and my co-workers had to take a test developed at Harvard that would spit out a result telling us whether we "strongly prefer whites", "slightly prefer whites", "had no preference", "slightly prefer blacks" or "strongly prefer blacks." There were both white and black teachers among us, and everyone except 2 people (both white women) got the result "strongly prefer whites." It was disturbing, and one woman - a hispanic woman - even cried afterward. Even though it was painful to see the results, the point was to get us all aware of how racial stereotypes ingrained in us might influence how we treat our students (who were almost all black), and then use that awareness to try to compensate for our own prejudices in the classroom. Even though sexism is out of fashion, most people still carry sexist attitudes that put women at a disadvantage. Just think about what gender is associated with words like "chef" verses "cook", "doctor" verses "nurse", or "pilot" verses "flight attendant." Feminism challenges us to be aware, even if that awareness makes us uncomfortable, in the hopes of getting us to overcome our own deeply-ingrained prejudices.
As for why it's called "feminism" - because women have always been at the disadvantage and so it is the feminine identity and feminine qualities that we are trying to elevate to equal status. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2011 : 21:19:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Kil.....
This (largely) tête-à-tête thread is one of the most interesting in months. I have followed the do-si-do with fascination. You appear to be familiar with most of the referred characters (Watson, Plait, etc.); do you know if similar heated controversy concerning the Rebecca/EM Close Encounter is currently raging in any other skeptical venues than SFN?
Do you know if any of the principal players have continued to comment on or blog about the incident (Dawkins, Watson, Plait, Otis Elevators, etc.}?
|
This debate arrived here rather late. It had been going on full tilt for a week before it hit SFN. I'm sure it's still going on here and there, but I don't think any of the main players are commenting anymore.
I was at TAM last week. Plait, Watson and Dawkins were there too. I didn't detect any problems. There were a few elevator jokes... That's about it. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I do not like Rebecca Watson (aka skepchick)
