Saturday, November 23, 2013

Vox Makes Stupid Statements

And nobody is surprised.

Before I get to it, I'd like to say thanks for the uptick in comments around here. There's been some good banter lately, let's keep it up. I don't mind heated discussions, or even nasty arguments unless derogatory terms and off-topic insults start getting thrown around. No slurs, please.

"...Darwinism, even in its neo-synthesized form, is caught up in crisis and is being increasingly rejected as unconvincing pseudo-science by the secular and the religious alike."
 Really, Vox? No, not really. And referring to evolution as Darwinism shows a real lack of knowledge. Darwin laid the framework, but the modern theory of evolution contains a lot more variables than Darwin's initial theories. Rejecting evolution is like denying that feet have toes. It's stupid. Whatever inconsistencies creationists find in evolution is just the product of science in motion. The theories will be further studied and refined for a long time to come. 

"I will soon have to write a post delineating the many differences between Blue SF, which is classic SF of the sort written by Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Herbert and the other SF greats of the past, and Pink SF, which is the modern offense against literature committed by gamma males and snarky shambling shoggoths and inevitably features one or more of that quasi-literary abomination known as The Strong Female Character."
Well, that post should be an interesting study in delusion. And I'm not that familiar with the political/social ideas of Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, and Herbert, but I don't recall them being misogynists and racists. And here's the truth: Strong female characters exist because strong females exist. That's a truth that scares Vox. The other truth is that there's a lot of SF/F outselling Vox's own, not because he's controversial, but because he's not as good as folks like NK Jemisin.

"Despite the lack of traditional Internet-marketing practices, Day’s success seems to result from a focus — perhaps unintentionally — on what could be called the two big Cs: content and community."

Some guy wrote this about Vox Popoli and of course Vox posted it because he likes to say how important he is all the time. I think what Vox forgets is that a percentage of his hits, probably a large one, comes from people who absolutely hate him. That includes me. So "community and content" is something he shouldn't be advertising as the major draw. He's like Rush. People need to listen to these absolute abominations of humanity to make themselves feel better.

"Anyhow, in my opinion, no vaccinations need be given until the child is walking."
Yes, Vox gives medical advice now! But it's awful medical advice. If you've got kids in daycare you'll want them vaccinated. There's no evidence that vaccines are linked to any disease or neural condition. And yes, you even want your child to get the chicken pox vaccine because it's far less of a hassle than actual chicken pox.

But mostly, you don't want to take my advice on it. Go look up what the professionals have to say at ScienceBasedMedicine.org , there's a search box in the corner. Punch in vaccine and get some real advice.

67 comments:

  1. Regarding evolution, I'm curious as to how Vox and his glee club feel themselves qualified to offer ANY opinion on it's validity, or lack thereof. By their own admission, they have such a short attention span that their brain fogs up when I write anything that takes longer than 30 seconds for them to read. If they can't even focus for longer than 30 seconds, by definition, they are unable to comprehend the timespans involved in evolution, and therefore cannot offer an opinion on what could or could not happen in those timespans.

    They also argue rather like 3rd graders. When someone offered the usual house objection to evolution, that blowing up a pile of rocks would not produce a masonry wall no matter how many times you did it, I offered a better analogy, one that included - after blowing up the pile of rocks- mechanisms for reproduction (making copies of piles where 2 or more rocks were touching) and natural selection (removing rocks that were not touching any other rocks), before blowing up another pile or rocks (creating mutations in the new generation). This brought a bunch of child-like comments (in place of any real objections) from the Vox crowd such as who was creating copies of the touching rock piles (sex), or removing rocks that weren't touching any others (predation, starvation, disease). Or who was repeatedly blowing up the rock pile in the first place. Though nobody questioned who was blowing up the rock pile when Vox proposed blowing such a thing, but without the mechanisms of reproduction and natural selection.

    ** Vox posted it because he likes to say how important he is all the time.** Wait a minute. That can't be. Vox and his crowd say that *I'm* a narcissist. Admittedly, I do like to feel important. But I think that terms like 'narcissist' and 'sociopath' get thrown around far too much these days, they have specific meanings and most of the people the terms are thrown at do not fulfill the definitions of those words.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no intention of argueing for or against the "Theory of Evolution". Other then to say in my OWN OPINION the theory of evolution is hog wash and people have put way to much money and effort into it. They can't prove it. And a big stack of bones does not prove evolution. The only thing it proves is that there were a huge number of flesh creatures that lived before us. Evolution is not observable. You saying over and over that it is true does not make it true or false. It merely proves you believe it.

      I don't believe it.

      Delete
    2. I have no intention of argueing for or against the "Theory of Evolution".

      followed by...

      Other then to say in my OWN OPINION the theory of evolution is hog wash

      Uh-huh.

      and people have put way to much money and effort into it.

      Reaaaaally? You know, apart from it being critical to agricultural science, medical science, and genetic engineering?

      They can't prove it.

      They can and have.

      Your opinion is worthless, as it is uninformed.

      Delete
    3. Apollo: You may not think that the physical evidence such as bones, other fossils, and extremely specific predictions that have proven accurate prove evolution to be true.

      However, that is not the issue. The point is, all proposed theories of evolution involve extremely long times periods of thousands or even millions of years. That being the case, if someone (such as many of the posters on Vox's forum) by their own admission can't even focus their own attention span for longer than 30 seconds, then they cannot comprehend the time spans involved in evolution.

      Therefore, regardless of what evidence does or does not exist regarding evolution, they are not in a position to offer any opinion as to whether it is true or not, because they are flat out mentally unable to understand the evidence or comprehend the theory.

      Delete
    4. They can and have.-Phoenician

      Then prove it. I can wait.

      Therefore, regardless of what evidence does or does not exist regarding evolution, they are not in a position to offer any opinion as to whether it is true or not, because they are flat out mentally unable to understand the evidence or comprehend the theory.-Ann

      I Understand the Theory of Evolution. I have studied it. In school and on my own. I just don't buy it. I do see evidence for their being a God. Not proof, but I do believe that God is there and he is the God of The Old and New Testaments.

      Reaaaaally? You know, apart from it being critical to agricultural science, medical science, and genetic engineering? - Phoenician

      Please... You know nothing about that stuff. You are just another stooge on the internet like me and others around here. I would be surprised if you knew anything about that. And if you go and tell people that you are a scientists or some other thing. I would suspect you are a liar. I might be wrong. But I really think you know nothing. You're just a parrot.

      Delete
    5. Then prove it. I can wait.

      Pay me for my time in educating you. I can wait.

      I Understand the Theory of Evolution.

      No, you do not - as shown by your comments above made at November 25, 2013 at 2:40 PM.

      Please... You know nothing about that stuff.

      Obviously, I know more than you. However, I take no pride in this as it is a very low bar.

      BTW, Pox, in line with Dipshit's own policies, will you be publishing Apollo's IP address and other identifying information?

      Delete
    6. Apollo wrote: **I Understand the Theory of Evolution. I have studied it.**

      I've no idea whether you, personally, understand evolution or not, However, you are once more missing my point. Many of the posters on Vox's forum, by their own admission, can't focus their attention for longer than 30 seconds. If someone can't even focus their attention for 30 seconds, by definition, they can't understand the time periods involved in evolution, therefore, they can't understand evolution sufficiently to offer any valid opinion on it.

      **In school and on my own. I just don't buy it.**

      That might be, but your opinion on it doesn't affect whether it is true or not.

      **I do see evidence for their being a God. Not proof, but I do believe that God is there and he is the God of The Old and New Testaments.**

      What I see is a double standard, in which you are choosing to believe the evidence regarding the existence of God (and YOUR God in particular) but not choosing to believe the evidence regarding evolution, despite the fact that the latter has much better physical evidence.

      The fact that we 'can't observe it happening' is meaningless. There are a lot of things that are not observed, such as murders, but sufficient physical evidence is sufficient to prosecute. Claiming the evidence in either a murder or in the fossil record is 'faked' in order to lead to a false conclusion is resorting to complex explanations in order to avoid having to accept that the evidence actually is what it appears to be.

      Delete
    7. Pay me for my time in educating you. I can wait. Phoencian

      Why should I pay you? You aren't worth 2 cents to me to teach me anything. You made the claim that the theory of evolution is true. You can back up that claim can't you? Or is it your belief that it is true? Your belief and my belief proves nothing.

      Obviously, I know more than you. However, I take no pride in this as it is a very low bar.

      Yea, Yea I know. I have not studied it in years. From what I saw in my sons school books from 7 or 8 years ago, it changed quite a bit. Not a good thing in my mind...

      BTW, Pox, in line with Dipshit's own policies, will you be publishing Apollo's IP address and other identifying information?

      So Mr. Pox Vay is running this blog exactly the same as Vox Days blog? Using the same rules? Did I upset you Phoenician? If I did I am only a little sorry. But publish my "information"? What, you wanna beat me up? I thought we were having a friendly conversation of opposing opinions...

      I guess not.

      Delete
    8. I've no idea whether you, personally, understand evolution or not, However, you are once more missing my point. Many of the posters on Vox's forum, by their own admission, can't focus their attention for longer than 30 seconds. If someone can't even focus their attention for 30 seconds, by definition, they can't understand the time periods involved in evolution, therefore, they can't understand evolution sufficiently to offer any valid opinion on it. - Ann

      Ok, that is fair.

      That might be, but your opinion on it doesn't affect whether it is true or not.-Ann

      I agree... I really do think this is a matter of beliefs. Some people believe The theory of evolution - some don't. Some people believe in Jesus - some don't. Some people believe ... etc.

      What I see is a double standard, in which you are choosing to believe the evidence regarding the existence of God (and YOUR God in particular) but not choosing to believe the evidence regarding evolution, despite the fact that the latter has much better physical evidence. - Ann

      You're right as to the more abundance of physical evidence for evolution... Perhaps it is a double standard. But I am basing my beliefs upon my OWN experiences. I was not always a follower of Jesus. Years after I did become one I still had doubts (this is where a lot of Christians tend to reject Christianity) but I explained them to someone. But God answered my prayers and manifested himself to me in a huge way. I won't bore you with what he did as it wuldn't do you any good anyways. Suffice to say it was the equvilent of a person having doubts about evolution only to see one creature morph into another creature right in front of your eyes.

      The fact that we 'can't observe it happening' is meaningless. There are a lot of things that are not observed, such as murders, but sufficient physical evidence is sufficient to prosecute. Claiming the evidence in either a murder or in the fossil record is 'faked' in order to lead to a false conclusion is resorting to complex explanations in order to avoid having to accept that the evidence actually is what it appears to be.-Ann

      Prosecuting crimes or perhaps even a murder is not based in the scientific method. Sometimes science is used in prosecuting crimes, but not always.

      However, seeing that The Theory of Evolution IS a scientific theory, shouldn't the proving or dis-proving be based upon the scientific method? Which includes obvservation? Am I wrong on this conclusion?

      Delete
    9. Why should I pay you?

      Why should I waste time in trying to teach you stuff you have demonstrated you desperately wish to avoid understanding?

      You made the claim that the theory of evolution is true. You can back up that claim can't you?

      Yes - for values of "true" as good as any other scientific theory, and more robust than most.

      So Mr. Pox Vay is running this blog exactly the same as Vox Days blog? Using the same rules?

      Seems to me turn-about is fair play...

      Don't worry - I'm sure Pox is considerably more ethical than your hero, and won't be doxing you.

      Some people believe The theory of evolution - some don't.

      Of course the people who "believe" it actually have proof.

      But God answered my prayers and manifested himself to me in a huge way. I won't bore you with what he did as it wuldn't do you any good anyways

      How nice for you - so if someone says they saw Vishnu manifest themselves before them, you'd accept that as proof Hinduiism was valid?

      Suffice to say it was the equvilent of a person having doubts about evolution only to see one creature morph into another creature right in front of your eyes.

      You have just demonstrated that YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW EVOLUTION WORKS. You are completely ignorant - the event you describe would be a serious blow AGAINST the theory of evolution.

      Jesus H. Christ - you don't even understand the very basics, and yet you feel your opinion on the matter means anything?

      Delete
    10. Apollo wrote: **But God answered my prayers and manifested himself to me in a huge way. I won't bore you with what he did as it wuldn't do you any good anyways**

      Phoenician wrote: **How nice for you - so if someone says they saw Vishnu manifest themselves before them, you'd accept that as proof Hinduiism was valid?**

      Actually, Phoenician, I'd say that 'Gods' resembling both the 'God' that Vox worships and Vishnu probably exist. As well as whatever God manifested himself in Apollo's life (which hopefully for his sake is different than the 'God' Vox advocates).

      IMHO, Vox is correct in his beliefs to the point that if he continues to behave and believe as he does, he will undoubtedly find himself in the hands of the 'God' he advocates, after death. Where he is likely mistaken is if he actually thinks that a 'God' that values mindlessness and hatred while he is alive is suddenly going to do a 180 degree turnabout simply because he dies, and put him in some place of loving, transcendent genius. There are (IMHO) gods who will do just that, but only to people who valued and demonstrated those principles when they were alive.

      The part that annoys me is that Vox is (I think deliberately) leading a great many people who are not as intelligent as him down the very dark path he is going.

      Delete
    11. Apollo wrote:**However, seeing that The Theory of Evolution IS a scientific theory, shouldn't the proving or dis-proving be based upon the scientific method? Which includes obvservation?**

      Apollo, first of all, science does not have to be flashy. Finding someone's fingerprint on a murder weapon is science, and the most reasonable explanation is that they held that weapon in their hands at some point. Claiming something else, such as someone somehow faking their fingerprint in order to frame them is an un-necessarily complex explanation, and unless you have additional evidence showing why and how someone would frame them, your merely wanting the evidence to be 'faked' in order to suit your own beliefs is not good enough to go with the complex explanation.

      And not all things need to be observed to get a good idea as to how they happened. The reason why is, we know a lot about how certain physical processes work. For instance, if you come home from work and your flowerpot that you had on the windowsill is now broken on the floor, and the only occupant of your apartment all day was your cat, you can be pretty sure your cat did it. You would know this because you know how gravity behaves and how cats behave. On the other hand, if your only pet is a fish, it's not very likely the fish did it, which means that either someone broke into your apartment or something (such as an earthquake) made your apartment really shake that day.

      Ditto with fossils. We know what living creatures look like, and we know how geological processes work. If we find a lot of fossils of shells in limestone, the simplest explanation is that the shells came from clams (and other shelled creatures) that lived a very long time ago. Claiming the shells are 'faked' because it contradicts the bible is a complex explanation made up with no evidence in order to support your particular interpretation of the bible.

      Delete
  2. **Rejecting evolution is like denying that feet have toes. It's stupid.**

    The problem here is that the 'religious' practice of an awful lot of Christians consists of little more than hating people (especially homosexuals) for having sex, and wanting to control their sex lives. That being the case, they absolutely have to deny evolution for several reasons:

    1.Because it contradicts the bible and if any part of the bible (such as genesis creation) is wrong, then other parts (such as God claiming homosexuality is an abomination) could be wrong.
    2. They don't so much want to find God, a million or so steps behind evolution as they want to plug in a God having the particular qualities they want (such as hating homosexuals) exactly where they want him.
    3. If evolution is true, then homosexuality becomes just one more thing of many that some people are born with, rather than (as they claim) deliberately choosing to be homosexuals. It is very difficult even for the most contorted minds to blame someone for or claim they are an abomination for a condition that they were born with.

    For the same reason, they reject any importance of or value to the human mind. Any worth or rights that 'humans' have are necessarily given to them by God for arbitrary reasons having absolutely nothing to do with our minds. The reason why, is if you want to control people's sex lives by banning abortion, you absolutely have to deny any importance or value whatsoever to the human mind, since very young embryos do not have a functioning brain.

    Logically speaking, Vox's sort of Christians do accomplish this goal, but at a terrible price. The same price exacted by the 'no child falls behind' program in schools. There is no way to turn an idiot into a genius, or to make a fertilized egg as valuable as a newborn baby. But the opposite can be done. It's fairly easy to turn a genius into an idiot, or to devalue all human beings to an absolute zero. Which is much what Christians do, I actually had one who told me that given a choice between saving 100 petri dishes containing 1-celled fertilized eggs, and a single newborn baby from a burning building, she would choose to save the petri dishes.

    I'll give her credit where credit is due. She was entirely logically consistent with her claims. Completely morally bankrupt (since devaluing all human beings to zero is the very definition of moral bankruptcy) but logically quite consistent. Very likely she may have been playing a game where she expected me to sneak some redeeming thought of my own in such a "Aww, she doesn't really mean it that way", but I don't play games of that sort.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Before I get to it, I'd like to say thanks for the uptick in comments around here. There's been some good banter lately, let's keep it up. I don't mind heated discussions, or even nasty arguments unless derogatory terms and off-topic insults start getting thrown around. No slurs, please."

    I'm not sure what you're referring to by "uptick in comments" or "good banter", but I'm pleased that you, Ann Morgan, Phoenician, and The House have found an internet clubhouse where you can all hang out and tell each other how intelligent you guys really are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous: If you can disprove something that is said, then do so. All snide remarks prove is that you dislike what is said, but are unable to disprove it.

      Delete
    2. no kidding, I came by just out of curiosity to see if she was still wasting time picking lice out of Vox's fur and here she is. And Ann Morgan and Phoenician, too. You gals all deserve each other. I am sure you enjoy stroking each other and making each other feel very fine.

      Delete
    3. *snicker*

      We're not the idiots describing the dynamics of human society in terms of "alphas" and "betas".

      Feel free to keep sniffing Dipshit's butt.

      Delete
    4. This post has the most comments in quite sometime. 21. 16 of which were posted by the commenters I mentioned above. Mostly attacking me and others or sarcastically bitching about some guy whom they claim is insignificant and stupid.

      Delete
    5. "Dude, Dipshit keeps feeding you obvious bullshit and you keep lapping it up and running back for more.

      That doesn't make us smart by any means. It does, however, make you very, very stupid."

      You are in a rush to assume things and name call. Don't pronounce my views for me and then call me stupid for having them. You have not idea what I think, other than that this blog is one big circle jerk, which it provably is. However, I am not about to write a dissertation for to prove it. You're not capable of understanding/accepting what that means, and no one else needs any other proof, they need only read this blog's comments.

      Delete
    6. It's true. This blog is one big circle jerk. The same could be said of any online discussion forum. It's especially true of Vox's website, where the thoughtcrime of disagreeing with Vox earns a banishment. So what's your point? Just to be snarky and post poorly thought out criticisms of your intellectual superiors?

      Delete
    7. Mina Smith wrote: **You gals all deserve each other. I am sure you enjoy stroking each other and making each other feel very fine**

      Possibly, but I notice that Pox has yet to start complaining because my command of the English language is above whatever level of incompetence he might feel comfortable with. Nor has he resorted to such things as telling me to 'shut up' or telling me I am 'talking out my vagina', then a few weeks later self-deleting his own comments and calling ME a liar when I refer back to them.

      Delete
    8. We are all simply glad that you are gone. Nuff said.

      Delete
    9. Hmm? Who said we were gone, Mina?

      There are ways to hide your IP address, and Dipshit lacks the ability to notice subtle sarcasm if you hide it beneath enough sucking up. At least one "regular" back in the cesspool is a sock-puppet laughing at Dipshit.

      Delete
  4. Put kids in daycare? The horror! Homeschool and never let them out of your reach. You should be with them 24/7. It's easy. just live off your parent's trust fund like Vox.

    Vox is a real life John Galt!

    ReplyDelete
  5. My God, the Dipshit came up with some real stupidity today.

    I dunno whether he's so stupid he fails to grasp obvious points, or simply so dishonest he deliberately lies knowing the mouthbreathers who read him will never notice. Check it out:

    -----
    The second, and more important mistake is the claim that Fred is ignorant in pointing out that evolutionary theory requires the assembly of living beings by accident. While Richard Dawkins has convinced many superficial science fetishists that "natural selection is the exact opposite of random", this is obviously and entirely false because the vast quantity of mutations upon which natural selection repeatedly relies are, insofar as anyone can tell, random.
    -----

    Evolutionary theory does not require the assembly of living beings by accident. Fred is ignorant if he says it does, and if Dipshit is validating this, Disphit is lying.

    Natural selection is not random - it's in the very name. Dipshit is using a false assumption and specious logic when he talks about " the vast quantity of mutations upon which natural selection repeatedly relies"

    - Natural selection relies on variation, not mutations. This includes sexual recombination.

    - That mutations are random DOES NOT mean a process using them is random. Dipshits "logic" would mean that the winner of a poker or bridge game is totally random just because the cards are shuffled and dealt randomly.

    Get that? Dipshit is deliberately resorting to faulty logic in the hopes his idiot followers won't notice. The process USES random mutation; the process ITSELF is not random.

    -----
    Many people, both those who subscribe to the theory evolution and those who reject it, appear to be under the false impression that evolution happens in response to environmental pressure. But this is not the case; the famous Leiderberg experiment demonstrated that the mutations precede the exposure to the environment that causes the selection process to take place.
    ----

    This is another example of specious logic. OF COURSE mutations precede natural selection. Evolution by natural selection works off variation, and one source of that is mutation. Dipshit is pointing out a predicate of actual evolutionary theory as if it contradicts the theory, demonstrating either ignorance or dishonesty - or both.

    And let's sum up Dipshit's foolishness with this quote:

    ----
    So, given that the causal factor is random, Fred is entirely correct to say the subsequent process is accidental. It cannot be anything else.
    ----

    The causal factor of evolution by natural selection is natural selection, not mutation. Natural selection is not (or at least, mostly not) random. So Dipshit starts with a lie to defend someone else's ignorance.

    It's not surprising Disphit has to threaten to dox people when it is so easy to point out just how goddamned ignorant he is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Phoenician, you believing with all your atheistic heart in evolution is your business. Doesn't make you smart or stupid. You can believe it with all your heart and mind. It is your freedom.

      But if you keep calling people stupid because they believe in Jesus and the Bible. Don't be surprised if they end up ignoring you.

      Delete
    2. I call people stupid because they misrepresent evolutionary theory and fail to understand the basics.

      The Catholic Church has a lot of smart people in it. It believes in Jesus and the Bible. It also endorses the theory of evolution.

      Get it yet? You're stupid because of your misunderstanding of science, not because of your religion.

      Delete
    3. Starbuck wrote: **But if you keep calling people stupid because they believe in Jesus and the Bible. Don't be surprised if they end up ignoring you.**

      Point here, a lot of people *claim* to believe in Jesus, but between the fact that what they believe bears very little resemblence to what Jesus taught, and those parts of the bible that they choose to believe in, what their beliefs amount to is either simply a justification for their own hatreds and desire to control and persecute people, or an extremely misguided form of devil worship (and they are simply calling the devil by the name 'Jesus').

      Delete
    4. Ok Ann. What did Jesus teach? Just what he said that was recorded by the Apostles in the new testament?

      Ummmm,.. no

      Jesus was called in the new testament many things. Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Lord of Hosts,... etc. He was also defined as "He was the Word of God, and the Word Was God."

      So Jesus' teachings span the whole Bible. If you accept the Bible. if you don't then it doesn't matter to you.

      Delete
    5. Jesus was called in the new testament many things. Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Lord of Hosts,... etc. He was also defined as "He was the Word of God, and the Word Was God."

      So Jesus' teachings span the whole Bible.


      Nope. What if the teaching that he was "the Word of God" is in itself a mistake, one of many in the Bible?

      Just asking, Apollo, if the only source for your adhesion to the authority of the Bible is the Bible itself, explain to us how you are sure that, oh, it wasn't edited by Satan to trick you?

      Hypothesis - the Bible contains passages inserted by Satan to trick people.

      Now, prove it wrong...

      Delete
    6. Not to mention that there's a great many books that were left OUT of the bible. The decision as to which books were to be part of the 'official' bible was made by the Catholic church. If your position is that the Catholic Church is infallible, then that must mean that pedophilia is a good thing. If pedophilia is not a good thing, then you are admitting that the Catholic Church is wrong on at least some issues, and there is therefore no reason why they cannot be wrong on other issues, other than handwaving and your wanting things to be that way.

      Delete
    7. What if the teaching that he was "the Word of God" is in itself a mistake, one of many in the Bible?

      Just asking, Apollo, if the only source for your adhesion to the authority of the Bible is the Bible itself, explain to us how you are sure that, oh, it wasn't edited by Satan to trick you?

      Hypothesis - the Bible contains passages inserted by Satan to trick people.

      Now, prove it wrong...


      Phoenician, wouldn't you making the claim that the Bible is possibly "tainted", shouldn't you be the one proving that?

      Delete
    8. If your position is that the Catholic Church is infallible, then that must mean that pedophilia is a good thing. If pedophilia is not a good thing, then you are admitting that the Catholic Church is wrong on at least some issues, and there is therefore no reason why they cannot be wrong on other issues, other than handwaving and your wanting things to be that way.-Ann

      Catholic Church Infallible? Please, do not make me laugh...

      Anything associated with men or women is flawed. Gods Word is not flawed. Mans words are flawed.

      Are you thinking God couldn't protect his word/message to be accurate through the ages? Also remember, men studying and looking for flaws are flawed themselves. Anything they find is in question. There are possiblilities with the different language interpretations. But I don't think it is so much flaws as much of emotions written in Hebrew and greek doesn't come through in English.

      The way I see things is not important to you. How I interpret the Bible is not important to you. I am not trying to convince you of anything. i am expressing my opinions and beliefs.... which rely on one another.

      Delete
    9. Phoenician, wouldn't you making the claim that the Bible is possibly "tainted", shouldn't you be the one proving that?

      Sure - "the Bible promotes hatred and bigotry, therefore it's tainted."

      Now, you prove it's not.

      Hypothesis - the Bible contains passages inserted by Satan to trick people.

      Now, prove it wrong...

      Delete
    10. Are you thinking God couldn't protect his word/message to be accurate through the ages?

      Remind us again whether bats are birds...?

      Delete
  6. The other truth is that there's a lot of SF/F outselling Vox's own, not because he's controversial, but because he's not as good as folks like NK Jemisin.

    How would you tell? Disphit is careful only to talk about numbers of books "sold or given for free", which I assume means he's hiding the fact that he's once again a failure in his attempt at a career, this time as a writer.

    I'd wager he's not making his living writing books, and I'd even speculate his actual means of support has a lot to do with his daddy and living outside the reach of the American IRS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely. In fact, his beef with the SFWA seems calculated. See, the reason he doesn't sell books isn't because his writing stinks, it's because the man can't handle how brilliant his mind is. So they banned him and the gatekeepers keep his awesome fiction exiled to free Amazon giveaways.

      It must be great to fail at everything knowing your parents' trust fund will bail you out.

      Delete
    2. Man, for someone who talks endlessly about "civilization", he really is nothing but a non-contributing parasite off the effort of others, isn't he?

      Delete
    3. I notice that Vox *appears* to be backpedalling again in his recent post. He has gone from claiming that if a society abandons *Christianity* it will die (obviously wrong because there are plenty of non-Christian societies that are doing fine) to claiming that if a society abandons *morality* it will die.

      Which is a much more sensible premise, however I specified the word 'appears' in regards to his apparent back-pedalling, because it's equally likely that this is some form of bait-and-switch in which Vox will first get people to agree that societies must have some form of reality, then suddenly make the jump to it being Christian morality, and HIS Christian form of morality in particular.

      Delete
    4. That should say 'societies must have some form of MORALITY', not 'reality'.

      Delete
    5. Yup - and most of the people who nod when Dipshit talks about his "Christian" morality don't know that he's literally a heretic.

      Delete
    6. Phoenician, most people who talk very loudly and arrogantly about 'Christian' morality, are first of all not very much like Christ, and secondly, their main goal is to find a justification for oppressing and persecuting other people.

      If you'd like to read a blog from someone who is an actual Christian and not an idiot like Vox, I'd recommend Logospilgrim's blog:
      http://www.logospilgrim.com/

      She's modest, pleasant, funny, creative, and appreciates the abilities of other people besides herself. In short, pretty much the opposite of Vox, and a lot more like Christ.

      Delete
    7. Christian morality?! I agree with what you are disagreeing with. But I will say this. People who drag out this christian morality" are full of it. There is moral and immoral.

      In the Bible God said he wrote in our hearts what moral and immoral is. We all know what is right and what is wrong. It's called a conscience. So when atheists say that they know right from wrong even without the Bible to tell them,... they are right. Also means they have no excuse.

      Delete
    8. In the Bible God said he wrote in our hearts what moral and immoral is. We all know what is right and what is wrong.

      Uh-huh.

      "[The fact that women may wish to work and are very capable of working no more implies that they should always be encouraged to do so anymore than the fact that men may wish to rape and are very capable of raping means that they should always be encouraged to do so. The ironic, but logically inescapable fact is that encouraging men to rape would be considerably less damaging to a society than encouraging women to enter the workforce en masse. Widespread rape makes a society uncivilized. Widespread female employment makes a society demographically unsustainable. History demonstrates that incivility can be survived and surmounted. Unsustainability, on the other hand, cannot."

      That's from the Dipshit whose ass you lick.

      Tell us, Apollo, have you ever read Matthew 7:15-23 ?

      Delete
    9. Apollo wrote: **In the Bible God said he wrote in our hearts what moral and immoral is. We all know what is right and what is wrong. It's called a conscience. So when atheists say that they know right from wrong even without the Bible to tell them,... they are right. Also means they have no excuse.**

      Apollo: the 'Tit for Tat' strategy, from gaming theory, works pretty well in regards to avoiding the worst sorts of immoral behavior, and is, in fact, often seen in the behavior of animals as well as human beings. Whether God arranged this, or whether it was caused by evolution and biology I won't get into.

      I will say, however, that many of the things said by the posters on Vox's forum are in violation of the 'tit for tat' principle. According to that principle, you should never 'defect' first, and should be willing (most of the time) to suffer a small amount yourself in order to prevent another (presumably innocent person) from suffering a larger amount.

      According to the poster in the Vox forum, however, the biblical verse that requires a woman who has been raped (within a city) to be killed if she fails to scream, is justified even if the rapist had a knife to her throat and said he will kill her if she screamed, because (according to the Vox club) she should be willing to die in order so that the rapist can be captured and not rape other women.

      Sorry, but this is a violation of the tit for tat principle. Rape is not worse than death, regardless of what people have been brainwashed to believe. I would not require, indeed, would highly discourage ANYONE from sacrificing their own lives, or even losing a finger, in order to prevent me from being raped. In fact, assuming I were given an explicit choice, I would volunteer to be raped if it meant preventing someone else from being murdered. Which is in accordance with the 'tit for tat' principle. I'm willing to suffer a small amount to prevent someone else from suffering a greater amount.

      But the position of the Vox club is that if I am raped, it thereby automatically becomes a death sentence. If I scream, the rapist will kill me. If I don't scream, the Vox club will kill me, to punish me for the fact that the rapist will now likely rape someone else. Since death is worse than rape, what they demand is an inversion of the tit for tat principle, in which I must suffer a greater amount, in order to prevent someone else from suffering a smaller amount, and also so that their neurotic attitudes about sex in general can be mollified.

      As for my own personal right and wrong... my family and I give away several large boxes of food every month to people who need it. What has Vox done in the past month, other than spew out 'shut ups', obscenities about female anatomy, and hateful remarks about anyone different from himself?

      Delete
    10. That's from the Dipshit whose ass you lick.

      If you mean Vox Day... Excuse me? You seem to be the one with the hangup on this fellow. I don't agree with everything he writes. I also don't argue with him. No need to. He has his opinions and I have mine.

      Tell us, Apollo, have you ever read Matthew 7:15-23 ?

      Yes, I read it. I have read it a long time ago. However, do I have bad fruit if YOU disagree with my opinion? Or do you think I have bad fruit because I express my belief in God?

      Delete
    11. Apollo: the 'Tit for Tat' strategy, from gaming theory, works pretty well in regards to avoiding the worst sorts of immoral behavior, and is, in fact, often seen in the behavior of animals as well as human beings. Whether God arranged this, or whether it was caused by evolution and biology I won't get into. - Ann

      I am sorry. I do not adhere to "game theory". Do I believe it is invalid, quite the opposite. i believe and have seen it work rather well. It also disgusts me. It encourages young men to manipulate young women. Men have for thousands of years burned with the lust to control women, families, tribes/nations, countries - the world. I hate manipulation with a passion.

      What has Vox done in the past month, other than spew out 'shut ups', obscenities about female anatomy, and hateful remarks about anyone different from himself?-Ann

      Everyone wants to control their own little fiefdom. VD has his. it is called Vox Popoli. I don't really care that much about him.

      I will say this. The vast majority of those people are very legalistic and use the Bible to beat others on the head with it. To control others, or help others to control others.
      It's manipulation, pure and simple.

      Jesus didn't come to the world 2000 years ago to condemn the world. He came to save the world. The world was condemned already. He didn't accuse the woman who was guilty of adultery, he told her to go and sin no more. It is a microcosm of what he was offering everyone in the world.

      Delete
    12. Apollo. (sigh). Gaming theory is not the same as the sort of 'game' that men have, in which they try to manipulate women and have sex with as many as possible. They have nothing at all to do with eachother.

      Gaming theory has to do with solving certain ethical dilemnas, such as the 'Prisoner's dilemna', in which two arrested criminals must decide whether or not to rat the other out.

      Frankly, I don't know any polite or gentle way to put this, but the sort of comments you make, in which you equate 'gaming theory' with masculine sexual 'game' and think that evolution involves one animal suddenly morphing into another, like Bruce Banner turning into the Hulk indicate such an incredible lack of education on your part, that quite honestly, I was probably better educated by the age of 10 than you are now, and it would probably take me at least 10 years to educate you to the point where you would even be able to begin to comprehend why your current remarks are nonsensically wrong. I will tell you this: Vox is a sociopath, probably far more intelligent than most of the regular posters in his forum, and is manipulating them.

      **I will say this. The vast majority of those people are very legalistic and use the Bible to beat others on the head with it. To control others, or help others to control others.
      It's manipulation, pure and simple.**

      I'm glad you at least see that much.

      Delete
    13. Apollo, I actually would like to help you. I think you mean well, and have been mislead a lot. So here's a bit of an analysis of a statement thrown around a lot in the Vox forum. The posters there state that they would be willing to kill large numbers of 2 year olds, if 'God' said so, and for no other reason.

      Stripped of the various excuses that they expect people to add onto that statement, such as thinking "Awww, they don't really mean it" or that it would actually be God making that statement (rather than a devil or a schizophrenic delusion, or that God necessarily would have a reason we would consider valid (such as the 2 year olds being infected with a zombie virus), the one thing we CAN be certain of is that they did make that statement. Which leads to only one of two actually valid conclusions we can make:

      1. They are lying (when making that statement) in an attempt to impress people with how holy and biblical they are, and if it came down to it, would not actually kill 2 year olds. Which would make them hypocrites.

      2. They would, in fact, kill 2 year olds without reason, if they thought God said so. Which, since they have also specifically excluded questioning or applying their conscience to anything they think 'God' has said, is going to include killing 2 year olds if an evil spirit impersonates God, or they get schizophrenia and imagine God has told them that. Which would make them highly dangerous.

      Delete
  7. but I'm pleased that you, Ann Morgan, Phoenician, and The House have found an internet clubhouse where you can all hang out and tell each other how intelligent you guys really are.

    Dude, Dipshit keeps feeding you obvious bullshit and you keep lapping it up and running back for more.

    That doesn't make us smart by any means. It does, however, make you very, very stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Vox once again proves he is my bitch with his recent statement that all mutations are harmful.

    http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

    And once again, btw, despite Vox's repeated claims about how women have no 'wherewithal', this Sunday, despite there being 7 men working alongside me, they had to come running to me for help, because this here WOMAN was the only one who knew how to fix a malfunctioning strapping machine. That's right. I have more 'wherewithal' than 7 men put together. Sad as it may be to Vox's point of view, a 166 IQ trumps a Y chromosome in almost everything except a very few situations which require physical strength and for some reason a machine can't be used. Which is how Vox ended up being my bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I see that Vox now says that true Christianity denies equality to women, and that people should leave churches where women are given equal rights. Which he certainly has the right to do, but if he is going to follow that particular path, he needs to either follow it 100%, or else he is a hypocrite.

    That means - no women singing soprano parts in the church choir. His misogynist churches either man up and start castrating boys again, or pay enough to hire the few natural, uncastrated male sopranos, or don't have soprano parts in their church songs. You don't get to have it both ways and demand that women get to participate in the church when YOU want them, to, but suddenly it's unbiblical to have them participating in the church when you DON'T want them to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ann... I think you misunderstood. God didn't command women to not participate in Church. Apostle Paul said women should not be in leadership of the Church. Nor should women teach men. That's all. Singing in the choir is not any violation of Church hiearchy according to Paul that I can see. If a church goes and makes a lesbian woman with her partner the pastor of a church... This is CLEARLY wrong on many levels. You can justify it and declare it to be wrong to forbid anything like that, but the Bible still declares that to be wrong.

      Has nothing to do with equal rights or equality.

      Delete
    2. Also,... hypocrite means "actor". We just use it in a deragotory way.

      Delete
    3. Ann... I think you misunderstood. God didn't command women to not participate in Church. Apostle Paul said women should not be in leadership of the Church. Nor should women teach men. That's all.

      You mean Paul, the so-called self-proclaimed "Apostle", who never actually met Jesus, and contradicted Jesus's actual teachings, twisting a Jewish Messiah cult into a Roman Gentile church?

      Delete
    4. Apollo, Umm, no.

      1 Corinthians 14:34 and 35
      (34) Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
      (35) And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

      Being silent in the church includes not singing. And this is, in fact, why the church formerly used castrated men to sing soprano parts in church choirs.

      And either way, Christianity is provably wrong. If women are allowed to sing in church, then first of all, the verse in Corinthians was wrong, and secondly, the position of the church on women in the middle ages (when they were not allowed to sing) was wrong. If they aren't allowed to sing in church, then Christianity is wrong NOW. Either way, the church was wrong at SOME point. And if the church can be wrong on some issues at any time, then there is nothing, except your wanting it to, to prevent it from being wrong on other issues right now.

      Furthermore, you entire post smacks of handwaving, you want to use the bible to deny women rights so long as it is convenient to you, as a man. Yet when the same denial of rights, which is mentioned right in the bible, suddenly becomes inconvenient to me, because it means that some of them might have to become castratos, then suddenly you want to handwave the bible away.

      If you want to oppress women, because you find it personally convenient, then do so. But at least be honest about it and say you are doing it because you don't like women. Stop claiming that you are doing it only because it is dictated by the bible when you are contradicting the bible whenever it suits you.

      Delete
    5. Fine... perhaps you're right. Women should shut up. It would solve huge amounts of problems in this world. Maybe women should stay home and only speak to her husband. is this what you wanted me to say?
      Does that sufficiently get your anger up?
      How about this.. Women should be bought and sold between fathers and men who marry them. Women should not be allowed to work except in the home.

      Does that make you more angry?

      Because you sure seem hellbent on believing Christians believe that.

      Delete
    6. Apollo. It doesn't make me angry. Why should it? Anyone who wants to shut me up can speak to my friends Mr. Sturm and Mr Ruger first, to see if they agree. As for your suggestions, that is, in fact, what the bible says should be done with women. If a Christian wants to use the bible as a justification for oppressing women, the way I see it, either they embrace the entire bible, or else they are simply hypocrites, cherry-picking through the bible for only those things they prefer, and ignoring what is inconvenient to them.

      Delete
  10. Talking about stupidity:

    "Child abuse and animal abuse are two of the inevitable consequences of secular culture."

    Gee, Dipshit, what organisation most comes to mind when you consider "child abuse"? Hint hint - starts with a "C", rhymes with "Pedophile priests in the Hathlic Hurch"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What? You blaming God and Christians in general for what some pedophiles did to children in the Catholic Church? Are you serious that you would do that?

      So if a man who happens to be an atheist who pushes science and that God doesn't exist rapes some woman, would it make sense to blame atheists and science along with the people that believe in it?

      Naw... Maybe you would want to rethink what you wrote and correct it? Or maybe you wish to stand by your word...?

      Delete
    2. What? You blaming God and Christians in general for what some pedophiles did to children in the Catholic Church?

      You really don't follow this "logic" thing well, do you?

      Dipshit states that child abuse is an inevitable consequence of secular culture. And yet the organisation most associated with child abuse is the Catholic Church - which is not very secular now, is it?

      Dipshit relies on his mouthbreathers such as yourself being even stupider than he is so they don't twig to the massive amounts of bullshit he shovels out.

      Delete
    3. Phoenician, would you please stop associating Vox Day with myself. I do NOT speak for him, nor am I an apologist for him.

      Child abuse is a sin,... Now you just have to define what child abuse is. Some say spanking is child abuse, others would disagree and say that no spanking is child abuse.

      As for the catholic church. The catholic church didn't rape those young boys, pedophiles did. The catholic heirarchy know it is wrong. So they tried to hide it. Why would they do that? Because they know how society is right now. They would be sued. The didn't want to be sued and pay these people who had been raped bu pedophile priests. It's all about the money. But they knew it was wrong.

      Delete
    4. Phoenician, would you please stop associating Vox Day with myself. I do NOT speak for him, nor am I an apologist for him.

      Then why are you acting like one?

      Delete
    5. Apollo wrote: **As for the catholic church. The catholic church didn't rape those young boys, pedophiles did. The catholic heirarchy know it is wrong. So they tried to hide it. Why would they do that? Because they know how society is right now. They would be sued. The didn't want to be sued and pay these people who had been raped bu pedophile priests. It's all about the money. But they knew it was wrong.**

      Arguably, this could be considered proof that the heirarchy of the Catholic church does not, in fact, believe in God. Nobody who actually believed in God (unless they believe in some sort of malevolent God like Vox and think they can skulk into heaven by paying a price not of their own blood or the blood of Christ, but the blood of innocent children) would behave in such a fashion as that, which amounts to selling their own soul for 30 pieces of silver.

      Mind you, this doesn't mean that there is no God, or that other people don't actually believe in him. Simply that the heirarchy of the Catholic Church doesn't believe in God, and IMHO, if that is the case, they would be best off in a different profession, as very little good can come of invoking deities that you don't believe in, in order to deceive other people.

      Delete
  11. You really don't follow this "logic" thing well, do you?

    Not always... I didn't go to college. So I do have an excuse. I am a ignoramus bafoon with just a high school diploma.

    Are college degrees your measure of intelligence?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Are college degrees your measure of intelligence?

    The ability to follow simple logic is a good indication.

    ReplyDelete