AndromedasWake
New Member
Last night, England drew 0-0 with Algeria. It should have been an easy game, but Capello played the wrong formation once again, and failed to recognise that DeFoe should have been on from the start instead of Heskey. His crummy management and blind faith in the Rooney/Heskey could cost England a chance in the knock-out stages if they don't beat Slovenia next Wednesday. Obviously, like everyone else in England I was at the pub getting drunk and frustrated simultaneously (never a good combination.)
When I returned home, I found a comment on my video detailing the upcoming LoR show which just struck an atomic nerve with me. I was upset, and shouldn't have responded, but I did. As such, another meaningless comment debate has been spawned, but as it went on, I began to feel ever more sorry for my opponent.
It may be that I'm missing something here, but my opponent seems to be dictating what myself and others involved with setting up the show think, and attacking our imaginary thoughts. What's interesting to me is that the person is presumably a member of the "atheist community" but swooped in to take the moral high-ground on baseless assertions. Isn't that a common tactic for religious apologists?
I would appreciate any critique about how I've responded in this "debate". Obviously I know it's pointless, but it almost seems worthwhile when I'm forced to pick apart the less obvious problems which crop up during inflammatory dialogue. On the other hand, I might be completely in the wrong here. If so, tell me. I'm a big boy.
This debate is still in progress and I'll update this thread as it happens. I just thought I'd start posting it for record's sake.
More to come unfortunately...
Update: this seems to have fizzled out - I doubt there will be any more follow-up.
When I returned home, I found a comment on my video detailing the upcoming LoR show which just struck an atomic nerve with me. I was upset, and shouldn't have responded, but I did. As such, another meaningless comment debate has been spawned, but as it went on, I began to feel ever more sorry for my opponent.
It may be that I'm missing something here, but my opponent seems to be dictating what myself and others involved with setting up the show think, and attacking our imaginary thoughts. What's interesting to me is that the person is presumably a member of the "atheist community" but swooped in to take the moral high-ground on baseless assertions. Isn't that a common tactic for religious apologists?
I would appreciate any critique about how I've responded in this "debate". Obviously I know it's pointless, but it almost seems worthwhile when I'm forced to pick apart the less obvious problems which crop up during inflammatory dialogue. On the other hand, I might be completely in the wrong here. If so, tell me. I'm a big boy.
This is, the online equivalent of Jeremy Kyle. Is this really a prudent use of academics' time? Bear baiting and playing around with people like Nephillimfree?
It's really sad to see you all devoting so much time and energy to this.
(Yup, terse and bitchy. I'm not proud of it. :facepalm: )Me said:It's sad to see you devoting so much time and energy to that comment. Actually, it's not, because I don't get wound up or complain about how other people choose to spend their free time. If an academic works like the rest of us, who are we to, dictate what they do with their weekends?
I didn't once mention NephilimFree in this video, and if Thunderf00t wants to invite him to the show, that's his prerogative. Feel free to dismount that high horse and waste your time your way.
I'm not dictating anything. I just thought you were better than this.
I'm not complaining about how you spend your time, but since you have posted it online, thereby inviting comment, you probably shouldn't complain if and when you get comments you don't necessarily like.
I don't care how you spend your time .I guess I must be mad for thinking that there are better ways to educate than to bait the stupid. ,
There's something really insipid about the way you guys are going, as exemplified, by Thunderf00t's ridiculous triumphalism regarding EDMD. That was just plain embarrassing.
Me said:"..the way you guys are going.."
Who is this 'you guys'? I think you need to be careful about generalising. I never hailed DMD as a triumph, and indeed criticised Thunderf00t's method and execution, as did many members of, League of Reason. DonExodus afaik did not take part, and many people made unique contributions or none at all. You are confusing individual actions with an agenda, whilst simultaneously suggesting that this community should behave in a way that pleases you.
It also baffles me that anyone would suggest that just now, after 33 WDPLAC videos, criticising and refuting creationists is becoming insipid, despite the fact that moving to a live format is actually, a huge change, which is designed to test the "think on your feet" ability of a panel of science-supporting people (who do not always agree with each other.)
Blaming one for another's actions, or grouping people up as you see fit just because they subscribe to each other fails.
(I didn't get that bit. Is he accusing me of generalising about creationists? Because so far he has managed to use the phrases "you guys" and "people like NephilimFree" whereas I thought my video was pretty clean in this regard.)'You are confusing individual actions with an, agenda,'
And the whole concept of irony explodes like the motherfuckin' Death Star...
(I included the bit about being a PhD because he had rhetorically asked in response to another commenter, "Is this how PhD's spend their time?" or something to that effect. For the record, I am not a PhD. Neither is dprjones, and please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that AronRa does not hold a PhD either.Me said:1. Clarification required.
2. You ignored my point about generalising.
3. You didn't answer my question.
4. In response to TheWad1959, you claim to know the intentions of everyone on the "pilot" panel, despite your claim: "This is about, sport and getting subscribers." contradicting DonExodus2's public explanation about why he wanted to debate NephilimFree.
5. Unless you are a PhD making academic contributions 24/7, you really ought to dismount the high horse.
if you think I am generalising, you're all on the same show so I judged the show. I have listened to Donexodus2 and I don't buy it. I really don't think you can argue that this is anything more than entertainment. I think this show is about, making sport of people with stupid claims,as evidenced by the acorn guy being ridiculed. I think he should be ridiculed, I just think you should be upfront about your intention to do so.
My answer to WAd's point about 'wherever it happens' is that you are causing it to happen. It's not about combatting ignorance where you find it., You're just loading the dice for the inevitable smackdown.
Whatever I maybe, it doesn't matter. Disappointing to see such an obvious fallacy.
Me said:Still looking for clarification about irony.
""¦you're all on the same show so I judged the show."
And yet mentioned DMD, which was never on the show? This is why I've accused you of generalising, because you are.
"I have listened to Donexodus2 and I don't buy it."
Argument from personal incredulity.
""¦as evidenced by the acorn guy being ridiculed."
I see you've jumped to TruthfulChristian, despite your previous grievance being aimed at the 'baiting' of NephilimFree. TruthfulChristian did not have to call in, but he had the spine to. No one had any intention of making sport of him, nor is that the intention of the show (which I conceived in 2009 with other intentions.)
"I just think you should be upfront about your intention to do so."
The videos/blog post surrounding the show have made clear the reason for doing it, and your own perception that it isn't "anything more than entertainment" is unfounded and remains unsubstantiated. I didn't ask for your answer to TheWad1959, I pointed out that you made an unjustified assertion in that answer.
"Whatever I maybe, it doesn't matter."
c.f. with"¦
"Is this really a prudent use of academics' time?" and "I just thought you were better than this."
Apparently, you can be who you want, but academics can't. And when I challenge you to make some kind of contribution to academia, before assuming the moral high ground over how much others should be contributing, you accuse me of an "obvious fallacy."
Remind me, what kind of fallacy is this? How can any fallacy be involved in the statement when it is not advancing an argument, but is simply a suggestion for you to get over yourself?
Update: this seems to have fizzled out - I doubt there will be any more follow-up.