The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

[hadespussercats]

A Hermit, this is a reminder from the staff that personal attacks, like the one in your post here, are against our rules.

Thank you.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

You misunderstand. You're certainly entitled to appreciate her cleavage and all that, but if you attend a talk of hers on microbiology and in the question and answer session all you can think of to ask is a question about her cup size she has every right to dismiss you as the ignorant little adolescent moron you obviously are.

Simple, really...

Has anyone actually done that? Or are you just strawmanning?

[Audley Strange]

You know what's ignorant, using the words adolescent and moron together since adolescent generally refers to pubescence and moron was a term to define someone who had the mentality of a child. Archaic ableism is still ableism.

Disgusting.

[Robert_S]

You misunderstand. You're certainly entitled to appreciate her cleavage and all that, but if you attend a talk of hers on microbiology and in the question and answer session all you can think of to ask is a question about her cup size she has every right to dismiss you as the ignorant little adolescent moron you obviously are.

Simple, really...

Has anyone actually done that? Or are you just strawmanning?

False dilemma.
Using a counter-factual example to illustrate a point is not the same as strawmanning. A Hermit never implied anyone ever actually did that.

You know what's ignorant, using the words adolescent and moron together since adolescent generally refers to pubescence and moron was a term to define someone who had the mentality of a child. Archaic ableism is still ableism.

Disgusting.

I recall an FtBlogger got in a bit of trouble over that.

[hadespussercats]

You know what's ignorant, using the words adolescent and moron together since adolescent generally refers to pubescence and moron was a term to define someone who had the mentality of a child. Archaic ableism is still ableism.

Disgusting.

Hmmmm...

[charlou]

A Hermit, this is a reminder from the staff that personal attacks, like the one in your post here, are against our rules.

Thank you.

Have to say, I'm a bit about this interpretation of A Hermit's post.

[charlou]

nm ... I get it.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

You misunderstand. You're certainly entitled to appreciate her cleavage and all that, but if you attend a talk of hers on microbiology and in the question and answer session all you can think of to ask is a question about her cup size she has every right to dismiss you as the ignorant little adolescent moron you obviously are.

Simple, really...

Has anyone actually done that? Or are you just strawmanning?

False dilemma.
Using a counter-factual example to illustrate a point is not the same as strawmanning. A Hermit never implied anyone ever actually did that.

It might be, had A Hermit not added "the ignorant little adolescent moron you obviously are".

[laklak]

Oh my my my, I think I was insulted! Yes indeedy, I was! Now, if I were a Skepchick, I'd shriek and moan and write all sorts of bloggy things and maybe cry or hide behind my mommy's skirts. Since I'm not I'll just say

I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks on you. Neener neener neener.

[Robert_S]

You misunderstand. You're certainly entitled to appreciate her cleavage and all that, but if you attend a talk of hers on microbiology and in the question and answer session all you can think of to ask is a question about her cup size she has every right to dismiss you as the ignorant little adolescent moron you obviously are.

Simple, really...

Has anyone actually done that? Or are you just strawmanning?

False dilemma.
Using a counter-factual example to illustrate a point is not the same as strawmanning. A Hermit never implied anyone ever actually did that.

It might be, had A Hermit not added "the ignorant little adolescent moron you obviously are".

Perhaps A Hermit was thinking "you obviously would be"?

If it was intentional, then it was still not a strawman, but a personal attack.

If I get read you right, you were referring to: "...but if you attend a talk of hers on microbiology and in the question and answer session all you can think of to ask is a question about her cup size..." which is not a strawman.

If you meant something different, then I might be wrong here.

[Jason]

You misunderstand. You're certainly entitled to appreciate her cleavage and all that, but if you attend a talk of hers on microbiology and in the question and answer session all you can think of to ask is a question about her cup size she has every right to dismiss you as the ignorant little adolescent moron you obviously are.

Simple, really...

Has anyone actually done that? Or are you just strawmanning?

It's a sort of actionable hypothetical sexual harassment - it doesn't matter if it ever actually happened (elevatorgate?). It's something that could have happened and that's enough to fuel the fires of the movement.

Question for 'A Hermit': At what point does it become acceptable to make a pass at her? I agree that it is highly inappropriate to do so during the Q&A after her hypothetical talk - that's so silly that it is indisputable. But what about later on or before her talk? When does it become acceptable?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

You misunderstand. You're certainly entitled to appreciate her cleavage and all that, but if you attend a talk of hers on microbiology and in the question and answer session all you can think of to ask is a question about her cup size she has every right to dismiss you as the ignorant little adolescent moron you obviously are.

Simple, really...

Has anyone actually done that? Or are you just strawmanning?

False dilemma.
Using a counter-factual example to illustrate a point is not the same as strawmanning. A Hermit never implied anyone ever actually did that.

It might be, had A Hermit not added "the ignorant little adolescent moron you obviously are".

Perhaps A Hermit was thinking "you obviously would be"?

If it was intentional, then it was still not a strawman, but a personal attack.

If I get read you right, you were referring to: "...but if you attend a talk of hers on microbiology and in the question and answer session all you can think of to ask is a question about her cup size..." which is not a strawman.

If you meant something different, then I might be wrong here.

"As the ignorant little adolescent moron you obviously are" implies that laklak would actually do that. This line of pedantry is becoming increasingly boring.

[charlou]

Perhaps A Hermit was thinking "you obviously would be"?

That's how I had read it .. with "you" being a generic "you" ..

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Perhaps A Hermit was thinking "you obviously would be"?

That's how I had read it .. with "you" being a generic "you" ..

That's probably how he should have phrased it, in that case.

It came across as a personal attack to me at first but I can see how it could be interpreted otherwise. No biggie.

[Robert_S]

"As the ignorant little adolescent moron you obviously are" implies that laklak would actually do that. This line of pedantry is becoming increasingly boring.

I guess that could kinda work as a strawman but it was a direct response to CES, not Lak. Regardless, as written it implies that the target is obviously an "ignorant little adolescent moron" whether or not they did anything like what was described. It can also be interpreted as implying that they would obviously be such if they interrupted a midrobiology Q&A to ask about her boobs.


[/pedantry]


IMO, there is room for disagreement about how that ought to be read.

Perhaps A Hermit was thinking "you obviously would be"?

That's how I had read it .. with "you" being a generic "you" ..

I thought it could be read either way. It's just a reminder though and they don't add up over the months and years.