from Althouse & Watson
 

Not very. I mean Brendan is lovable, and a sympathetic tool, but there are limits :D (And, no, Brendan, I still did not buy that we are not friends the other day.)

Here's the thing about Haidt: I have been thinking that liberals have low emotional IQs. They're supposed to be sooo nice, yet treat us conservatives like we are the spawn of Satan.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

Let's be clear about what's what. Whatfur and kidneystones were ostracized because they were assholes, not because they were "conservatives." kidley was a KOS kid before he arrived here, if anyone remembers. kang doesn't get crap for being right-wing (he's obviously not.) He gets it in response to his incredible displays of risible self-righteousness and his amusing inability to deal with it with anything resembling grace. Look at how well rcocean deals, if you want to see an easy contrast. Ideological vendettas are far rarer than personal ones here, and a whole lot less interesting to boot.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

No, not all. Although in your case duplicitous, deluded and pathetic are fitting.
Just a little honesty, friendo.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

I am not talking about W and k. They stand or fall on their own merits.I like sk; he seems to be a straight shooter. What you think of him is between you and him.I don't see the point in comparisons.What?

The point of my post was that for too long it was way too personal here. Many espousing rightwing views were viewed as morally defective. Recently, things have taken a drastic turn and we are talking to each other in a much more civilized manner.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

Bite me, renzo.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

That's personal ... Not political.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

Oh, okay. So, now it's my fault that you love donuts.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

Look said:

Perhaps this is because you have a low IQ tout court. But thanks for sharing.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

QFT.

I think this gets missed.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

Oh no you did not.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

No, no. Liberals have a low emotional IQ. Great insight. I'm going to ponder that one and change my behavior, but not just my behavior, my entire world-view, my personality, everything. After I finish reading "Cosmopolis" by Stephen Toulmin, I will turn to "What Is Your Emotional IQ?" I had noticed that people who write from the Right on this site tend to be more emotionally balanced and more empathetic than those on the Left, so that's a phenomenon the causes of which I will need to understand better. Your own posts, for example, betray a depth of empathy and psychological insight almost never seen anywhere, especially not among Liberals. And what can I say about all the people I have filtered, all highly sensitive souls, really great people? Hard to believe that so much intellect could be combined with so much emotional intelligence, and all in one convenient virtual location.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

I see I was not clear in my meaning. I meant some of the liberals here, such as yourself, who often shortcut to disparagement and name-calling when you don't like arguments offered. An intellectual you may be, but you are a lazy one.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

Right, so if you wish to provide citations of places where I shrank from joining a rational argument, please do so. I don't find this general charge very compelling or accurate.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

Look, I cannot refrain from pointing out, upon reflection, that this charge of laziness on my part rings awfully hollow coming from you. I don't remember you ever saying anything of substance, frankly, or ever even attempting to make an extended argument about anything. You post one to three sentences at a time, usually hiding behind a persona of knowing cynicism and wit. It's a good act, but it gets old. I remember that you knew about Matt Taibbi and once liked him, then liked him less, that's about it.

I don't think there are too many posters here who put as much effort into their posts as I do. I also try to read people's links when I think it is important to an argument.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

I asked you on multiple occasions to explain why libertarianism is an invalid political philosophy. You also had some unkind words regarding my original post meant for a debate between libertarians. I have no problem with your shit attitude, but I asked you to explain. You did not.

Any time you're ready, I'm ready.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

That's it? Our analysis of Althouse is a shining moment in my board history. Color me crushed.

Yes, you invest a lot of time and thought in your posts, but your intellectual vanity is off-putting.

Now, I'd be quite interested in an old school debate between you and sk on the subject of Libertarianism.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

So the criticisms keep changing. First, I have a low emotional IQ, which doesn't mean what it would normally mean, it means that I shrink from rational argument and disparage people instead. I have disparaged people, I agree. Whether I have done so unjustifiably or without provocation is another question. Then, I'm lazy. Well, I'm not really lazy, I'm intellectually vain. It is up to others to decide when I have disparaged people in order to avoid joining a rational argument. I say virtually never.

I thought I had made myself clear with respect to sugarkang (SK), here:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=218323&postcount=126

But in any event, I have already made some remarks which were not addressed to SK specifically but which provide an opening for making the kind of defense of economic libertarianism that I think would be necessary here:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...&postcount=114

If SK wants to address the problem of insurance within the scheme of economic libertarianism, fine.

SK now claims that he asked me more than once to refute libertarianism. I don't remember him asking me to refute libertarianism even once, let alone several times. I have just searched on the keywords “libertarianism” and “libertarian” over the past two weeks, and there is no post by SK addressed to me that uses either word. I would be interested in seeing citations of these requests before I agree in principle to do anything, ever, involving SK. How can I refute something, when I don't know exactly what it is that I am supposed to be refuting, in any case?

I have been doing a lot of posting lately, way too much, really, and a lot of it, regrettably, has involved SK. I have many other obligations over the coming days, and I am really not at all sure that I should be asked to engage with SK or that I should agree to do so. I am intellectually vain, but he calls me a liar, he never apologizes, and now I'm supposed to debate him? And I have to define libertarianism in order to refute my own definition? It all seems a bit much, really. It might be preferable to be judged a coward by you fair-minded and much put-upon seekers after truth and justice.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

When somebody on the internet claims they want to debate you, how far do you think that obliges you? Can you "shrink" from a debate into which you've never entered? In what sense has SK ever shown that he'd be a useful interlocutor in any such encounter?

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

Wow, you are a supreme dick. Have a look in this thread.

You said:
I replied:
ALL GOOD SO FAR! THEN OUT OF NOWHERE IN THE SAME THREAD...

Except, this is a big fat lie. FAT LIE. I asked you to provide proof. You said you couldn't find it. Well, ask bhtv mods, then. You know what we call this in America? It's called slander (or libel if you want to get technical) you amoral charlatan.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

There's a group of commenters here who are given to intrigue. There's a certain baseline paranoia, cult of victimhood, paired with provocation of others. They are eager to create drama and drag others into it.

They go around throwing empty accusations at people. They seem obsessed with what others do and say. They harass moderate commenters who are friendly into making judgments and taking sides. They crave constant validation even if their arguments are poorly constructed or when there's clear disagreement in basic principles. They don't seem to be able to keep to themselves and interact with others without the endless intrigue and drama.

Don't get pulled into it.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

Sugarkang:

I looked in the thread. First, I asked you for citations in which you ask me to refute libertarianism. So I would like to be referred to specific post(s), not to a thread. But having looked in the thread, I think you are referring to this interchange, the one you quoted in part:

Originally Posted by ledocs
Originally Posted by sugarkang
Asking me to give operative a fair and open-minded hearing is not the same thing as asking me to refute libertarianism. I believe that even you should be able to see that, so I will refrain from going on at length about why this is so.

On that matter, though, I did react somewhat violently to operative's suggestion that if the welfare state were discontinued, unspecified anti-intellectual classes of people would dwindle away through attrition.

Operative had said:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...9&postcount=40

So as a practical matter, there is strong reason to doubt that this is true. Declining birth rates are associated with higher levels of education, especially among women, and with higher per capita incomes and a rising standard of living among the poor, not with an unemployed or underemployed underclass which receives no state support. Alternatively, though, highly nonlibertarian means can be used to achieve the lower birthrates among the unspecified anti-intellectual populations, means such as China's one-child policy or forced sterilization. I do not think there is any good reason to believe that libertarian means would achieve the eugenic ends operative wants to achieve.

Sugarkang continues:

Originally Posted by ledocs

Originally posted by sugarkang

Rather than apologizing for calling me a liar, you keep repeating this unprovable charge. In order for me to be lying, I would have to be aware that the facts are not as I assert them to be. But I don't know that, and I believe rather strongly that they are as I assert them to be. It's not my fault that the Search function in the software is not as robust as I would like or would need in order to find the interchange in question. I don't think bhtv staff have the time or inclination to look into the facts here. But what is worse, much worse, is that you would keep repeating this charge when you have read a lot of my posts, you can go to my blog and read more things there, including a published interview I did with a famous philosopher, you can Google my name and find out more about me, you could go to an academic library and read my published dissertation, or buy it on the Internet at an exorbitant price, you can listen to songs I have composed and performed, and so on. Meanwhile, you are hiding in anonymity, but yet you insist on calling me a liar, all because I assert that you threatened to filter me and that, in response, I did filter you. The facts here probably do not matter very much in any event, because I probably would have ended up filtering you anyway. But suppose that you are correct and that I am wrong about the underlying facts. Does this make me a liar? No, it does not. It makes me mistaken. I would have made a mistake. So why would I agree to enter into a debate with someone who shows me no goodwill whatever, who is just an anonymous bombthrower on the Internet, as aemjeff points out, and who shows no respect for precision in argument and is probably incapable of precision in argument in any case?

So va te faire foutre, espèce de connard. As I said before, I don't know you, and I don't want to know you.

And look, if you can't find better proxies than this one, you are in deep trouble. Ever see the movie "Hard Times," with Charles Bronson playing a streetfighter in New Orleans during the Depression? "Better find yourself another hitter."

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

No, you fucking cock. You publicly said I did something without the proof. And your twisted liberal logic has caused you to say this filth:

No. And without proof you should not slander people in public you fucking ass. You can ask bhtv for the proof or you can shut the fuck up about it.

Then, you could have said that you were mistaken. Evil does not occur when a bunch of men agree to do evil. Evil happens when good men do nothing. This is what makes you a piece of shit; merde, if you like.

Re: Science Saturday: Sexist Skeptics (Ann Althouse & Rebecca Watson)
 

Shorter ledocs:

Re: from Althouse & Watson
 

Re: from Althouse & Watson
 

Excellent use of Youtube, Jim.

Re: from Althouse & Watson
 

Jim, how did you get the clip to be at that particular time? I've always wanted to be able to do that.

Re: from Althouse & Watson
 

Look at the end of the link. It reads =3m05s. That gives the beginning point.

I've never used that way but I discovered it by accident.

Re: from Althouse & Watson
 

The problem is that you can't set an ending time. When are those fools at Google gonna discover ding-a-links!? Bob Wright needs to go on a mission to enlighten the masses.