Another Skepchick War! Dr. Marty Klein crossed the line!

[Robert_S]

This panel concludes that panel speakers at a convention are ethically prohibited from hooking up with attendees at a conference.....

http://skepchick.org/2012/06/a-video-ch ... arassment/

LOL.

Watson, Skepchick, isn't on board with that. She thinks there should be hook-ups allowed....lol.... how much you wanna bet she's blown some guys at a conference at which she spoke...

One for each of you. for Watson for her self-defeating self-contradictory shit and you for putting it just like that. And for you because when you say "Blown some guys" it bypasses a respectful hook-up and goes straight to sleaze. It kinda plays right in to the prude-slut false dilemma thing.

[Seth]

I'm rather understanding of these alleged (I haven't seen them) extreme sexists responses. It's a knee-jerk reaction to a piece of splendid stupidity meant to convey virulent disagreement with the author and, probably, not the obvious connotation you'd pick up at first. A bit of intellectual legerdemain, if you will.

Very much...



How these turn into the wars they do, I never get. Except that it takes at least two to battle.

Yeah. I don't think right now that this was a case of harassment, but when was the last time you've seen someone suggest assrapeing a Christian for claiming that not being able to have "In God We Trust" on the money was oppression? There's something more going on here than our usual reaction to an overreaction.

Seriously you guys! Seth, our favorite chew-toy, has suggested assraping a fellow atheist and I'm the only one who bats an eye? WTF?

Did I? Or did I merely suggest that she's a tight-assed prude who might benefit from some vigorous sexual exercise, albeit on the B&D side of the spectrum? And of course the question arises that if she took that position, would any high-minded Atheist take advantage of the implicit invitation that what I suggested implies? After all, I didn't say she should be FORCED to do anything against her will, now did I?

What's amusing is what you read into my suggestion for a little kinky consensual sex and what it says about your personality.

[Robert_S]

I'm rather understanding of these alleged (I haven't seen them) extreme sexists responses. It's a knee-jerk reaction to a piece of splendid stupidity meant to convey virulent disagreement with the author and, probably, not the obvious connotation you'd pick up at first. A bit of intellectual legerdemain, if you will.

Very much...



How these turn into the wars they do, I never get. Except that it takes at least two to battle.

Yeah. I don't think right now that this was a case of harassment, but when was the last time you've seen someone suggest assrapeing a Christian for claiming that not being able to have "In God We Trust" on the money was oppression? There's something more going on here than our usual reaction to an overreaction.

Seriously you guys! Seth, our favorite chew-toy, has suggested assraping a fellow atheist and I'm the only one who bats an eye? WTF?

Did I? Or did I merely suggest that she's a tight-assed prude who might benefit from some vigorous sexual exercise, albeit on the B&D side of the spectrum? And of course the question arises that if she took that position, would any high-minded Atheist take advantage of the implicit invitation that what I suggested implies? After all, I didn't say she should be FORCED to do anything against her will, now did I?

What's amusing is what you read into my suggestion for a little kinky consensual sex and what it says about your personality.

I take the lack of consent to mean non-consent. Where was the consent in your scenario? If I don't see or hear it, I assume it ain't there. Might be a bit biased, but I've been assured it's the better bias to have.

And even though I generally find uncloseted atheists to be a bit more ethical on average, I have no illusions about the existence of shitheads in our midst.

[Coito ergo sum]

This panel concludes that panel speakers at a convention are ethically prohibited from hooking up with attendees at a conference.....

http://skepchick.org/2012/06/a-video-ch ... arassment/

LOL.

Watson, Skepchick, isn't on board with that. She thinks there should be hook-ups allowed....lol.... how much you wanna bet she's blown some guys at a conference at which she spoke...

One for each of you. for Watson for her self-defeating self-contradictory shit and you for putting it just like that. And for you because when you say "Blown some guys" it bypasses a respectful hook-up and goes straight to sleaze. It kinda plays right in to the prude-slut false dilemma thing.

Well, the smiley at the end was meant to indicate a tongue in cheek approach to the last statement.

In seriousness, though, Watson's attitude isn't that surprising, since it goes right along with the general theme of her keeping to herself the right to do as she pleases, while writing the rules for everyone else.

But, since when do we judge casual oral sex as "sleaze?"

[Brian Peacock]

She makes some interesting points.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 9#p1202643

[Robert_S]

This panel concludes that panel speakers at a convention are ethically prohibited from hooking up with attendees at a conference.....

http://skepchick.org/2012/06/a-video-ch ... arassment/

LOL.

Watson, Skepchick, isn't on board with that. She thinks there should be hook-ups allowed....lol.... how much you wanna bet she's blown some guys at a conference at which she spoke...

One for each of you. for Watson for her self-defeating self-contradictory shit and you for putting it just like that. And for you because when you say "Blown some guys" it bypasses a respectful hook-up and goes straight to sleaze. It kinda plays right in to the prude-slut false dilemma thing.

Well, the smiley at the end was meant to indicate a tongue in cheek approach to the last statement.

In seriousness, though, Watson's attitude isn't that surprising, since it goes right along with the general theme of her keeping to herself the right to do as she pleases, while writing the rules for everyone else.

But, since when do we judge casual oral sex as "sleaze?"

Hypocritical she seems to be.

"blown some guys"... it just comes across kinda cheap and tawdry when you say it like that. Ain't nothing wrong with that in my book, but it seems to me that ain't what she's into. People don't seem to want to cut each other much slack around these issues.

[Coito ergo sum]

This panel concludes that panel speakers at a convention are ethically prohibited from hooking up with attendees at a conference.....

http://skepchick.org/2012/06/a-video-ch ... arassment/

LOL.

Watson, Skepchick, isn't on board with that. She thinks there should be hook-ups allowed....lol.... how much you wanna bet she's blown some guys at a conference at which she spoke...

One for each of you. for Watson for her self-defeating self-contradictory shit and you for putting it just like that. And for you because when you say "Blown some guys" it bypasses a respectful hook-up and goes straight to sleaze. It kinda plays right in to the prude-slut false dilemma thing.

Well, the smiley at the end was meant to indicate a tongue in cheek approach to the last statement.

In seriousness, though, Watson's attitude isn't that surprising, since it goes right along with the general theme of her keeping to herself the right to do as she pleases, while writing the rules for everyone else.

But, since when do we judge casual oral sex as "sleaze?"

Hypocritical she seems to be.

"blown some guys"... it just comes across kinda cheap and tawdry when you say it like that. Ain't nothing wrong with that in my book, but it seems to me that ain't what she's into. People don't seem to want to cut each other much slack around these issues.

She gives no quarter to others. Why should she receive any?

[Robert_S]

Somebody's gotta try to be big.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hypocritical she seems to be.

"blown some guys"... it just comes across kinda cheap and tawdry when you say it like that. Ain't nothing wrong with that in my book, but it seems to me that ain't what she's into. People don't seem to want to cut each other much slack around these issues.

Well, her initial job at skeptic and atheist events was to be a party girl. She was the skepCHICK, who was bringing the young, hip, partying face to what was up until then a dry, exceedingly nerdy, event. So, everything involving this girl was drinking, partying and hanging out laughing with the smart guys that made her wet. She says as much with her story first meeting Hitchens. She had "never heard of him before" (query: how could someone who was involved in the skeptic and atheist movement for more than five minutes, or anyone with any attention paid to politics in general, not have heard of Christopher Hitchens in 2005?), and when she heard him speak, she immediately went up to him and offered him sex, because she wanted his "love babies."

Since then, she's evolved from -- getting all wacky and drunk -- referring in all her speeches to partying and getting drunk in the bar the night before, etc. -- posting in nudie calendars -- making all sorts of sexual innuendo whenever possible --- she's evolved from that Skepchick to the what she is today, which is someone who sees objectification and misogyny behind every corner.

[Seth]

I'm rather understanding of these alleged (I haven't seen them) extreme sexists responses. It's a knee-jerk reaction to a piece of splendid stupidity meant to convey virulent disagreement with the author and, probably, not the obvious connotation you'd pick up at first. A bit of intellectual legerdemain, if you will.

Very much...



How these turn into the wars they do, I never get. Except that it takes at least two to battle.

Yeah. I don't think right now that this was a case of harassment, but when was the last time you've seen someone suggest assrapeing a Christian for claiming that not being able to have "In God We Trust" on the money was oppression? There's something more going on here than our usual reaction to an overreaction.

Seriously you guys! Seth, our favorite chew-toy, has suggested assraping a fellow atheist and I'm the only one who bats an eye? WTF?

Did I? Or did I merely suggest that she's a tight-assed prude who might benefit from some vigorous sexual exercise, albeit on the B&D side of the spectrum? And of course the question arises that if she took that position, would any high-minded Atheist take advantage of the implicit invitation that what I suggested implies? After all, I didn't say she should be FORCED to do anything against her will, now did I?

What's amusing is what you read into my suggestion for a little kinky consensual sex and what it says about your personality.

I take the lack of consent to mean non-consent.

You can take whatever you want, but that just speaks to your own biases.

Where was the consent in your scenario? If I don't see or hear it, I assume it ain't there. Might be a bit biased, but I've been assured it's the better bias to have.

That sounds like the sort of idiotic reasoning used by the fuckwits at (the former, now closed) Antioch College in their "Sexual Offense Prevention Policy" that says "Under this policy, consent for sexual behavior must be "(a) verbal, (b) mutual, and (c) reiterated for every new level of sexual behavior."

There was no suggestion of coercion or non-consent in my suggestion at all. That you see it as non-consent is instructive of your personal biases.

And even though I generally find uncloseted atheists to be a bit more ethical on average, I have no illusions about the existence of shitheads in our midst.

Now, now, don't talk about yourself that way, I'm sure you're a perfectly nice person in the real world.

[Clinton Huxley]

If everyone could please let me know their chargeable rate, I'll work out how much we've spent talking about some tuppence ha'penny girly sceptics movement and their not-especially interesting opinions....

This is how humanity ends, bickering over the irrelevant.

Oh, I'm only joking.

[JimC]

If everyone could please let me know their chargeable rate, I'll work out how much we've spent talking about some tuppence ha'penny girly sceptics movement and their not-especially interesting opinions....

This is how humanity ends, bickering over the irrelevant.

Oh, I'm only joking.

That's an absolute disgrace!

THIS IS SERIOUS, DUDE!

[Robert_S]

There was no suggestion of coercion or non-consent in my suggestion at all. That you see it as non-consent is instructive of your personal biases.

And even though I generally find uncloseted atheists to be a bit more ethical on average, I have no illusions about the existence of shitheads in our midst.

Now, now, don't talk about yourself that way, I'm sure you're a perfectly nice person in the real world.

I'm a nice guy in the real world where my personal biases have been formed by the observation of and interactions with some of the behavior and attitudes of my fellow males. You know... having to explain that falling asleep after overdrinking is not actually consent.

[Seth]

There was no suggestion of coercion or non-consent in my suggestion at all. That you see it as non-consent is instructive of your personal biases.

And even though I generally find uncloseted atheists to be a bit more ethical on average, I have no illusions about the existence of shitheads in our midst.

Now, now, don't talk about yourself that way, I'm sure you're a perfectly nice person in the real world.

I'm a nice guy in the real world where my personal biases have been formed by the observation of and interactions with some of the behavior and attitudes of my fellow males. You know... having to explain that falling asleep after overdrinking is not actually consent.

Isn't it? If one voluntarily and knowingly becomes intoxicated, thus voluntarily placing one's person in the care of others, is it not a form of consent to whatever those other persons may choose to do with your unconscious body? Is it not your responsibility to care for your own self if you have concerns about what others might do to you while voluntarily unconscious? If you have such concerns, is it not your responsibility to make sure that you do not become voluntarily incapacitated when placing yourself in the care of those who are untrustworthy?

And then there's the matter of consent that IS given while intoxicated that one does not remember, or more likely regrets, the morning after. Is it not your responsibility to accept the consequences of giving such consent?

I do not accept as a given that intoxication is an absolute bar to consent or that anyone else is responsible for caring for you if you become voluntarily intoxicated and/or incapacitated. To me, any negative consequences that occur as a result of that voluntary decision fall into the "well, that was a stupid thing to do, I won't do THAT again" and the blame and responsibility lie with you, not others who may have taken advantage of the situation. There's a sucker born every minute, and a fool and her virginity are soon parted, so stay sober and keep your knees together and your knickers on. If you get drunk and get screwed, just accept the fact that YOU screwed up and don't blame other people for what's your fault.

[hackenslash]

I can see how I might find it creepy if somebody found me attractive and had the gumption to actually try to make contact in some way. I mean, what if I'm a fuckwit?

Utterly nuts, and not remotely representative of the values they purport to represent. I'm more bloody feminist than that lot, and have done much more in the sphere of advancing equality for women. These cretins harm their alleged cause by having fuck all to do other than to take offence at perfectly natural responses. It's a good job I don't find them in any way attractive, or a might be labelled a misogynist.

Idiots.