ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, June 07, 2012

Still sniping, still running

It would appear PZ Myers is now too delicate to respond to me directly, so he's responding to someone else quoting what I wrote, which totally doesn't count as responding:
I don’t do debates anymore. One reason is that they give the other side far too much credibility; another is that the format rewards rhetoric, not honesty. But the other big reason is sheer disgust at the spectacle these loons can put on.

Imagine this metaphorical situation: you’re at a debate, and your opponent stands up and in the first round, starts punching himself in the face. Punching hard, until the blood spurts in great red rivers out of his nose. You’re aghast, but when your turn comes up, you try to make your points; in rebuttal, he pulls out a knife and starts gouging out one of his eyeballs. You just want to stop the whole debacle, call an ambulance, and have the poor warped goon hauled away. But then afterwards, he crows victory.

That’s a bit of hyperbole, but not by much. Theodore Beale, aka Vox Day, has leapt upon my post in which I used the status of women as evidence that religion does harm to humanity, and eagerly tries to rebut me in a spectacular act of self-mutilation. I won’t link directly to poor sick Theodore Beale — he needs psychiatric help — but fortunately Dave Futrelle quotes him extensively, so you can get the gist without feeding Beale’s pathology directly.
Right, that's why the man whose intellectual courage inspired me to dub him "The Fowl Atheist" doesn't debate anyone. It's not because he can't argue his way out of a paper bag and knows that he'll get his pudgy ass exposed to the public before it is kicked all over the place, it's because he's too much of a humanitarian. You'd think he would know no one is going to buy that excuse, he's a high-AQ militant atheist after all. He's a fierce and focused hunter, with hunter's hands and hunter's eyes, not Sister Mary Margaret feeding the poor at the homeless shelter! I find it a little ironic that a man who openly admits to being closer to having Asperger's Syndrome than being neurotypical is attempting to claim I need psychiatric help.

I never cease to find amusing how quickly these inept atheists resort to accusations of mental illness whenever their illogic is publicly illuminated and dissected. Why, one might almost begin to suspect they are projecting!
But there’s enough bile to make you wonder. I was arguing that many features of religion clearly don’t benefit women, so I asked:

How does throwing acid in their faces when they demand independence from men benefit women?

So Teddy rebuts that in the most appalling way.

[F]emale independence is strongly correlated with a whole host of social ills. Using the utilitarian metric favored by most atheists, a few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay for lasting marriages, stable families, legitimate children, low levels of debt, strong currencies, affordable housing, homogenous populations, low levels of crime, and demographic stability. If PZ has turned against utilitarianism or the concept of the collective welfare trumping the interests of the individual, I should be fascinated to hear it.

Say what? So his answer to how this benefits women is to say it’s bad for society for women to be independent, and that honor killings, stonings, and mutilation of women is a small price?

I think he just made my case for me.
Yes, that is precisely the answer. But this doesn't make his case for him, instead, his response to my scientific answer only confirms Wilson's original case against him, in which he claimed that PZ doesn't act or think in a scientific manner. And while Wilson is correct and PZ truly doesn't think like a scientist in any way, shape, or form, it's actually worse than that because it's clear that he also doesn't understand what he reads. I not only provided an answer to his question that can be empirically and objectively analyzed, it was a scientific answer that was entirely in keeping with PZ's own previously expressed statements on the subject. Consider what PZ wrote about the Taliban's oppression of women only two years ago:

I also think that the desire for a successful society is not a scientific premise…it’s a kind of Darwinian criterion, because unsuccessful societies don’t survive. Can we use science to determine whether that is a good strategy for human success? I think we can, but not in the way Harris is trying to do so: we could ask empirically, after the fact, whether the Taliban was successful in expanding, maintaining its population, and responding to its environment in a productive way. We cannot, though, say a priori that it is wrong because abusing and denigrating half the population is unconscionable and vile, because that is not a scientific foundation for the conclusion. It’s an emotional one; it’s also a rational one, given the premise that we should treat all people equitably…but that premise can’t claim scientific justification.

So while the desire for a successful society is not a scientific premise, determining the way in which a society can become successful is. Note that Myers admits that one cannot say throwing acid in a woman's face when she demands independence is wrong from the scientific perspective. He even acknowledges that science could support, on the basis of the Darwinian criterion, horrific actions in support of societal success and survival. This is not to say he supports such actions, only that his opposition to them is based on entirely non-scientific reasoning. In that previous post, he adds:

I agree with Harris entirely that the oppression of women is an evil, a wrong, a violation of a social contract that all members of a society should share. I just don’t see a scientific reason for that — I see reasons of biological predisposition (we are empathic, social animals), of culture (this is a conclusion of Enlightenment history), and personal values, but not science. Science is an amoral judge: science could find that a slave culture of ant-like servility was a species optimum, or that a strong behavioral sexual dimorphism, where men and women had radically different statuses in society, was an excellent working solution.

So, we see that Wilson was correct. PZ is not thinking as a scientist about these matters, by his own words he is clearly thinking about them according to his biological predisposition, his culture, and his personal values. Of course, the biological predisposition, the culture, and the personal values of those who throw acid in women's faces to keep them in their place are not only different than PZ's, but may actually be superior to them in both scientific and moral terms. PZ hasn't even begun to attempt to make any case for the superiority of his own biological predisposition, culture, and personal values, in fact, he has devoted considerable effort over the years to demonizing the Christian culture in which he was raised.
But how about this: Beale has not made the case that destroying women’s lives is a necessary price to pay for social stability. I reject his bargain; I say we can have a more stable, healthier, stronger society if human beings live in mutually loving and respectful relationships. I do not have to hover over my wife with a threatening jar of acid in order for both of us to live together happily; in fact, a life where I had to compel a partnership with terror would be a horror and a nightmare.

One more. I also asked this:

How does letting women die rather than giving them an abortion benefit women?

Here’s his answer.

Because far more women are aborted than die as a result of their pregnancies going awry. The very idea that letting a few women die is worse than killing literally millions of unborn women shows that PZ not only isn’t thinking like a scientist, he’s quite clearly not thinking rationally at all. If PZ is going to be intellectually consistent here, then he should be quite willing to support the abortion of all black fetuses, since blacks disproportionately commit murder and 17x more people could be saved by aborting black fetuses than permitting the use of abortion to save the life of a mother. 466 American women die in pregnancy every year whereas 8,012 people died at the hands of black murderers in 2010.

A fetus is not a woman. I’m used to hearing those wacky anti-choicers call the fetus a “baby”, with all those emotional connotations, but this is the first time I’ve heard them called “women”.

The racist tirade is just sickening. So now Beale wants us to lump all black people together as “murderers” to justify forced sterilization, as a logical consequence of my values? I’ve heard of that tactic somewhere else before.

Again with the logical fallacies. Here’s a hint: the death of women in back-alley abortions can be directly addressed by legalizing abortion and providing responsible medical treatment; the socioeconomic conditions that create an environment of crime are not addressed by racially-defined forced abortion. If we want to end murders by any population (yes, please), the answer is not the extermination of that population, but the correction of social and economic inequity and providing opportunity for advancement.
Of course I haven't made the case that destroying women's lives is a necessary price to pay for social stability. I didn't need to make that case in order to make my point, which is that the scientific case could be made and that in refusing to consider it, PZ was proving Wilson right about his failure to think like a scientist about it. He can say whatever he likes, but his position would be no weaker if he had instead declared that we can have a more stable, healthier, stronger society if human beings began the day by pledging their loyalty to Yog-Sothoth and committing seven deadly sins each morning before breakfast.

PZ then reveals that in addition to his demonstrated inability to think like a scientist, he's not even able to think logically. If "a fetus is not a woman", then obviously "a black fetus is not a black adult". It's simple multiplication by zero. If there is no harm done in aborting one fetus, there can be no harm in aborting all the black fetuses in America, plus there will be a net benefit that will save 17 times more lives every single year than merely permitting abortions to save the lives of pregnant women. The logical consequences of PZ's position on abortion are inescapable. If it is worthwhile to utilize abortion to save 466 pregnant women every year, then it is clearly worthwhile to utilize it to save 8,012 murder victims, as either way, the cost is trivial, since according to PZ, the fetus is not a baby, a woman, or a black adult meriting protection of the law. The appeal to socioeconomic conditions is irrelevant, as PZ is wrong and murders committed by blacks can be directly addressed by utilizing abortion; nonexistent people cannot murder anyone. That there may or may not be other ways of addressing the same social ill does not change that simple and undeniable fact.

I further note that I am not a supporter of abortion for any reason, including the elimination of crime and the life of the mother. I am merely explicating the logical consequences of PZ's reasoning. Nor is it racist to cite the FBI's Uniform Crime Report; one could make precisely the same case, although it would be a less effective and efficient one, for the abortion of white fetuses. If PZ doesn't like the inescapable logical implications of his reasoning, then I suggest he should consider rethinking his assumptions. And if he doesn't like scientists and non-scientists alike pointing out the obvious fact that he does not reason or behave like a scientist, perhaps he should start trying to actually think like one rather than like an irrational, emotional, atheist propagandist.
And with that, I’m sufficiently repulsed not to want to continue. Beale/Day has apparently been whiningly demanding to debate me for the last few years; now you know why I won’t even consider it. Getting his words as second-hand text is nauseating enough, I’d rather not have to deal with the poisonous little scumbag directly.
Still sniping and running. After all these years, still sniping and running. The thing is, as anyone who has ever fired a gun knows, it's a lot easier to hit your target if you stand still and take the time to aim at it. Of course, then you have to take the risk that you're up against a much better marksman who will blow you away before you can even get a shot off....

Labels: , ,

117 Comments:

Anonymous Josh June 07, 2012 9:35 AM  

someone get pz a fainting couch, the poor woman is getting the vapors.

did anyone ever actually call you "teddy?"

Anonymous willneverpostagain June 07, 2012 9:38 AM  

pz actually wrote "a fetus is not a woman". But you can't have a woman unless you have a fetus first, unless of course you are a Bible believer and consider Eve's case.

He really is a charlatan, isn't he?

Anonymous Josh June 07, 2012 9:44 AM  

so...abortion is always a double plus good sort of thing, unless it's being done to reduce the number of women, or blacks, or gays...

Blogger Vox June 07, 2012 9:45 AM  

He really is a charlatan, isn't he?

I don't think he rises to the level of charlatan. Harris is a charlatan. Dawkins is a charlatan. Unlike them, PZ can't manage to make an irrational case sound convincing. He's stuck at the rhetorical level, which is why he tends to appeal more strongly to younger and less intelligent atheists.

Anonymous Mr Green Man June 07, 2012 9:46 AM  

This is no different from the childish behavior of the overdegreed women at Harvard who caught the vapors when Larry Summers suggested that men and women gravitate toward different things based on natural inclinations. It's a shame he doesn't have a video blog, because PZ has done the textual equivalent of crying because he's losing and hoping that your white knight complex will kick in.

Anonymous DonReynolds June 07, 2012 9:51 AM  

Of course, this is nonsense.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

This is what is best for a good society as a whole. For us to love our neighbor and be kind to strangers and to respect private property (thou shalt not steal), this is what is best. Deliberate cruelty, subjugation, torture, intimidation, fear, reprisal, and degradation does not make for a good society, whether it is done to women or men.

It does not matter whether the mores of the people tend toward Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, Hindu or Buddhist. Human societies can exist (and have existed) that embrace any religion or all of them. What matters is whether a good society can be made that includes individual freedom, human dignity, right to life and mutual respect. Without these elements, such societies will always be unstable because they deny what is important and what makes each person a valued human being.

By my experience and observation, a Christian society tends to deliberately include more of the elements that go to make a good society, but I am not willing to say that none of the others can approach the same ideal. It is true that history has examples of bad behaviors on the part of all religions, but I believe the lesson of history has been that those bad behaviors tend to die out in time or certainly become unusual in the modern world.

Anonymous Josh June 07, 2012 9:51 AM  

He's stuck at the rhetorical level, which is why he tends to appeal more strongly to younger and less intelligent atheists.

I am utterly mystified that he appeals to anyone

Anonymous JCclimber June 07, 2012 9:52 AM  

Yet Vox, he explicitly stated that he won't engage you because it REQUIRES rhetoric, not "honesty". I guess his honesty and the dictionary's version parted company many years ago.

What he really means is that he prefers to emotionally splooge all over the blogosphere using concepts of right and wrong borrowed from Christianity. Not all of them, of course, just those that he finds convenient.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 June 07, 2012 9:58 AM  

PZ responded in exactly the way I'd expected. The whole post went over his head and it is clear that he lacks wisdom.

And he wants people like him to rule over me. No thanks.

Anonymous raggededge June 07, 2012 10:00 AM  

In the comments of there, they are debating whether or not Vox is a Nazi...how original of them.

Anonymous JCclimber June 07, 2012 10:01 AM  

Wow, Don, you sure are going to be surprised in the upcoming years as severe economic destruction shows how few of those "bad behaviors" are actually prevented by most world religions, in the modern world.

I believe many of those older societies were more moral than modern degenerate culture. The fact that they didn't tear each other apart even when day to day survival was much more uncertain shows something. Most modern people only behave sort of morally because we aren't on the edge of starvation.

Anonymous Scintan June 07, 2012 10:07 AM  

Brave Sir PZ ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir PZ turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
****Bravely**** taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir PZ!

Blogger Vox June 07, 2012 10:11 AM  

PZ has done the textual equivalent of crying because he's losing and hoping that your white knight complex will kick in.

Yeah, that seems likely.... Another funny thing is the sheer level of vitriol and violent fantasies over there in the comments. These were my two favorites:

Just listening to the name Vox Day makes my BP rise to unhealthy levels.

I try. I really do try to be a pacifist in thought and deed. Not an abject doormat but a mostly exhaustive pacifist who hopes that reasonable folks can try every other option available before violence. Theodore Beale makes me regret that choice and that stance. I’m very capable of violence. Decades of various violent sports and a Y chromosome will do that to a fellow, but I’d really rather not exercise that capacity ever. Theodore Beale makes me wish to reconsider that exercise of self restraint.

Ooh, very capable! Sounds scary! There's nothing like an unarmed pacifist dreaming about assaulting a martial arts-trained firearms enthusiast... with a Ridgeback. Good luck with that one.

Blogger jamsco June 07, 2012 10:14 AM  

I further note that I am not a supporter of abortion for any reason

Vox, I think if you put in more disclaimers like this, it would render the Vox haters less able make their readers thing you are evil/psychotic. I'm thinking you hope that the lack of disclaimers make it likelier that your critics will fall into traps but their readers often don't get a chance to read trap-setting posts like this one. So they walk away thinking people like PZ are correct in flaming you.

I mean, I sure hope you don't think throwing acid in women's faces is actually good policy.

Anonymous jg June 07, 2012 10:16 AM  

He mentions the name Dave Futrelle in his rebuttal. Futrelle is a male feminist a.k.a Manboobz. He engaged in a debate with a men's rights activist on domestic violence and got his ass kicked pretty good. Amanda Marcotte had to come to his rescue in the end. Futrelle never has an original idea to call his own, instead he trolls conservative/libetarian/MRA type blogs for information and writes pieces berating them. In fact the SPLC used him as an expert to blacklist MRA websites as a hate group.

Anonymous raggededge June 07, 2012 10:25 AM  

jamsco:I mean, I sure hope you don't think throwing acid in women's faces is actually good policy.

Really? I'd be very disappointed if Vox started putting in disclaimers on everything he said.

Anonymous Josh June 07, 2012 10:25 AM  

I mean, I sure hope you don't think throwing acid in women's faces is actually good policy.

if the women are family hating feminists, absolutely...

Blogger Vox June 07, 2012 10:25 AM  

I mean, I sure hope you don't think throwing acid in women's faces is actually good policy.

It depends upon the objective and the metric, obviously. If one takes utilitarian metrics and the objective of the common good of the collective seriously, one can make an excellent case, perhaps even a conclusive one, for it being good policy.

I don't really worry much about what people who can't follow the if/then concept think. And by much, I mean, at all. What I think you fail to understand is that these people aren't interested in understanding me, in fact, their ability to continue to think well of themselves requires them failing to understand me.

Plus, it's hilarious to see them keep falling into the same traps over and over, all the while genuinely convinced of their own intellectual and moral superiority.

Anonymous TheExpat June 07, 2012 10:28 AM  

So, the scarecrow asks a bunch of questions, receives replies according to his own rules (logic and science!), and proceeds to cherry-pick the replies to create strawmen which he then uses to run away from the fight, thus proving once more that the scarecrow, while evidencing a clear affinity for the straw he is so full of, has no brains.

The wizard would be proud.

Anonymous Josh June 07, 2012 10:28 AM  

There's nothing like an unarmed pacifist dreaming about assaulting a martial arts-trained firearms enthusiast... with a Ridgeback. Good luck with that one.

I'm sure the atheist was just being subtle, and you just didn't read him charitably enough. It's not like atheists have a history of violence.

Blogger Joe A. June 07, 2012 10:34 AM  

PZ's reasoning is on the level of a rebellious teenage goth entering high school.

Anonymous Randy M June 07, 2012 10:51 AM  

PZ can't seem to parse multiple clause sentences, or else deliberately misreads you.

Anonymous Baseball Savant June 07, 2012 10:55 AM  

VD,

has anyone called you "teddy" and not received a serious b!tch slap?

Blogger jamsco June 07, 2012 10:58 AM  

It depends upon the objective and the metric, obviously. If one takes utilitarian metrics and the objective of the common good of the collective seriously, one can make an excellent case, perhaps even a conclusive one, for it being good policy.

But you don't take it seriously, right? I mean if leadership at your church came up to you and said, "We're thinking about implementing this, what do you think?" you'd say, "I vote 'no'", right?

I don't really worry much about what people who can't follow the if/then concept think.

You should. You've given this guy the ability to give hundreds of people good evidence towards the idea that you are evil and they aren't coming to this post. So for hundreds of people, you have not only lost the debate, but they are leaving, reasonably thinking that you are very very wrong - since they won't be coming over to this post (to see the trap sprung) and almost certainly PZ isn't going to link to it.

What I think you fail to understand is that these people aren't interested in understanding me, in fact, their ability to continue to think well of themselves requires them failing to understand me.

Many of these readers might be strongly critical of PZ, thinking of him much like you do, and now think you are insane.

Plus, it's hilarious to see them keep falling into the same traps over and over, all the while genuinely convinced of their own intellectual and moral superiority.

A trap isn't a trap if there is not downside for the victim.

Blogger Markku June 07, 2012 10:59 AM  

I'm ambivalent about disclaimers. To conclude based on that, that Vox supports throwing acid on women's faces requires such stupidity that I simply cannot imagine what life would feel like being that stupid. So, disclaimers would feel like insults to my intelligence and diminish my reading pleasure.

On the other hand, I know that part of the readership consists of the occasional visitor who is not yet beyond reaching, but who merely wants to see what this Pharyngula-blog he has heard about is like. And who with selective quoting and careless reading might honestly come to the conclusion that the atheists have a point.

Anonymous Jimmy June 07, 2012 11:00 AM  

It is a conumdrum to hear that an atheist scientist and his followers to completely misunderstand the scientific method and logic. As a Christian and Engineer, I know the difference all too well. I was also an agnostic before I became a Christian so I know what they are dealing with. Only after confronting the truth of Christianity do I know what Atheism and Science really means. Atheists and scientist need to stop hurting their own cases. It is comical to watch them lose the argument from merely opening their mouths.

Blogger JDC June 07, 2012 11:02 AM  

Aha...I found it Vox. Reason and purpose for your existence!

Quote from blog
This vermin has been vomiting up his hateful stupid for at least a decade now, and begging for attention from liberal male bloggers to justify his worthless existence.

Blogger Spacebunny June 07, 2012 11:02 AM  

VD,

has anyone called you "teddy" and not received a serious b!tch slap?


I can think of exactly one person who calls him that to his face. But she doesn't use scare quotes so it's okay.

Anonymous Clay June 07, 2012 11:03 AM  

Just WHO THE HELL will PZ "debate"? Or, has he ever?

Anonymous Josh June 07, 2012 11:07 AM  

clay,

he won a fight with a cracker once

Blogger Spacebunny June 07, 2012 11:07 AM  

So for hundreds of people, you have not only lost the debate, but they are leaving, reasonably thinking that you are very very wrong - since they won't be coming over to this post (to see the trap sprung) and almost certainly PZ isn't going to link to it.

I do not personally, nor should any thinking person, consider it a reasonable conclusion without going over to read what the other person actually wrote. If these hundreds (oh my, really? Hundreds?! Wow.) Can not be bothered to confirm for themselves, they are not reasonable, nor are they concerned with the truth and why would anyone care what their opinion is of anything? It's not like this blog is hard to find even if PZ is too afraid to link to it, they aren't the least bit interested in the truth.

Anonymous Clay June 07, 2012 11:09 AM  

" Spacebunny June 07, 2012 11:02 AM VD,

has anyone called you "teddy" and not received a serious b!tch slap?

I can think of exactly one person who calls him that to his face. But she doesn't use scare quotes so it's okay."


Manly-man as he is, even an Alpha(or, whatever the lone wolf classifies itself...escapes me at the moment), is smart enough to know who butters his bread:)

Anonymous Clay June 07, 2012 11:12 AM  

Hell, Josh...I whoop-up on saltines every day:)

Blogger Vox June 07, 2012 11:13 AM  

But you don't take it seriously, right?

I am not a utilitarian and I do not subscribe to the elevation of the common good of the collective over the individual. This should be completely obvious given that I describe myself as a Christian libertarian.

So for hundreds of people, you have not only lost the debate, but they are leaving, reasonably thinking that you are very very wrong - since they won't be coming over to this post (to see the trap sprung) and almost certainly PZ isn't going to link to it.

Or in other words, MPAI. I don't worry about what the even larger number of dogs across America happen to think about the debate either. Their opinion is equally relevant.

Many of these readers might be strongly critical of PZ, thinking of him much like you do, and now think you are insane.

See Vox's First Law. If they're not intelligent enough to see that PZ is a moron, they shouldn't even bother trying trying to read this blog.

So, disclaimers would feel like insults to my intelligence and diminish my reading pleasure.

There won't be any disclaimers. I not only have no interest in dumbing my stuff down, I have a limited capacity for doing so based on my experience trying to do it for Universal Press Syndicate. I can't write like an average intelligence any more than I can write like Tanith Lee. It doesn't matter if I want to or not, I simply cannot do it convincingly.

Blogger Markku June 07, 2012 11:13 AM  

Damn it was hard to remember to not refer to him as Vox to his employees at the office.

Blogger Giraffe June 07, 2012 11:15 AM  

PZ's tactics:

1. Write something stupid.
2. When the response comes, look for anything that is not politically correct.
3. If you find it, swoon.
4. after the smelling salts are administered, declare the opponent raciss!!, misogynsiss!!, etc.
5. Declare the opponent too evil to debate with.
6. Declare victory.

It's like a moron's moral victory.

Blogger Markku June 07, 2012 11:16 AM  

I can't write like an average intelligence any more than I can write like Tanith Lee

Funny you should say that, as I just picked up my first Tanith Lee book a week ago at the library (Birthgrave).

Blogger jamsco June 07, 2012 11:17 AM  

Spacebunny, I'm going to have to disagree with you about two things:

1. I think it is not that unreasonable to read "a few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay for lasting marriages" and think, "I don't need to read anything else, he is crazy,". It's too bad they aren't coming to this post, but PZ doesn't give them reason to.

2. If there is a blog post making lots of people think harsh things about me, I would care. A lot. Even if they are dumb in thinking these things.

Blogger Spacebunny June 07, 2012 11:22 AM  

Manly-man as he is, even an Alpha(or, whatever the lone wolf classifies itself...escapes me at the moment), is smart enough to know who butters his bread:)

If you think it's me or his mother -you would be wrong.

Blogger jamsco June 07, 2012 11:23 AM  

There won't be any disclaimers.

Vox, you put in the anti-abortion thing. That was a disclaimer.

I will state that I have considered providing my own Vox Disclaimer service on this kind of post and say, "For the new or less thoughtful reader, Vox also thinks [disclaimer]." But I haven't for fear of being deleted or being wrong. Or both.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 June 07, 2012 11:27 AM  

Spacebunny wrote

I do not personally, nor should any thinking person, consider it a reasonable conclusion without going over to read what the other person actually wrote. If these hundreds (oh my, really? Hundreds?! Wow.) Can not be bothered to confirm for themselves, they are not reasonable, nor are they concerned with the truth and why would anyone care what their opinion is of anything? It's not like this blog is hard to find even if PZ is too afraid to link to it, they aren't the least bit interested in the truth.


Normally, I would not be to concerned with the ignorant and foolhardy either.

Except when they are able to claim the reigns of power and presume to know what is best for me. That's when the idiots need to be thwarted.

On the Internet alone, this is not a problem. But PZ represents an elite class of jerks who think they know better than the average jerk and therefore are entitled to tell us how to think, what to read, and assure us that everything will be OK so long as we let them take over.

This never ends well, as even recent history has demonstrated, and I don't think just shrugging these fools off is necessarily a good thing.

At the very least, someone can link to this post in the comments section of his post. Heck, if 10 people do it, that'll send the message loud and clear that Vox responded

Anonymous RINO June 07, 2012 11:27 AM  

I read the comments over there and I didn't see very many addressing actual points but rather all the usual insults were utilized (misogynist, racist, and yes ... Nazi). They're fully engaged in the circle jerk and won't put any effort in. Not really worth losing sleep over.

Anonymous raggededge June 07, 2012 11:27 AM  

jamsco>: 2. If there is a blog post making lots of people think harsh things about me, I would care. A lot. Even if they are dumb in thinking these things.

Then don't write things that you know are going to be controversial. Vox obviously doesn't care what other people think about him, you do. Act accordingly.

Blogger Spacebunny June 07, 2012 11:28 AM  

1. I think it is not that unreasonable to read "a few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay for lasting marriages" and think, "I don't need to read anything else, he is crazy,". It's too bad they aren't coming to this post, but PZ doesn't give them reason to.

I disagree. I would seem we are at an impasse. If I read something shocking or controversial, I almost never take it at faith value, I read other sources including the original and form an actual informed opinion. To form an opinion on one quote is, while not the height of stupidity, it's still pretty lofty.

2. If there is a blog post making lots of people think harsh things about me, I would care. A lot. Even if they are dumb in thinking these things.

That's nice. I hope you realize that not everyone is like you. If someone lies about me and people I don't know personally choose to believe it, I don't care. Why would I? The people I know would know the truth, what else matters?

Blogger jamsco June 07, 2012 11:29 AM  

Or in other words, MPAI.

No, Vox. An intelligent reader could leave PZ's post reasonably thinking you are crazy-evil.

Anonymous Wendy June 07, 2012 11:29 AM  

PZ's reasoning is on the level of a rebellious teenage goth entering high school.

I'd tend to agree, but that might be giving PZ too much credit or an insult to teenage goths. Or both.

Anonymous Baseball Savant June 07, 2012 11:31 AM  

Markku June 07, 2012 11:16 AM

I can't write like an average intelligence any more than I can write like Tanith Lee

Funny you should say that, as I just picked up my first Tanith Lee book a week ago at the library (Birthgrave).


you finally finished The Hunger Games trilogy?

Blogger Spacebunny June 07, 2012 11:31 AM  

But PZ represents an elite class of jerks

Elite in what sense? Intellectually? Please, he's the professor of wanna be third rate school as are his readers. Socially? See the previous answer. Financially? Again, see my first answer.

Blogger Markku June 07, 2012 11:35 AM  

you finally finished The Hunger Games trilogy?

It was Vox's list that made me do it. No, I don't generally read literature primarily aimed at women, Hunger Games included.

Blogger Syllabus June 07, 2012 11:41 AM  

"Elite in what sense? Intellectually? Please, he's the professor of wanna be third rate school as are his readers. Socially? See the previous answer. Financially? Again, see my first answer."

In degree of skill in that particular category, I would think.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 June 07, 2012 11:41 AM  

So, I think I've come up with a good term for PZ's own rebuttal here. It's called the Plankton Defense. Basically it comes from the infamous show Spongebob Squarepants where the villain Plankton once shouted at his rival Mr. Krabs, "You can't beat me Krabs! I went to college!!"

Maybe it applies here. Perhaps it could be used another time. But that's what I envision in my head whenever I hear PZ make responses like this.

Blogger Giraffe June 07, 2012 11:45 AM  

But that's what I envision in my head whenever I hear PZ make responses like this.

I think of a monkey throwing poo from the safety of a tree.

Anonymous Josh June 07, 2012 11:45 AM  

swiftmarkfox,

that is the gayest comment made at this blog since ezp was commenting...

Anonymous Clay June 07, 2012 11:48 AM  

Spacebunny June 07, 2012 11:22 AM Manly-man as he is, even an Alpha(or, whatever the lone wolf classifies itself...escapes me at the moment), is smart enough to know who butters his bread:)

If you think it's me or his mother -you would be wrong.

Heh:) I know where you're coming from. I suppose it's stll the same way with me and Alex, even tho she just turned 28, and is married for about 5 years now. Nice guy. (A Turkey Hunter)

FINALLY, out of school. (I paid for it you blood-sucking IRS)

Blogger Giraffe June 07, 2012 11:50 AM  

I think the fowl atheist's tactic needs a good name. The voxicon must be updated. There are two aspects that are kind of funny, the cowardice, and the OUTRAGE!!!.

The running swoon?

Blogger rcocean June 07, 2012 11:54 AM  

Jamsco is really playing the concern troll hard today.

Anonymous Clay June 07, 2012 11:54 AM  

Squid Chicken

Anonymous James Dixon June 07, 2012 11:55 AM  

> The whole post went over his head and it is clear that he lacks wisdom.

You think? What was your first clue?

That's not intended as an insult, it's just that that point is so obvious, I couldn't not say it.

> You should. You've given this guy the ability to give hundreds of people good evidence towards the idea that you are evil...

I think there were enough of Vox's exact words there that such evidence is non-existent.

... So for hundreds of people, you have not only lost the debate, but they are leaving, reasonably thinking that you are very very wrong...

There would be nothing reasonable about it.

> Many of these readers might be strongly critical of PZ, thinking of him much like you do, and now think you are insane.

Anyone who is strongly critical of PZ isn't going to have stuck around this long. Anyone smart enough to read who has an open mind has followed up to read the original source.

> No, Vox. An intelligent reader could leave PZ's post reasonably thinking you are crazy-evil.

No. An intelligent person knows that you can make an argument for a case you don't actually support, and usually recognizes when you are doing so. Especially when you exaggerate for effect the way Vox loves doing.

PZ's blog is exactly what they accuse this one of being: an echo chamber. Most of the people there actually can't follow the arguments made here. Others can, but don't care, as their agenda is more important than the truth. The few who lost souls searching for the truth who are capable and open minded enough to understand things will eventually recognize it for what it is move on.

Anonymous horsewithnonick June 07, 2012 11:56 AM  

I further note that I am not a supporter of abortion for any reason

Vox, I think if you put in more disclaimers like this, it would render the Vox haters less able make their readers thing you are evil/psychotic. I'm thinking you hope that the lack of disclaimers make it likelier that your critics will fall into traps but their readers often don't get a chance to read trap-setting posts like this one. So they walk away thinking people like PZ are correct in flaming you.

I mean, I sure hope you don't think throwing acid in women's faces is actually good policy.


Even if such disclaimers were included, what makes you think they would be included in Myers' excerpts, when none of the other contextual information from the original post was presented?

Blogger Giraffe June 07, 2012 12:00 PM  

The devil wears track shoes.

Blogger Vox June 07, 2012 12:02 PM  

Vox, you put in the anti-abortion thing. That was a disclaimer.

No, it was not. I put it in the second post, not the first one. It was a clarification.

1. I think it is not that unreasonable to read "a few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay for lasting marriages" and think, "I don't need to read anything else, he is crazy,". It's too bad they aren't coming to this post, but PZ doesn't give them reason to.

That's the difference between the intellectual and the non-intellectual. The inability to disassociate from one's person and think in the abstract.

2. If there is a blog post making lots of people think harsh things about me, I would care. A lot. Even if they are dumb in thinking these things.

I am not you. You are not me.

Blogger jamsco June 07, 2012 12:02 PM  

Even if such disclaimers were included, what makes you think they would be included in Myers' excerpts

I think PZ honestly thinks that Vox thinks the acid plan is acceptable. A disclaimer would have prevented this. Not handing PZ such a baldfaced quotable statement would also have prevented this.

Anonymous James Dixon June 07, 2012 12:04 PM  

> I can't write like an average intelligence any more than I can write like Tanith Lee.

Well, that has it's good and bad points. Tanith Lee is a great writer, but in some ways she's like a female version of Ray Bradbury.

> Damn it was hard to remember to not refer to him as Vox to his employees at the office.

Speaking of, Vox: On the off chance we should ever meet in person, outside of Mr. Beale, how to you prefer being addressed?

> 2. If there is a blog post making lots of people think harsh things about me, I would care. A lot. Even if they are dumb in thinking these things.

How long have you been on the Net again? Seriously, this is the norm for the Internet. Get used to it; it's not going to change.

Blogger Vox June 07, 2012 12:04 PM  

Jamsco is really playing the concern troll hard today.

He's not a concern troll. He's genuinely that nice and concerned about people. He simply finds it hard to fathom the gap between the way he thinks about other people and the way I do.

Blogger jamsco June 07, 2012 12:04 PM  

No, it was not. I put it in the second post, not the first one. It was a clarification.

Clarification. Great. Put in more clarifications then.

Anonymous kh123 June 07, 2012 12:06 PM  

"An intelligent reader could leave PZ's post reasonably thinking you are crazy-evil."

So, since someone can't read properly, or is unwilling to take the time to do so, the writer is at fault.

CS Lewis had it spot-on when he pointed out the dangers of the "no child left behind" mentality, for education and for society in general.

Anonymous James Dixon June 07, 2012 12:07 PM  

> He's genuinely that nice and concerned about people.

Yep. And he doesn't understand that these people will not return the favor in kind.

Anonymous kh123 June 07, 2012 12:08 PM  

...I should add: Unwilling to read in context, or a whole that consists of more than just a quote, a post, or a verse.

Isn't this the same deficiency that gets the more Aspergerite of atheists worked up over religious texts?

Anonymous Scintan June 07, 2012 12:12 PM  

Spacebunny, I'm going to have to disagree with you about two things:

1. I think it is not that unreasonable to read "a few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay for lasting marriages" and think, "I don't need to read anything else, he is crazy,". It's too bad they aren't coming to this post, but PZ doesn't give them reason to.


If you are concerned about people who are too lazy to click an internet link, you're concerned about the wrong things in life.

2. If there is a blog post making lots of people think harsh things about me, I would care. A lot. Even if they are dumb in thinking these things.

Your posts in this thread are making you seem like a walking vagina. That doesn't seem to be of concern to you. So, isn't it more accurate to say that you pick and choose your selective "caring"?

Blogger Nate June 07, 2012 12:13 PM  

"jamsco>: 2. If there is a blog post making lots of people think harsh things about me, I would care. A lot. Even if they are dumb in thinking these things."

That's because you're a giant pussy.

Anonymous kh123 June 07, 2012 12:15 PM  

"And they said to him: This is a hard saying; who can hear it?"

Now where do I recall reading that?

Anonymous Josh June 07, 2012 12:19 PM  

jamsco, why do you care so much about what a group of socially and intellectually retarded morons on the internet think about vox?

Anonymous kawaika June 07, 2012 12:27 PM  

Just WHO THE HELL will PZ "debate"?

The Parthian Zampogna only debates dead fetuses.

Anonymous Mob-Rules June 07, 2012 12:31 PM  

It seems like that analogy about debating is a reflection of himself and not his opponents. He self mutilates, refuses to debate, and because he refused to debate and is fighting these points to himself, he declared himself the winner.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 June 07, 2012 12:35 PM  

swiftmarkfox,

that is the gayest comment made at this blog since ezp was commenting...


Gay show reference seems to be appropriate here, especially one about underwater sea life, seeing as how he is a biologist.

Anonymous MendoScot June 07, 2012 12:37 PM  

Giraffe June 07, 2012 11:50 AM

I think the fowl atheist's tactic needs a good name. The voxicon must be updated. There are two aspects that are kind of funny, the cowardice, and the OUTRAGE!!!.

The running swoon?


Evading the Invisible Man?

See how I dodge, how I duck, how I sidestep. Thus do I refute you!

Blogger jamsco June 07, 2012 12:43 PM  

He simply finds it hard to fathom the gap between the way he thinks about other people and the way I do.

Vox, why do you set up traps if not with the goal of changing public perception? It's not to make it clear to yourself that PZ is foolish enough to fall into one, you already know that.

It's not for your own amusement, you can have that without telling the world about it.

Why would you want to debate PZ if not to show his people that he is wrong?

Anonymous Znort June 07, 2012 12:44 PM  

I just checked out the comment section of Meyers blog post. Just about every comment expresses the exact same sentiment.

"I hate Vox Day; that hate-filled hater", seems to sum it up.

Most comments are prolonged screeds written in redundant sentence after dreary sentence.

Brevity seems to be lost on that bunch.

Anonymous Stickwick June 07, 2012 12:48 PM  

Ooh, very capable! Sounds scary!

Something tells me he's more handicapable than capable.

If you're gonna try the peaceful-man-of-violence thing, you'd better be Rambo or maybe Harrison Ford in that Amish movie. Otherwise, it's a little too precious.

Anonymous Baseball Savant June 07, 2012 12:48 PM  

It was Vox's list that made me do it. No, I don't generally read literature primarily aimed at women, Hunger Games included.

me too. i've been reading lee's paradys books per VD's recommends

Anonymous Stickwick June 07, 2012 12:49 PM  

Brevity seems to be lost on that bunch.

Brevity is the soul of wit. - Shakespeare

Blogger Nate June 07, 2012 12:55 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Nate June 07, 2012 12:55 PM  

PZ's tactic has a name. its called "kiting".

Blogger Vox June 07, 2012 12:56 PM  

Vox, why do you set up traps if not with the goal of changing public perception?

It's actually the preemptive demolition of dishonest critics. From experience, I know they are going to criticize what I have written in a dishonest manner. They'll take things out of context, falsely summarize, and erect strawmen. So, by setting the trap, I cause them to discredit themselves in the eyes of any intelligent reader when they fall for it.

They're going to be hypercritical, so I might as well decide for them what the object of their criticism will be. It works pretty much every single time, but then, I am a superintelligence.

Blogger Joshua_D June 07, 2012 1:03 PM  

I think jamsco is getting ready to go all calvinist and tell you that what you said isn't really what you mean, Vox.

Anonymous James Dixon June 07, 2012 1:05 PM  

> If you're gonna try the peaceful-man-of-violence thing, you'd better be Rambo or maybe Harrison Ford in that Amish movie.

Are you forgetting "The Quiet Man"?

Blogger Spacebunny June 07, 2012 1:07 PM  

Vox, why do you set up traps if not with the goal of changing public perception? It's not to make it clear to yourself that PZ is foolish enough to fall into one, you already know that.

I don't understand how a Calvinist could ask this question. The answer should be obvious - God makes him do it ;^)

Anonymous jerry June 07, 2012 1:11 PM  

PZ is exactly like superatheist Henry Rollins. Except dumber. And wimpier. And less charismatic. And weaker. And uglier. And gayer. And fatter. And more boring. And less talented. And less successful. And less popular.

But other than that he's exactly like superatheist Henry Rollins.

Anonymous Stickwick June 07, 2012 1:11 PM  

Are you forgetting "The Quiet Man"?

Great movie, but not applicable. Refusing to punch out your obnoxious brother in-law isn't the same thing as refusing to fight against really bad people.

Blogger Giraffe June 07, 2012 1:13 PM  

PZ's tactic has a name. its called "kiting".

We need a better name. After a perusal of wikipedia, it appears kiting can be used effectively. I wouldn't call PZ's tactic effective. And kiting doesn't properly lampoon the wailing and gnashing of teeth over how evil VD is.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim June 07, 2012 1:19 PM  

PZ's tactic has a name. its called "kiting".

The problem with that is that PZ is clearly, clearly a Fury-spec. *shakes head*

On the subject of disclaimers: Jamsco, if none of these poor misled intelligent souls you're trying to help ever come and look at the original text themselves, then what good would a disclaimer do, anyway? It's not like PZ is going to quote it for them, especially not as he's rather intent on misrepresenting anyone who disagrees with him.

You can't stop libel by adding more words, especially not if the listening audience is composed of hyperemotional people unaccustomed to examining facts and propositions for themselves.

Blogger Nate June 07, 2012 1:22 PM  

"The problem with that is that PZ is clearly, clearly a Fury-spec. *shakes head*"

That's the best part here... we have a gnome warrior class trying to kite with a fishing pole.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) June 07, 2012 1:23 PM  

I'm not a scientist and am usually not interested in these long winded posts about atheism, but PZ Myers clearly has little grasp of logic. His responses just go to show how infected he is with political correctness aka cultural marxism.

Anonymous Mrs. Pilgrim June 07, 2012 1:31 PM  

I tend to envision PZ more as a goblin than a gnome. Less ethical, know what I'm sayin'?

Anonymous Chad June 07, 2012 1:33 PM  

What I find perplexing is how fast PZ's focus shifts from 'the sacrifice of one for the good the many' to 'an act against one is an act against all.' On top of that I don't get how that many people don't notice the sleight of hand. Essentially he's changed topics from the viability of a religious society in general to the treatment of women by extremists in particular. Using his brand of logic I could say all food is bad because potato chips make kids fat.

It gets even worse when he tackles selective abortion. Even if he is satisfied that abortion isn't murder in a legal sense, he still fails to deal with the fact that killing female fetuses reduces the future population of females.

PZ is either a mental contortionist or he must really avoid thinking in general.

Anonymous kh123 June 07, 2012 1:43 PM  

"PZ is exactly like superatheist Henry Rollins."

I didn't know PZ started a self-titled band after flaunting his diary and self-mutilation to the world.

Blogger Vox June 07, 2012 1:51 PM  

Even if he is satisfied that abortion isn't murder in a legal sense, he still fails to deal with the fact that killing female fetuses reduces the future population of females.

While simultaneously recognizing that killing black fetuses will reduce the future population of blacks. The pity is that PZ wasn't always this stupid, but he has methodically corrupted his intellect to the point that he can convince himself that black is both white and not white at the same time. It's a good illustration of Orwellian doublethink.

Anonymous daddynichol June 07, 2012 2:15 PM  

1. Let them Google Vox Day. If they need a link, they're beyond stupid.

2. What's it to you if Vox doesn't care?

Blogger Markku June 07, 2012 2:21 PM  

2. What's it to you if Vox doesn't care?

Care Bears could lose their home.

Blogger Joshua_D June 07, 2012 2:27 PM  

Care Bears could lose their home.

But every time a Care Bear dies, a Unicorn gets its wings. So I say, it's a win-win.

Anonymous MendoScot June 07, 2012 2:41 PM  

I think kiting is overly generous to Myers. It appears to actually involve a kill.

Anonymous Amir Larijani June 07, 2012 3:54 PM  

Spacebunny says:

I don't understand how a Calvinist could ask this question. The answer should be obvious - God makes him do it ;^)

That would demonstrate that God has a sense of humor.

Anonymous Suomynona June 07, 2012 4:37 PM  

Vox June 07, 2012 12:04 PM
He simply finds it hard to fathom the gap between the way he thinks about other people and the way I do.


Poor jamsco. It appears he has a childlike naivete about the situation. Anyone who follows PZ's blog is like a turd floating in a toilet. It is exactly where it ought to be, and no magical words of disclaimers from Vox will transform the unthinking, offensive and foetid waste material into anything else. As a Calvinist this should be more than apparent to him.

I am of the exact opposite sentiment. Whenever the shrieking banshees descend upon you, Vox, the anticipation that you will further inflame their hysteria is highly entertaining. One only regrets that their vile little heads do not literally explode.

Anonymous Daniel June 07, 2012 5:19 PM  

Jamsco
I think PZ honestly thinks that Vox thinks the acid plan is acceptable. A disclaimer would have prevented this. Not handing PZ such a baldfaced quotable statement would also have prevented this.

That is mistaken. I no more believe that PZ thinks much of anything honestly. He is the model of the double-minded man. Therefore, disclaimers are not only wasted on him, but actually serve only to accelerate his own double-mindedness. You are better off simply making the point, and allowing him to believe whatever fantasy he concocts to make him feel better about himself.

If you want to think of it this way, it might help: providing disclaimers to PZ would be harmful to him. It is like handing Sudafed to a meth addict: he will do bad things with good medicine.

In other words, normal things that might be helpful to some properly thinking people, such as your ubiquitous disclaimer, becomes enabling to the double-minded. "See?" says PZ, "He was unserious about his beliefs as I am about mine!" would be the typical response.

People who struggle with co-dependency do this all the time "I was only trying to be nice when I bought him that beer. It's not illegal, and he seemed so sad!" Buying a beer for a friend is nice. Buying one for a drunk is bad.

After all, if PZ thought rationally, he would have walked through Vox's exercise and said, "Indeed. That is a scientific justification for terrible things. Here is the modifier in Utilitarianism that prevents such abuse."

An irrational Christian will respond to charges against God on the grounds of "Why does he allow suffering?" with "but, you don't understand! He is Love!" A rational Christian goes carefully through the natural order of things to underscore our need for Him.

Were Meyers a Christian, he would say something nuts, like that suffering does not exist, therefore, God does.

His public brains absolutely broke heaven knows how long ago. Disclaimers won't dissolve his errors: they will only compound them.

Blogger Markku June 07, 2012 6:20 PM  

That is mistaken. I no more believe that PZ thinks much of anything honestly.

To misquote at the presence of an explicit disclaimer would be so transparently dishonest that it might help someone there, who already has doubts, to jump over the fence.

Again, not saying we need disclaimers. Just noting that there is this side to the issue. The other side is that they would diminish the fun.

Anonymous DrTorch June 07, 2012 6:30 PM  

Myers is a no-named instructor at some remote, unheard of JUCO, with a publication list shorter than what I had leaving grad school.

He doesn't do debates b/c he's not qualified to do more than challenge the garbage pick up days in front of his local county commissioners.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator June 07, 2012 7:04 PM  

would appear PZ Myers is now too delicate to respond to me directly, so he's responding to someone else quoting what I wrote, which totally doesn't count as responding

This is a clear medical case of the new condition of Bloghausen Syndrome by Proxy Server.

//smokes pipe

Anonymous Biz Dunkin June 07, 2012 10:57 PM  

Any man who uses the word - aghast - has the tell tale scent of fruitiness about them.

Anonymous Toby Temple June 08, 2012 1:53 AM  

Your posts in this thread are making you seem like a walking vagina. - Scintan

That's because you're a giant pussy. - Nate

It's official. Jamsco is the nicest guy in this blog.

So why not have The Jamsco Award? Something for the delicate men who visit this blog.

Anonymous FrankNorman June 08, 2012 6:35 AM  

Biz Dunkin June 07, 2012 10:57 PM

Any man who uses the word - aghast - has the tell tale scent of fruitiness about them.


Did this PZ person actually admit to being a ghast?

Anonymous James Dixon June 08, 2012 12:43 PM  

> To misquote at the presence of an explicit disclaimer would be so transparently dishonest that it might help someone there, who already has doubts, to jump over the fence.

Since he wouldn't include the disclaimer, except possibly by accident, how would any of his readers know about it?

Anyone willing to come here to see the actual comments won't need the disclaimers.

Blogger jamsco June 08, 2012 2:25 PM  

It's official. Jamsco is the nicest guy in this blog.

So why not have The Jamsco Award? Something for the delicate men who visit this blog.


Nice is fine, but I'm not sure delicate is the best word. How about godly? Christlike? Transcendingly wise?

Blogger Markku June 08, 2012 3:02 PM  

Since he wouldn't include the disclaimer, except possibly by accident, how would any of his readers know about it?

a) It would take only someone referring to it in the comments, or
b) If someone did quickly check the original post, that would draw their attention immediately. It takes much more careful reading to infer it from the first paragraphs.

Anonymous Amir Larijani June 08, 2012 4:26 PM  

Vox handed PZ an exploding cigar, which he gladly smoked.

Well done, Vox. But please don't call what PZ does "sniping". That would be an insult to real snipers.

Blogger Duke of Earl June 08, 2012 6:15 PM  


Nice is fine, but I'm not sure delicate is the best word. How about godly? Christlike? Transcendingly wise?


Remember that Jesus wasn't prone to turning the other cheek, or explaining things to others outside his inner circle.

Jason

Blogger jamsco June 08, 2012 11:15 PM  

No, no, Vox has already admitted to not being Christlike in this regard.

Anonymous Toby Temple June 10, 2012 9:23 PM  

Nice is fine, but I'm not sure delicate is the best word. How about godly? Christlike? Transcendingly wise?

It is nigh impossible to achieve such descriptions when you are already described as, to quote Scintan and Nate, a walking vagina and a giant pussy.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts