You continue to be a rich seam of comedy gold. (So is Vox Day, but WND pays him to be comedy gold while his business ventures fail sequentially.) Please keep posting.
Glad to hear it. Don't sell your own comedic abilities short, though.
Hehe. Gotta love that straw.
Gotta love it when zilch imagines straw where there is none.Absence of evidence and all that.
The entire comic is made of straw. If it's possible for a comic to be made of straw. Wow, flammable. Or inflammable, I forget which.
merkur- I actually met the guy who got the word "inflammable" tossed from signs on trucks, because it was too confusing. The problem is that the prefix "in-" can mean "not", as in "insoluble", or "in", as in "indoctrinate" or "inflammable". Kind of silly to have two words, "flammable" and "inflammable", which mean the same thing.
Luckily we're on Rhology's blog, where a word mean whatever he chooses it to mean. Only he can save the English language! Although unfortunately only by mangling it into submission.
That's rich, given how NAL is trying to make "atheist" into "theist" over on the next post down.I don't remember seeing any evidence of merkur's claim, but that's part of his humor.
"I don't remember seeing any evidence of merkur's claim"Hold on, didn't you just try and quote "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?TOTES. COMEDY. GOLD.
LOL and don't atheists always retort "yes, it actually is?"Your self-assured not-cleverness is exactly what I meant in my 1st comment. You've got a future.
"LOL and don't atheists always retort "yes, it actually is?""No.FISH + BARREL = PRIZE.
Ah well, you're different than most who've interacted here. Congrats on that.
"Ah well, you're different than most who've interacted here."Got any evidence for that?Somebody call Glenn Beck, because this blog might just be the best place to invest in gold.
Got any evidence for that?Yep.
So your evidence is www.lmgtfy.com?Because I'm not stupid, I actually googled "evidence of absence" and "absence of evidence" on your site before I posted, to see what "most who've interacted here" [sic] have said on the subject. Three results for the first phrase, eight results for the phrase. Of those, precisely one non-theist commenter appears to be claiming that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Apart from the conclusion that not only can you not remember what's happened on your own blog, you can't even be bothered to look up what's happened on your own blog, we're back to square one. I'm still interested to know where your belief that atheists always retort "yes, it actually is?" came from, because it certainly didn't come from your blog.
Whoa, you read 8 whole comments? That must be, like, a record or something.
Why would I read posts and comments which didn't mention the phrase "evidence of absence", when that was the specific phrase that your claim referenced?
Or maybe I misunderstood you. What were you trying to say in that last comment?Also: do you have any evidence for your claim, or not?
If the point of this comic is that God "exists" to the extent that equality "exists", then I'll buy that. For that sense of "exists", I don't think you'd find many people who would object.
"God" is a lot like 'equality' and 'social justice' inasmuch as they are all aspirational concepts that some people really wish to see come true. On an unrelated note - All Hail Trollface! I've got to admire someone who openly embraces his inner troll.
I didn't quite get the ERV reference. She has brown hair and blogs about science, but maybe I missed a post or two about equality?
No, just that she's a girl, makes faces like this, argues approximately as badly.
I'll give you two out of three, but it still seems like a stretch. Surely you can think of someone that fits the bill better than her. Rebecca Watson, for example, sometimes has red hair and often argues about equality.
[off-topic]Rebecca Watson...man, what an amazing situation that is. And amusing for me.[/off-topic]
If I'd said "...argues approximately as well", would we have 3/3 agreement?
Hey now, I didn't say which two.[off topic] Which part was so amazing? We've seen online arguments devolve from serious debates into insults and name-calling since the 1980's.
Ah, indeed.It was just the scope of it. You guys talked about it on the godcast. Dick Dawk was all over it. At least three threads on ERV went to 2000+ comments, no? I was blown away. 2000 is a lot. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_metricsLooked up just a few, but couldn't find the Communist bloc nations (either then or now) near the top of any lists for least unequal nations. Maybe I'm using the wrong measure of inequality?
Damion- using the wrong measure of inequality is the human condition. Welcome to the club.
Damion - also bear in mind that whoever produced that cartoon was both ignorant *and* stupid, so attempting to engage with it probably won't be very productive.
I'm not saying that the cartoon was particularly brilliant, but I figured it might be instructive to focus on the most testable claims found therein. One of them was that the murderous Communist bloc nations embody the notion of equality. Last I check, this claim is demonstrably false. The nations which best embody (economic) equality are mostly Eurozone or Commonwealth nations, which mix capitalism with socialized programs for public goods such as medicine and education.
Damion- well, we're doing our best. Austria has its problems too- stupidity and cupidity are as rampant here as anywhere else- but at least we've got a social net that prevents the kind of massive homelessness you have in the US, for instance: poverty in the midst of plenty. But no one is perfect.
If we cannot trust our moral intuitions regarding equality, can we trust our moral intuitions on other matters?Here is one example of an argument rooted in the widespread moral notion of equal treatment in the face of discrimination against a certain group. Of course, if equal treatment is either illusory or just not a very good idea, the argument falls apart.
"If we cannot trust our moral intuitions regarding equality, can we trust our moral intuitions on other matters?"Probably not."Here is one example of an argument rooted in the widespread moral notion of equal treatment in the face of discrimination against a certain group. Of course, if equal treatment is either illusory or just not a very good idea, the argument falls apart."I don't think the phrase "if equal treatment is either illusory or just not a very good idea" is sufficiently detailed to be very useful, is it? "Equal treatment" describes behaviour, which can't be illusory, although the theory of equality behind it might be based on an illusory concept.In any case, that poster is pretty weak tea.
"Equal treatment" describes behaviour, which can't be illusory... Of course the behavior (treating group X equally to group Y) isn't illusory any more than the behavior of treating gays equally regarding civil marriage is illusory. My point is that Rho approves of equal treatment as a norm when used to further the goals of AHA but not when used to further the goals of the HRC.
Post a Comment