{advertisement}
The Orbit is still fighting a SLAPP suit! Help defend freedom of speech, click here to find out more and donate!

9 thoughts on “Basic Reading Comprehension

  1. 1

    This is exactly the same bullshit as you highlighted the other day — where Ophelia was selectively quoted to give the impression she was calling Dawkins a sexual harasser, never mind her corrections and clarifications.

    Do these beanheads not realise their desperate attempts to misinterpret simply underline their lack of any legitimate arguments?

  2. 2

    PZ : “It’s not about what he thinks, but what he’s doing: defending & providing a haven for harassers, misogynists, and rapists.”
    Fergusson : “How does slymepitters commenting on his blog = defending a rapist?”

    Well it doesn’t, if you defend free-thought. But Fergusson has to understand that the accusation comes from intolerant bloggers who censor any divergent comment and ban people for asking disturbing questions.

    Well, yes, by accusing everybody of rape, rape apology or rapist protection, you people shoot yourself in the foot. But please go on. The more you ridicule yourself, the quicker you will vanish. Bad news, you will not survive by lying to a rational community. Recruit woo-woos.

    When I saw the title “safe heaven for rapists” I knew it was bullshit, and you people knew it as well precisely because accusing someone of rape apology or rapist protection, however wrongfully, is enough to destroy any man’s career. We live in a culture where rape is the worse crime. So there is no heaven for rapist, anywhere in the world, and especially not on Ireland atheists forums. Allowing free speech to people accused without evidence is not protecting rapists. It is protecting innocents. People are innocent until proven guilty, remember, social justice warriors ? Get freaking evidences. Something more consistent that “on a blog, they say he is a rapist”

    The problem is that you accuse men of rape with no evidence, and then when people explain to you that your conception of justice is medieval, you accuse them of being witch lovers. You are ridiculously hateful.

    You are now known as the “atheists who don’t care about truth”, the “lying atheists”, and everybody knows you prefer a good lie that makes you feel good to an uncomfortable truth, that you will censor. You would all sign in for a religion that would promote social justice ; true atheists wouldn’t. Because they care about what is true.

    You are lying traitors with a sexual obsession and you are an embarrassment to reason.

  3. 3

    Peter has form, I’ve been continuing a long running argument with him because I still cannot get over the boneheaded wilful inability to read simple sentences and understand them. He claimed Rebecca Watson called Ed Clint a rapist. Obviously a serious allegation and relevant here given his horror at PZ “calling” some of the commenters at Nugents blog rapists, even though he obviously did no such thing. This is in relation to Rebeccas post here ->
    http://skepchick.org/2012/12/twitter-users-sad-to-hear-they-may-be-rapists/

    Rebecca said: “… people like Ed Clint are crowing about how they’re rapists”
    In response to Ed Clint saying: “… I am a rapist many many times over”

    So she is literally correct, he was crowing about being a rapist. You might argue she should have pointed out he was being sarcastic, or basing his statement on a misunderstanding of what her standards of being a rapist are. But that was all pretty clear in the post and regardless of all that, she *did not* call him a rapist. She commented on his, rather daft, statement that he was one (by her standards).

    Peter on the other hand is completely unable to understand this and insists she literally *called* him a rapist. No where did she say he is one, she commented on his assertion that he is one, not if she even believes him let alone thinks he is one herself.

    So not only is Peter unable to read your post or your tweets and understand them. He is following a pattern of believing people are calling his friends rapists when they are not, in the face of all the evidence. There is literally no chance he will understand he is wrong here, that is not something he is capable of.

  4. 5

    Vincent, you have some work to do as the “rationalist” here, I’m sure you can back up all your claims?

    …accusing someone of rape apology or rapist protection, however wrongfully, is enough to destroy any man’s career

    What I see is Ched Evans being welcomed back after *convicted* of rape, people blaming “feminazis” for “ruining” *his* life… Mike Tyson on Prime time TV… Rape *apologists* have their careers ruined, not even rapists suffer that fate! What planet do you live on? [citation needed] – for rape apologists having their careers ruined, not what planet you live on.

    … you accuse men of rape with no evidence

    [citation needed], where has this happened anywhere on this blog network even. Let alone the owner of the blog who your “you” appears to address.

    You make one interesting point about “sign in” for a religion that promotes social justice. I wouldn’t “sign in” if that means believing in it, or necessarily joining in with it. But I’d much prefer it to your brand of evidence-free bigoted atheism and I’d work with members of such a religion over you and yours. That is clearly the more rational, moral thing to do. That you’d eschew a means to promote social justice over a minor question of gods or gods existing says a lot about you.

  5. 7

    Mike Tyson on Prime time TV

    Why, his life is so ruined he’s got his own cartoon show on Adult Swim, despite being unable to do much more than deliver his lines.

  6. 8

    Wow, Vincent (#2), your comment is unbelievable. As compared to you, Aneris is the incarnation of rationality, honesty, and self-awareness. I don’t think it’s worth anything rebutting all that is blatantly wrong in your post (pretty much every sentence), but were I to do it I wouldn’t know where to start or what to choose… I sincerely hope for you that you’re just trolling; if you’re not, remember that this critical thinking you’re so proud of is supposed to be applied, not brandished.

  7. 9

    Basic reading comprehension, indeed. The pitters do not seem to understand the basics of writing and reading essays. A common and perfectly valid technique or approach for writing a compelling essay or blog post is to start off with a title that sounds controversial, such as “A Haven for Rapists”, and then to lay out a clear, compelling case for why the title is appropriate, as the blog post does. If you want to refute the characterization in the title of the essay, then you need to address the various points raised in the essay or the structure of the argument, or you need to show (not just assert) that the words are defined incorrectly. This is basic stuff you should learn if you halfway paid attention in humanities courses in college (though of course college isn’t necessary to be good at argumentation–good thinkers can pick this up on their own). The pit is Dunning-Kruger all the way down.

Comments are closed.