Ok, so, in accordance with my previous post re: logical fallacies, I think from now on whenever ANYONE uses the phrase “logical fallacy” in a “I win!” fashion, I will dedicate the next ten posts I make to be in some way related to Nazi Germany.
It’s like the sign-in-the-lawn theory.
Oh, and here’s why Pride is a “sin”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=movv92UJ36M
10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – A good clip from a very good movie. (housekeeping)
A logical fallacy and an incorrect conclusion are completely separate. A statement could have a million logical fallacies and be correct, a statement could have zero logical fallacies and be incorrect. The very term “logical fallacy” has become a piece of propagandic nonsense, designed to mentally intimidate and, in fact, becoming a “logical fallacy” in itself.
To quote a famous theist: “This is a soulless society, Captain. It has no spirit, no spark. All is indeed peace and tranquility: the peace of the factory, the tranquility of the machine.”
Do you want that? As tempting as it may be at times, I do not.
-Puppy >.< Yip!
Salesmen! Salesmen, that’s what this series needs, Salesmen!
Gross and creepy. And a decent watch.
It seems they demanded a re-match after ‘The Epilogue’, so here’s the absolute, final, authoritative word on The existence/non-existence of God.
They speak in code, of course…but I think you can figure it out.
Phew…now that that’s all set, I can’t wait for next week. It’ll be MUCH better than ‘Cats’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gULNoATVT1I
-Puppy >.< Yip!
10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Basically, this is the shortened version of what happens in most debates featuring relatively equal-strength opponents. It’s just a LOT shorter. (housekeeping)
With a name like ‘Sharknado’, you…Eh, screw it.
Sharks flying in tor-nayyyy-does, it’s Ser-E-us.
Graded upwards for high mockability quotient. And come on…it takes a brave man not to give this an F-. (Yes, I know mockability isn’t a word. I made it up. It conveys meaning. Therefore it is a legitimate symbol…which is what all letters are. It’s called “being human”. Some people need to try that sometime).
Inspirational Quote: “Just can’t sit back and watch this…”
Grade: D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rADdKqPNdaM
I have plenty of comment options, so let’s make it one of those old Do-It-Yourself books:
My joke on this is ___________________________________ (Noun, Verb, Adverb, Adjective)
10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – This is a clip of a good sketch. And if people haven’t read my other post(s) featuring this clip, then this criticism is new to them. (housekeeping)
For Valentine’s Day:
– Stay indoors
– Lock all doors and windows
– Give that 2-3x/year kiss with no real affection
– Get a cr@p gift if all money has not been spent on booze
– Grumble less
– Complain less
– 10X limp-change points.
I BELIEVE now, after all I’ve read about Atheists/Agnostic Atheists/Apatheists…etc, etc, etc…
That the splinter-groups from “Atheism” have now achieved ‘Life Of Brian’ status.
And, ummm…guys…that was SATIRE.
-Puppy >.< Yip!
Some station facts:
I will NOT stop playing anything in my main genres. So if you click “down” on every Nirvana song, it ain’t gonna do any good. And screw you, you annoying bastard.
I play as much as I can of Pearl Jam, Nirvana, etc…and I rotate a few songs in and out. That means that a LOT of songs you will hear OVER and OVER for a LONGGGGG time. Why? Because they’re good, and I’m not gonna play (relatively) sh1t songs just for “variety”. Want variety? Try a freeform station. Not mine.
Feel free to send me comments. If I like them (or hate them) they might end up here.
There are always certain songs on the fringe. Meaning, not sure if I want to play them or not. If you hear an unusual song that you don’t hear often, please LISTEN to it, and vote it up or down. This may have some effect on whether it comes back or not.
Finally, don’t make requests. Cuz quite frankly, I don’t give a sh1t.
-Puppy >.< Yip!
Fairly interesting “Whodunit?”. That’s all.
If someone was to say to Noel Coward (while he was still alive): “You’re an intellectual coward”, would that be an insult, a compliment, or an even, plain statement of fact/opinion?
Oh, and watch out for this in a future review. Have to wait for a suitable one…D@MN!!
“Why do I (verb) this so (adverb)? The answer is simple – Volume.
DEFINITELY a specialty bread…starring in a short (thank God) film.
If you hated ‘Night’ for its cheeziness more than you liked it for its everything-else, you MIGHT like this unbelievably obvious comedy-free parody of it.
Only apparent use, to me: A palette-cleanser before any other zombie feature to make you feel better about the quality of said feature.
Grade: F
A shameless set of commercials for something you don’t need.
And, mixed in, there’s some zombies, some characters with no personality, and lots of butt shots.
Unfortunate that this entire series wastes the 2 or 3 sorta-clever ideas (total) it has by pimping them out to a “Crocodile” Dundee phone sex ad.
Grade: F
Worthless.
Travis, where are you?
Grade: F
Another decent Stephen King story turned into a cr@ppy horror flick.
Not NEARLY as bad when you’re just waiting for it to end so you can play ‘Killer Instinct’.
Most interesting feature: An evil, possessed electric icebox. ONE…and I can’t stress that enough…but ONE idea that Curly had that was perhaps not completely, totally cool.
(Insert electric icebox moment of clarity here)
Grade: F
4/23/16: It’s got a faint creepiness to it. I mean, the faint-creepiness-inducing scenes are so cheezy that they would be laughable if they weren’t so gross…but it IS there, nevertheless. Grade: D-
When Curly asks, ALWAYS say “no” to the hot towel.
(Thanks, Puppy, GREAT idea!)
-Puppy >.< Yip!
PUPPY NOTE: Name(s) hidden to protect the non-angsty.
Ok, so I forget what EXACTLY I said, and my brain hurts too much
now to go back there. But basically, I asked what the point of the Creationism/Evolution debate was. Noone that believes strongly is
going to just “suddenly” have an epiphany and convert/unconvert.
I suppose that, yes, there are some that are just SO undecided and
non-guided (that’s not an insult) that they could “become” one of
either side by watching…but…that hardly seems likely and even
if they did, it would be just as easy for them to switch back,
again, for any one of 6.9 reasons. So I was left with…people
watch debates because they, through a debater, feel they have a “voice”…that so-and-so is speaking for them, in a way. Like an
us Vs. them mentality, not unlike the mentality of fans of Boxing,
MMA, etc…they watch in order to see their man (or woman) DEMOLISH (intellectually speaking) the other person. Not to learn.
And there’s NOTHING wrong with that (seriously). I mean,
everyone wants to win, right?
Anyways, that’s just a partial approximation of my thoughts…may
have missed some, included a few new ones, but that was the basic framework. And, after posting, I received these messages:
– “I did enjoy watching Nye’s arguments, though. He did quite well explaining why the creation model is not viable. I hope he reached
at least one creation believer and opened some eyes about the lack of scientific education in X.”
Puppy: Interesting idea. And yes, if you want to recruit to the
side you believe in, one is better than none…and it all starts with one. And again, I have no problem with intellectual boxing (which is exactly what debates are: the weapons are words, not gloves…otherwise it’s mostly the same). On a PP note, I in fact BELIEVE in
evolution, because it seems much more plausible, given the evidence.
But I didn’t watch the debate…because I KNEW what would
happen. There would be no revelations, it’d be a rather dull boxing
match because Nye (from what I’ve seen in the past) is very
articulate and I never heard of the other guy, and unless I COMPLETELY hated every other comedy possibility out there, it wouldn’t be funny enough.
I’ve heard all the CA/A jokes before. They’re repetitive. They’re repetitive. They’re repetitive. They’re repetitive. And of course,
they’re repetitive. And most of ’em just AREN’T funny.
I mean, I LIKE funny.
– “I watched it for the same reason I watch any debate. To see two
(or more) arguments and hopefully learn something from at least
one side. It might not be a couple of prize fighters, but that doesn’t
make the ‘fight’ any less interesting.”
Puppy: Agreed. Also, I was a bit snarky here to you, I admit freely.
And for that, I am sorry. I think it was the near-certain revelation that someone would just randomly flame/trash me.
– “You asked and I answered based on my reasoning. I can agree
with your ‘my guy vs. yours’ mentality that some may have, and I
concede that I also wanted to see Nye pick his arguments apart, mercilessly. However, there is really no reason to watch a debate if you are close minded. You need to critically think about both sides and take in all of the arguments to understand their platforms and ultimately take your own stance…I learned from Nye’s arguments. I have watched a lot of religion vs. science debates and know how they go. It doesn’t mean I don’t learn anything from them. I have also learned a lot about many religious views. You can’t have personal discussions with anyone without knowledge of their world views.”
Agreed, and in retrospect, I was a bit snarky here too. My
apologies. After that, there was a seemingly genuine emotional tangent that I do not have. I think it was an over-reaction, perhaps to my snarkiness (to an extent deserved, then) or perhaps just to get some anger and frustration out. And it is something that I am not prepared to respond to.
-Puppy >.< Yip!
5/25/16: If debates aren’t intellectual boxing, why do they ALWAYS – before anything else – ask who analysts think “won” the debate? I mean…they go to the judge’s score cards. Any questions about “Hey, I learned X…” or “Do you think the American people know more now about X?” are totally secondary to “Who won???”
10/16/16: Just some basic format edits, content unchanged. (housekeeping)
The Matter-Of-Fact Insult
“Mr. Longdale here will keep you company.”
“Why me??”
“Because I don’t like you, Mr. Longdale.”
The Prideful-Turned-Meek Overconfidence Insult
“Quadrotriticale is not wheat, Captain. Of course, I wouldn’t expect you or Mister Spock to know about such things, but quadrotriticale is a rather-“
“Quadrotriticale is a high-yield grain, a four-lobed hybrid of wheat and rye. A perennial, also, if I’m not mistaken. Its root grain, triticale, can trace its ancestry all the way back to twentieth century Canada-“
If theists are sheep, then CA/A’s are Borg.
I’ll take organic, thanks.
Question I asked AT LEAST half a dozen times on Atheist Group Pages and received only one response, which was worthy of (see below): What exactly does Wicca support/do that is harmful to the world in general? Or to anyone, at all, individually? *Crickets*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
“If it harms none then do as you will.”
That is really, really funny…because it’s basically The Wiccan Rede. Wicca is a religion. This is in the mission statement of a CA/A group. So…they want to do away with Wicca, even though they agree with it? I…can’t wrap my mind around that logically. Unless it’s a hidden appeal to Wiccans, or a softening of the hard-line stance that has been softening actually for quite some time: Most anger dispensed with, most CA/A’s are now trying a more “friendly” MO. Which is GOOD…but are they doing it because they’re suddenly friendly? Or because they know it’s a good PR move?
PUPPY NOTE: Since erased. Minitrue!
J.J.: You’re terrible at writing.
Puppy: It wasn’t all that terrible…
J.J.: “,,,Completely unreadable. Like a highschool banged it out in an hour.”
Puppy: Unreadable? But…you read it. And how many highschools can, themselves, write?
J.J: (Edited for mistake, understandable given the angst involved (I’m not joking)): Completely unreadable. Like a highschool girl banged it out in an hour.
Puppy: HAHAHA! A forced edit. +1 for me.
2/4/14: Puppy: Well, since I’m not smarter than a 5th grader, that’s actually somewhat flattering. I mean, I’m writing FOUR GRADES (at least) above my potential.
Moral of the story: Never send a 9 when you need at least a 6. (That’s not a sexual reference).
-Puppy >.< Yip!
Puppy Edit: 2/12/14 – The SCARY thing is…I have a very strong feeling that there are a considerable number of CA/A’s actively HOPING for a Wiccan to go insane and do something really evil, just so the CA/A’s can include (somewhat accurately) “Wicca” as a dangerous religion.
10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – The clip I included…is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen. At no point in its rambling, incoherent playing did it approach anything resembling a rational thought. (housekeeping)
To whomever is in charge of that big picture of “All the Famous Atheists In History” that you’ll meet if there is a Hell, “you’ll have great company…blah blah blah”:
Why isn’t Woody Allen on there? He’s more famous and (supposedly) talented than a lot of them (again, supposedly…I think he’s a fcken humorless hack).
I mean, he’s OBVIOUSLY famous enough…vis:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/01/showbiz/dylan-farrow-open-letter/
So why is he not there?
Maybe (probably) he WAS there, but the Ministry of Truth decided he wasn’t there. He wasn’t there and he never had been there.
And on Wikipedia, when it lists “famous” atheists, where is Benito Mussolini, among MANY others who were fcken sleazeballs? I mean, the title of the entry is “List of Atheists”…and it has plenty that lived and died BEFORE Mussolini, and AFTER Mussolini.
But Benito apparently isn’t famous enough, as the ORIGINATOR OF FASCISM, to make the list.
But Stieg Larsson…ABSOLUTELY.
Answer? Propaganda. Even if your self-proclaimed purpose is to “educate” and “show the truth”, I guess lying via omission is still ok. Cuz, you know, the “Common Good”…Mussolini’s inclusion (among many others, mind you) might turn people OFF the facts, and CA/A’s can’t have that. Even though Mussolini IS a fact, it’s justifiable to leave him off the list, even if it is (and it IS) a lie by omission.
So screw anyone that doesn’t like the Nazi comparisons brought up, as a “logical fallacy”.
Mussolini INVENTED (with some help, but…) modern-day Fascism. He was ADMIRED greatly by Hitler. Pretty fcken direct reference, I think.
-Puppy >.< Yip!
The holey Trinity: Grumpy, Drunk, Stoned
If one can be so, be stoned.
If not, be drunk.
If not, be grumpy.
And, of course, related to the first and second: If one can use funds made possible by (potential) IRS avoidance activities, ALWAYS use at least 10 percent each on Drunk and Stoned.
The word is the Law, and the Law is the word, and the movie is a cr@ppy Corman flick.
-Puppy >.< Yip!
