Massimo goes a few rounds with the ol’ science can whup philosophy story.

Oh my, I thought I was done for a while chastising skeptics like Sam Harris on the relationship between philosophy, science and morality, and I just found out that my friend Michael Shermer has incurred a similar (though not quite as egregious as Harris’) bit of questionable thinking. As I explained in my review of Harris’ book for Skeptic, one learns
precisely nothing about morality by reading The Moral Landscape. Indeed, one’s time on that topic is much better spent by leafing through Michael Sandel’s On Justice, for example.

I too reviewed Harris’s book, and I too thought it was way too dismissive of philosophy and way too short on argument as a result. I thought that as a non-philosopher, of course, while Massimo thinks it as a philosopher (and a biologist too!), but I’ve read a little moral philosophy here and there, and I found it a lot more enlightening than I found The Moral Landscape.

Shermer proceeds immediately by blaming the is/ought problem as the main culprit for scientists’ misguided concession to philosophers (even though I bet dollars to donuts that the overwhelming majority of scientists has never heard of the is/ought problem). Indeed, Michael claims that the problem is a fallacy (I take it he is using the term colloquially, since I don’t see that entry listed in the vast catalogue of fallacies that professional philosophers and logicians have accumulated.)

Why is the is/ought problem a fallacy, according to Shermer? Because “morals and values must be based on the way things are in order to establish the best conditions for human flourishing.” Let’s unpack (as philosophers are fond of saying) that loaded phrase. First off, there is a prescriptive claim (“must”) that is not actually argued for. Sounds like Michael is engaging in some a priori philosophizing of his own. Why exactly must we base morals and values on the way things are (as opposed to, say, they way we would like them to be)?

Second, “the way things are” has, of course, changed dramatically across centuries and cultures (science tells us this!). Which point in the space-time continuum are we going to pick as our reference to ground our scientific study of morality? We better not just assume that the our own current time and place represent the best of all possible worlds.

Third, “human flourishing” is a surprisingly slippery (and philosophically loaded!) concept, not at all easy to handle by straightforward quantitative analyses. (If you want an idea of the sort of complications I have in mind, take a look here and here.) And of course it should go without mention that the goal of increasing human flourishing is itself the result of a value choice that cannot possibly be grounded in empirical evidence. Nothing wrong with that, unless you insist on a scientistic take on the study of morality.

I think that’s a good sample for seeing why philosophy is useful for thinking about morality, and why just talking about the way things are isn’t adequate.

One more sample:

Shermer then goes on to add a market economy to the mix of his favorite ideologies, claiming that “it decreases violence and increases peace significantly” (hardly surprising, coming from a well known libertarian). Once more, without even going to question the empirical assertion, shouldn’t we at least admit that “market economy” is a highly heterogeneous category (think US vs China), and that some market economies decrease fairness, do not provide universal access to health care and education, lower workers’ wages, and overall negatively affect human flourishing? How should we rank our values in order to make sense of the data? How do the data by themselves establish a guide to which values we should hold? And why should we follow whatever the current science says, as opposed to having discussions about where we would like science and technology (and economics) themselves to go?

How should we rank our values - that’s a question that Harris gave astonishingly short shrift in his book.

Read the whole thing; it’s long and rewarding.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Oh how interesting. Catholic hospitals don’t always say that a fetus is a person. For instance, how about when an on-call obstetrician doesn’t answer the page when a pregnant woman is in the ER having a heart attack and she ends up dying? And then her husband files a wrongful death suit?

No, not then.

The lead defendant in the case is Catholic Health Initiatives, the Englewood-based nonprofit that runs St. Thomas More Hospital as well as roughly 170 other health facilities in 17 states. Last year, the hospital chain reported national assets of $15 billion. The organization’s mission, according to its promotional literature, is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” Toward those ends, Catholic Health facilities seek to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

You know, the Ethical and Religious Directives that say St Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix did a wicked wicked thing by terminating a pregnancy to save the woman’s life. Those Ethical and Religious Directives.

…when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”

Innnnnnteresting.

To be fair, maybe Catholic Health isn’t being hypocritical; maybe Catholic Health, like the administration of St Joseph’s Hospital, refuses to obey the bishops on this issue.

Who knows. There shouldn’t be any ambiguity on the subject either way. The Ethical and Religious Directives should be a dead letter.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

A great new Jesus and Mo. First, a word from their sponsor -

You may notice the return of the “Help J&M pay their hosting fees” button in the r/h column. This is because our current host – the magnificent
nearlyfreespeech.net – have changed their billing system to make it fairer for
sites which don’t use up many resources. Unfortunately, J&M is not one of those
sites, and  our monthly bill has increased substantially – so if you have a few
bucks spare to throw into our hosting account, that would be much appreciated.

And now, see them finally get through to the barmaid.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

A trade group called the American Beverage Association is in court trying to prevent a New York City law limiting the size of sugar drinks from going into effect on March 12. Well they would, wouldn’t they. But they have some odd allies.

Opponents also are raising questions of racial fairness alongside other complaints as the novel restriction faces a court test.

The NAACP’s New York state branch and the Hispanic Federation have joined beverage makers and sellers in trying to stop the rule from taking effect March 12. Critics are attacking what they call an inconsistent and undemocratic regulation, while city officials and health experts defend it as a pioneering and proper move to fight obesity.

The issue is complex for the minority advocates, especially given that obesity rates are higher than average among blacks and Hispanics, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The groups say in court papers they’re concerned about the discrepancy, but the soda rule will unduly harm minority businesses and “freedom of choice in low-income communities.”

I wonder what “unduly” means there. I also wonder what on earth the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation are thinking. They want sugar drinks to be extra-special cheap so that blacks and Hispanics can have higher than average rates of Type 2 diabetes? Do they also wish lead-based paint were still legal and readily available? Do they long for the old days when toddlers could munch on paint chips full of lead?

The NAACP and the Hispanic Federation, a network of 100 northeastern groups, say minority-owned delis and corner stores will end up at a disadvantage compared to grocery chains.

“This sweeping regulation will no doubt burden and disproportionally impact minority-owned businesses at a time when these businesses can least afford it,” they said in court papers. They say the city should focus instead on increasing physical education in schools.

So it’s about the businesses but not about the people who shop there. Maybe not the best choice.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

A New Year’s message from Maryam Namazie.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Because the technology to get to the moon existed in 1969, but the technology to fake a moon landing in a studio did not.

The takeaway -

Why does any of this matter? Well my concern is with the ultimate fate of knowing, of seeing the difference between what you can know and what you wish for…The urge to believe drives people to trade in part of their soul in exchange for the comfort of being a rebel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Via the Ex-Muslims Forum – “perhaps the only time when the misogyny of Islamic Fiqh could ever be described as a relief.”

It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said, “The female apostate is not killed.”  This is because the unbelief of the woman is not equal to the unbelief of the man – which leads to (physical) devastation.  So, she is not equal in the liability to be killed, as is known.

- Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi (d. 373 AH/ 983 CE). Mukhtalaf al-Riwayah,, vol 3, p. 1299

Makes sense. The woman’s belief is puny and weak compared to the man’s, so her unbelief is the same way, so meh – nobody cares. No need to kill her; keep her to do the dishes.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

On Twitter -

This is a public information announcement: If you self-identify as a “freethinker” or a “progressive” it can seem just a tad conceited.

So does that mean it’s conceited to write for The Freethinker? Probably. Oh well.

(The truth is I don’t self-identify as either of those, because it’s true, it does sound conceited. I don’t like self-flattering labels, and I do avoid them. I prefer neutral, factual ones, when I can find them. That’s part of why I found Shermer’s jeers about “self-declared secular feminists” bizarre, when surely both words are factual more than they are self-flattering. But not calling oneself a freethinker doesn’t preserve one from doing things like writing for The Freethinker. What is one supposed to do? Ask them to change the name? But it’s a good name, and it’s been that name since the 19th century.

Anyway patrolling other people’s vanity can seem just a tad conceited, too. “Just saying.”)

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

So they do it to Mary Beard, too. Mary Beard! A classics don! Makes me want to get my friend Euripides to give them a dam’ good scolding.

But why, you might say, am I so fussed by this. One tv programme of no moment, a bit of flak, and some great waves of support on twitter (thank you all…Tony Law even, bizarrely, got Sulla martialed in the fight last night…). Why not just “move on”?

One reason, it has introduced me to a side on internet trolling that I haven’t experienced before, and is worth thinking about. My appearance on Question Time prompted a web post that has in the last few days discussed my pubic hair (do I brush the floor with it), whether I need rogering (that comment was taken down, as was the speculation about the capaciousness of my vagina, and the plan to plant a d*** in my mouth).

It is headed with the picture above (that’s me….or in the words of one contributor:” A vile, spiteful excuse for a woman, who eats too much cabbage and has cheese straws for teeth.”)

There’s worse to come.

Of course there is. That’s barely noticeable.

The stuff about me is predictable enough, as a further sample will show:

“Undergrowth, like a mound, ladyshave free, a womble, a Cambridge Don, common ain’t she.”

“Hello Mary, we dont fear you and you’re not intelligent. All in all, a complete failure of a sentence/ Top tip: Try looking closer to home for the reason people dislike you, you arrogant twat”

” She’s an idiot who’s a disgrace to Cambridge Uni and Woman-kind. We let her get away with it by calling her a Lezzie which she obviously isn’t as she’s married.”

“Fucking hell, she’s only 57. She looks at least 70.”

“Mary, Mary quite Clunge-hairy, how does your Lady Garden grow?”

“Hairy Beard, Professor of Farts at Cunstsford University, living the dream.”

“An ignorant cunt.”

“Being a cunt transcends gender, Mary.”

Ths is interspersed with quotes from all kinds of things I’ve written, jibes at my kids (one of whomintervened, independently, to my defence) and husband. The photo on the right (also now taken down) gives you the flavour (there’s an X certificate on clicking on the pop up — but I think it’s important for people to see what the bottom line is).Another one shows a pair of really hairy legs, as if they were mine.

All the same, you may say … why pay it any attention, still less give it publicity?

Several reasons. First, the misogyny here is truly gobsmacking. The whole site is pretty hateful (and what some of the comments say about Andrew Marr since he’s been ill are almost worse than anything).. but the whole “cunt” talk and the kind of stuff represented by the photo on right is more than a few steps into sadism.  It would be quite enough to put many women off appearing in public, contributing to political debate, especially as all of this comes up on google..

Yes it god damn well would, and does, and is. Michael Shermer please note. Get this kind of shit every day for going on two years and it becomes very tempting to stop appearing in public and contributing to political debate – which is the goal.

Oh no, it’s all just a joke, isn’t it? Can’t you take one? Or a hundred, or ten thousand?

But reading through it (and yes you get tipped off about it whether you search or not.. and no you cant resist looking at it), it is absolutely plain as day that this is meant to hurt and wound (“If all else, we got to her” as one commenter says). It shows the classic signs of vile playground bullying — claiming to know about the victim, sneering at things they could not possibly know but claim they do, destabilising by using names in the thread that are those of your friends or even anagrams of your own, suggesting that they are watching you… that’s all part of the bullying repertoire.

Check check check check.

So how to stop it? I am sure that there is some clever way if we put our heads together.Could we flood the site with comments, or Latin poetry…so they went behind a wall (if they want to chat like this on their own, well fine.. or at least better). Or does anyone reading this post know anyone involved in this and can just say ‘no’?

Nobody’s been able to think of a clever way yet.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

It turns out that Jerry Conlon didn’t threaten me when he said maybe a vial of acid would do me some good. No, it turns out I threatened him. A friend sent me this screen shot from the mildew pit.

I don’t know who it was who posted the comment with some biographical information about Jerry Conlon; it was someone who has never commented here before. The comment was a peculiar kind of “doxxing” since Jerry Conlon had used the name Jerry Conlon himself on that threat (or “joke”) and since there was no address or phone number.

Given the first-timeness of the commenter, I suspect the comment was a plant. At any rate, I haven’t threatened anyone. I haven’t even threatened to report him to the police, even though a lot of people have strongly urged me to report him, because Canadian law enforcement sees that kind of thing as a danger to people in general, not just to the recipient. (And he’s Canadian. Ooh I’m doxxing him!! Except that’s on his Facebook page. Visible to all.)

I haven’t threatened anyone. He did threaten me.

I’m very very very very very tired of this shit. My life is shit, thanks to these people. That’s what they want, and they get what they want. I’m a blogger and writer, so the work I do I do online. That means taking “a break” from online isn’t a happy little vacation, it’s being locked out of the work I do. Yes no doubt it’s pathetic contemptible nerdy “work” but I like doing it, and I don’t like being forced out of it by sadistic pseudonymous shits.

But some good does come out of it. Bjarte Foshaug was motivated by the acid threat to send $150 to Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan. He says a friend of his Sheila is also going to donate. So Jerry Conlon did some good after all!

But I want my life back. And I can’t have it. That makes me angry.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

PZ is optimistic about the bigger picture.

I am constantly dunned by email and tweets from the haters and sick scumbags, and I read stuff by my colleagues who get far worse, and at times it is just too depressing and dismal — there really are reactionary fanatics within atheism who refuse to recognize the responsibility to work towards equality. And I just want to give up.

But then…perspective. Step away from the smears and assaults and slime and look at the movement as a whole: look at the leading organizations of the godless. You know what you’ll see? None of them support these loons. They’re all progressive and committed to improving the diversity of the atheist community and broadening our engagement with the greater culture.

Hm. I’d like to agree, but – the leading organizations don’t support them, but they don’t disavow them, either (except in broad general terms that don’t grip on anything). I think most of the organizations don’t know much about them and their project, but I kind of think maybe they should try to find out.

Rebecca is more definite about it.

For the most part, these organizations work on their causes while pointedly avoiding what they see as a divisive quagmire. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, no. For years, I defended the JREF’s pointed disinterest in atheist topics because while I do think atheism is the natural outcome of skepticism and that the two are ultimately inextricably linked, I understand that there’s a benefit to an organization focusing resources on a particular goal while also appealing to a larger audience. But it would be silly to then congratulate the JREF on working toward some atheist or secular goal, just as it’s silly to congratulate these organizations that are not focused on fighting for women.

I think that’s pretty much right. The organizations aren’t against us, but they’re not really for us either. They’re doing other things.

So while PZ finds optimism in the work these organizations do, I, for the most part, do not. I see anti-feminists who think those organizations stand for them. (Hell, I’ve seen misogynists cite feminist and Freedom from Religion Foundation co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor as an inspiration.) I don’t think these people are stupid (though yes, many are – just look at the people populating my Twitter @ replies) – I think that secular organizations aren’t being loud enough in their support of women. I think often these organizations are being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century by a few progressive employees who want to do good at the risk of being seen as radical troublemakers.

And that’s where I find my inspiration: not in the large organizations but in the individuals who are strong enough to stand up for what’s right despite the endless hateful shit thrown their way. People like Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan, Greta Christina, and Melody Hensley. People like Surly Amy and all the other Skepchick Network contributors. People like Amanda Marcotte, who in December recounted what it’s like to be a writer who happens to be a feminist…

Yes. We find our inspiration in each other. Not at all a bad place to find it, either.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Another article not to miss is Lauryn Oates’s To tell the world his daughter’s name.

When the father of Jyoti Singh Pandey decided to tell the world his daughter’s name this week, he said he did so to give other women who have been raped courage.

His is a message directed at an untold number of women and girls. Rape is the most under-reported form of violent crime in the world. It consistently has the worst statistical reporting, with many countries keeping no rape statistics at all.

Somalian activist Hawa Aden Mohammed estimates that in her country, experiencing a torrent of sexual violence, 90% of rapes go unreported. She says the reason is that women know that nothing will be done, while they risk being shamed and ostracized for speaking out. Women in camps for the internally displaced are particularly at risk, and camp leaders are reportedly indifferent to the fact that women under their watch are hunted down like animals to satisfy the savagery of merciless, violent men.

People can get used to anything. People can harden their hearts. We all can. If there’s anything we need to resist it’s that.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

I’m being Twitter-mean to Rick Warren. Well not really mean – I’m not calling him ugly or anything. But I’m teasing the crap out of something he said. Wull it was silly.

Rick Warren‏

Christians founded America. Ever since, Presidents (& most offices) take their oath with their hand on God’s Word #TheBible

My teasings.

And NOTHING CAN EVER CHANGE. We always do all the things exactly the way we always have done them.

Travel, medicine, architecture, communication, race relations, lighting – all, all done the same way forever.

So if somebody did something one way a few centuries ago (they didn’t, but never mind) END OF STORY.

How to do everything, according to Rick Warren. The way they did. Back then. #simple

No, blood-sucking zombies founded America, so we have to do WHAT THEY DID.

If bats had founded America, would you tell us to roost upside down during the day and hunt for insects at night?

Amazingly, he hasn’t replied.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Speaking of children being seen as “witches,” and witch hunts, and cruelty to putative witches, don’t miss Leo Igwe’s new article, Kukuo: Inside a ‘Witch Camp’ in Ghana.

Here is a sample.

Many of the alleged witches said they would like to return to their original homes but were afraid for their lives. Some did not want to go back at all. They felt safe and at peace in Kukuo.

But that is because they do not have a better alternative. In Kukuo, life is hard. Survival is difficult. Most of the women survive by farming for others, but many of them are getting too old and could not farm any longer. Some of them were sick. One of the women could not walk, and she was living alone. She crawled around to cook and to attend to her daily chores. Some have resorted to begging for survival.

Leo tells the story of Fusa, a widow who had just finished building a house and was about to move into it when she was accused of making a neighbor’s child ill. Gee, what a coincidence. Now she’s in Kukuo, heart broken and traumatized.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

In Sweden this time, not in London.

The couple, from the Democratic Republic of Congo, “think their daughter is a witch and reject the accusation” of abuse, Daniel Larson, a prosecutor in the western Swedish town of Boraas, said on Friday.

Which is the problem with thinking people are “witches” – then abuse isn’t abuse, because witches have to be cleaned out, kind of like a sewer. It gets a little rough, but that’s not abuse.

The girl, who claims she is not the couple’s biological daughter though the parents say otherwise, was allegedly beaten unconscious and forced to drink a concoction made up of a cleaning product and her own urine, according to the charge sheet.

Social services removed the girl, born in 1997, from her parents’ custody in 2008 and she has since been living with a foster family. The girl only recently opened up about the alleged abuse “once she felt safe,” the prosecutor said.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Justin Vacula is raising money to attend Women in Secularism 2.

He posted about me on his Facebook page a few times yesterday. He incited quite a few enraged comments.

Justin Vacula

Yesterday

(Images of disfigured women are added to a recent blog post from Ophelia Benson who writes “Maybe I should start wearing protection,” seemingly opining on the criticism, ridicule, and disagreement she experiences because she operates a blog… and makes statements people disagree with).

Get a grip, Ophelia. Women who have acid thrown in their faces are in a much different situation than you are and face real quantifiable abuse – much unlike what you talk of as being abuse and the ‘threats’ you claimed to have received. Even if we grant that people ridicule you, say nasty things, and make fun of you on the internet this is — by no means — tantamount to acid splashing.

[Warning: horrible pictures of women with acid-melted faces below the fold]

1Like · · Share

• 3 people like this.
• 

  Gary Schmauss … I have no words for this…

  Yesterday at 1:27pm · Like
• 

  Tami Carter This is a blogger being an attention whore, and doing it on the backs of victims of abuse, usually domestic violence.

  Yesterday at 1:29pm · Like · 3
• 

  Robert Pogo Suski Not to be an asshole, but seriously why is anyone giving her any attention, even criticizing?  It’s obvious she’s just doing it for attention, so the best thing would be to ignore her.

  Yesterday at 1:32pm via mobile · Like
• 

  Justin Vacula Ignoring the nonsense doesn’t make it go away. Ophelia has a large platform, is respected by many, and shouldn’t get a free pass – especially when she continues to engage in character assassination campaigns against fellow secularists.

  Yesterday at 1:35pm · Like · 6
• 

  Robert Pogo Suski Fair enough on the character assassinations, but if an entitled moron is an entitled moron and nothing anyone says will convince them otherwise, hell to them any criticism is just an indignation they they’re right.  Plus anyone that wants to fill her hugbox is likey of either the same mindset or feeds off it in some way.

  Yesterday at 1:42pm via mobile · Like · 2
• 

  Katie Graham Wow. I’m absolutely disgusted.

  Yesterday at 1:42pm · Like · 1
• 

  Justin Vacula Let’s also not forget PZ Myers recent post comparing, as it seems from his post, people who critique femnism and feminists online to mass murderers:
  
  http://www.freezepage.com/1358546643PFGFKNQXAX
  
  “And these anonymous monsters on the internet who shriek affrontedly about women and feminists and moan that any feminist allies are ‘manginas’ — to me, every one of them has the name Marc Lépine, and is just hiding it in shame and fear and hatred and cowardice.”

  

  FreezePage

  www.freezepage.com

  Free online service for freezing web pages. Save, share and prove what is on the web at a specific point of time.

  Yesterday at 2:06pm · Edited · Like · 2
• 

  Justin Vacula “To date, I have stayed out of this witch hunt against our most prominent leaders, thinking that “this too shall pass.” Perhaps I should have said something earlier. As Martin Niemöller famously warned about the inactivity of German intellectuals during the rise of the Nazi party, “first they came for …” but “I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a….””
  
  Michael Shermer
  
  http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=shermer_33_2

  

  Council for Secular Humanism

  www.secularhumanism.org

  When I got involved in the skeptical, atheist, and secular movements in the 1980…s, one looked out over the audience and saw mostly old white guys. Today it is a different picture entirely. At the last Skeptics Society lecture at Caltech on December 16, for example, an audience of three hundred was r…See More

  Yesterday at 2:10pm · Like · 2
• 

  Max Driffill Weird.

  Yesterday at 2:15pm via mobile · Like
• 

  Dominick White What’s wrong with this fucking woman

  Yesterday at 2:19pm · Like · 2
• 

  Max Driffill That PZ post was simply ridiculous. Criticism = murder. Keep it classy.

  Yesterday at 2:20pm via mobile · Like · 4
• 

  Ophelia Benson Why did you add those phtos and why did you include my photo? And for that matter why are you persistently harassing me?

  Yesterday at 2:43pm · Like
• 

  Justin Vacula Persistently harassing you? What are you talking about? (Anyway, this image is from the Slymepit)

  Yesterday at 2:49pm · Like
• 

  Ophelia Benson What am I talking about – this! And all the other shit you talk about me. You never stop.

  Yesterday at 2:51pm · Like
• 

  Matthew Justin Yeah, really, Justin? Why did you use her face instead of the pineapple? lol

  Yesterday at 2:52pm · Like · 5
• 

  Richard Murray WHERE’S THE TRIGGER WARNING, OPHELIA?!

  Yesterday at 2:56pm · Like · 3
• 

  Max Driffill Ophelia,
  I think your face was used, to demonstrate the strangeness of your comparison.

  Yesterday at 3:06pm via mobile · Like · 1
• 

  Justin Vacula Opehlia – you’re the pot calling the kettle black.
  
  http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels?s=justin+vacula

  

  Search Results justin vacula » Butterflies and Wheels

  freethoughtblogs.com

  Hahahahahaha Justin Vacula explains why what Michael Shermer said about atheism …as a guy thing was totally reasonable and ok and fine. He explains it in a comment on Jacques Rousseau’s post accusing me of misrepresenting Shermer, hyperbole, and failure to read charitably. Unfortunatly, the principle…See More

  Yesterday at 3:08pm · Like · 2
• 

  Justin Vacula I voice disagreement with you, you voice disagreement with me. How is this harassment?

  Yesterday at 3:09pm · Like · 11
• 

  Justin Vacula Ophelia – looking at search results of my name on your blog, I appear 17 times from August 19 of 2012 to the current date.

  Yesterday at 3:13pm · Like · 3
• 

  Ophelia Benson I wouldn’t voice a damn thing with you if you hadn’t lied about me on your podcast and then started cyberstalking me. You could always just leave me the fuck alone. But none of you shits will do that, then you dare to say we’re self-important if we object to it!

  Yesterday at 3:13pm · Like
• 

  Daniel Waddell Come on now Ophie McPrune criticism is not harassment. If you stop saying stupid shit people will not criticize you any more therefore your so called “harassment” will end

  Yesterday at 3:15pm · Like · 4
• 

  Richard Murray Is cyberstalking what the cool kids are calling google now?
  
  Is anyone else amused by the “leave me alone” gambit played by someone who went out of their own way to BE not left alone?

  Yesterday at 3:21pm · Edited · Like · 1
• 

  Renee Hendricks Yeah. No pass on this one, Ophelia. You made this horrible incident about you. You’ve taken something that has fuck all to do with pissing matches within the online atheist community and twisted into something that garners you more pro-vic points. Disgusting.

  Yesterday at 3:21pm · Like · 6
• 

  Richard Murray I heard it expressed elsewhere today (NOT on the Slymepit, not by Myerku)…
  
  “The longer an Internet discussion goes on, the more likely that Ophelia Benson will appear and attempt to make it all about her”

  Yesterday at 3:23pm · Like · 6
• 

  Justin Vacula Ophelia, was discussed this podcast issue months ago. Your objection, as it seemed, is that I didn’t real the full content of the e-mails you received. Is that right? That’s not a lie. At the most, I would say, it wasn’t fully representing the issue, but the same conclusion is drawn nonetheless. People can find the e-mails, read the posts you had written, etc. I didn’t want to read all of the e-mails on the show because it would have taken way too long (and the show went over time, anyway).
  
  Either way, I felt you handled the issue poorly and that backing out of TAM was a poor idea. Obviously I am not you, as was stated many times, but from the information given I come to this conclusion as do many others who have listened to the podcast or not.
  
  –
  
  What is this cyberstalking you speak of? What do you mean ‘leave you alone?’ I’m simply, as I usually do, responding to your writing online (public information). I’m not sending you threats, intimidating you, or engaging in any criminal activity. If my communication (and not even directly to you) upsets you so much and you want me to leave you alone, why are you engaging in direct communication with me on my Facebook profile?

  Yesterday at 3:25pm · Like · 8
• 

  Ophelia Benson Well someone posted it on my wall and I thought you’d tagged me. That part was just confusion.

  Yesterday at 3:31pm · Like
• 

  Justin Vacula I’ll put the invitation out once again, Ophelia, and even extend it. I’m very open to having a recorded discussion with you about all of this stuff…and I’ll even go on someone else’s podcast to have it. Hell, we can even chat at Women in Secularism (which I am planning on attending – so I would be available in person). If you want to talk about these issues, I’m all ears. We obviously have grievances about the state of the atheist community and, while these grievances are different, I’m open for discussion.

  Yesterday at 3:45pm · Edited · Like · 4
• 

  Chuck Goecke Anyone who worries about getting acid in the face should carry a small squeeze bottle of sodium bicarbonate – Baking soda slurry.  That would minimized the damage if applied immediately.

  Yesterday at 3:45pm · Like
• 

  Justin Vacula Huh?

  Yesterday at 3:46pm · Like
• 

  Travis Roy you’re going to WiS? You are a brave man Justin

  Yesterday at 4:23pm · Like · 4
• 

  Katie Graham I couldn’t let this one go. Hopefully, it’s my last blog post about Benson. She just a bad person: http://athmorality.blogspot.com/2013/01/driven-well-past-last-exit-to-relevance.html

  

  Atheist Morality: Driven Well Past the Last Exit to Relevance…

  athmorality.blogspot.com

  The question of morality does not have to be answered by religion, despite the c…ontentions by theists that every law must have a “law giver.” In this blog I will explain why this is not true, periodically post interesting moral questions and show ways in which morality can be taught without the pres…See More

  Yesterday at 4:41pm · Like · 4
• 

  Travis Roy Perhaps people would switch sides and back Ophelia up if she just released that email from the JREF that she claims was dismissive of her concerns of the threats.. Oh, that’s right, it probably doesn’t exist.

  Yesterday at 4:51pm · Like · 2
• 

  Justin Vacula Travis Roy – I have been called a brave hero, you know :p

  Yesterday at 4:54pm · Like
• 

  Mark Neil So, Ophelia, who “moderates” people (so their posts never see the light of day) as a matter of routine when they post dissenting opinions, complains it’s harassment when those people respond in the medium they do have available. Ophelia, do you seriously believe you’re above reproach or criticism? That your opinions, which you post for all to see, are not to be challenged? It amazes me how such a pitiable, helpless, victim like you can be a feminist role model.

  Yesterday at 5:16pm · Like · 4
• 

  Robin Lionheart When hater Jerry Conlon creepily tweets “@OpheliaBenson Maybe a vial of acid would do you some good. You already look like you were set on fire and put out with a wet rake.”, he probably intends that as dismissive mockery. But we don’t know that; he might actually mean it. And that sort of rhetoric validates Ophelia’s concerns.

  23 hours ago · Like
• 

  Glenn Michael Scott Ophelia!

  23 hours ago · Like
• 

  Glenn Michael Scott I have a book on my shelf; it’s called “Why Truth Matters”. Maybe you should read it, Ophelia, and stop spreading lies, misinformation and … crazy.

  23 hours ago · Like · 2
• 

  Justin Vacula It’s unfair to, as Ophelia and her cadre often do, pick up random comments from people and cast this as representative of the people who offer civil disagreement. On any given issue you will find people who would post stuff like that online…

  23 hours ago · Like · 4
• 

  Robin Lionheart It’s also unfair to cast people who offer civil disagreement as the sort of people Ophelia seeks to protect herself from. She didn’t approach JREF with security concerns because of polite dissent.

  23 hours ago · Like
• 

  Mark Neil Especially when those comments are a direct response to her own words, and not unprovoked. It’s not like that guy made that comment and then she wrote her article. She’s the one who raised the idea of acid attacks against her.

  23 hours ago · Like · 1
• 

  Mark Neil Robin. In this very thread, she accuses Justine of harassing her, and thereby being one of those people she needs protection from. Unless you’re suggesting he’s done more than attempt civil disagreement, I think you’r mistaken.

  23 hours ago · Like · 4
• 

  Victoria Carmel This is probably the most epic attention whoring I have ever seen.

  23 hours ago · Like · 6
• 

  Robin Lionheart I don’t think that image Justin composed up there constitutes “civil” disagreement, Mark.

  23 hours ago · Like
• 

  Glenn Michael Scott I think it does, Robin. He’s saying that she’s engaged in RIDICULOUS hyperbole. She’s also minimising what happens to real acid attack victims. I can imagine her asking one of these women to console her because she got a critical tweet.

  23 hours ago · Like · 4
• 

  Liam Jones ” she didn’t approach the JREF with security concerns because of polite dissent”
  
  Too true, she approached them due to an email that wasn’t even approaching dissent.

  22 hours ago via mobile · Like · 4
• 

  Glenn Michael Scott Ophelia Benson is one of the most deplorable people I have ever heard of. She is conniving and dishonest. You disgust me, Ophie.

  21 hours ago · Like
• 

  Robin Lionheart Justin’s image pairing those images of acid attack victims with one of Ophelia trivializes their suffering, Glenn. Nothing she wrote about Sergei Filin did.

  20 hours ago · Edited · Like
• 

  Glenn Michael Scott The yellow part highlights writing, Robin.

  20 hours ago · Like
• 

  Glenn Michael Scott Oh, so we add words to aid interpretation, do we? She said what she said, not what you wish she said. Also, what actual threats has she received?

  18 hours ago via mobile · Like
• 

  Robin Lionheart Fine, I’ll take back the word “threats”: She compares harassment against Sergei (specifically Facebook hacking) to harassment against herself (albeit not in that criminal form). Sergei’s persecutors turned out to be violent; she suggests maybe she shou…See More

  17 hours ago · Edited · Like
• 

  Glenn Michael Scott Words: “maybe I should start wearing protection” and “sounds like ‘the atheist community’”. Seriously, fuck her. She has no integrity.

  16 hours ago · Like · 3
• 

  EllenBeth Wachs Abbie Smith calling Ophelia “Nanny Benson”, Daniel Waddell referring to her as “Ophie McPrune” Matthew Justin asking why you didn’t use the picture of the pineapple instead.
  Is this the type of civil disagreement you talk about?  Stirring this shit up on your wall can be a type of intimidation tactic.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Something that happened last October, in Staten Island.

A teenage girl who friends say was bullied at school committed suicide by jumping in front of an oncoming train in front of other students Wednesday afternoon.

Why was she bullied? Well, you see, there was this party, and at the party she had sex with four guys on the football team. The four guys of course punished her for having sex with them by trashing her at school. What else would they do?

The day before the fatal plunge, the sophomore posted one last cry for help on Twitter, saying “I can’t, I’m done, I give up.”

…

Briana Torres says just a few days ago, Felicia broke down in tears, told her rumors were spreading at school and online.

“She told me how a few football players were tormenting her.  They were making fun of her, inappropriate things,” Torres said.

Police are investigating, talking with students.

“The ability to be anonymous on the internet gives people a sense of power to say these things to people because they’re hiding behind a keyboard,” said Polina Feldbein, a student.

And once they are hiding behind a keyboard, what could be more fun than to torment someone?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)