But I'm actually very impressed with Blue -- she finally formulated her point without the word (or bullshit misdefined concept) "want", without psychoanalysing the animals, and without misusing any subject of Kingdom Animalia! OMGWTFBBQ!!! This, to me, is a huge improvement, huge.
The new article is ridiculous, of course, but BC is taking care of that. And her persecution complex won't go away. But I'm just so stunned and thrilled that at last she said what she wanted to say (and what all of us wanted her to say) that I consider the thread a raging success. Really, I'm tempted to buy everyone drinks to celebrate.
Aie, but now she's going to have a scientific spat with BC about why it should matter if "mainstream science" accepts X or Y, and pull out some examples of mainstream science not getting something that's true, at which point I think I might have to get involved. (*crosses fingers* -- is it wrong of me to want her to produce some new godawful arguments?)
If she doesn't want me to smack her arguments around, she should trying making coherent ones, or at least ones that aren't either blatantly false or deceitful. It's like Whack-A-Mole.
But yeah - it's a really bad article. It doesn't read like a full one at that, just excerpts.
She may try to have another scientific spat; she'll fail, both through her own incompetence and her own inability to do the slightest bit of research - while hypocritically demanding it from others (yes, I'm still a little peeved).
It's often quite a chore not to end every sentence with "...you fucking idiot."
And no, not wrong - I laughed out loud upon reading some of her claims in the "biowank" part.
I had Action Man instead of Barbie, also hated dresses and pink, rejected home corner in favour of books and have several tree climbing scars.
I have two kids.
All the stuff about "genetic predestination" is specious. It's about choice, and folk should make 'em, stand up for 'em, and stop all the tripe about "it's my inevitable genetic destiny, so bleargh I win the argument".
Comments 4
Reply
But I'm actually very impressed with Blue -- she finally formulated her point without the word (or bullshit misdefined concept) "want", without psychoanalysing the animals, and without misusing any subject of Kingdom Animalia! OMGWTFBBQ!!! This, to me, is a huge improvement, huge.
The new article is ridiculous, of course, but BC is taking care of that. And her persecution complex won't go away. But I'm just so stunned and thrilled that at last she said what she wanted to say (and what all of us wanted her to say) that I consider the thread a raging success. Really, I'm tempted to buy everyone drinks to celebrate.
Aie, but now she's going to have a scientific spat with BC about why it should matter if "mainstream science" accepts X or Y, and pull out some examples of mainstream science not getting something that's true, at which point I think I might have to get involved. (*crosses fingers* -- is it wrong of me to want her to produce some new godawful arguments?)
Reply
But yeah - it's a really bad article. It doesn't read like a full one at that, just excerpts.
She may try to have another scientific spat; she'll fail, both through her own incompetence and her own inability to do the slightest bit of research - while hypocritically demanding it from others (yes, I'm still a little peeved).
It's often quite a chore not to end every sentence with "...you fucking idiot."
And no, not wrong - I laughed out loud upon reading some of her claims in the "biowank" part.
Reply
I have two kids.
All the stuff about "genetic predestination" is specious. It's about choice, and folk should make 'em, stand up for 'em, and stop all the tripe about "it's my inevitable genetic destiny, so bleargh I win the argument".
Reply
Leave a comment