patrick.net

Maybe if they sold tickets for number 31232 he could have slipped in...

What is serious free speech vs abusive free speech? Thes epeople are crazy-CA will soon be a commie state. You can be in jail for using a wrong gender, whats next stoning to death of adulterers-err whatever is not acceptable in the bible of liberalism??

This is pathetic. I wonder if atheists will start trying to prevent anyone from speaking if they have proclaimed that God exists. Like 'an eye for an eye' ends with everybody missing an eye, 'shutting down speech from anyone who has offended' ends with nobody getting to speak.

Here's one of the offending tweets. It's a legitimate starting point of a debate.

@ToddKincannon I think Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today. I've said so, often and loudly.What are you talking about?

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) March 1, 2013

Speaking the truth is so un-PC!

Patrick says

Richard Dawkins censored in Berkeley because he does not like Islam

Again, this is exactly why the left is conservative, not liberal. This is no different than censoring blasphemy, profanity, nudity, books, flag burning or any other thing offense to the right.

Also, does anyone have any respect for Berkley or its graduates at this point? It's like Evergreen University, pure political bullshit and baby sitting.

Although there are undoubtedly a few authoritarian Dawkins-bashing atheists who will be pleased at this

Baseless conjecture.

Dan8267 says

Again, this is exactly why the left is conservative, not liberal. This is no different than censoring blasphemy, profanity, nudity, books, flag burning or any other thing offense to the right.

Bullshit the Left Commie Maxist bastards are using the Muslim invaders to Proxy hate laws while they push them further into Social upheaval so they can silence dissidence that doesn't like it. It's the Lefts browning of the world to replace White Conservative voters with violent head choppers.

The Libs think they can keep a handle on the Barbaric Horde but if we don't kick the fuck out of both of them and slap some fucking sense into them like they are importing those Goatfucking animals to slap and rape us around. Then the Muslims will most certainly dispatch the Libs when/if they are successful doing their Cultural Marxism.
My guess is they'll throw every last one of them off a roof or mass drown them Trailer containers and dump them in the ocean.
Don't worry Dan we'll save your stupid ass.

Tenpoundbass says

Bullshit

Liberalism is the political philosophy that
1. All people are equal under law. We are a nation of rights, not privileges, and everyone has the same right.
2. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of others. There should be no victimless crimes.
3. Government should be transparent and accountable for its actions.

Conservatism is the political philosophy that
1. People are not equal under law. Some people should have more rights than others, and some people should have privileges.
2. People should not be allowed to do what they want even if it does not affect others. People should conform to a state-sponsored culture.
3. The government should not be held accountable for its actions and not punished for crimes.

Which does censoring an author for allegedly not complying with the official and only acceptable culture sound like?
a. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of others.
b. People should not be allowed to do what they want even if it does not affect others. People should conform to a state-sponsored culture.

Oh, it sounds like (b). The left is, by definition, conservative.

Your baseless assertion has been refuted.

Patrick says

Dear Richard Dawkins event ticket buyers,

We regret to inform you that KPFA has canceled our event with Richard Dawkins. We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn’t

know he had offended and hurt – in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people.

KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech. While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech.

Fucking hypocrites. ......We believe in free speech, as long as we agree.

Strategist says

We believe in free speech, as long as we agree.

The quintessential attribute of conservatives. Why do you think the right hates flag burning and obscenity?

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

We believe in free speech, as long as we agree.

The quintessential attribute of conservatives.

Liberals too. I would imagine the radio station is liberal.

This is why Trump won, liberals pushed their oppressive agenda too far.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

We believe in free speech, as long as we agree.

The quintessential attribute of conservatives.

Liberals too. I would imagine the radio station is liberal.

Wrong. By definition, liberals do not believe in suppressing opposing speech. It's the defining characteristic of liberalism. Saying that liberals believe in censoring free speech is exactly like saying that atheists believe in gods. You don't get to impose an attribute onto a group that contradicts the definition of that group. I don't give a shit how much you despise liberals, you are illustrating that even you believe that liberalism is the correct political philosophy by trying to argue that what's wrong with liberals is that they aren't liberal.

What you should be saying is that the radio station's is not liberal. It might have been in the past, but the people there today are not following liberalism and therefore are not liberal but asshole conservatives calling themselves liberals. A conservative who calls himself a liberal is no more a liberal than a person who calls himself an atheist but believes in Christ's divinity is an atheist. If a man chops off his dick and calls himself a woman, is he a woman? No. If a conservative who despises free speech puts a sticker on his chest saying "I'm with her", does that make him a liberal? No.

Liberalism is NOT a self-identifying term. If you don't believe in liberalism, you are not a liberal. The principles, not the label, is what matters. And once more, you cannot make any case against those principles.

Dan8267 says

Again, this is exactly why the left is conservative, not liberal.

Uh - no.

This is exactly Liberalism on stilts.

PC Liberals see Muslims as an oppressed minority and therefore they need to be protected.

socal2 says

Uh - no.

Uh - no.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Dan's world:

Up is Down
Wet is Dry
PC Liberals are Conservatives

socal2 says

Dan's world:

Up is Down

Wet is Dry

PC Liberals are Conservatives

Straw man argument. Up and wet have nothing to do with leftists being conservatives.

I have shown exactly how leftists are conservatives and exactly how they are like the right. You have shown no way in which leftists are more like liberals than they are like the right.

The fact that you cannot do this proves that you are wrong.

Don't forget:
Ass = Pussy

Plenty of evidence to back that up...

socal2 says

Dan's world:

Up is Down

Wet is Dry

PC Liberals are Conservatives

BlueSardine says

Don't forget:

Ass = Pussy

Instead of bitching about labels, why don't you attack the beliefs. Both the left and the right believe in censorship of cultures and the use of state power to force a culture onto the people. How is the left and the right not both wrong for the fundamentally same reason?

In contrast, how are people like me, whatever label you apply, wrong in our beliefs that the state should not force any culture onto the population?

Oh, you can't address that issue. Prove me wrong instead of throwing a tantrum.

This is you vs the left.
www.youtube.com/embed/3sKdDyyanGk

You're arguing "my label good, you're label bad" while ignoring the behavior of your tribe and the other tribe, which is essentially the same.

We seem to be surrounded by insanity on the left and right side. What's really happening here?

Heraclitusstudent says

We seem to be surrounded by insanity on the left and right side. What's really happening here?

More importantly, the left and the right are very close in core beliefs and behaviors. What they differ on is arbitrary cultural beliefs, not core beliefs about the use of force and coercion. Censorship is a core belief. The subjects that are censored are ancillary details.

Grouping people based on ancillary details that mix opposing core properties is just plain foolishness. Example... There are three companies. Company A makes rifles and packages them in red boxes. Company B makes rifles and packages them in blue boxes. Company C makes chocolates and packages them in blue boxes. Which two companies are more alike? Which two belong in the same group?

According to Strategist, Blue Sardine, and the other rightwingers, Companies B and C are the same because they both use blue boxes. This is their reasoning. It's obvious why that reasoning is batshit stupid.

Richard Dawkins strongly criticizes all religions. Most of the time he is debating and criticizing Christians, but the radio station only mentioned his criticism of Islam that was the cause of the cancellation. The radio station has no problem with insulting Christianity, because that's freedom of speech, but criticizing Islam, is, OMG, racist.
Sounds like the stupidity of the liberal extremists to me.

Dan8267 says

More importantly, the left and the right are very close in core beliefs and behaviors. What they differ on is arbitrary cultural beliefs, not core beliefs about the use of force and coercion. Censorship is a core belief. The subjects that are censored are ancillary details.

But see, human beings left to themselves are not insane that way.
Studies show that people when assigned to groups, even if the assignment is random and done in front of them, rate people in their group as smarter and warmer, compared to the other groups.

There is propaganda, using tribalism to get to this kind of insanity.

Once you've done enough to show the out-group is evil by nature, the next natural step is to shut them down.

Dan, you are using the classic definition of liberal. The others are using liberal as a stand in for the left in America or a Democrat voter. I know you realize this, but this semantic argument repeats itself as you repeatedly explain what 'liberal' means, and the rest just keep on keeping on.

There is a big overlap in the classic definition of liberal and the Democratic party positions on social issues. But, I agree with you that the push for safe spaces and move away from free speech is very anti-liberal. It is also clear that the social justice activists, who are welcomed by the Democratic party although they do not represent mainstream Democrat voters, are so focused on protecting Muslims from Republicans that they fail to protect basic freedom of speech. In their zeal to side with the Muslims in that battle, they are attacking the rights of atheists, who have historically been a big ally to Democrats in the fight against religious conservatives. It is weird, and I'm surprised that the 'thought leaders' in that field haven't figured out that they are fucking up in a major way.

Strategist says

Sounds like the stupidity of the liberal extremists to me.

Sounds like the stupidity of the conservative extremists to me.

YesYNot says

Dan, you are using the classic definition of liberal.

1. Clarity in language matters. Changing nomenclature for the sole purpose of falsely associating one set of beliefs with another completely conflicting set of beliefs is not acceptable. Doing so is simply a thinly veiled poisoning the well argument. If what Trigglypuff says is wrong, then everything Sam Harris says must also be wrong because we label them both liberals even though they have complete opposite beliefs.

2. Labels are irrelevant. Those who bitch and moan about liberals being so damn vile refuse to even attempt to debate the actual principles of liberalism. This is not because they accept those beliefs and just want a different label for those beliefs. No. They completely reject the principles of liberalism for selfish and despicable reasons and thus cannot state their objections to liberalism without looking bad.

3. Similarity in behavior matters. No matter how you slice it, we liberals (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Noam Chomsky, and I) are far more different than the left than the left and the right are from each other. If you are going to group things together, then the left and the right should be in the same group as they are nearly identical, and certainly in all ways that actually matter.

We can agree on the term "illiberal left".

https://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/dont-talk-to-media.html

And the former EDL leader refused to accept Islam was a religion, saying: “Islam is an idea – a bad idea.” Asked if he was Islamophobic, Robinson retorted: “There’s no such word as Islamophobia. A phobia is an irrational fear, it’s not irrational to fear these things.”
I don't know if people's egos are simply too tempted by the thought of appearing on camera or if they truly believe they are smarter than almost every single person who has been summoned to play punching bag before them, but it's remarkable how whether a reasonable individual is conservative, Alt-Right, Alt-Lite, or simply nationalist, they are drawn like moths to the candleflame of the hostile media's cameras.

Also interesting: NPR was caught openly displaying contempt for white middle America when fishing for a $5 million donation from a fake Islamic group:

Project Veritas sent two undercover journalists, posing a members of a Muslim Brotherhood front group, to meet with two high-ranking National Public Radio (“NPR”) executives. The journalists explained to the executives that they were interested in making a $5 million dollar donation. The executives – Ron Schiller, President of the NPR Foundation and Senior VP for Development of NPR and Betsy Liley, Senior Director of Institutional Giving for NPR – were quick to display their distaste towards Zionists, Christians, Tea Party members, and uneducated Americans. Schiller in particular was quite outspoken in his support for Muslims and Palestine and critical of Jews, Zionists, and Jewish organizations. Schiller went on to call the Republican party xenophobic, “white, middle-America, gun-toting,” going as far as to say “they’re seriously racist, racist people.”

http://projectveritas.com/npr-videos/

Why did they sensor him? He was pretty good on Family Feud.

That was Dawson:

www.youtube.com/embed/O_Nvud4-cpU

rando says

That was Dawson

I loved him in M*A**S*H
www.youtube.com/embed/UmzsWxPLIOo

"I know nothing" is your Freudian slip as you misrepresent "hogans heroes" for "MASH".

Dan8267 says

rando says

That was Dawson

I loved him in M*A**S*H

www.youtube.com/embed/UmzsWxPLIOo

BlueSardine says

"I know nothing" is your Freudian slip as you misrepresent "hogans heroes" for "MASH".

Do I really have to explain the joke to you?

Nice try, but occam's razor validates my post.

Dan8267 says

BlueSardine says

"I know nothing" is your Freudian slip as you misrepresent "hogans heroes" for "MASH".

Do I really have to explain the joke to you?

BlueSardine says

Nice try, but occam's razor validates my post.

No, it doesn't, and you clearly do not understand Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor does NOT say that the simplest explanation is the best -- and that doesn't even apply here anyway. Occam's Razor is "We should not multiply entities needlessly.". This means that if two explanations have the exact same result, then the one with fewer actors is preferred. For example, the existence of the universe by purely natural means has one fewer actors than the hypothesis that a god created the universe, therefore, the default belief should be in no god.

Occam's Razor
1. Never proves anything. It merely places the burden of proof of needless entities on the proponent of those entities.
2. Does not say the simpler explanation is better. The simpler explanation may be the one with needless entities. Natural laws are far deeper, richer, and more complex than "god did it", yet actually have explanatory power.

Once more, trolls demonstrate that their opinions and posts are worthless. Shrek does, however, illustrate why the conservative right is every bit as incapable of reasoning as the conservative left.

Dawkins could come to patrick.net & get banned.

Dan8267 says

Do I really have to explain the joke to you?

Everything has to be explained to patnetters. lol

Dan8267 says

YesYNot says

Dan, you are using the classic definition of liberal.

1. Clarity in language matters. Changing nomenclature for the sole purpose of falsely associating one set of beliefs with another completely conflicting set of beliefs is not acceptable. Doing so is simply a thinly veiled poisoning the well argument. If what Trigglypuff says is wrong, then everything Sam Harris says must also be wrong because we label them both liberals even though they have complete opposite beliefs.

This is exactly what you do when you claim that people like Donald Trump, Vlad the Impaler and Adolf Hitler are Christian and therefore all Christians are bad. Just because Trigglypuff identifies as a liberal, doesn't make her a liberal right Dan? So just because a bunch of murdering liars identify themselves as Christians doesn't make them Christians either right Dan? What makes a person a liberal is who they are, not who they say they are. What makes a person a Christian is who they are, not who they say they are. Hopefully now you see the error or your ways. You explained it to yourself.

Clarity in language matters, so if you want to know what a Christian is, look to the person who defined and exemplified it. He had is followers right down exactly who He is, what He did, what He taught, and what He promises to do.

Dan8267 says

Wrong. By definition, liberals do not believe in suppressing opposing speech

says the illiberal guy who justifies his own conservatism: suppressing opposing speech by censoring who can post on "his" threads

Dan8267 says

The simpler explanation may be the one with needless entities. Natural laws are far deeper, richer, and more complex than "god did it", yet actually have explanatory power.

Natural laws have no explanatory power on the origin of the universe. God is not a "needless entity". It is deep, rich and complex to discover how God did it, and how he continues to keep it up. That is what science is, a systematic study of God's creation.

The origin requires an explanation that natural law can not provide (without introduction of a "needless" entity).

Here is how the founder of modern taxonomy described it:
Carl Linnaeus

“We imagine that the Creator at the actual time of creation made only one single species for each natural order of plants, this species being different in habit and fructification from all the rest. That he made these mutually fertile, whence out of their progeny, fructification having been somewhat changed, Genera of natural classes have arisen as many in number as the different parents, and since this is not carried further, we regard this also as having been done by His Omnipotent hand directly in the beginning; thus all Genera were primeval and constituted a single Species. That as many Genera having arisen as there were individuals in the beginning, these plants in course of time became fertilised by others of different sort and thus arose Species until so many were produced as now exist... these Species were sometimes fertilised out of congeners, that is other Species of the same Genus, whence have arisen Varieties. ”

Fundamenta fructificationis (1742). As quoted in John S. Wilkins (2009), "Species: A History of the Idea," University of California Press. p. 72

PeopleUnited says

says the illiberal guy who justifies his own conservatism: suppressing opposing speech by censoring who can post on "his" threads

Once more you are caught in a lie. There is no way that any person on PatNet can censor another person. All users are free to open their own threads and say whatever they want.

You are arguing that not admitting out disruptive people is censorship. So if TrigglyPuff isn't allowed to shout down all speakers she doesn't like, then she's being censored. This is not how the real world work.

You are simply being a special snowflake whining about being banned for your bad and disruptive behavior.

PeopleUnited says

Natural laws have no explanatory power on the origin of the universe.

Yes, they do. Nothingness is unstable

“Nothing is unstable,” Frank Wilczek, a physicist and Nobel laureate from MIT, finally said to a general murmur of agreement of his colleagues on stage, John Barrow of Cambridge University in England, Paul Davies of Arizona State and George Ellis of the University of Cape Town in South Africa.

Given a chance, nature will make nothingness boil with activity.

In contrast, your god hypothesis explains nothing including existence. If your god created the universe, then what created your god. If your god can exist without being created, then why can the universe also no exist without being created? You could call the universe itself god, if you are willing to accept that god is non-sentient, amoral, and ignorant of your existence.

Once again, you failed to do anything except make baseless assertions that are easily disproved. I don't have to censor you. You're arguments are nonsense.