Thanks for being wrong

I am finishing up the final portion of a paper concerning HIV and circumcision. Normally this would be a pretty big endeavor since it involves reading a lot of papers, but I have an advantage. Commenters like Ichthyic and Roxeanne have forced me to correct so many stupid things they’ve said on the issue that I’m already fairly familiar with the material. So I would like to thank those two: I really appreciate the utter wrongness with which you have each approached science. Your ideological commitments have really made this project of mine a breeze. Thanks.

About these ads

27 Responses

  1. Oh, a little college student feigning superiourity to the woman with published papers about science. Your immaturity and ignorance is so cute, guppy Michael!

    When will you get flushed down the toilet, whoops, I mean, graduate?

  2. […] you dare point out that experienced, talented women have the right to run for office, uber-sexist Jason Johnson will remind you that your place is in the kitchen.  How else to explain this bit of fun? PWWR is a […]

  3. “Oh, a little college student feigning superiourity to the woman with published papers about science”

    That is just an argument from authority, I’m afraid. Many people believe some of Nikola Tesla’s weirdest delusions on no other basis than that they came from Nikola Tesla.

  4. The most entertaining part of this is that I didn’t even link back to your poorly written site, Roxeanne. I’m tickled pink that you’re so obsessed with what I might write about you that it only took you about 10 minutes to respond here, but alas, it would entertain me much more for you to respond when you get challenged. I know badly constructed ad hominens, arguments from authority, and arbitrary accusations of sexism are your thing, but there is still a response waiting for input from a master of science such as yourself. See the link to the comment section in the original post.

  5. I think as well as the popular fallacy of Ad Hominem, we should also have Ad Homonym – this is where the poster uses a defined scientific word to try to sound educated, but uses it to mean or signify something completely different, e.g. the ever-popular “It’s quantum!” to justify some perpetual motion machine.

  6. That could apply quite well to Roxeanne since she tends to use the scientific concept of development when she is wants to discuss the subjective, philosophical concept of humanity.

  7. Thank you Alastair, you are one of the few people on the internet that appears able to identify an actual Ad Hom.

  8. Thanks, Nate. It always ticks me off when a believer on a skeptic site reacts to each claim that they are deluded or an idiot by claiming that the so-called skeptics have been hoist by their own petard by using an Ad Hom.

    My usual response is something like, “I didn’t say you were wrong because you’re an idiot, That *would* be an ad hominem fallacy.

    “I said you were wrong because your argument lacked evidence / contained _these_ fallacies that invalidated the logical basis of the argument / was a set of unverifiable assertions. AND you’re an idiot.”

  9. Though, it should be said that since humans are universally stupid if given the chance to be so, that skeptics are also keen to make the same mistake on occasion.

    http://congressshallmakenolaw.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/ad-hom/

  10. Weird how Roxeanne has a tendency to run away when things don’t go her way. The Universe is probably just sexist.

  11. Hey! That was my subject! Thief :) I think your position on the subject is the opposite of mine though. I’d love to read yours!

  12. I didn’t take any ethical position on the matter, but what I found (in addition to what I knew from my time spent correcting Roxeanne’s ideology) was that there is a fair amount of evidence out there supporting the use of circumcision as one means of curbing the spread of HIV.

  13. Huh… I didn’t know there were any subjects you didn’t take ethical positions on.

  14. I have a position on the matter. I just didn’t take one in my paper.

  15. Oh. Well in that case…

    It’s not like you to have an ethical position and not take it in your writings.

    And just for your info, the position I had your mother in was not ethical at all.

  16. Alistair Archibald and Michael Hawkins? Ghey circle jerk alert.

  17. Alistair Archibald and Michael Hawkins? Ghey circle jerk alert.

    Another irrelevant ad hominem; there seem to be a lot of those in just a few threads. I’ll grit my teeth and try to hide my pain at the devastating riposte.

    Now, have you actually got any rational argument or evidence? No, I thought not.

    And for your information, not that it makes any difference, I’m not ghey. I’m not even bhi-curious.

    So there.

  18. It would really be more of a segment jerhk anyway.

  19. That’s okay, because Michael is actually a woman.

  20. Can’t be. I don’t hate myself.

  21. There is a meme just waiting to be born there… just have to find it…

  22. I know a song that’ll get on yer nerves
    Get on yer nerves
    Get on yer nerves
    Get get get on yer nerves.

    I know a song that’ll get on yer nerves
    Get on yer nerves….

  23. Death penalty earned ^

  24. Not for the first time, Nate, and surely not for the last. Let’s see you ditch THAT meme!

    Bu-WAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 205 other followers

%d bloggers like this: