Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by epeeist


51. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200868 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 11:10 am

Comment #200865 by Steve Zara

I hope you are your wife don't "fight" over breakfast the way me and my husband do!
Slightly worse than that. My elder daughter fences epee, my younger one fences sabre ;-)

52. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200863 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 10:54 am

Comment #200762 by BillySands

I wonder if Wee free sunday fundy school discusses whether jesus is the son of god, and whether that god actually exists.
Billy - I was pontificating early that the wee free's were having some kind of internecine squabble. Quetz seems to think that might be so, given his reading of their monthly bulletin.

Are you aware of anything on that front?

53. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200860 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 10:48 am

Comment #200850 by Steve Zara


I would like to add that I think epeeist looks rather dashing, in a middle-aged Errol Flynn kind of way (if he and his wife don't mind me saying so)
I don't think there should be a problem.

Any comments about men and long weapons are probably inappropriate
Or women come to that matter - my lady wife at the World Vets championships in 2006 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/10983076@N08/2547356243/in/set-72157604114612772/
theIdiot is clearly a troll, and should be ignored.
I had thought he was taking his name from Dostoevsky. However since he didn't pick up any of my literary illusions then I think I am probably mistaken.

54. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200849 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 10:30 am

Comment #200717 by theIdiot

But what can one expect from a loser in his fifties or so, who attaches a picture of himself to his forum profile, in hopes that some forum chick finds him attractive and wants to sleep with him. Yea, I'm sure you live the epitome of a meaningful life. I'm sure your life is quite empty, or at least cheaply filled.
Ooh, that wouldn't be an ad hominem would it? And such a strong one at that. I am suitably chastened.

Enough people here know who I am, what I do and my achievements. I really am not interested in justifying them to you.

55. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200814 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 9:11 am

Comment #200808 by TeraBrat

Why take the bait? Why not just let him spout and ignore him and he'll go away.
Personally I don't engage with him any more. I am quite happy to let others do so.

He does need to be challenged, but it needs to be done carefully. If he isn't challenged then he will go away claiming that atheists are unable to defeat his "arguments". If people become angry it becomes counter-productive and he is able to take away lots of quotations to show that we are "fundamentalists" and now "fascists".

Steve Zara and Billy Sands both have a good tactic (at least as far as I am concerned) and, despite what Steve says, this is partially based on ridicule.

56. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200801 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 8:53 am

Comment #200718 by TeraBrat

I hope everyone else has noticed this particular aspect of your character. Your need to be right all the time and your imperviousness to argument.
You ridicule and put down what you can't argue against.
See, worked perfectly. I raise a fairly mild piece of ridicule and you immediately went all huffy and started shouting. Makes you look even more ridiculous ;-)

As Cartomoncer and others can tell you, the first part of the medieval university syllabus was the Trivium. This included grammar, logic and rhetoric. The latter includes persuasion, and making your opponent looks ridiculous can play a part in this.

But as I said (a point which you completely ignored), it has to be done both objectively and judiciously.

Clearthinker comes here, uses ridicule as almost his only tactic and is completely emotional about it.

You have to learn to distinguish between the two.

57. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200716 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 6:36 am

Comment #200687 by TeraBrat

Please give me an example of something you were convinced of by being ridiculed.
Where do you want me to start? Back in primary school with the type of incident described by mordacious1. In a state school arguing for transubstantiation (though I didn't know the word then) and being laughed at after I had moved from a Catholic school. Dressing in absolutely the latest fashions as a teenager even though I wasn't particularly comfortable in the clothes but fearing ridicule if I didn't keep up.
But if there were twenty kids in the class who picked their nose and twenty who didn't it would have no effect on him.
mordacious1 gave you a definitive situation where a change had occurred. You obviously didn't like that so you try to raise a hypothetical in order to wave it away.

I hope everyone else has noticed this particular aspect of your character. Your need to be right all the time and your imperviousness to argument.

58. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200656 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 3:34 am

Comment #200655 by Steve Zara

And, the juggling analogy is very good.
Speaking as someone who still can't do a Mills mess. Though I do have balls that glow in the dark ;-)

59. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200646 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 3:02 am

Comment #200641 by Quetzalcoatl


I think you've hit the nail on the head in comment 61.
Whereas I would say it is close, but not in the gold.

As you imply the FCOS is probably not, shall we say, a unified whole. I don't think (personal opinion alert) it is a matter of keeping it within bounds, I think it is more stopping it from undergoing schism. As I say in another thread, I rather think DAR has got a large number of balls in the air and has to work very hard to stop them falling to the floor. Committing to a position could effectively make him lose control of one of the factions.

I note Quetz is poster on the FCOS site. I would appreciate comments on my suppositions (I suspect SG and Billy Sands have views too).

60. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200643 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 2:50 am

Comment #200637 by Quetzalcoatl

Wow, Clearthinker's visiting a lot at the moment. Perhaps there are troubles in the FCOS and he's looking for somewhere to vent?
Does anyone here juggle? Do you know that feeling when you are at the limit of what you can do and a minor distraction will make everything collapse?

61. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200619 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 1:52 am

Comment #200618 by scottishgeologist

They cant
You are missing an apostrophe, or perhaps you aren't.

EDIT: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/cant_1?view=uk

62. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200617 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 1:47 am

Comment #200480 by TeraBrat

Ridiculing never convinces anyone of anything. It's not only pointless it's detrimental and counter productive. It makes people dig in and entrench themselves in their arguments.
It depends on how you use it. As Barry has pointed out reductio ad absurdum is one way of using ridicule productively.

You can find another one here - http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2785,A-secular-world-is-a-sane-world,Pat-Condell,page1#200608

Do you think that Steve actually expects an answer from David Robertson? Or do you think he is exposing him to ridicule by pointing out that he never answers questions asked of him.

Abusive ad hominem of the type so eloquently exemplified by Irate_atheist and Diacanu can also be useful when "something just needs to be underlined".

Objective aggression is fine if used judiciously. Subjective aggression doesn't have any place in argument.

63. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200600 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 1:05 am

Comment #200596 by mordacious1

When is Josh going to get this site back to automatically posting links? It is annoying.
My previous post was parsed correctly and the link inserted automatically. So it is probably down to your set up rather than the site.

It might be worth deleting any cookies associated with the site and trying again.

64. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200597 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 1:03 am

Comment #200595 by decius


Mussolini, the father of fascism signing the infamous pact with the Vatican.
But as Billy Sands will remind you, DAR signed the Westminster Declaration of Faith - http://www.freechurch.org/resources/confessions/westminster.htm

65. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200585 by epeeist on June 28, 2008 at 12:21 am

Comment #200577 by clearthinker

In the Brave New World of Atheist facism
Newsflash: In a clip today David Robertson used the phrase "atheist fascism".

When asked why he stated "Well, 'atheist fundamentalism' seems to have been losing its impact. I needed to find something else to infuriate people on the Dawkins web site and hide the fact that I am a drive by poster with no arguments."

66. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200575 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 11:21 pm

Comment #200521 by TeraBrat

And what's hers is yours ;-)
It doesn't work like that.

To use a Yorkshire'ism. "What's thine's mine and what's mine's me own".

You might want to look at the history of matriarchal societies. If you go back to mythology there are often hints that many societies were matriarchal before becoming patriarchal.

67. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200569 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 11:07 pm

Comment #200395 by theIdiot

I say I'm half a christian because I desire for the Christian Gospel to be true, I'm a half an atheist because I have my doubts. I'm unsure if its a beautiful reality, or a beautiful delusion. If someone thinks they have a better classification for me, they are welcome to express it.
Is this existential angst or Russian lugubriousness? Someone looking for belief in belief? Which former regular contributor does that remind me of (hint: he lives in France and occasionally pops back to bless us all).

You would like to think it real but then realise it would mean believing that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father could make you live forever if you symbolically ate his flesh and telepathically told him you accepted him as your master, so he could remove an evil force from your soul that is present in all humans because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree and thereby pissing off an invisible wizard who lives in the sky. Waking up after being transformed into a monstrous vermin sounds rather more likely.

Here's a hint: you are not a steppenwolf. Goldmund is a much better model if you want a life that has meaning.

68. Psychiatrists: Least Religious But Most Interested In Patients' Religion

Comment #200567 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Comment #200555 by Dr Benway

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me...
To complete the joke for those who don't know it.

Than a pre-frontal lobotomy.

69. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200296 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 9:16 am

Comment #200262 by Apathy personified


As far as I understand it;
No, if it is a government funded school (non-academy) it would have to rigidly follow the national curriculum - So no ID allowed. Also, if it isn't on the exam, the teachers probably wouldn't bother teaching it.
ID/Creationism isn't on the syllabus and won't be going on the syllabus. So my lady wife tells me, and she sits on various committees that decide on the syllabus.

In some respects the national curriculum protects us from this kind of lunacy (though I suspect Blair and the religious cohort in his cabinet would have changed this if he could). Is there a national curriculum in the States, or do individual states set their own curricula?

70. Creationist critics get their comeuppance

Comment #200249 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 6:59 am

Comment #200246 by phasmagigas

i see what the shagfly and his ilk are upto. they see lenski doing 20 years of serious graft, then they sit back, put up their feet and say 'nope, you got it all wrong, goddidit because i say so, your work is invalid, i know better, next....'
Cue Steve Zara in his latest incarnation. The arrogance of these people is absolutely astounding.

It's worthwhile repeating this since we haven't seen it for a while:

The Bible: Because all the work of science and philosophy is as nothing to the wisdom of a tribe of cattle sacrificing primitives.

71. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200225 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 5:44 am

Comment #200214 by Gregg Townsend


I find this a curious statement; why would it be 'difficult' to defend? Government isn't in the business of advocating for faith.
There are a whole stack of difficulties. There are hysterical raisins, faith schools have been about for a long time in the UK and there are a substantial number of them. The shear amount of inertia in the situation would be difficult to oppose.

The second thing is the political situation. Arch-loony Blair and arch-creepy Kelly essentially opened a Pandora's box when it came to faith schools. Son-of-the-manse Broon doesn't seem to be interested in trying to close it back up again. Indeed the current education secretary Ed Balls seems keen on privatising the whole education system. Second-hand car salesmen are particularly in favour in this.

The probable next government is unlikely to make any changes. The CofE has always been associated with the phrase "The Conservative party at prayer". As you can see from David Cameron's wikipedia page he claims to be CofE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_cameron

If we are talking about the art of the possible then the simplest way to start the dismantling of faith based schools would be to make them follow the same entry procedures as other state funded schools.

72. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #200205 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 4:32 am

Comment #200200 by Vaal

Clearmind, I don't mean to be rude, but where on Earth were you educated?
He says he is Romanian and has BA and MA degrees. He hasn't revealed the subjects though.

He also claims to teach primary school children.

73. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200198 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 4:20 am

Comment #200191 by hungarianelephant

I'm sure even he wouldn't sanction a free-for-all which allowed publicly funded Satanist schools.
Assuming they had the all the ticks in the boxes, followed the national curriculum etc., then on what grounds could he object?
Here in Ireland, some of the most oversubscribed schools are "Educate Together" schools
So the schools that do well are the ones that are associated with parents who are interested in the education of their children rather than merely their religion? Strange that.

And his point about religious schools getting the better results doesn't really hold up anyway - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/a_level_gcse_results (this doesn't include independent schools).

74. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200165 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 2:24 am

Comment #200158 by Mark Barratt

The best argument against critics of secularism has been made excellently on this thread, but I think it always bears repeating as much as possible: to wit, if you are against secularism you are taking a huge risk. There are many, many sects of many, many religions, each with poorly-hidden wishes for theocratic rule, and if secularism is defeated there's no guarantee that YOUR sect will be the one that ends up in charge.
Meaning no disrespect, but a theist probably said it better than you.
I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber barron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.

And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme -- whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence -- the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication.
Now given that David Robertson is quite the one for the "No True Scotsman" fallacy I am unsure whether he would accept that C.S. Lewis was a real Christian. However, this doesn't detract from Lewis's argument.

75. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200147 by epeeist on June 27, 2008 at 1:38 am

Comment #200106 by clearthinker


Even by Graylings and Dawkins standards this is a new low. So the C of E and the Baptists are into cannibalism and sexual perversion, believe in aliens coming to earth and always threaten torture?
Why do you interpret the article as though it is merely talking about Christianity?
As for the mantra that education MUST be secular - who says? Given that the number of atheists is a minority of the population why should my tax go to pay for the indoctrination of children into secularism? THe more this country has gone down the secular route the worse the education has become - which is why those who want their children to do well at school are desperate to get them into a C of E or Catholic school - even though they themselves are not believers. I object strongly to the uniformitarian ideal that all should get the same dumbed down secular education. The only thing that is worse is a secular state education for the poor (aka the USA) whilst the rich get to send their children to private schools (often religious).
  1. Secularism is not atheism despite your attempts to brand it so. All secularism is asking for is a separation between church and state. It does not claim there is no god, or that there should be no religious education
  2. The country has become more secular, the quality of education has gone down. Correlation/causation fallacy
  3. Maintained religious schools have been shown to use the faith requirement as a selection criterion. If they had the same entry requirements as state schools (which they should have since they are taking state funding) then do you think there would still be a difference in results?
  4. "Dumbed down state education", emotional language worthy of the Daily Mail and with about the same evidential value
Really David you ought to live in Tunbridge Wells. At least then you could sign your missives as "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells"

76. The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete

Comment #199790 by epeeist on June 26, 2008 at 11:06 am

Comment #199770 by Steve Zara

Collecting huge amounts of data and statistically analysing this has always been part of mainstream science. There is no change in the scientific method that results from that.
Data mining in the finance industry comes to mind as well.

Having worked in industries where one does designed experiments and others where one just gathers huge amounts of data and hopes to sort it out later I know which tends to work better.

And as has been noted elsewhere, there is an correlation between the decrease in the number of pirates and the increase in global warming.

77. A War On Science

Comment #199769 by epeeist on June 26, 2008 at 10:43 am

Comment #199766 by Steve Zara

The Christian God at least is not supposed to have that many parameters:

size -> infinite
goodness -> infinite
power -> infinite
extension in time -> infinite
Coo, so one can have Aleph zero gods and Aleph one gods...

78. The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete

Comment #199767 by epeeist on June 26, 2008 at 10:40 am

There is a criticism here - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080625-why-the-cloud-cannot-obscure-the-scientific-method.html

79. A War On Science

Comment #199739 by epeeist on June 26, 2008 at 9:18 am

Comment #199734 by al-rawandi

Wait a second, are you saying that MPhil would consider the razor an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc, or are we thinking of different definitions of abductive?
He can speak for himself of course.

I wasn't just speaking of the razor. Rather the general set of methods one uses to infer to the best hypothesis. These are abductive and do affirm the consequent.

80. A War On Science

Comment #199730 by epeeist on June 26, 2008 at 8:58 am

Comment #199717 by Cartomancer

Oh, I agree that it's useful practically, but as a rule of thumb rather than something on which grand epistemological structures should be built.
If you are going to call it a rule of thumb then I would have to agree with you.

Of course it would be different if you called it a heuristic ;-)

Remember that all we are claiming for theories is approximate truth. This being so, fuzzy rules of thumb are just another tool in the armoury (though I suspect MPhil would give this the grandiloquent title of abductive logic).

To switch it around though - theories with lots of ad hoc entities in a theory lowers its explanatory power.

81. God hates Mars

Comment #199722 by epeeist on June 26, 2008 at 8:43 am

Comment #199718 by annabanana

there's probably some version somewhere that I could eat now
Oh there is - http://www.chocolatetradingco.com/magazine.asp?id=134

I think even Scot might deign to eat this.

82. A War On Science

Comment #199712 by epeeist on June 26, 2008 at 8:24 am

Comment #199706 by Cartomancer

Yes, the razor seems to produce good results, and overall is more a tool for weeding out likely theories than for justifying which is true, but why should the most parsimonious explanation necessarily be the best one?
The razor is only one of the tools used to choose between theories, there are others (Kuhn gives things like accuracy, broadness of scope, consistency and fruitfulness of research programmes).

What you are doing by choosing the most parsimonious explanation is reducing the number of undetermined parameters in your theory (okay then, fudge factors). If h explains the data then why should you need to use h + X?

83. A War On Science

Comment #199697 by epeeist on June 26, 2008 at 7:55 am

Comment #199688 by rationalE


I thoroughly expect this comment to get me removed from this site.
Why? David Robertson and clearmind still have access.

Aren't there similarities between faith and the assumption of theory?
No. All theories are provisional, new facts that falsify a theory will cause it to be discarded or replaced. If the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is wrong.

However, faith does it the other way around. If the evidence contradicts the particular dogma of a sect then the evidence is wrong, or at least insufficient to disprove their holy book.

someone please explain the origin of planetoids, ice fragments, and hydrogen.
One could point at papers on accretion discs and the formation of hydrogen at about 3 minutes after the big bang, they aren't hard to find. However, your education is your responsibility. Do some reading first, then come back and ask questions.

And as an aside how did a "higher power" produce planetoids, ice fragments and hydrogen? The scientific theory gives a mechanism, it is only fair to expect a corresponding explanatory mechanism from the theist.
Relax, the thought of a higher power isn't weakness
Oh I can think of a "higher power", it isn't a problem at all. I just can't seem to find any evidence for the existence of any of them.

84. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #199665 by epeeist on June 26, 2008 at 7:07 am

Comment #199660 by Shmeezers


the arrogance of the atheist comes out in stark clarity...
The atheist? Which one would that be in particular?

85. God hates Mars

Comment #199658 by epeeist on June 26, 2008 at 6:53 am

Comment #199654 by annabanana


Sadly, I will not be participating in the chocolate discussion since I am allergic.
Oh good, more for us.

More chocolate porn - http://www.hotelchocolat.co.uk/dads-chocolate-P240016/

Anna - is the chocolate or the additives? The above company do gluten, nut, milk, egg and alcohol free chocolates.

86. God hates Mars

Comment #199588 by epeeist on June 26, 2008 at 3:23 am

Comment #199586 by Clapton_is_God


I thought that life (and the Universe and Everything) was farted into existence by the Great Green Arkleseizure).
Nah, a different god did it and the mucus didn't come out of his nose - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atum

87. God hates Mars

Comment #199544 by epeeist on June 26, 2008 at 12:19 am

Comment #199462 by 8teist

The egozi is a pale immitation of a chocolate bar, it is a pseudobar a veritable antichocolate bar.
Did somebody mention chocolate - http://www.greenandblacks.com/uk/productdetails.php?pageid=27&cid=6&pid=86

88. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199279 by epeeist on June 25, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Comment #199264 by al-rawandi

What is a pipe bunk?
Think narrow, hard, uncomfortable. For a racing yacht they take a very low priority compared to things like sail storage.

Nice programme on Ellen McArthur here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l47KNapznQE&feature=related

89. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199269 by epeeist on June 25, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Comment #199261 by decius

I always found it very difficult to watch fencing on tv, although admittedly is one of the few sports which I find attractive.
The action is too fast for traditional filming techniques to be able to catch anything at all, and even the slow-motion results in a blurry sequence at best.
Have a glance at http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1478623914238877457&q=saber world championships&ei=hpZiSKSPH6TyigK78-iFAw&hl=en

Speed is one of the major problems, the other is the concept of "right of way". It would help if they showed the referees as an inset since they have specific hand signals to describe the phrase and who gets the hit.

90. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199262 by epeeist on June 25, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Comment #199253 by al-rawandi

Sooooo women suck at sailing?
Err, no - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/sailing/4229079.stm and http://www.solarnavigator.net/tracy_edwards.htm
Maybe I should skipper a yacht.
With your build you would be an asset to yacht racing, this is where speed and power is required. Coffee-grinder winches take a lot of effort to use.

You would have two difficulties, firstly an IQ of anything above double figures isn't really necessary to be a winch man. Secondly I am not sure that you would be able to cope with pipe bunks, they aren't exactly built for someone of your size ;-)

91. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199251 by epeeist on June 25, 2008 at 11:42 am

Comment #199233 by al-rawandi

Do you disagree that fast twitch muscles and reaction times are different between women and men.
Tricky. I am not sure I would want to be claim anything definitive on this without something better than anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately my books on physiology are still in boxes.

I can really only pontificate for fencing. Here reaction times are slowest for epee fencers, faster for foilists and fastest for sabreurs. It improves if you have preferential eye-hand cross coordination, particularly left-handed with a dominant right eye. This is probably because you are saving on inter-hemispheric transfer of visual signals. Reaction times for females are somewhat longer than for males, but there is a considerable overlap (some data I have gives RT of 356ms for men and 397 for women with standard deviations of 38ms and 34ms respectively. The same study shows that female fencers have better reaction times that male karate practitioners)

In competitions you see higher heart rates in males than females, oxygen cost has the same pattern. Lactic acid build up is about the same.

Dynamic lower limb strength is higher in males than females, and this affects explosive movement time which is critical in getting a hit. However in things like isometric strength and non-explosive movement times there isn't too much difference between the sexes.

92. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199229 by epeeist on June 25, 2008 at 11:02 am

Comment #199177 by Epinephrine

Having the same rights and freedoms certainly doesn't make men the same as women. Equal but different, and as a result there will of course be differences in the ways they are treated.
Perhaps I didn't phrase it very well. I wouldn't disagree with the way you have put it.

However, let me give you an example where there is a perceived difference, and a physical one at that.

As I noted, I used to be a sailor (why I no longer sail is a story for another day). Those who have seen my pictures know the kinds of crew I used to have -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10983076@N08/sets/72157605487930517/

My wife and I both have the same qualifications. We used to take turns in skippering the boats we chartered. If I was skipper there would be no problem. If she was skipper it wasn't quite so good. She would be asked for her papers much more often than I. If I was in the harbour master's office then officials would talk to me rather than her, even though she was down as skipper. If we were in a larger boat (12m and above) she would often be asked how she handled such a large vessel. This was regardless of the fact that handling a cruising yacht doesn't require a lot of physical effort (racing is different), that being a skipper doesn't require any additional physical effort and we normally had mixed crews anyway.

And it isn't just public officials, the same scenario applies in places like garages.

These kind of differentials are one of the few reasons she emphasises her doctorate.

93. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199159 by epeeist on June 25, 2008 at 8:56 am

Comment #199148 by al-rawandi

I don't hear women complaining about captains of sinking ships yelling "women and children first."
Speaking as a former sailor you wouldn't do that anyway. You get the strongest person into the lifeboat first.

Now, it may be fact that I live in a female household (wife, two daughters - even my daughter's guinea pig was female) and that my wife teaches at an all girls school but I am sensitive to the fact that women are (unconsciously) treated differently to men in a number of circumstances.

I will go with Phil and admit that this tends to be generational. I suspect that there is also social grade element as well.

94. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199146 by epeeist on June 25, 2008 at 8:40 am

Comment #199140 by phil rimmer

I have to weigh in with Al, Allan, TOCT etc. on this. I genuinely believe the back of the equality problem has been broken. The tipping point has occurred.
Not getting at you in particular.

However, I would take a little more notice if some women actually said that the battle was over. That they got equal pay for equal work, that they are not passed over for promotion purely because they are of childbearing age, that they were welcomed with open arms by the members of clubs that were previously male only but now are mixed and so on.

95. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199078 by epeeist on June 25, 2008 at 7:03 am

Comment #199064 by al-rawandi

No problem. Simply show me one instance where feminists are talking about priorities in the world and are ranking problems like the ones I mentioned ahead of whether they can get together and smoke cigars at the Elks club.
My elder daughter worked for http://www.naral.org/ while she was an intern in Massachusetts. Is this the sort of problem that you think they ought to be tackling?

96. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #199016 by epeeist on June 25, 2008 at 3:48 am

Comment #198995 by Vaal

So Epeeist, are you training any potential Olympians? Do we have any potential Olympic medallists in the fencing?
I started one sabreur, Stuart Marshall, who is on the Olympic pathway for 2012. I now share his coaching with a coach in Sheffield and another in Budapest. I also coach a young pentathlete, Alice Fitton, who at 14 is winning under-17 championships in the UK and is doing well at European level.

For this year's Olympics we may have a chance for a medal with a foilist called Richard Kruse. He has been injured and actually was selected on a wild card. The other person who was selected was a sabreur called Alex O'Connell. Less of a chance for him though.

The major problem with being selected for the UK is the way the IOC does things. They take representation by zone, Europe, Americas, Africa etc. The strongest zone is the European, so our fencers have difficulties getting in. I don't know whether this happens with other sports.

97. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198985 by epeeist on June 25, 2008 at 1:03 am

Comment #198644 by Steve Zara

Aren't you supposed to... you know.. stop them a bit?
In the days when I used to compete, then yes.

These days I am purely a coach, so the aim is for the pupil to hit me. Which is why I wear about three times as much protection as them, sweat like a pig and lose about 3lb in weight during a good session.

A couple of things that might(?) interest you. One of the aims of modern coaching (i.e. that done in Eastern European countries, Italy, France and the like, but not the UK) is to lower the cognitive load that specific actions take. This allows the fencer to concentrate on the tactical aspect of the bout rather than the simple physical action.

The other is to try and anticipate what the other fencer is going to do. There is some indication that mirror neurons may play a part in this.

98. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198639 by epeeist on June 24, 2008 at 10:36 am

Comment #198143 by Steve Zara

Just a thought, but I think we have clearly illustrated what txpiper is - an egomaniac who considers himself one of the world's elite - someone who can see the truth that his intellectual inferiors like Einstein missed.
Just to extend this a little before I go and let people hit me with bits of metal.

Txpiper isn't just saying that his knowledge of physics, biology, geology etc. is better than that of any scientist you care to mention.

He is also saying that his interpretation of Christianity is superior to all others. He is also claiming that his interpretation is true, which makes all others at best inadequate and more likely false.

99. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198456 by epeeist on June 24, 2008 at 2:43 am

Comment #198455 by Philip1978

Well, if blogs be important here be mine!

http://teafueledmadness.blogspot.com/
I came across something that you might like the other day, a theme song if you like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eELH0ivexKA

100. The Flea Delusion

Comment #198435 by epeeist on June 23, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Comment #198388 by Faithhead

Funny, now they are writing fleas about fleas!
To keep the literary basis of the whole flea thing:

"The Vermin only teaze and pinch Their Foes superior by an Inch.
So Nat'ralists observe, a Flea Hath smaller Fleas that on him prey,
And these have smaller Fleas to bite 'em,
And so proceed ad infinitum."

From one of Swift's poems.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next