About a feminist post

     Take a look at this post by a feminist.  Now, the main thrust of her post is that she worries about masculinity.  But she says she’s not a man-hater.  Why “some of [her] best friends” are men.  Don’t believe she said that?  Check the link.

     Then, of course, she goes on with a false claim that women are more frequently the victim of violence.  The reality is that the statistics are only of instances that are reported and whose reports don’t go into the old “round file.”  Men are subject to violence at the hands of women just as much as women are at the hands of men.  It’s just that, as a society, we are trained to ignore it or (worse) to think “there must be a reason; he must have made her hit him.”

About Norman’s recent post

     It’s cute the way Norman tries to pretend he has a job. He writes, “While listening to the August 12, 2012 podcast of ‘Stand to Reason’ with Greg Koukl, I heard something that I could not only use, but fit in quite will with my intellectual and spiritual development. I was pounding the desk and shouting out, ‘Yeah!’ Then I realized that all my co-workers were staring at me. Then I further realized that my outburst only happened in my mind, so everything was fine.”
     Now, of course, his co-workers were all in his mind. So that part is not surprising. But what he probably doesn’t realize is that someone who surfs the net on company time to listen to podcasts gets fired. When I’m at work, I work. Norman has obviously never worked a day in his life.
     At any rate, he goes on to complain about people using the line “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But, really, the standard is quite reasonable. If you tell me you watched the sun set, I will probably take you at your word (unless you are a pathological liar like Norman.) If you tell me you saw a dragon swallow up the sun, I will require more evidence. This “rule” about people not just automatically believing you when you say something that sounds impossible is nothing new. But here is a good video, by an atheist, about what type of evidence would convince him. When, I was on Blogger, I did a post on what would convince me.
     “I am all in favor of giving evidence, but it must be in a framework that ‘god’s word’ is true, and in obedience to it.”
     He says that he is in favor of evidence, but reveals that he is not. Before Norman will provide evidence, you must first accept his claims as true. And then, what need is there of evidence?

I have a question for Dan

     Dan, you currently say that your god is falsifiable.  I think that this is only because you know that science is only inclined to accept claims (outside of direct observables) which could, in principle, be falsified.  But I will put your claim to the test.  What observation or set of observations would convince you that your god was not real?  That is the essence of falsifiability.  Some observation or set of same could cause one to reach the conclusion that a belief is not true.

Norman is complaining about the administration at Twitter

     Now, for the record, I don’t use Twitter. I like my privacy. I have no reason to twit about what I do 24 hours a day. And, unless you’re endangering someone, I really don’t care what you’re doing either. It has no appeal to me. Apparently, Norman uses it. This comes as no surprise to me as he does seem to be rather full of himself. But let’s see what he has to say.

     “Although they pretend to have standards, if you report an antagonist, you are most likely to get a ‘not our problem’ response.”

     Norman has a tendency to claim that anyone that doesn’t worship the ground on which he walks is an “antagonist.” My personal guess, as I don’t know the details but am familiar with Norman’s behavior, is that he filed one of his “poor me” complaints against someone who dared to disagree with him; the administrators at Twitter looked into it, found that it had no merit, and told him not to waste their time. Strangely, this is the same guy that calls himself a “soldier” for Jesus. He reminds me a bit of the Sir Robin character from Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grail. Indeed, he’s even worse. He picks fights and expects people not to fight back.

     “I have even received threats (including an unemployed alcoholic atheist who tried to tell one threatener where he thought I lived, the [deleted], but Twitter was more than happy to let the troglodytes go on about their merry ways.”

     A note to Norman: Nobody cares where exactly that you live. You’re not that important. You probably should be living in the local state penitentiary. But no one wants to deal with you face-to-face.

     “Oh, Norman thinks I’m lying about Twitter doing nothing? (Typical. For him, almost everything I say appears to be a lie, even with supporting links.) Well, too bad. People will just have to believe me and my screenshots”

     Once again, Norman is forgetting that he is Norman. When he does provide “supporting links,” they tend to be links to himself. And he poses as an “atheist” so that he can construct his screenshots, like he did with his recent “stupid atheist” post. The fact is that people don’t believe him. His track record on honesty is terrible.

     “Perhaps you’ll be more inclined to believe the New York Police Department. Some jerk was making threats that he was going to shoot up a theater in the style of the Aurora, Colorado shootings. The police wanted the information on who was making the threats and made an emergency request, but the weasels at Twitter refused to comply!”

     Amazingly, this is one instance where Norman doesn’t actually link to himself. Still, I can see where the administration could decide that the threat was not credible. I don’t want anyone giving out my personal information without a good reason that includes court oversight. If the police can just use “emergency request” as magic words to access anyone’s information that they feel like, that’s what they will do.

     “Twitter even challenged a subpoena in May 2012.”

     Some of us think that protecting privacy is a good thing. “Prosecutors seeking the data failed to get a court warrant based on probable cause, making an order they obtained earlier a violation of federal law and the Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Twitter brief argued.” Me, I’m gonna side with the people trying to protect Constitutional rights. Norman obviously doesn’t believe in the Constitution.

     “If they don’t care about dealing with the big stuff, I think it’s safe to assume that they will be no help, or even a hindrance, to regular people’s rights and safety.”

     Take a good look at Norman’s actual complaint. He is complaining because Twitter aggressively protected the Constitutional rights of its users. If they did what he wanted they would be a hindrance to regular people’s rights and safety.

Norman again

     Well, Norman is at it again.  He is talking about “strange searches that showed up on [his] site tracker.”  But he is conveniently leaving out the fact that he is launching his own searches to get his material.  If you check out his site, note the time zone that the searcher is in.  It is UTC – 5 hours.  For those who are interested, UTC is roughly synonymous with GMT.  But the US wanted to use its own equipment rather than the equipment supplied by Greenwich, England.  Interestingly, UTC which stands for Coordinated Universal Time (I smell a government committee) has never been universal.  It is GMT that was adopted as a universal standard, until the US decided they didn’t like using a standard set by someone else.  Okay, where was I?  Oh, yes.  The search was from GMT – 5, Eastern Standard Time.  Norman has previously mentioned that that is where he lives (Michigan if I recall correctly.)

     He talks about how he “thought” that people got the message.  But I know of one person who has a motive for clicking on that link.  And seriously, if anyone was searching for erotic stories, he would not click on the one link that said directly that there were none to be found there.  But someone who was dishonestly using it as an example of stupidity might.  Yeah, the person who clicked on it is stupid.  But that person is Norman.  Really, I don’t think anyone reads Norman’s blog except to laugh at him.