Milo Yiannopoulos vs Businessweek on Anita Sarkeesian

I had an argument over a piece by Milo Yiannopoulos of BreitBart news over his response to a businessweek article about Anita Sarkeesian.

I really can’t stand irresponsible journalists who try to wrap themselves in the cloak of journalistic integrity while they attack other journalists so I went into detail explaining why his response was really an example of yellow journalism at its near worst.

My one complaint about the original piece by Sheelah Kolhatkar is that the title of the piece doesn’t really match the cotnent of the piece. I really wish that journalists would stop doing click bait headlines; I suspect that’s really all that Milo was responding to here.

So i’m posting a copy of the two facebook posts for those who want to reference them and engage in further discussion and debate on the topic.

Nero1

nero2
I may have gotten the paragraph numbering wrong. his piece is the TLDR version of the “fallacy of many words” which makes it a bit tricky to keep track of that sort of thing.

youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheTruePooka

Support me on Patreon!: http://www.patreon.com/user?u=145141&ty=a

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thetruepooka

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheTruePooka

*edited to add in tags*

Freedom From Atheism Foundation Doubles Down

The following blog is being posted to serve the purpose of providing a link to a private email exchange I had with one of the people behind the anonymous Freedom Freedom From Atheism Foundation.

Normally I don’t not post a private PM exchange like this, but when a person or group practices such a degree of deception and spreads lies about me (linked here) in such a malicious and deliberate fashion then they have forfeited the right to the normal considerations I give to all when it comes to private mail exchanges.

If not contacting a source to the FFAF is a; “red flag” then one must wonder what sort of flag is raised when the FFAF has a conversation with a source and then in spite of the information given they (the FFAF) lie and make up whatever fits their present agenda?

ffaf expense1

I will offer an apology to the Sam Harris fans here;

At the time I sensed that the response from the Harris fans to a video I did was heading in that over-the-top direction one often experiences on the internet. But in the end, the response from them was no different then any typical Youtube comments exchange that one gets on most videos. So my sincerest apologies to the Sam Harris fans that I characterized as “fanatical” in this email. some might say it isn’t necessary to apologize for something publicly that was intended as a private exchange but as I’m the one making the pm public I felt it was warranted.

FFAF2 storifyjpg

Video response connected to above post. 

youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheTruePooka

which is now

youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/PhilipRose

Support me on Patreon!: http://www.patreon.com/user?u=145141&ty=a

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thetruepooka

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheTruePooka

Men’s Rights Movement Matriarchy Theory?

Men’s Rights Activist AVFM co-founder Dean Esmay denied that he made the claim that women have all the privilege and men have none. He even went so far as to accuse me of lying when I pointed out that he’d just said this.
dean demand

Here is his claim in his own words for his own edifice. A claim he made in the very exchange where we were arguing in so I’m amazed he doesn’t seem to realize he said it.

Dean wrong

I’d ask him to retract his accusation where he flat out calls me a liar but so far I’ve yet to experience such a level of journalistic integrity or professional courtesy from the writers of the Men’s Rights Movement, so I’m not about to hold my breath waiting for an apology. 

The point of all this? if you don’t want people to think you support matriarchy Theory, stop saying things that make it sound like you support Matriarchy Theory. 

Follow me on:

youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheTruePooka

which is now

youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/PhilipRose

Support me on Patreon!: http://www.patreon.com/user?u=145141&ty=a

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thetruepooka

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheTruePooka

*correction* Dean Esmay has requested that I include a statement  informing all that he is not the co-founder of AVFM but only the present editor. As i am committed to journalistic integrity I’ve posted the correction here in the blog post. 

TOTALLY NOT RACIST I SWEAR!1!1

Patrick Doran a.k.a. MadShangi (and numerous variations of that name), one time blogger at A Voice For Men and avid MRA supporter would like to assure you all that he’s still totally not racist by once again saying and posting racist things.

But he’s not a bigot. 

He swears. 

totally not racist

Men’s Rights Ironic Activism

Putting aside for a moment that AVFM has full gone into full Conservapedia-Andrew Shlafly mode and created the “AVFM Wiki” page (facts brought to you with an <insert bullshit worldview>  bias!), I find it incredibly ironic that a man guilty of  tax forfeiture would be complaining about the tax exempt status of other organizations.

avfm1

I can think of one person who would approve of this sort of financial transparency, go ahead and read what he has to say on the topic!


Follow me on:

youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheTruePooka

which is now

youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/PhilipRose

Support me on Patreon!: http://www.patreon.com/user?u=145141&ty=a

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thetruepooka

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheTruePooka

 

*edits to fix blurry image

You Know NOTHING, Sye Ten.

(the following is the text version of this video here).

Let’s take a look at Sye’s whole argument and not just the single premise he spent ten minutes explaining why he felt he’s not required to offer reason or support to justify. To defend that premise Sye used the; “but I’m really super-cereal special” defense of God, Let’s look at his whole argument this time.

Sye;
Premise 1: It is reasonable to believe that which is true.

Premise 2: It’s true that God exists.

Conclusion: Therefore, it’s reasonable to believe that God exists.

I’m getting the impression that Sye is trying to do a runaround on justified true belief. Justified true belief is a philosophical concept that dates back to Plato. Up until the 1960s it was treated as the accepted, established definition of what knowledge is.

Then a philosopher named Edmund Gettier came along and with a few simple observations did the philosophical equivalent of drop a nuclear bomb on the Justified True Belief definition of knowledge, and the field of epistemology hasn’t been the same since.

For half a century now no one has really been able to offer a definition of what “knowledge” is that has the strength and certitude of the now defunct JTB definition of knowledge.

Which brings us back to Sye.

He appears to be trying to come up with a definition of knowledge that doesn’t involve justified true belief but when you examine premise one and three you see that all he’s doing is a poor reordering and rewording of the justified true belief definition of knowledge (I’ve reordered his premises here for clarity’s sake and I am treating Sye’s conclusion as a premise as it is an unsupported, and therefore more premise than conclusion).
sye slide 6

 

Sye is using the word “reasonable” in the place of “justifiable” in premise thre and if you apply consistency to Sye’s usage of the word “reasonable” then premise two is also a statement of justification as well. In other words, it’s a statement of justified belief; in the context of the premise a justified true belief.

But I suspect Sye knows Gettier killed the justified true belief definition of knowledge (he didn’t just kill it, Gettier dragged it into a back alley, stole its wallet, pummeled it to death and then uploaded a bunch of selfies of himself with the corpse for the whole world to see). So rather than say these beliefs are justified Sye is saying that they are “reasonable”.

What Sye has given us is a definition of knowledge which has two assertions of justified belief with no establishment of belief. I had originally thought that Sye’s argument is viciously circular but upon closer examination I’m seeing that it isn’t even that. It’s just incredibly incoherent. Sye presenting a circular reasoning argument would actually be an improvement on what he’s offered here. In the end run all Sye has done is shown that he’s proven he doesn’t know anything.

Don’t forget to subscribe and if you think helping me do my part to expose those who fight against reason and knowledge is important then follow the link below to my patreon page where you can offer your support. remember, your support helps make this all happen.

Follow me on:

youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheTruePooka

which is now

youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/PhilipRose

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thetruepooka

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheTruePooka

*same day edit to fix picture and add sign-off