20 thoughts on “Things That Depress Me Almost Beyond Endurance”

  1. The femsplaining, as you call it, is correct and scientifically accurate and your grasp of physiology sucks. Which makes it science, not femsplaining. Gender does not enter into the explanation; or as Neil de Grasse Tyson correctly states, (paraphrasing here) belief (like gender) is irrelevant to science being true and factual.

    I’d be happy to take you on regarding which of us has the better grasp of reproductive physiology any day of the week and twice on Sundays,(in church if you’d like).

    It is you who despair because you are the one failing in both physiology (human and comparative) and in metaphysics. Stick to what you know — and this is NOT it.

    But then that’s not surprising, given that the one candidate on the right touted as being the smart one, Ben Carson, also fails to correctly understand and mentor in the sciences. Apparently because he believes science should be required to be consistent with religious interpretation instead of facts.

    Kudos to USA today for correctly reporting something this time:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/09/24/fact-check-ben-carson-rewrites-laws-thermodynamics/72752898/

    Ben Carson claimed that prevailing theories of how the universe began and how planets and stars formed violate the second law of thermodynamics. His comments represent a misunderstanding of scientific concepts.

    Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon and Republican presidential candidate, spoke at a rally on Sept. 22 at Cedarville University — an Ohio school that describes itself as a “Christ-centered, Baptist institution.” Carson began his discussion of science by explaining — correctly — that many studies have debunked the notion that vaccines cause autism. “That’s why we have science and scientific studies to look at these kinds of things,” he said.

    He then went on to say “science is not always correct,” and claimed that the Big Bang theory is one such example (at the 1:03:13 mark):

    Carson, Sept. 22: Now you’re saying, there’s a Big Bang, a big explosion, and our solar system and our universe come into perfect alignment. Now I said you also believe in the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, right? “Yeah.” And I said, that states that things move toward a state of disorganization, right? “Yeah.” I said, so, how is there a Big Bang and instead of things moving toward disorganization they become perfectly organized to the point where we can predict 70 years hence when a comet is coming. How does that work? “Well. We don’t understand everything.”

    According to the Big Bang theory, that initial explosion represents the birth of the universe, about 13.8 billion years ago. The solar system that houses the Earth was born about 5 billion years ago.

    Carson talked about entropy, which is commonly thought of as a measure of order or disorder; increasing entropy essentially means an increasingly disordered state. The second law of thermodynamics says that in any isolated system, the entropy of that system will increase or remain the same — not decrease.

    Carson claims that the Big Bang theory violates the second law of thermodynamics, since the solar system has moved to what he calls a “perfectly organized” point, instead of becoming more disorganized.

    But the two concepts aren’t in contradiction. A small part of a system can become more ordered, while the rest of the system sees a decrease in order in the process.”

    As usual, I applaud your passion and your idealism, but your grasp of facts is terrible, appallingly so.

  2. “Shady advice from a raging bitch who has no business answering any of these questions.”

    Says it all !!

  3. So pro-life Jews believe that Jesus was the son of God?
    You are dimwit, Dog Gone. You are utterly incapable of commenting intelligently on virtually any topic — religion, physiology, politics — you name it. I am far from certain that you even know what the term “metaphysics” means.

  4. DG, are your pinkie and index finger on your left hand abnormally built up due to your constant Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V usage?

    I understand your cognitive abilities border somewhere along fluke worms, but sweet Jeebus, woman, could you at least TRY to have a unique thought/opinion that you don’t lift from some other site?

  5. According to the Big Bang theory, that initial explosion represents the birth of the universe, about 13.8 billion years ago. The solar system that houses the Earth was born about 5 billion years ago.

    Carson talked about entropy, which is commonly thought of as a measure of order or disorder; increasing entropy essentially means an increasingly disordered state. The second law of thermodynamics says that in any isolated system, the entropy of that system will increase or remain the same — not decrease.

    This is VERBATIM shit you just lifted from Factcheck.org. (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/carson-rewrites-the-laws-of-thermodynamics/)

    I didn’t even have to work all that hard to find where you got it. Do you get a clitoral boner from dropping copy-and-pasted crap on Mitch’s site? Does it make you feel somehow intellectual? Do you curl up in a fetal position and coo to yourself after every comment? What, exactly, is your motivation here?

    Good lord, you’re a tiresome bint.

  6. Evidently dg and Emery graduated from the same school of painfully inept plagiarism.

    What else are ha gonna do after you’ve donated your brain to fertilize the tomatoes?

  7. Ah! “factcheck.org”, brought to you by the ultra-liberal Annenberg Foundation. Calling elite liberal opinion “fact” since 2004!
    This is probably a waste of time, but Mitch referred to metaphysics. The “dearcoquette” piece claims that there is no such thing as metaphysics (dearcoquette wrote “There is no magic”). This contradicts no less a philosopher and engineer named Lutwig Wittgenstein, who famously wrote “Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen” (“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”). The quote is from Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. Tractatus Logico Philosophicus is tough going, but Wittgenstein basically was trying to solve the problem of the symbols used in human thought expressing the true nature of the reality that produces human thought. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of metaphysics, or say anything about metaphysics (“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”).
    You would think that after a century where tens of millions of people were killed after the State decided it had the power to declare them non-persons, a self-described liberal would have some doubt over whether it is wise for the state to be able to declare living, developing human beings “non-persons.”
    Dearcoquette, BTW, is subtitled “Shady advice from a raging bitch who has no business answering any of these questions.”
    So we have been warned. Dog Gone takes dearcoquette more seriously than Dearcoquette does, demonstrating, once again, her inability to determine what is and what is not a reliable source of information.

  9. There is a theory that entropy only works one way because the neurons in the human brain work by breaking down glucose, e.g., we can literally never experience negative entropy (which is presumed to exist so symmetry ins’t broken).

  11. Dog Gone, you’re amazing.

    The subject of the post is the vacuousness of people blithely opining on subjects they haven’t thought through. Perfect bait for you.

    You respond by challenging Mitch to discuss reproductive physiology, which has nothing to do with Mitch’s post nor with the philosophical question raised on Coquette’s page, then your ADHD kicks in and you’re off chasing Ben Carson’s rabbit down the thermodynamics hole, gleefully insisting he’s wrong to criticize the Big Bang theory, while not realizing Mitch already had a post on this to which I responded by citing scientists who think the Big Bang theory is bunk. http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=53067 (Yes, that sentence was as long as one of DG’s, it’s a form of flattery).

  12. Here’s the thing, though. There is no Jesus. There is no magic. There is no soul. THERE IS NO CHILD.

    Dennis Prager makes the point regularly that if you have no religion, everything is just a personal opinion. I don’t think it’s a child therefore it isn’t a child.

  13. Joe Doakes you make a noble effort. But I agree with Scott Hughes.

    “Shady advice from a raging bitch who has no business answering any of these questions.”

    The tagline really does sum it up and an argument with a self avowed hormonally- overwhelmed under-performer is a waste of time. But I imagine people who read her nonsense still might make an effort to vote.

    May the Lord bless your noble effort to bring clarity to her readers.

  14. I applaud you Joe. Mitch may corroborate that I used to try and engage leftists through calm, deliberate, logical conversation; wasted a lot of time with that windmill…perhaps not as eloquently as you did there, but I put the effort out there and I have given it up.

    I have concluded that some of these people (not dg) may be intelligent, and well educated, but the illogical necessities of leftism have damaged them; and I mean that sincerely, not as an ad hominum.

    You will never enlighten the raging bitch, because she lives to rage, not learn. dg clings to leftist ideology because there are raging bitches, and sackless douchbags out there that will simply nod their vacuous heads at her foul mouthed amphigory for the same reason kids nod their heads at loud music…it sounds good and blanks everything else out.

  15. There was a philosophical school called “idealism” that reached its peak influence the mid to late 19th century. Idealism held that the real universe — things that had an objective existence — could not be experienced directly. Instead the real, objective universe was experienced via the medium of mental ideas. On one level this is obvious. There is no such thing as pain or pleasure outside of the human experience of it (whether or not animals experience pain the same way that humans do is another question). Modernism rejected idealism in favor of logical positivism. Logical positivism says that our senses can give us real information about a real universe. In other words, an idea like the heat death of the universe describes a real thing, even though the heat death of the universe means maximum entropy. Entropy cannot increase. nothing changes over time. it is void, a nullity. An idealist would say that the heat death of the universe is created by the human imagination, and not in the real, objective universe.
    Logical positivism appealed to the late Victorians more than idealism for several reasons. the most important was that it seemed true. Before Freud and any science of the mind, it seemed that ideas reflected the real universe. The color red was not just a mental phenomenon, “red” was a real feature of the universe. Things would be red even if no living things were there to perceive anything as being red. The tree that falls in a forest does make a noise, even if no one is there to hear it.
    Idealism fell out of fashion because it seemed less suited to the age of science and the modern world. Whether idealism is “wrong” and logical positivism is “right” is not a question that can be answered. It’s not as though idealism prevents you from doing science or improving the lot of man. Idealism assumes a metaphysical, or supernatural reality, while logical positivism denies that metaphysics exist, or at least that metaphysics is of any practical use.
    One interesting theory is that idealism is basically a Medieval way of looking at things. The world is created by God, who created us to experience reality a certain way. The theory goes on to suppose that England’s turn to anti-clericalism in the reformation put all the Medieval philosophers in disrepute. The Medieval world didn’t become a serious field of study, in England, until after the Romantic period. Idealism, in the intellectual capitols of the West, was broken by the reformation and had to be rebuilt. There were well-respected idealist philosophers working in the philosophy and language departments of Oxford and Cambridge from the 1850s until just after World War One, when the logical positivists plowed them under. We are all logical positivists now.
    Two famous writers whose literary works reflect an idealist influence are J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis.

  16. Sorry for the long comment. We are experiencing a tropical storm here and there isn’t much I can do today but web surf.

  17. I went back to her site and apologized for bothering her.

    I thought she was trying to say “God doesn’t object to killing babies” but what she really meant was “God can’t object to killing babies, He doesn’t exist.” In other posts, she applauds Noam Chomsky and Sam Harris, pop-culture atheists.

    It’s got to be hard enough knowing you’ve turned your back on all hope of salvation; she doesn’t need me bickering with her as she strides down the path to Hell.

  19. DG,

    Your constant facility at missing, or ignoring the point, along with your fondness for mistaking “whatever pops up on Google from an approved source” for “authoritative information” continues to astound and, frankly, depress me. You’re not an un-talented writer, when you try and turn on your internal editor. You do, however, present numerous “opportunities for improvement” as a “fact-checker” and analyst.

    I do strongly recommend reading this entire page and its linked topics from beginning to end. It’s not a suitable substitute for a proper education in logic, but it’s the best crash course I’ve seen.

    When you read and absorb some of this information, go back over your writing with a critical eye; I certainly did, and it caused me great embarassment, especially with my writing before 2005. But while it was a tough lesson, it was a worthwhile one.

    It can be for you too.

    You and most of your leftyblog compatriots – including Ms. Coquette – need it. I say that both as constructive criticism and, paradoxically, as taunting a dire shortcoming.

  20. And while your tendency to poop and run means you’ll never read this, I’ll just point this out for the benfi

    The femsplaining, as you call it, is correct and scientifically accurate and your grasp of physiology sucks.

    Well, no. “Coquette” says the argument about babies having souls is irrelevant because there’s no such thing as a soul. Science couldn’t possible tell us that; God knows “Coquette” can’t.

    Physiology? It is a simple fact that while Planned Parenthood advocates abortion up through the third trimester, babies born in the second trimester – including the child of one of the participants to this “discussion” – are alive and well and, ahem, completely as human as you and I, today.

    So the notion that a “fetus” – formed with unique DNA at conception, with evidence of heartbeat, brain waves and senses within the first trimester – only becomes human when it is expelled or removed from the mother is unscientific. Also barbaric and utterly “faith-based”.

    Which makes it science, not femsplaining.

    NOT ONE SINGLE WORD “COQUETTE” SAID WAS REMOTELY BASED IN SCIENCE. OR EVEN “SCIENCE”. NOT ONE F****NG WORD.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.