18 thoughts on “Peregrinations, ctd.

  1. I think that guy on the video is a total poseur. Why, I bet that ‘acne’ bit is manufactured. Look at him! Men at his great age don’t get acne. SCHMUCK!

  2. Justicar directed, produced, and starred in the video, so his opinion of it, however deprecatory, must be credited as at least well informed. 😉


  3. I do appreciate the notice. I’d planned on doing a different video about the ‘my dictionary is better than your dictionary’ argument on youtube using Mrs. Malaprop and the Phantom of the Opera (by Andrew Dice Clay!), but this one was just so much funnier to me that I had to say something.

    I hope Jerry won’t be upset by it.

  4. Ok, I read the first half(ish) of that article. I saw quite a lot of Coyne-is-an-ideologue-wrong-and-stupid-and-arrogant-and-should-not-meddle-in-brain-stuff.

    And then some confusing metaphor which has been plucked from regions better left imagined with respect to how computers compute their computations (somehow independently of their design).

    And then this inapposite nugget: So if we are all, every one of us,100% deluded (Except Coyne and associates) it is all covered by evolution, which Coyne knows for certain is True. Because evolution is True, there is no need to provide any evidence apparently.

    I guess it’s true: if one wants to make a pie, one needs to invent the universe. And then make sure that the universe invention bit is contained in every discussion of pie, lest one’s interlocutor walk away dismissing the pie conversation as airy speculation because it’s just simply assumed to be true on no evidence or discussion whatever that the universe even exists!

    When will Jerry learn that to discuss anything involving biological creatures is to put one in the position of painstakingly detailing the bulk of all evidence collected bearing on the truth of evolution. Otherwise, it’s just rank assertion and idle speculation based on mere faith, right?

    Yeah, I see little reason to devote much time to that person, whoever it is, and his or her mental masturbation.

    1. If I were to look up ad hominem fallacy in the dictionary, I would expect to see this comment listed as an example.

      Bravo yourself, Josh. Jerry is an awful human being for linking to a video – not because of anything said in the video, but simply because of who made it. Here’s your “good sketpic” [sic] award.

      1. Whoops – even better, I see it wasn’t even Jerry that posted this entry. So Jerry’s a horrible, horrible person because someone else posted on his blogwebsite an innocuous video made by someone you don’t like.

        Got it.

      2. If I were to look up ad hominem fallacy in the dictionary, I would expect to see this comment listed as an example

        Well–a dictionary compiled by deeply stupid people, perhaps. Hint: Josh’s remark wasn’t intended to refute a claim made by Jerry.

        1. Sigh.

          To spell it out for the hard of thinking, it would seem that according to Josh the video is bad not because of anything said or done in it, but simply because of who made (and stars in) it. That’s textbook ad hominem.

  5. Thank Ceiling Cat that Jerry didn’t try to smuggle on a cupcake. From a CNN article: Travelers carrying a “normal” cupcake will probably clear airport security, although additional screening may be required, according to a Transportation Security Administration blog post defending the agency’s recent confiscation of a cupcake. The post, titled “Cupcakegate” was published Monday and promised to be “short and sweet.”

Leave a Reply