Humanist UK patron in the wrong

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/27/dan-snow-rewrites-history-female-spitfire-pilots

Rich coming from people who are supposedly at the vanguard of truth in education?

[Nearly Sane]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/27/dan-snow-rewrites-history-female-spitfire-pilots

Rich coming from people who are supposedly at the vanguard of truth in education?

it seems to only come from a person, not people. Oh, and is the fact that he is a humanist relevant? If so, how?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

it seems to only come from a person, not people. Oh, and is the fact that he is a humanist relevant? If so, how?

Humanist UK consider themselves as the vanguard of truth in education do they not?

[Nearly Sane]

Humanist UK consider themselves as the vanguard of truth in education do they not?

Don't know but even if true how is that relevant to what Dan Snow has said and done here?

[Harrowby Hall]

But women were Spitfire pilots. There were female pilots who ferried aircraft from factories to operational airfields. However, they did not take part in combat.

[jeremyp]

But women were Spitfire pilots. There were female pilots who ferried aircraft from factories to operational airfields. However, they did not take part in combat.

Dan Snow told his daughter that they did fly in combat. He lied to his child and I don't really know why.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

Dan Snow told his daughter that they did fly in combat. He lied to his child and I don't really know why.

But you would if you read the article - his quotes tell you why. He probably told his six-year-old daughter that Father Christmas brings presents too.

[Owlswing]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/27/dan-snow-rewrites-history-female-spitfire-pilots

Rich coming from people who are supposedly at the vanguard of truth in education?

Why do you drag a person's religion/beliefs into absolutely everything that they do and say?

In this case I would, having read the article, suggest that Snow's beliefs are totally irrelevant to the subject under discussion.

Are you seriously asking everyone on this forum to believe that you have never, ever, said sonething that was un-Christian?

[Enki]

But women were Spitfire pilots. There were female pilots who ferried aircraft from factories to operational airfields. However, they did not take part in combat.

Including, of course, Amy Johnson, who joined the newly formed  Air Transport Auxiliary during the 2nd World War.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Owls,

Why do you drag a person's religion/beliefs into absolutely everything that they do and say?

In this case I would, having read the article, suggest that Snow's beliefs are totally irrelevant to the subject under discussion.

Are you seriously asking everyone on this forum to believe that you have never, ever, said sonething that was un-Christian?

It’s a guilt-by-association stunt he’s tried before re Lawrence Krauss. He finds someone associated with something he doesn’t like but can’t rebut (atheism, humanism etc), looks for something that person has said or done (allegedly) that others might disagree with, then mentions the two in the same sentence in the hope that any mud from the latter will stick to the former.
 
It’d be the same if I said something like, “Harold Shipman – devout Methodist. That’s Christianity for you then…” in the hope the slur would stick. It’s contemptible stuff, but he has form for attempting it.

[Walter]

It's Flatard reasoning !!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Owls,

It’s a guilt-by-association stunt he’s tried before re Lawrence Krauss. He finds someone associated with something he doesn’t like but can’t rebut (atheism, humanism etc), looks for something that person has said or done (allegedly) that others might disagree with, then mentions the two in the same sentence in the hope that any mud from the latter will stick to the former.
 
It’d be the same if I said something like, “Harold Shipman – devout Methodist. That’s Christianity for you then…” in the hope the slur would stick. It’s contemptible stuff, but he has form for attempting it.

You can't compare Krauss and Snow with Shipman and you are the only person to attempt a connection. Misrepresentation of the most despicable kind.

Your further attempts to wrap all these things up with the supposed invincibility of atheism and humanism just show how desperate you have become.

Snow is a leading humanist Krauss a leading antitheist both feted by atheist and humanist organisation. Shipman never held that position in Methodism.

Bishops under allegation are vilified on this forum. Hillside opposes any similar reporting of leading atheists let alone any vilification of which, actually, there has been none.

Draw your own conclusions.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy,

But you would if you read the article - his quotes tell you why. He probably told his six-year-old daughter that Father Christmas brings presents too.

What I meant is that I don't think his reasoning stacks up. What harm does it do his six year old daughter to know that women didn't fly combat mission in World War 2?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't know but even if true how is that relevant to what Dan Snow has said and done here?

I'm just wondering if they could now allow Snow to be at the forefront of any campaign against teaching beliefs as truths.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

You can't compare Krauss and Snow with Shipman and you are the only person to attempt a connection. Misrepresentation of the most despicable kind.

No-one did compare them. What was actually compared was the guilt-by-association slur you’re so fond of trying. Ironically, it’s the same mistake you make with your “argmentum ad ridiculum” stupidity.

Oh, and you accusing someone else of being despicable is beyond parody.

Your further attempts to wrap all these things up with the supposed invincibility of atheism and humanism just show how desperate you have become.

No-one did that. Why do you think lying helps you?

Snow is a leading humanist Krauss a leading antitheist both feted by atheist and humanist organisation. Shipman never held that position in Methodism.

And neither Snow nor Kraus did what they (allegedly) did in the name of their other, unrelated beliefs either. Can you see now where you’ve gone wrong again?

Bishops under allegation are vilified on this forum. Hillside opposes any similar reporting of leading atheists let alone any vilification of which, actually, there has been none.

More lying eh? Bishops are vilified because they tell their “flock” to behave one way while behaving differently themselves. Can you find something that Snow said in his BHA role about speaking to six-year-old daughters for comparison purposes?

No, you can't can you. Funny that.

Draw your own conclusions.

People with functioning intellects already have – you crashed and burned.

Again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

What I meant is that I don't think his reasoning stacks up. What harm does it do his six year old daughter to know that women didn't fly combat mission in World War 2?

Well, that's a personal matter between him and his daughter I guess. The journo who wrote the (sympathetic) piece suggests some potentially persuasive reasons for it though

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 Bishops are vilified because they tell their “flock” to behave one way while behaving differently themselves.

Similar I suppose to the vilification received by Krauss from fellow atheists and non religionists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Similar I suppose to the vilification received by Krauss from fellow atheists and non religionists.

No, not similar at all. If Krauss did receive any vilification (the comments I saw were more that he deserved due process before any judgment be made) then it would have been vilification that would have been heaped upon anyone who allegedly abused a position of authority for personal gratification. That's entirely unrelated to any thoughts he had on physics, atheism, Star Trek, stamp collecting or anything else.

By contrast a Bishop who tells the rest of us that, say, sex outside marriage is wrong and is then found to be having an affair with the verger's wife would be vilified because there's a nexus between those two things.

Is any of this sinking in yet?

Anything at all?

Incidentally, you were just caught out again in a series of lies and misrepresentations which, as ever, you just ignored in your reply as if they hadn't happened. What's your thinking here - that no-one notices? What?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

No, not similar at all. If Krauss did receive any vilification (the comments I saw were more that he deserved due process before any judgment be made) then it would have been vilification that would have been heaped upon anyone who allegedly abused a position of authority for personal gratification. That's entirely unrelated to any thoughts he had on physics, atheism, Star Trek, stamp collecting or anything else.

By contrast a Bishop who tells the rest of us that, say, sex outside marriage is wrong and is then found to be having an affair with the verger's wife would be vilified because there's a nexus between those two things.

Is any of this sinking in yet?

Anything at all?

Incidentally, you were just caught out again in a series of lies and misrepresentations which, as ever, you just ignored in your reply as if they hadn't happened. What's your thinking here - that no-one notices? What?

No, several leading atheist individuals and organisations as well as event organisations have dissociated themselves already.

You have understated the seriousness of Krauss,s predicament.

Another turdpolish I fear.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

No, several leading atheist individuals and organisations as well as event organisations have dissociated themselves already.

You have understated the seriousness of Krauss,s predicament.

Another turdpolish I fear.

Then, as ever, you fear wrongly.

First, some organisations have dissociated themselves from him, some haven’t. So what?

Second though, yet again you’ve completely ignored the arguments that undid you in favour of a diversion – namely that the slur by association is wrong in any circumstance (Snow, Krauss, Shipman, whoever), and that there’s a fundamental difference between the behaviours of those whose actions relate to their public roles and those whose actions do not.   

Why are you so utterly dishonest do you think, and what do you think you can gain from it? To my knowledge you’re fooling no-one here, so why waste your time with it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Then, as ever, you fear wrongly.

First, some organisations have dissociated themselves from him, some haven’t. So what?

Second though, yet again you’ve completely ignored the arguments that undid you in favour of a diversion – namely that the slur by association is wrong in any circumstance (Snow, Krauss, Shipman, whoever), and that there’s a fundamental difference between the behaviours of those whose actions relate to their public roles and those whose actions do not.   

Why are you so utterly dishonest do you think, and what do you think you can gain from it? To my knowledge you’re fooling no-one here, so why waste your time with it?

Name an organisation that has not dissociated from him or indeed who continues to share platform with him. Given those who have do you consider organisations/individuals who continue public association wise?

As far as I know he is still welcome in synagogues or churches, so this remains a problem raging in atheism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Then, as ever, you fear wrongly.

First, some organisations have dissociated themselves from him, some haven’t. So what?

Second though, yet again you’ve completely ignored the arguments that undid you in favour of a diversion – namely that the slur by association is wrong in any circumstance (Snow, Krauss, Shipman, whoever), and that there’s a fundamental difference between the behaviours of those whose actions relate to their public roles and those whose actions do not.   

Why are you so utterly dishonest do you think, and what do you think you can gain from it? To my knowledge you’re fooling no-one here, so why waste your time with it?

Accusing of slur by association is probably less demonstrable than an argumentum ad ridiculum.

Sorry, Hillside hoist up your own pittard.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

So I explained where you went wrong again (“Second though, yet again you’ve completely ignored the arguments that undid you in favour of a diversion – namely that the slur by association is wrong in any circumstance (Snow, Krauss, Shipman, whoever), and that there’s a fundamental difference between the behaviours of those whose actions relate to their public roles and those whose actions do not”) and you just avoided the arguments again and instead repeated your previous diversion (“Name an organisation that has not dissociated from him or indeed who continues to share platform with him. Given those who have do you consider organisations/individuals who continue public association wise? As far as I know he is still welcome in synagogues or churches, so this remains a problem raging in atheism.”).

Why so dishonest again? If you want to start a discussion about which organisations have disassociated themselves with Krauss or with anyone else by all means do so. In the meantime though, why not after all these years finally man up and actually confront the relevant points and the associated arguments that undo you?

Accusing of slur by association is probably less demonstrable than an argumentum ad ridiculum.

First, no it’s what you’ve done twice now – once re Krauss, and once re Dan Snow.

Second, it’s perfectly “demonstrable” because it’s exactly what you done. Your own words condemn you.

Third, there’s no such thing an an “argumentume ad ridiculum” (you’re trying to say “appeal to ridicule” here), and you remain as fuckwit ignorant or dishonest as ever when you try to deploy it because you fundamentally get the argument wrong no matter how many times it's explained to you - wilfully so I suspect.
 

Sorry, Hillside hoist up your own pittard.

Fuck me but you’re obtuse (and ignorant). It’s “hoist with his own petard" (Hamlet), and a petard is a kind of grenade so you can’t be “up” it in any case. It actually means being the agent of your own downfall, which ironically is pretty much what you’ve done again with your latest set of misrepresentations and diversions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

So I explained where you went wrong again (“Second though, yet again you’ve completely ignored the arguments that undid you in favour of a diversion – namely that the slur by association is wrong in any circumstance (Snow, Krauss, Shipman, whoever), and that there’s a fundamental difference between the behaviours of those whose actions relate to their public roles and those whose actions do not”) and you just avoided the arguments again and instead repeated your previous diversion (“Name an organisation that has not dissociated from him or indeed who continues to share platform with him. Given those who have do you consider organisations/individuals who continue public association wise? As far as I know he is still welcome in synagogues or churches, so this remains a problem raging in atheism.”).

Why so dishonest again? If you want to start a discussion about which organisations have disassociated themselves with Krauss or with anyone else by all means do so. In the meantime though, why not after all these years finally man up and actually confront the relevant points and the associated arguments that undo you?

First, no it’s what you’ve done twice now – once re Krauss, and once re Dan Snow.

Second, it’s perfectly “demonstrable” because it’s exactly what you done. Your own words condemn you.

Third, there’s no such thing an an “argumentume ad ridiculum” (you’re trying to say “appeal to ridicule” here), and you remain as fuckwit ignorant or dishonest as ever when you try to deploy it because you fundamentally get the argument wrong no matter how many times it's explained to you - wilfully so I suspect.
 
Fuck me but you’re obtuse (and ignorant). It’s “hoist with his own petard" (Hamlet), and a petard is a kind of grenade so you can’t be “up” it in any case. It actually means being the agent of your own downfall, which ironically is pretty much what you’ve done again with your latest set of misrepresentations and diversions.

Hillside

I think had I, like you, jockeyed myself into the position of being the one, if any one, ending up attempting to turdpolish the Krauss affair....I would sound as pissed and as desperate as you do in the above post as well.

A 'Pittard' is a type of fuse used to help an antitheist on his way to losing it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I think had I, like you, jockeyed myself into the position of being the one, if any one, ending up attempting to turdpolish the Krauss affair....I would sound as pissed and as desperate as you do in the above post as well.

Continued evasion noted.

A 'Pittard' is a type of fuse used to help an antitheist on his way to losing it.

No it isn’t – it’s just you fucking up both a quote and an attempt at an argument.

Look, you’ve been found out on (at least) two mistakes here and now you’re running away from them again while throwing dust out of the rear window in the hope no-one notices. Finally deal with it or don’t – until you finally stop lying you'll have nothing of interest to say either way.