Religion

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

95. Word salad is a psychiatric term for a symptom commonly seen in schizophrenics.

Reply to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #94)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:25 PM

Oct 2012

Surely you did not mean to call this new member a schizophrenic?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

140 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

PLAYBOY INTERVIEW: RICHARD DAWKINS [View all] HarveyDarkey Aug 2012 OP

What do you suppose he means by "creative intelligence"? rug Aug 2012 #1

Why don't you ask him? mr blur Aug 2012 #2

I think he is saying edhopper Aug 2012 #3

That's sounds about right. rug Aug 2012 #5

Don't speak for him obviously but how I might mean it is.... dmallind Aug 2012 #4

It's an intriguing notion. rug Aug 2012 #7

Well kind of dmallind Aug 2012 #20

It has nothing to do with special pleading or anything else on the usual list of fallacies. rug Aug 2012 #24

Either an invisible pink unicorn shat the universe into existence, or it didn't. trotsky Aug 2012 #25

How about I just dismiss it out of hand. rug Aug 2012 #26

Creative intelligence, you say? trotsky Aug 2012 #28

"Creative intelligence" Dawkins says. rug Aug 2012 #30

Yep, and Q would fit that bill. trotsky Aug 2012 #32

Actually, he wouldn't. rug Aug 2012 #33

You're right, Q wouldn't care. trotsky Aug 2012 #34

Q, cool? rug Aug 2012 #35

I said cooler than the gods a lot of people believe in. trotsky Aug 2012 #36

It takes little to be cooler than Q. rug Aug 2012 #49

Ahhh rug, once again showing how little value your opinion holds. eqfan592 Aug 2012 #52

Au contraire, mon frere. rug Aug 2012 #53

lol, touche. (nt) eqfan592 Aug 2012 #55

And what is the evidence that there is one? Why should it be the default hypothesis? dmallind Aug 2012 #44

Its his notion. Why would he find it less ridiculous? rug Aug 2012 #48

Why should creative intelligence be the default hypothesis? tama Oct 2012 #104

What do you suppose he means by "creative intelligence"? AlbertCat Oct 2012 #103

Playboy, huh. cbayer Aug 2012 #6

I'll have you know I assiduously avoided the article on Katrina Darling. rug Aug 2012 #8

I am shocked to discover that he might display some sexism. cbayer Aug 2012 #9

Almost like the Pope granting an interview with NAMBLA SecularMotion Aug 2012 #12

Has he done that? cbayer Aug 2012 #13

Um, do you have any idea of all the people Playboy has interviewed over the years? Humanist_Activist Aug 2012 #14

Yes, I have been hearing my entire life how people buy the magazine for the articles. cbayer Aug 2012 #16

That seems rather harsh, sounds sex negative in fact... Humanist_Activist Aug 2012 #17

Right, Playboy is not a sexist magazine and does not exploit women. cbayer Aug 2012 #18

The women are willing, so if there is exploitation, its no worse... Humanist_Activist Aug 2012 #19

Do you also think prostitutes are willing and therefore not exploited. cbayer Aug 2012 #21

In places where its legal and regulated to ensure the safety of the people involved, no... Humanist_Activist Aug 2012 #22

She successfully hijacked the subthread. trotsky Aug 2012 #23

I think she would get into an apoplectic fit at a nude beach... Humanist_Activist Aug 2012 #29

Seems to be more common in people with a particular religious upbringing. trotsky Aug 2012 #31

You did not address HA's point, which was all those other people interviewed by Playboy. 2ndAmForComputers Aug 2012 #37

Playboy interviews have always been good. The problem is the rest of the magazine. cbayer Aug 2012 #38

So the answer is yes. The impossibly high standards ARE only for atheists. 2ndAmForComputers Aug 2012 #40

No, the answer is not that. cbayer Aug 2012 #41

Riiiiiight. 2ndAmForComputers Aug 2012 #42

So the African-American community in the 1960s Goblinmonger Aug 2012 #43

Really? dmallind Aug 2012 #45

Anti-atheist bigotry? Where? You've come to expect that from me? cbayer Aug 2012 #47

Yes I have - and on almost every post on the subject you make. dmallind Sep 2012 #57

Where? You are totally off base. cbayer Sep 2012 #58

Your condescenscion is stunning, as usual... onager Aug 2012 #50

Done. with. you. cbayer Aug 2012 #54

Well done, onager. trotsky Aug 2012 #56

After which, as usual skepticscott Oct 2012 #60

She's been exposed and discredited so many times, it's become routine. n/t trotsky Oct 2012 #62

I'm baffled that a new (new?) poster decided to kick this two month old thread as its first post. 2ndAmForComputers Oct 2012 #65

Baffled katemary Oct 2012 #82

Agreed the rest of the magazine IS a problem that RD should have been aware of. katemary Oct 2012 #59

Alanis Morissette, Al Franken, Benicio del Toro, Bill Richardson, Fareed Zakaria, George Carlin... 2ndAmForComputers Oct 2012 #61

And were they naked and airbrushed or there for what they had to say. katemary Oct 2012 #63

Let me get the word salad out of the way and state things simply. 2ndAmForComputers Oct 2012 #64

You avoid the issue. kwassa Oct 2012 #66

There's sexism in the music industry, in business, in sports, in entertainment, and especially... trotsky Oct 2012 #67

Why shouldn't Dawkins worry about doing it? kwassa Oct 2012 #68

So all those other people DID do a bad thing? 2ndAmForComputers Oct 2012 #69

Why no, of course not. trotsky Oct 2012 #72

At least your motivation is clear. trotsky Oct 2012 #70

Reality is a commodity not traded in that circle. cleanhippie Oct 2012 #71

It's like the USSR playing up racism problems in the US to divert attention from the Gulags. 2ndAmForComputers Oct 2012 #76

There you go, inventing my motivation again. kwassa Oct 2012 #77

It's less than 1:1. trotsky Oct 2012 #78

Society has a sexism problem. kwassa Oct 2012 #79

Thank you for admitting I'm right. trotsky Oct 2012 #80

If atheists really were working it out RD would NOT have appeared in playboy. katemary Oct 2012 #86

Jimmy Carter. Interviewed by Playboy. trotsky Oct 2012 #93

Dawkins is NOT having this discussion in the open and the atheist community is not responding anyway katemary Oct 2012 #83

My goodness. trotsky Oct 2012 #84

Yeah some atheists are sexist - doesn't mean it should be entrenched as right in the movement. katemary Oct 2012 #88

As I suggested in my other response, trotsky Oct 2012 #92

A would should he still be an a position of influence. katemary Oct 2012 #106

WARNING: Goalposts on the move! trotsky Oct 2012 #108

I think you're moving the goalposts. katemary Oct 2012 #114

Your argument centers around your belief that somehow the interview Dawkins gave to Playboy... trotsky Oct 2012 #117

I've responded to this straw man already. katemary Oct 2012 #120

You doubt Carter would give that interview now... trotsky Oct 2012 #127

You are correct. That is the issue. It has never been whether Playboy runs good cbayer Oct 2012 #74

Nice to see you've backed off your original outrage. trotsky Oct 2012 #75

If appearing in what is a sexist mag is ok why not a mildly homophobic one? Whats the difference? katemary Oct 2012 #85

I suggest you focus your outrage with a letter to former President Jimmy Carter attacking him. trotsky Oct 2012 #91

Respond to some of the actual points I've made. katemary Oct 2012 #107

No, you need to explain your double standard first. trotsky Oct 2012 #109

When did I say it was ok for Jimmy Carter? katemary Oct 2012 #113

State, flat out, what your problem is then. trotsky Oct 2012 #118

Sorry I thought this thread was about the Richard Dawkins attitude to women. katemary Oct 2012 #121

But why single out Richard Dawkins? trotsky Oct 2012 #128

Ah so Dawkins is ok cos he isn't as bad as the pope or Romney? katemary Oct 2012 #136

I get it now. trotsky Oct 2012 #138

Why would I bash Richard Dawins for no apparent reason? Where is the logic in that statement? katemary Oct 2012 #139

So apparently you think Richard Dawkins himself moderates the message boards on his site. trotsky Oct 2012 #140

Did RD do something wrong or did all of them? katemary Oct 2012 #81

Enjoy your word salad. Feel free to fly back to the flock and claim victory 2ndAmForComputers Oct 2012 #94

Word salad is a psychiatric term for a symptom commonly seen in schizophrenics. cbayer Oct 2012 #95

That's merely one particular use of the term. trotsky Oct 2012 #96

No it was designed to avoid addressing the point. katemary Oct 2012 #110

No, you first need to develop a consistent position. trotsky Oct 2012 #111

Ok tell me what he gained from the interview then. katemary Oct 2012 #115

What did Jimmy Carter gain from the interview? trotsky Oct 2012 #116

My position is consistent. katemary Oct 2012 #119

Please note - I haven't agreed with ANY of your points yet, because you haven't stated... trotsky Oct 2012 #126

Go find another lake to fish. 2ndAmForComputers Oct 2012 #98

I have no idea what that means. cbayer Oct 2012 #99

I told you... NO FISH! 2ndAmForComputers Oct 2012 #100

I still have no idea what that means. cbayer Oct 2012 #101

I think he's demonstrating what he means by word salad. rug Oct 2012 #132

Ah! That explains it. cbayer Oct 2012 #133

Haven't a clue what you mean katemary Oct 2012 #105

Right on cue. 2ndAmForComputers Oct 2012 #130

Oh, ok. Now you think she is a creationist? cbayer Oct 2012 #131

Chess-playing pigeons aren't limited to creationism. 2ndAmForComputers Oct 2012 #134

They are pretty limited. 1-f4. Nasty habit. dimbear Oct 2012 #135

Welcome to DU and to the Religion group, katemary. cbayer Oct 2012 #73

Thankyou and thanks for trying to address the issue. katemary Oct 2012 #87

You are likely to take some heat here for your position. cbayer Oct 2012 #89

That's just a flat-out lie. Goblinmonger Oct 2012 #90

The fact it is rampant in religion doesn't excuse it here. katemary Oct 2012 #124

Well Goblinmonger Oct 2012 #129

I was under the impression this thread was about RDs appearance in playboy! katemary Oct 2012 #137

Those are very inflammatory and accusatory statements you've made. trotsky Oct 2012 #97

Thanks sadly I am finding sexism is an issue. katemary Oct 2012 #122

I think that there were only a small handful of leaders for quite awhile, cbayer Oct 2012 #123

Yep recognise your experiences. katemary Oct 2012 #125

most progressive women would call sexist and exploitative. AlbertCat Oct 2012 #102

How interesting that you compare the playboy women with cute cats. katemary Oct 2012 #112

Yeah, Martin Luther King Jr. was interviewed by Playboy once upon a time, too. trotsky Aug 2012 #15

I met the founders of The Brights last year. cleanhippie Aug 2012 #10

That term makes me cringe every time I hear it Rob H. Aug 2012 #11

I suggested the use "Brighter" instead of "Bright." Ian David Aug 2012 #27

Yeah, that terminology is a FAIL. 2ndAmForComputers Aug 2012 #39

I call myself a Rationalist. Odin2005 Aug 2012 #51

Yes it's a bloody stupid name, but the typical misunderstanding is effect not cause dmallind Aug 2012 #46