Religion

trotsky

(49,533 posts)

96. That's merely one particular use of the term.

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:15 PM

Oct 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad

"Word salad is a mixture of random words that, while arranged in phrases that appear to give them meaning, actually carry no significance. The words may or may not be grammatically correct, but the meaning is hopelessly confused."

There is nothing that says using the term means one MUST be referring to schizophrenics. Your insinuation is out of place and inappropriate.

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