Bring it, Cosmos

Cosmos is prepared to debate one he describes as a simpleton:

It should be clear by now that I’m willing to debate any issue you choose to raise on your blog. I’m just waiting for something of substance and wondering if you have something of substance to offer rather than the lifeless claims you offer up to support the simple views of atheists that you can’t seem to get beyond.

But I do have faith you’ll keep trying, just no expectation you’ll actually step up.

Well, at least we both agree that the views of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are simple. But interestingly enough, Cosmos also sees a connection between VTU shooter Cho and Christianity that I truly don’t:

I guess we can expect to see christians adopted a picture of Cho as their symbol.

Perfect, there’s our subject for debate right there. You have the position that Cho is a reasonable symbol for Christians, I shall oppose it. You may proceed with the first argument, if it’s too long to easily post here in the comments then simply email it to me and I shall post it here in its unedited entirety.

And then I shall respond to it.

UPDATE: Unsurprisingly, Cosmos backs down, claiming that he was only being sarcastic, implying therefore that his statement about the connection between Cho and Christianity should not be taken seriously. (Never mind that others are raising precisely the same point based on the Christianity of most Korean immigrants and the religious faith of Cho’s mother.) Of course, this also contradicts his previous statement that he was willing to debate “any issue”.

This should demonstrate to everyone’s satisfaction that Cosmos is simply yet another loudmouth lightweight with an excess of bark and a dearth of bite. I note that I offered him his choice of subjects, which he declined, then suggested a subject which he himself had brought up, which then he again declined. Let him be henceforth known as “Michelle” in honor of another famous master debater.

Anyhow, perhaps someone else would prefer to debate me on a subject of rather more interest to me, which is my notion that the current debate between Christianity and the “new” atheism is a logical extension of the trans-Channel hostility between the Newtonian and Leibnizian calculus camps.

The boys are back

Regular readers may recall that after the team from the next level at our club took all of the eight-year olds early last year, we faced a rebuilding process that was complicated by the fact that everything had to be explained to the kids instead of them being able to see the older boys putting the ideas into practice.

With the exception of two tournaments that we couldn’t reasonably skip, we basically took nine months out of the tournament cycle in order to let the kids develop without getting hurt or having their confidence crushed. Today was their first tournament together as a team of eight-year olds, and they wasted no time in running completely amok.

Despite doing my best to rein them in, they averaged seven goals per game in their first five games, all shutouts, and in some of those cases it could have easily been 20-0. They ran out of steam or they would have won the last game too instead of tying 1-1, the combination of a silly defensive blunder and missing five straight easy chances at the end kept them from a perfect day. But I was proud of them for refusing to quit even when they found themselves unexpectedly behind halfway through the game.

The play of the day was a gorgeous backwards pass from our substitute center-mid, a Brazilian kid whose urge to display his one-on-one skills sometimes works to the detriment of the team. But in this case, he was boxed in by two defenders and flicking it across the field behind him with the bottom of his foot was the only option with any chance of success. Unfortunately, the shot he created for our striker was saved by the goalie, but it was fun to see the look of surprise on the faces of the people watching the game nevertheless.

There are few things more beautiful than seeing flawless execution in sports at any level. These kids have always known what to do, but they just weren’t physically capable of doing it before. Now that they’re strong enough to send a pass cutting all the way across the field, experienced enough to anticipate it and fast enough to run onto it, they’re doing exactly what I hoped they’d be able to do at this point.

I don’t know if these kids can imitate their predecessors and take out the professional feeder squads of Blue and Black, but at the very least, they’re definitely going to scare them.

And what’s kind of cool is that because of the success we’ve been having at the lowest two age levels, the club is adding a third team so the kids can stay with the program three years longer than before.

Mailvox: on "outing"

>Do your critics think that they’re really, really smart for figuring out your real name, Vox?

It’s pretty obvious that they’re just hoping to cause trouble for me somehow. “Outings” of names, home addresses and so forth are almost always done in an malicious manner by a critic. This can be seen in the way that the same individuals who make a habit of “innocently” outing their critics never seem to do the same regarding other individuals of whom they approve.

And it has caused the very occasional problem, or at least, what could theoretically be a problem if I was the sort of individual who didn’t possess any leverage in my day job. I suppose “the occasional discussion” would be a more accurate way to put it.

Of course, everyone always backtracks immediately when I respond to queries about my exotic ideology by asking them for a comprehensive list of what beliefs are acceptable to them and which beliefs are not. They usually begin apologizing profusely right after I ask them if they would like to receive my list in return.

Still, the fact that something isn’t a secret doesn’t absolve one of guilt for attempting to betray it. And what is the point of going out of one’s way to expose a name behind a pseudonym or a home address if one is not motivated by malice? Pandagonians, since Amynda doesn’t hide her IP address, her street address, her telephone number or her social security number, tell me, does this mean it is appropriate for me to post them here? If not, please do explain why not.

I note that by JF’s standard, once the information is out anywhere in any context, it is forever fair game. (I would think that the copyright page from Rebel Moon would have made for a better case than a decade-old archived newsnet post myself.) So, once Devious Diva’s information was released by the first individual, JF and those in agreement with him cannot reasonably condemn those who merely repeated what was at that point public information.

Auguste, fortunately, thinks twice before asserting irony:

One of two things has happened:

a) I’ve been banned – which would be ironic given the whole line of “complaining about something, and then doing the thing” and given the second comment above:

“Yeah, as spineless as her (their) removing non-conforming comments.”

So, nicely done.

Or, b), and since I’m charitable, I’ll just assume this is the answer, something’s going on with haloscan.

This isn’t Pandagon. You have to work pretty hard to even get a warning here, let alone a comment deleted. In four years of blog comments, only twelve people have been banned.