the brownhaze: the dsutbin of the internet

blog

since 18/9/2003

Monday, April 20, 2009

results of internet arguing

A very long time ago I was arguing about the smoking ban in a forum on facebook. At one point someone joined in the debate who started going on about all sorts of irrelevant nonsense like the environment (very off topic) that sounded so stupid that I assumed he was some sort of troll who was just trying to wind everyone up by being a dick. Apparently I was wrong and his brilliant arguments were so compelling that he has tracked me down to this blog and left a comment on it. I will post that here to save you looking for it:

"You were so pleased about your "put downs" that you spent time and effort writing a bloody blog about it. Good god, how really sad are you.
Oh, and for the record your put-downs were about as clever as your arguments ie shite.
Maybe one day, if you keep giving it serious thought, your tiny brain may be able to grasp the logic of my argument. But then again, maybe not, but do please keep trying...

Oh and as I pointed out 40 odd pubs a wek are closing down because of your totalitarian smoking ban! Where have all the non-smokers gone now pubs are smoke-free? At home having a wank wondering whose else they can fuck off and destroy the civil rights of?"

so, Paul, (you left you name on the comment so I will use it here) yeah, I was pleased with my put downs at the time. I was more baffled by your comments "Oh I get it - you don't like a bit of smoke in a pub because it "pollutes" the pub - but at the same time YOU are quite HAPPY to pollute EVERYONE'S environment"? I seriously thought you where taking the piss, I mean, what where you even going on about. Anyway, you will be pleased to know that I now feel like I have been totally "served" by you harsh criticism that my argument was "shite" (ouch). As for my points and my "totalitarian smoking ban!", you obviously didn't read any of what I wrote, or you are incapable of comprehending stuff past the end of your noes.

By the way, thanks for taking the time to look me up, have you been looking since last January 2008? Quite frankly I had forgotten that I had even been in that forum, so thanks for reminding me and thanks for giving me a cheap laugh.

oh, and lastly, Paul, let it go, it was a very long time ago now and it was just a silly bit of fun at the time. Chill.

Thursday, April 02, 2009

Woman’s hour (or one hours man hate as I call it)

Its been on for a few moments. “call us if you have to lay your husbands clothes out for him every morning”. How about “call us if your wife is a stupid bitch who cant reverse park, read a map or wire a plug.”

Then going on to talk about an assertions made in the Allen Benet play “history is 5000 years of the ineptitude of men”. Ok, is he fact that women may not have been reported on as much in history worth discussing? Sure, why not. But why put it in these divisive terms. You may just as well have a discussion about how history shows that men are flawlessly brilliant and all important events that ever happened were done by men.

I don’t understand why whenever a program has a female focus it has to immediately start bashing men.

Men BOOOOOOOOOO!

edit: ok, ok, now women in Cuba are better of then women in the UK becuase there is no "glass celing". *fume*

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Further Feminism

I am now listening to Woman’s Hour. It’s the usual hard hitting stuff, talking about the Woman’s Institute (WI) again. This time it’s a bout a students chapter of the WI at a university.

They were talking about the “problem” that all groups at this university have to be open to anyone (how dare they). The student who is organising this said that, due to some pretty boring details about there being two separate memberships that you need to sign up to, that she has managed to get around the “problem”. Hmm, equality for men is a problem is it, I see.

I think that this attitude should be taken in lots of situations where there are groups that men would prefer women did not get involved in, it would be great to sort those “problems” out.

In short, excluding women form traditionally male organisations, sexist. Excluding men from traditionally female organisations, fixing a problem.

The stupid thing is that it isn’t even a problem. They could have left the membership open to all, what man in his right mind will want to join the WI.

Further MEN BOO!!

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

feminist , eh?

I am listening to a show on Radio 4 about feminism and how it was. I had a very feminist up bringing and would say I am probably more of a feminist then most women of my age, that said….

My god these women piss me off. Here is a good quote to give you an idea of where they are coming from. “..of course, the men all wanted to think were lesbians”. So *all* men thought that then, sigh. In there list of events if feminist history was Martina Navratilova winning Wimbledon. She was playing against other women, how is that a win for feminism? And they, like so many others, are moaning about how women don’t earn as much. *that is because they do jobs that pay less money*, if you want to earn more, get a job that pays more.

The bit that really wound me up was talking about Thatcher. Believe it or not she was not a good example of feminism. This is because she took away milk from schools and did a bunch of stuff that was bad for socialism. Well, guess what, she was a woman running the country, just because you don’t like her politics does not change that. It makes you wonder what she would have to have been like to be good for feminism, breastfeed during prime ministers questions? Turn 10 downing street in to a commune?

What I take away form that is that these woman were more interested in being outraged about stuff then achiving "equality", and they still are all these years later.

MEN, BOO!!!

PS Navratilova was in Words spell check, who would have thunk it.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Shozu

Ok, so i have a new smartphone (a nokia E7¹if you are interested) on to which i have inastalled Shozu, which is a kind of social networking hub from which you can update blogger, flickr, youtube, facebook, twitter and a bunch of services that i dont use.

So, what does this mean? Well hopfully, the frequency of my posts will increase, but i suspect the quality of the spelling will go through the floor, i am doing this on my phone after all.

Monday, December 15, 2008

arguing on the internet.......

I should not really post this kind of thing on TBH, but sometimes its just too good not to share.

I argue with rightwing religious nutcases on an internet forum. It makes me a bad and silly person, but it amuses me.

Somebody had posted a question thread titled “Who actually thinks evolution is logical, and has proof for its occurrence?”

A zelot called “William” replied to this, below is our descossion thread.

William
Evolution is the biggest joke of all man kind. All Darwin did was say, " hey,,those two animals kinda look alike!" Then boom!!!! he had an apiffiny. a wonderful and mystical world wher animals just magically change into other animals!!!! To be honest,, when I first read the Origins of Species, my first thought was that he should have been a writer for children. They eat that magical stuff up! :o)

The BrownHaze
but there is this invisible guy called God who invented the universe, reads our thoughts and would make us spend an eternity in hell if we find the same sex attractive.

Forgive me if I don’t hold you up as the best person to judge what sound sensible and what sounds fanciful.

William
just read my reply to canadianeh below and then reply back to me about how wrong you are.

This is the “answer” that he was referring to
Thats not really suprising.I want you to use your head now. Can you do that for me?

Energy is applied to matter right? Energy is applied to matter by matter. So think now,,,,how did the first transferring of energy begin?How did motion just "happen" in a godless universe. Matter cant just up and move itself without possessing energy, and energy cant apply itself to matter without matter applying irt. So,tell me, how did the cosmos come to be without a supreme being?

The BrownHaze
How “wrong” I am. Wow, you’re conceited.

This is the same retarded explanation for “intelligent design”. We don’t know the exact answer to a scientific question, so it must be god.

Once upon a time people did not know that the earth revolved on its axis and that it revolved around the sun, so they assumed it was a god pulling the sun on is magical chariot.

Once upon a time, people thought that rats spontaneously appeared in boats full of grain.

Once upon a time people did not understand about germs and infection. They thought that illness was to do with an imbalance of the humors of the body.

Then later, we learned more about the universe and worked out, on the balance of probabilities, what is most likely to be the case, baring in mind that outside of mathematics, we cannot know anything for certain.

Now I want you to use your head now. Can you do that for me? Just because you cannot explain something dose to mean that god, pixies, a magician or Elvis did it. All we can do is attempt to theorise on what the most likely cause may be.

If I come in to work in the morning and find a muffin left on my desk, I do not assume it was a omnipotent super being who left it there. I attempt to think of the most likely answer, discounting those which I consider to be too far outside the realms of possibility. When I hear hooves, I think “horses not zebras”

What I cannot understand is why you are attempting to use science to explain your religious beliefs. You don’t need to, you have faith. I would imagined (although I do not know) you beliefs would include miracles. Water in to wine, raising the dead, that sort of thing. These need no scientific explanation, in fact, they defy science because they are miraculous, but this is not a problem for you because you have faith.

But, lets say we are going to answer your pseudoscience. The universe cannot exist without a god creator? OK, what created god? And if the answer is anything remotely like “magic” you forfeit the right to use science to explain anything ever again.