LES ANDREWS: Little Bitch

Les Andrews is a big man who, since he was put on his chav ass, has been pissing from the eyeballs like a three year old girl. I suspect this is typical behaviour from a yob who has someone stand up to him.

“Shit, they’re not scared of my waving my arms around like a semi-coherent simian creature, I best GTFO or I might get a punch in the mouf!”

Unfortunately for our Les, he didn’t really think this and kept carrying on like a kiddie after drinking too much raspberry cordial and, much to the satisfaction and joy of most people on the planet (and probably his “friends” too–after all, who posted the video of him crying like a cromag baby?), ended up on his knees scurrying away like a sore poodle.

If you have yet to see it, let me enlighten you:

What a chucklefuck! Apparently he’s now crying about it and threatening to sue the Pommy newspaper, The Sun, stating: “I’m going to sue. I’ve got everyone staring at me because of this.” And: [about the man who helped Les sit down, Jason Smith]: “He should be apologising to me. What have I got to apologise for ? I got arrested for it at the time and I got a fine. Now I feel all depressed.”

Aww, bless. Les Andrews, the epitome of masculinity and machismo, is pissing from the eyeballs again. Poor Les. One day his shiny rainbow might appear and all things will turn to gold for him… or the rainbow might just kick his arse too.

Eyewitnesses. Not Good Enough!

Such is the claim of those suffering from scientism. Now, I’m not the smartest shit in the bowl but isn’t everything based on eyewitness accounts? Let’s go for some infinite regress here, shall we? Let’s play with epistemology.

I’m aware that eyewitness accounts can be tenuous at best sometimes as the human mind’s pretty bloody ordinary with memory and other things. I can’t be arsed going into it; think for yourselves. How do you know that the latest studies/experiments on ANYTHING are accurate? Were you there? No, you’ve based your ideas on that of the eyewitnesses who were. Remembering that part of the scientific method is observation, how is it that suddenly scientists’ observations count for more? Oh, because they’re peer-reviewed and replicable? Peer review doesn’t count for much when certain scientific paradigms, should they be cast asunder, would have thousands of people out of jobs. They’ll accept pretty much anything that doesn’t rock the boat. Some asshole once said something like “It takes a generation for new scientific ideas to become accepted. Just have to wait for the older generation to die off,” or some shit. Yeah, seems about right. Livelihoods are based around scientific notions. People study for years and years to “become someone important” in scientific circles. To have all that knowledge rendered redundant or out of date would be the death knell for those under the apprehension that all they knew was right’s careers. It would leave them as stupid as, shit, me. Can’t have that. I’m just a nobody.

How can you KNOW anything? I don’t profess to know ANYTHING. I, like certain other zetetics, merely rank things on a scale of probabilities. I realise that trusting my own eyes is fraught with possible error as is all information from all my senses. But it’s this same information, filtered through the senses of others, that scientism’s fanboys and girls put stock in… ALL their stock. And yet, eyewitness testimony, even that of thousands of people witnessing the same phenomenon at the same time with exactly the same reports, is worth naught. In fact, without even attempting to study whatever phenomenon that might have been, scientism writes it off as mass hallucination or something equally absurd and its adherents believe it! What? I thought YOU guys were the skeptics? Hardly.

You’re skeptical only of claims that don’t run with the grain of current thought. Why are you not skeptical of the claims made by big phramaceuticals or, wait for it… the government–especially their conspiracy THEORY that 19 arab dudes with boxcutters managed to elude the most technologically advanced intelligence agencies of the world, get on planes without being on passenger manifests, take them over with boxcutters, and proceed to fly these planes through manuevers that even the most experienced pilots of the same planes admit they would have great difficult in doing; why not question how a passport survived a gigantic fireball and was discovered laying neatly on top of a bunch of rubble; why not question how a janitor in one of those buildings experienced an explosion from beneath him before any plane hit (witnessing a friend’s flesh sloughing off after being burned by the same explosion)–someone hailed a hero until he started mentioning this fact and then he was off the media’s hot-list?

Admittedly I only know this, or think I know this, from what I’ve heard, seen and been told but this is exactly the same standard by which scientism’s proponents claim they know certain scientific ideas are factual.

Admit it, you only think you know what you think you know. You can never be sure of anything in the same way that I can’t be sure that even this paragraph states a fact. Even your own eyewitness knowledge may be dubious. How do you know anything?

(I could have worded this better and didn’t really get to any infinite regress but I don’t care. Also, any contradiction you think I’ve made may not be contradictory at all so pointing that out just means you’re a monotheist–non-sequitur, you say? Suck it up, buttercup, religious fanatic, zealot).

Poetverse is not a True Christian

Anyone ever come across this Poetverse sheila (besides all the guys that have–if you get my drift)? If you haven’t let me point a few things out: She’s very spiritual and religious; she loves her god and her church–the only true church, the catholic one; she enjoys opening her gaping ass and textually shitting in peoples’ blogs but when the favour’s returned she gets on the phone and, calling Whine-One-One, requests a WAHHHHMBULANCE. Now, remembering that she loves HER GOD, that is, YAHWEH (or Jesus… or the holy ghost–who can make sense of this triune nonsense?) she married a HINDU BRAHMIN. If that doesn’t spark off a lollercoaster not much will. Being a true christian (and with the use of her whole brain because spiritual people have that gift, apparently) she must realise that her hubby is…. BOUND FOR HELL, WHERE HIS WORM WILL NEVER DIE. That sounds a bit tawdry really. But it’s in the Bible where all good moral teachings come from, such as the genocide of the Amalekites, dashing babies’ heads against the rocks, stoning women to death if they’re suspected of not being a virgin upon being married, that rapists have to pay to keep their victims if they’re caught and so on and so forth.

Now, going off on a tangent as is my wont, what does Paul, the alleged writer of 1Corinthians say about the virtues of a Christian? Let’s see:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  – NIV

Let’s compare that with statements made by Poetverse on an atheist’s blog, shall we? Why, let’s do that for I see no reason not to:

I think you think that I am unschooled in the sciences. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I’ve always been very good at science and have kept up with such topics as theortetical physics and the like.

Is that pride? Also, what is ‘theortetical’?

By the way-my religion doesn’t tell me to stone my children or anything like that…

Oh? What’s all this then?

God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

More…

It is accepted that humans have a higher conscious power that we term spirit.

Know this: It is ACCEPTED! News to you? I thought it might be.

Science requires that humans DISPROVE a phenomenon.

And here I thought the scientific method revolved around iterations, interleavings, recursions and orderings in regards to characterisations, hypotheses, predictions and experiments. I’ve been wrong for so long. Poop.

Oh–and it’s because I used my free will to choose Catholicism.

Then this part of the Bible is irrelevant?

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate…. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called

[Richard] Dawkins aknowledged an existence of G-d and that is what I was pointing out

Everyone, join in with me for a most hearty guffaw at this one.

[On Bertrand Russell's Teapot and a lesson on how to totally miss the point] Okay-a CHINA teapot cannot be between Earth and Mars and revolve around the sun because it would be crushed in space by various gravitational fields.

You aren’t a spiritual person so you don’t have use of all your brain’s faculties–what a shame.

On the other hand, you’ll find the large majority of those in looney bins to be spiritual people using all of their brain’s faculties. And then, finally, in the true spirit of Christian agape love, she says:

I let my Brahmin Hindu husband (surprise–a liberal in your midst) read these comments.

He said, “If you touch shit, you get shit on you.”

Hahaa! So true.

Praise Jesus.

TBC…