Political Cartoons

Culturally outspoken atheism is inherently confrontational, and they take a lot of heat in the form of tone arguments.

Well, I suspect that such heat is and will remain worse for women, until we dispense with our gender bias that says being confrontational is unfeminine.

Edited Date: 2014-09-19 08:37 pm (UTC)

From:

From:

I'm prepared to forgive him anything, because The Selfish Gene was an awesomely good work of popularizing science.

So there.

From:

telemann.livejournal.com

Yep. This.

From:

usekh.livejournal.com

Then somehow he turned in a humourless angry old man shouting at clouds :(

From:

malasadas.livejournal.com

But he also married Lalla Ward which was kind of my early adolescent fantasy.

From:

As was The Blind Watchmaker and The Ancestor's Tale. Sad that he's getting all "You Kids off my lawn!" nutty.

From:

No, I will not forgive him because of that.
But I do find it interesting that you will forgive him not only for his antifeminist and Islamophobic sentiments, but also for his support for pedophilia.

From:

I also forgave Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves.

It was easy to do, because I do not conceptually attach the concept of forgiving a person, to any concept of condoning the behavior in question.

If you're trying to leverage my disgust at pedophilia into producing a disgust for Dawkins, I'm sorry, but I'm simply not wired that way.

From:

I also forgave Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves.
It was easy to do, because I do not conceptually attach the concept of forgiving a person, to any concept of condoning the behavior in question.

I don't condemn Jefferson for owning slaves. I do condemn him for being a hypocrite. Jefferson was the most hypocritical Founding Father to have lived; preach one thing, do the exact opposite.

But on the issue of forgiving: If you have forgiven someone, how do you not condone the behavior? To forgive is to give a pass; it's saying, "All good, no bads, brah."

Edit: Or if you prefer the religious concept: "Thou art forgiven; go your way and sin no more. Thou art shriven of all wrong-doing and made as new as the fallen snow."

Edited Date: 2014-09-23 07:22 pm (UTC)

From:

> If you have forgiven someone, how do you not condone the behavior?

Poor word choice on my part... I had been defining "condone" internally as "to approve". Looking it up, I see that it contains implications not just of approving a behavior, but also implies that the original behavior was morally unacceptable. Knowing the implication, I would now say I can forgive without "approving of the behavior" ... Obviously the mere use of the word "forgive" implies a transgression to be forgiven, and thus presumes behavior of which I do not approve.

> Or if you prefer the religious concept:

In this context, essentially "I'm willing to Forgive X for doing Y because they did Z"... "Forgiveness" isn't the same as in the religious sense. It would translate better to "I am willing to tolerate Y, which X did, because, they also did Z, and I think they are on whole a positive influence on the universe, because Z is more of a positive than Y is negative."

I don't care much about Dawkins statements on Pedophilia. He's talking about his own personal experience with pedophilia as one who was on the receiving end, and coming to the conclusion that its not a huge deal. He then extrapolates that personal fact into a generalized one, to say that it shouldn't be a huge deal for society. I don't agree that his extrapolation is valid, nor that his experience maps to all pedophile exploitations, but it's not like he's pushing for legalization of pedophilia. He should be free to talk about what has happened to him, and how it has effected him, and its not odd or objectionable for someone to use such personal experiences in their judgement about how the world should be. It reminds me of how much grief Amanda Palmer took for her song Oasis because it supposedly trivialized abortion. Well, if her abortion was like that for her, why shouldn't she say so?

As for Islamophobia, I find people typifying him as such equally shrug-worthy. He's an Anti-Theist, Islam is one of the theisms he's opposed to. Does he fear Islam and its effects? Yes, he does, as he also fears the effects of Catholicism and Judaism. Do you feel he has a special hatred for the nations, cultures, and ethnicities that are typical adherents of Islam, more typical of a racial bigotry?

And as for antifeminism, I'd have to decide one a case by case basis after being presented with a case.

From:

I'm sorry, but I can't agree on forgiveness.

I don't agree that his extrapolation is valid, nor that his experience maps to all pedophile exploitations, but it's not like he's pushing for legalization of pedophilia. He should be free to talk about what has happened to him, and how it has effected him, and its not odd or objectionable for someone to use such personal experiences in their judgement about how the world should be

I disagree, on the principle that if not explicitly condemned, then it is absolutely permitted and encouraged. I would be able to use Dawkins' statements as testimony to show that "mild" pedophilia is totes OK.

oes he fear Islam and its effects? Yes, he does, as he also fears the effects of Catholicism and Judaism. Do you feel he has a special hatred for the nations, cultures, and ethnicities that are typical adherents of Islam, more typical of a racial bigotry?

Ah, yes, absolutely. There's his support for Geert Wilders (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders), his comments that being a Muslim makes a person unsuitable for hiring as a journalist, and his description of himself as a 'cultural Christian' whilst saying that Islam is a worse threat than the Catholic Church or any other Christian religion.

And as for antifeminism, I'd have to decide one a case by case basis after being presented with a case.

*blinks*
*stares*
Have you been living in a cave sans internet for the past 6-7 years?

In response to Elevatorgate, involving Rebecca Watson, founder of Skepchick:

Dear Muslima,

Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and...yawn...don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with. Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so...And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin. (Source (http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/))

That was the start of his logical fallacies in regards to feminism, women, and what-all. He's said plenty of other bullshit since then.

From:

> I would be able to use Dawkins' statements as testimony to show that "mild" pedophilia is totes OK.

And how would you do that without engaging in hyperbole or logical fallacy?

> There's his support for Geert Wilders

What did that support entail? A quick Google search shows me this...

http://old.richarddawkins.net/discussions/641896-geert-wilders-a-victory-for-common-sense

If that's the heart of the problem, I don't see the big deal. Just like with Noam Chomsky and the Faurisson Affair, I don't equate support of someone's right to free speech with support for any other of their various objectionable positions that they might want to use that free speech to speak out about. Sure, Mr. Wilder's seems quite the weenie, but I think comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf still falls under the heading of free speech. To say otherwise is to draw our free speech limits at what people are willing to take offense at, and that's a movable line. I fear that propensity, because here in this country, I see very much how Conservatives are using their ability to take offense as a way to control culture.

But maybe you're referring to some other event, if so, let me know.

> Have you been living in a cave sans internet for the past 6-7 years?

Hey, if its not on my facebook feed.....

> Dear Muslima,

Yeah... he's being an ass there... but I can forgive him, because the Selfish Gene was awesome.

From:

And how would you do that without engaging in hyperbole or logical fallacy?

Figure it from these factual statements by others:

“There is no such thing as mild or serious pedophilia. There is child abuse, and the consequence for the victim is that they can be scarred for life.”
-- Peter Saunders, National Association for People Abused in Childhood

“I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”
-- Richard Dawkins

“Mr. Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was committed a long time ago we should judge it in a different way. But we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday.”
-- Peter Watt, National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children

The pro-pedo testimony is easy to extrapolate.

Just like with Noam Chomsky and the Faurisson Affair, I don't equate support of someone's right to free speech with support for any other of their various objectionable positions that they might want to use that free speech to speak out about.

Chomsky defended Faurisson's right to express and publish his opinions on the grounds that freedom of speech must be extended to all viewpoints, no matter how unpopular or fallacious. He's full of shit. I'll agree with the unpopular part. But fallacious? Fuck that noise. If you allow a viewpoint out there that is fallacious, we have to consider it as if it were equal and comparable to non-fallacious viewpoints. Which, for instance, means we should have Intelligent Design taught as a serious viewpoint in comparison to evolution in science classes. Why? Freedom of speech. Can't we point out it's scientifically wrong? Nope, can't do, that would be discrimination and thus a violation of freedom of speech.

Not that free speech actually works that way in this country or any other, thank Science, and that's another reason why Chomsky is full of shit.

Sure, Mr. Wilder's seems quite the weenie, but I think comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf still falls under the heading of free speech.

You mean, he's an out-an-out Neo-Nazi (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders).

To say otherwise is to draw our free speech limits at what people are willing to take offense at, and that's a movable line.

Make that limit at fact/lie and your problems are solved.

Yeah... he's being an ass there... but I can forgive him, because the Selfish Gene was awesome.

And that's your criteria.

James Watson says Africans are genetically less intelligent than Westerners because of their genetic inferiority, but I can forgive him, because he discovered DNA with Crick and that was awesome.

Jonathan Paul "War Machine" Koppenhaver beat the shit out of Christy Mack because he viewed her as his MRA property and how dare she break up with him, but I can forgive him, because he was a wicked cool MMA and his moves were sweet and that was awesome.

No, I find your criteria lacking. And before you tell me that it has to be applied selectively, don't even bother. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

From:

> The pro-pedo testimony is easy to extrapolate.

One man's extrapolation is another man's hyperbole. If Mr. Leter Zaunders, of the National Association for Not Killing Folks says that all murders are evil and there is no reason to draw distinctions between levels of wrongdoing, because all life is infinity precious, that's fine. In a sense its true... but in a real sense, its NOT TRUE. If I then say that I think that killing 1 person is a lesser crime than killing 20, does my argument 'enable' individual murder? By comparing it 'favorably' to mass murder?

Of course not. We don't have to pretend that all acts of murder, or of pedophilia are somehow equally wrong, as if we are befuddled by of some strange psychic round-off error.

There are gradients in all human moral judgements. To act as if there is not because it makes our social responses difficult is an inestimable tactic, and is the same thing that makes me suspicious of fundamentalists... an urge to redefine a complicated world in more simplistic terms because we don't like moral complexity.

As per Chomsky / Faurisson and Dawkins / Wilder, Chomsky's position is that you don't get to put someone in jail because their history conflicts with the official one. People who purposefully spread fallacious ideas should be called out on their shit, but that calling out should fall short of jail time and criminal fines.

> If you allow a viewpoint out there that is fallacious, we have to consider it as if it were equal and
> comparable to non-fallacious viewpoints.

And how the HELL are you able to determine and test exactly WHICH ideas are fallacious, when arguing for one lands your ass in jail? You don't think that's a government power that just might be abused?

> Which, for instance, means we should have Intelligent Design taught as a serious viewpoint
> in comparison to evolution in science classes

Not my point. Not even a little bit. It means we shouldn't send people to jail for publishing a book on I.D. or for denying the holocaust, or for saying that the Koran is on par with Mein Kampf.

We can reject ideas without imprisoning and fining the people who express the ideas we reject.

> You mean, he's an out-an-out Neo-Nazi.

He may be, but I was talking about the details of the case against him, which was what Dawkins was referring to in the Tweet I referenced.

As an aside, I also don't think being a neo-nazi, in and of itself., should be enough to jail or fine someone.

> Make that limit at fact/lie and your problems are solved.

All "facts" are provisional, and determined by argument. Since arguments determine facts, making argument in favor of non-facts illegal, is a wee bit Ouroboros-istic.

> And that's your criteria

Yeah. It is. I balance the good with the bad and make a judgement. If you think the good does not outweigh the bad, that's your business, but for myself, I don't deal in absolutes. EVER. ;)

Edited Date: 2014-09-29 07:29 pm (UTC)

From:

rose-cat.livejournal.com

#notallathiestsareidiots Damn, what has he been smoking?

I still like The Selfish Gene, though. And "dundridge" should indeed be a real word.

From:

new-wave-witch.livejournal.com

But he's a PROFESSOR dude. Everything says is precious honey gold of correctness, he's a DOCTOR of SCIENCE.

*EDIT: GDI HTML I ordered this comment fancy-style!

Edited Date: 2014-09-20 01:03 am (UTC)

From:

Psh, I'm a doctor, it ain't no big.

From:

They disabled blink and marquee in comments a while ago instead of fixing whatever security leak they were causing.

From:

new-wave-witch.livejournal.com

From:

From:

yes-justice.livejournal.com

DOCTOR of SCIENCE.

From:

From:

The weird thing is noting how many in this video are today calling him out on his excessive nuttery, PZ especially.

From:

While it's confusing since that video is genuinely biting and humorous, this was made by an anti-evolution/science (i.e. pro-Expelled) guy.

From:

Was it? At the time it came out, it was suspected that it was made as a mockery of the Ben Stein movie. The lyrics seem genuinely pro-evolution crowd.

I never learned who actually made it. Has that been revealed?

From:

Yeah, it's pro-Expelled. The lyrics are satirizing Dawkins, et al, by having all the mean evil scientists say 'we're smarter than you so shut up', while all the virtuous creationist/ID 'truth tellers' are evicted from their universities by the robot. At first glance it does seem to be Poe's law material, but it's actually one of the cases where the straightforward interpretation is the non-Poe source.

From:

But the lyrics are so damned good on the history of the issue. "Science like Democrates and faith like Aristotle", showing the well observed at noon, "Taking Wilber by Force." (Actually, that last works; Gould did a good essay looking into the history of the Wilberforce/Huxley debate and noted that Huxley did not dominate as the revisionists say today.)

I'd say it's one of those cases where the execution far outweighs the simple interpretation. Funded by pro-Xpellers, sure.

From:

yes-justice.livejournal.com

The only one from that video who is calling Dawkins on his shit is P.Z.

Eugine Scott has been silent on it. Daniel Dennett likewise. Harris is busily putting his own masculine vibe foot into his mouth. Hitchens has been notably silent on the issue, totally lethargic of him. ;-)

From:

Yeah, not a croak from Hitchens, he's oddly moribund lately.

From:

There was one croak, and then nothing. Not a swig.

From:

From: