So right after I wrote that little thing about global warming and how people are tired of caring, I saw the most interesting commercial.
Basically, it's an ad by Jeep that screams, "Fuck responsibility!" The American way is to do what you want, get what you want, when you want it! Especially implicit was the suggestion to screw the future, live today--essentially, global warming can go to hell (I wonder what it'd do to the climate there?).
Maybe it really is an American thing to get tired of, well, thinking through every decision. This is a culture that celebrates spontaneity and is, frankly, confused by the idea of Buying ALL Of Your Stuff On Sale Or With Coupons, Jackass.
Wait...is America one eternal college student?
11.29.2009
11.23.2009
Got ISP?
We're looking for a new ISP! (That's internet service provider, and if you didn't already know that then you possibly do not have any ideas we haven't already passed over.)
Criteria:
1. 728 kbps minimum (pathetic, but...
2. CHEAP
3. NOT AT&T. Fuck you, AT&T! And your totally unreliable coverage. Fuck. You.
Criteria:
1. 728 kbps minimum (pathetic, but...
2. CHEAP
3. NOT AT&T. Fuck you, AT&T! And your totally unreliable coverage. Fuck. You.
11.21.2009
Avatar (the James Cameron one)
Yeah so they had a really long preview of the movie during the last "House MD" episode...and yes I was also wondering, the Nick one? why are there blue creatures everywhere? but anyway, it's like his own movie with a super-complicated world, lots of clever details, and some amazing 3D graphics development (at least according to "Wired").... At any rate, it's all very modern.
And then there's the plot.
Which, to sum it up, is nice guilty American stalwart boy saves cute, earth-spirited, but totally primitive society from the conquerors. I was reminded of "The Last Samurai" or, you know, like pretty much every other Hollywood film that's got the "noble savage" (a cringe-worthy term, and seriously how do you not cringe when you see their stage version) against the usually white invading horde. And then the happy ending is always, always brought about by a self-sacrificing white dude.
WTF!
For once I would like to see a movie intelligent enough to portray the "backwards" people as their own saviors, utilizing their superior knowledge of the natural world and idiocy of a conquering civilization trying to just transplant its whole way of life without any modifications onto their soil. As my friend pointed out, though, that's so unpatriotic! So I decided to go through historical examples of conqueror vs. civilization where civilization eventually won out....
India c. 1947, Japan a couple of times, China at least once (can you count the Boxer Rebellion as a win? I don't know), various South America locales (but honestly things have been so fucked-up there since the conquistadors)...and Iraq and Iran in the 1920s against the British.
Oooooooops.
On another note, how cute is it that people still put terms like "tweet" in quotes? We've already stopped doing it with Google. (Although I would like to see Google also used to mean aggressively-apps friendly, which is not to say I don't love those Verizon commercials making fun of AT&T and especially the iPhone.)
And then there's the plot.
Which, to sum it up, is nice guilty American stalwart boy saves cute, earth-spirited, but totally primitive society from the conquerors. I was reminded of "The Last Samurai" or, you know, like pretty much every other Hollywood film that's got the "noble savage" (a cringe-worthy term, and seriously how do you not cringe when you see their stage version) against the usually white invading horde. And then the happy ending is always, always brought about by a self-sacrificing white dude.
WTF!
For once I would like to see a movie intelligent enough to portray the "backwards" people as their own saviors, utilizing their superior knowledge of the natural world and idiocy of a conquering civilization trying to just transplant its whole way of life without any modifications onto their soil. As my friend pointed out, though, that's so unpatriotic! So I decided to go through historical examples of conqueror vs. civilization where civilization eventually won out....
India c. 1947, Japan a couple of times, China at least once (can you count the Boxer Rebellion as a win? I don't know), various South America locales (but honestly things have been so fucked-up there since the conquistadors)...and Iraq and Iran in the 1920s against the British.
Oooooooops.
On another note, how cute is it that people still put terms like "tweet" in quotes? We've already stopped doing it with Google. (Although I would like to see Google also used to mean aggressively-apps friendly, which is not to say I don't love those Verizon commercials making fun of AT&T and especially the iPhone.)
11.19.2009
Interest Fatigue
So I recently saw a news article that mentioned how people are giving less and less of a damn about global warming as its media coverage increases (and how some idiots have even gone as far as to decide that it can't be real! there's too many scientists behind it now!).
Maybe you'd want to call this a side effect of what people are trying to call the "Information Age," I assume because it's so easy to obtain, not because people are actually trying to get it, but....
Remember when parents would nag you about shit? And how, the more they repeated it, the less you cared?
That's right. The issue is not that people are being overexposed to information at a new and horrendous rate, it's just that information fatigue is how we were raised. It might even be an instinctive response--although I am tempted to give behaviorism a little credit--I think I might have been conditioned to ignore anything repeated more than twice in an hour.
So yeah, things are going to continue the way they always have. The people who care will fight the fights and the people who don't are going to wish that the former would just fuck off already.
The only difference is, in the old days, there weren't as many opportunities for the people who care to recruit.
Maybe you'd want to call this a side effect of what people are trying to call the "Information Age," I assume because it's so easy to obtain, not because people are actually trying to get it, but....
Remember when parents would nag you about shit? And how, the more they repeated it, the less you cared?
That's right. The issue is not that people are being overexposed to information at a new and horrendous rate, it's just that information fatigue is how we were raised. It might even be an instinctive response--although I am tempted to give behaviorism a little credit--I think I might have been conditioned to ignore anything repeated more than twice in an hour.
So yeah, things are going to continue the way they always have. The people who care will fight the fights and the people who don't are going to wish that the former would just fuck off already.
The only difference is, in the old days, there weren't as many opportunities for the people who care to recruit.
11.17.2009
Wikipedia is Evil
Okay, maybe 'evil' is a little harsh...but their goal is nothing short of unbelievable.
If you haven't noticed their Big Brother-esque reassurances that there will neeeever beeee aaaaads (aslongasyoudonatesomemoney), and read their mission statement--it's basically this: To compile all knowledge. All of it! Ever. Possibly in every language, too, but I'm not as sure about that part.
I'll deal with the futility of this goal later. But first, let's look at how they're doing this.
The idea of an encyclopedia that users can edit seems fantastic. Sure, there's the initial doubt of huge personal bias, but there are so many users representing such a diverse chunk of the population, and so many of them are completely dedicated to the idea of objectivity, that I think we have all gotten over this. In fact, kids (at least 7th graders in District 203) are now allowed to use it as a source. But there's something that bugs me about this.
Objectivity. No, I'm not talking Ayn Rand's silly idealism, I'm talking about the notion that any information can be presented without any hint of bias.
The thing is, bias is what makes stuff human. And not just human, but also convincing in a way that allows us to still question its flaws--we all know that it's better to read a primary source, and come to our own conclusions about it, than it is to go to a tertiary one and let them deal with all the heavy thinking (as long as our essay deadline isn't in the next two hours, at least). So Wikipedia, by completely eliminating all bias, has just made it way harder to unsnarl the sources. Any bias there is going to be trickier to find, and their quest for absolute legitimacy through rock-solid standards means that there's no chance of people being able to step forward and say things like, oh yeah this is where it comes from. In general, I don't see enough primaries referenced on Wikipedia to go do the work myself--I believe the general process is clicking on the links at the bottom, then going to the links within those websites.
Also, Wikipedia displays the unique idea that a lot of humans, working together, can achieve near-robotic perfection. Are we Skynet?
If you haven't noticed their Big Brother-esque reassurances that there will neeeever beeee aaaaads (aslongasyoudonatesomemoney), and read their mission statement--it's basically this: To compile all knowledge. All of it! Ever. Possibly in every language, too, but I'm not as sure about that part.
I'll deal with the futility of this goal later. But first, let's look at how they're doing this.
The idea of an encyclopedia that users can edit seems fantastic. Sure, there's the initial doubt of huge personal bias, but there are so many users representing such a diverse chunk of the population, and so many of them are completely dedicated to the idea of objectivity, that I think we have all gotten over this. In fact, kids (at least 7th graders in District 203) are now allowed to use it as a source. But there's something that bugs me about this.
Objectivity. No, I'm not talking Ayn Rand's silly idealism, I'm talking about the notion that any information can be presented without any hint of bias.
The thing is, bias is what makes stuff human. And not just human, but also convincing in a way that allows us to still question its flaws--we all know that it's better to read a primary source, and come to our own conclusions about it, than it is to go to a tertiary one and let them deal with all the heavy thinking (as long as our essay deadline isn't in the next two hours, at least). So Wikipedia, by completely eliminating all bias, has just made it way harder to unsnarl the sources. Any bias there is going to be trickier to find, and their quest for absolute legitimacy through rock-solid standards means that there's no chance of people being able to step forward and say things like, oh yeah this is where it comes from. In general, I don't see enough primaries referenced on Wikipedia to go do the work myself--I believe the general process is clicking on the links at the bottom, then going to the links within those websites.
Also, Wikipedia displays the unique idea that a lot of humans, working together, can achieve near-robotic perfection. Are we Skynet?
11.16.2009
The Brain Will Kill Us
Okay, so we all know that evolution is still totally going on...to be honest, I'm surprised that anyone would think humans have come to a standstill, considering that our species hasn't even been around long enough to register as more than a neutrino in the geological time scale.
But. I hate geology. This is not about geology.
Human brains are shrinking--there's a number of ideas floating out there as to why, are we using the rest of the space more efficiently, or are certain more instinctual and sensory aspects becoming obsolete in a world where, for instance, it is not fun to hear the high ranges every time a siren goes by.
What no one seems to be asking, though: is this a good thing?
Is it time for the human brain, which is a mass of contradictions, to shape the fuck up?
Think about it. On the one hand, there's our wonderful frontal cortex, allegedly the pinnacle of brain design (but hey, the '60s thought rocket fins on everything was a good idea), which is all the judgment and rational thought processing you'd ever need. At the same time, though, there's the mass of dark little worms called our limbic system, respondent to far more primal urges. And, oh, don't forget the amygdala, whose ablation would be oh-so-bad for therapists everywhere.
Anyway, these impulses contradict. I know people like to blame excessively modern or excessively ancient ways of thought on all our problems. Genocide is caused by sticking to the old ways and not being able to adapt to a country defined by a bunch of foreigners that just happens to incorporate a whole lot of people that never actually got along, and that was why they preferred their own states in the first place (huh, I think I got a little distracted there); and development of the most advanced medical techniques has trebled and quadrupled the rates of debilitating diseases that, some would argue, should not be treated in a way that allows a person to have a long, but horridly painful, life.
This...just doesn't seem right.
I think the real issue is that of contradicting impulses. Doing things halfway, if you will. If we were creatures driven purely by emotion, we'd never get around to killing one another on account of being too busy making more of us; and vice versa--rationality dictates that the killing of one's own species serves no logical end.
So: yeah, the brain will kill us, maybe, but only if it stays in such a state of flux. And only if, somehow, democratic impulses take over the entire world and make every action open to this insane tug-of-war.
Or...we could just get a robot government. Three Laws? Awe-some.
But. I hate geology. This is not about geology.
Human brains are shrinking--there's a number of ideas floating out there as to why, are we using the rest of the space more efficiently, or are certain more instinctual and sensory aspects becoming obsolete in a world where, for instance, it is not fun to hear the high ranges every time a siren goes by.
What no one seems to be asking, though: is this a good thing?
Is it time for the human brain, which is a mass of contradictions, to shape the fuck up?
Think about it. On the one hand, there's our wonderful frontal cortex, allegedly the pinnacle of brain design (but hey, the '60s thought rocket fins on everything was a good idea), which is all the judgment and rational thought processing you'd ever need. At the same time, though, there's the mass of dark little worms called our limbic system, respondent to far more primal urges. And, oh, don't forget the amygdala, whose ablation would be oh-so-bad for therapists everywhere.
Anyway, these impulses contradict. I know people like to blame excessively modern or excessively ancient ways of thought on all our problems. Genocide is caused by sticking to the old ways and not being able to adapt to a country defined by a bunch of foreigners that just happens to incorporate a whole lot of people that never actually got along, and that was why they preferred their own states in the first place (huh, I think I got a little distracted there); and development of the most advanced medical techniques has trebled and quadrupled the rates of debilitating diseases that, some would argue, should not be treated in a way that allows a person to have a long, but horridly painful, life.
This...just doesn't seem right.
I think the real issue is that of contradicting impulses. Doing things halfway, if you will. If we were creatures driven purely by emotion, we'd never get around to killing one another on account of being too busy making more of us; and vice versa--rationality dictates that the killing of one's own species serves no logical end.
So: yeah, the brain will kill us, maybe, but only if it stays in such a state of flux. And only if, somehow, democratic impulses take over the entire world and make every action open to this insane tug-of-war.
Or...we could just get a robot government. Three Laws? Awe-some.
11.13.2009
Miniver Cheevy
I don't know how many of you had to read this poem from the "Spoon River" collection by...some dude...but the gist of the thing is, dude obsessed with the shiny medieval times. Born way too late. I think he kills himself at the end, but well that's obsession and a memory of six years ago (god, why does time have to keep passing) for you.
Anyway.
I, too, would like to check out a different century or two...definitely the 19th, so as to smack Napoleon upside the head for fucking things up so dramatically...but, if you think about it, the problem is not just that the histories we read are written by the winners.
History textbooks are written by people of our own time (-50 years if your school has no funding), and as for primary sources? Well, there's no reason for a person to describe every little horrible detail of his life if he's writing for contemporaries; and anyone today is hard-pressed to imagine getting used to the ubiquitous odor of large mammal shit, unless of course you decide to spend a few months in a village backwater enough to have lots of four-legged beasts of burden roaming about somewhere (FYI: highly not recommended, the smell is the least of the problems you'll face).
So, anyway. I don't think it's possible for people to be anything other than a product of their own time.
A long time ago, this wouldn't have mattered too much. But now, there's a greater gap between generations as technology increases at such a phenomenal rate, and, worse, older people are remaining in power.
Let me make this clear: I do not think that we should ever have a president from before Obama's generation again. The reason is very simple: Cold War legacies. Which I have already whined about, so I hope I don't need to rehash that argument especially when it keeps punching us all in the face every single time we have to deal with something that should be a genuine non-issue.
Yeah. That's right. It is now possible to outgrow the world.
Yay better healthcare and cushier lifestyles!
Anyway.
I, too, would like to check out a different century or two...definitely the 19th, so as to smack Napoleon upside the head for fucking things up so dramatically...but, if you think about it, the problem is not just that the histories we read are written by the winners.
History textbooks are written by people of our own time (-50 years if your school has no funding), and as for primary sources? Well, there's no reason for a person to describe every little horrible detail of his life if he's writing for contemporaries; and anyone today is hard-pressed to imagine getting used to the ubiquitous odor of large mammal shit, unless of course you decide to spend a few months in a village backwater enough to have lots of four-legged beasts of burden roaming about somewhere (FYI: highly not recommended, the smell is the least of the problems you'll face).
So, anyway. I don't think it's possible for people to be anything other than a product of their own time.
A long time ago, this wouldn't have mattered too much. But now, there's a greater gap between generations as technology increases at such a phenomenal rate, and, worse, older people are remaining in power.
Let me make this clear: I do not think that we should ever have a president from before Obama's generation again. The reason is very simple: Cold War legacies. Which I have already whined about, so I hope I don't need to rehash that argument especially when it keeps punching us all in the face every single time we have to deal with something that should be a genuine non-issue.
Yeah. That's right. It is now possible to outgrow the world.
Yay better healthcare and cushier lifestyles!
11.10.2009
Give me liberty, or...
Is it better to die free than live a slave?
Really? Are you sure that that's what you'd do?
Patrick Henry's hyperbole notwithstanding, the preference of, well, anything over death is a common attitude in the West. Not so in the East: aside from Japan's famous proclivity for suicide, in general it's considered better to die than be dishonored or, worse, dishonor your entire family.
I'm definitely not in favor of this attitude, especially since outliving one's husband has been considered a mark of dishonor for a long time (not as long as you'd think; Kautilya was quite on top of the whole, if he's gone for a year she can go ahead and remarry attitude). At the same time, I think Westerners, and especially you selfish feeling-obsessed Americans, take the whole 'anything's better than death' far too far.
Case in point: euthanasia. How, exactly, is it "dignified" for someone to spend three months in pain that even the best drugs can do nothing to alleviate, and despite being on so many medications not even have enough basic functionality to walk? What you'd call "civilized" countries allow it (the Low Countries being the most famous example), and yes there is a certain level of grey area--do we do the same for a child born with the horrible Tay-Sachs disease? How far does this go? And is it really any worse than living in a country where it was somehow better to let a woman in persistent vegetative state starve to death?
So yeah. I'm in favor of letting patients kill themselves, but only after we've done everything possible for them. And I don't think suicide should be illegal, either, if that's still a person's decision after extensive counseling, therapy, and treatment.
Instead of taking the passive attitude as soon as we've done everything for the better, it's time to help people get over the worst.
(Note, yesterday's episode of "House" was more a coincidence than anything, although is it just me or has the drama jumped the shark, to never be as impressive again as it was in 4th season? I hope 6th is the last....)
Really? Are you sure that that's what you'd do?
Patrick Henry's hyperbole notwithstanding, the preference of, well, anything over death is a common attitude in the West. Not so in the East: aside from Japan's famous proclivity for suicide, in general it's considered better to die than be dishonored or, worse, dishonor your entire family.
I'm definitely not in favor of this attitude, especially since outliving one's husband has been considered a mark of dishonor for a long time (not as long as you'd think; Kautilya was quite on top of the whole, if he's gone for a year she can go ahead and remarry attitude). At the same time, I think Westerners, and especially you selfish feeling-obsessed Americans, take the whole 'anything's better than death' far too far.
Case in point: euthanasia. How, exactly, is it "dignified" for someone to spend three months in pain that even the best drugs can do nothing to alleviate, and despite being on so many medications not even have enough basic functionality to walk? What you'd call "civilized" countries allow it (the Low Countries being the most famous example), and yes there is a certain level of grey area--do we do the same for a child born with the horrible Tay-Sachs disease? How far does this go? And is it really any worse than living in a country where it was somehow better to let a woman in persistent vegetative state starve to death?
So yeah. I'm in favor of letting patients kill themselves, but only after we've done everything possible for them. And I don't think suicide should be illegal, either, if that's still a person's decision after extensive counseling, therapy, and treatment.
Instead of taking the passive attitude as soon as we've done everything for the better, it's time to help people get over the worst.
(Note, yesterday's episode of "House" was more a coincidence than anything, although is it just me or has the drama jumped the shark, to never be as impressive again as it was in 4th season? I hope 6th is the last....)
11.06.2009
I Really Don't Think It's Just the Media
Okay, so remember those really annoying and kind of gross "10 days to a flat belly!" or whatever ads? The ones with the flab next to the fit and, like, a measuring tape or something (thank you Ad Blocker, for ensuring I saw these for maybe 30 seconds, so also I have no idea what they actually looked like, nor would I want to)?
Well, it now looks like the male equivalent is out. There's just a small difference.
It's to go from a standard, reasonably fit body to an 8-pack complete with massive pecs and even shoulders!
So...the girls just want to lose weight, and the guys want to get into shape.... I know by this point it's instinct to blame the way the media promotes skinny women and buff men...but, hello? It wouldn't work if we weren't hard-wired in some way--and you can talk of preconditioning since no one's really a tabula rasa, but if you look at trends in model sizes...I hear Marilyn Monroe would have actually been a dress size 5 or even 7 by today's standards (unless, of course, you're talking about the grossly inflated sizes, in which case she'd be a 2 floating in a circus tent...). Not to mention the stupidity of sizing in women's clothes, where no one is willing to face up to exactly how big (or small) their waist actually is, and every time I go to buy a pair of jeans I actually have to try them on! (Men, there's a reason women take forever to shop, and only half of it is pickiness.)
People, stop blaming the media and look in the mirror...or, then again, don't.
In other 'news' (there must be a better word for any topic sadly personal)...I finished "Bonk." It's pretty good and very informative, although there's a lot more wisecracking in it than I remember "Stiff" having, and I have to wonder if that's because she was trying to get over the uncomfortableness of the topic or because the editors thought that the readers would need it to get themselves over the uncomfortableness of the topic.
Also, "The Box" is another point for my rule of Never Watch Movies with Two-Word Titles Where 'The' is the First Word. (I think the one breaker so far is "The Departed," which was pretty fucking awesome.)
Well, it now looks like the male equivalent is out. There's just a small difference.
It's to go from a standard, reasonably fit body to an 8-pack complete with massive pecs and even shoulders!
So...the girls just want to lose weight, and the guys want to get into shape.... I know by this point it's instinct to blame the way the media promotes skinny women and buff men...but, hello? It wouldn't work if we weren't hard-wired in some way--and you can talk of preconditioning since no one's really a tabula rasa, but if you look at trends in model sizes...I hear Marilyn Monroe would have actually been a dress size 5 or even 7 by today's standards (unless, of course, you're talking about the grossly inflated sizes, in which case she'd be a 2 floating in a circus tent...). Not to mention the stupidity of sizing in women's clothes, where no one is willing to face up to exactly how big (or small) their waist actually is, and every time I go to buy a pair of jeans I actually have to try them on! (Men, there's a reason women take forever to shop, and only half of it is pickiness.)
People, stop blaming the media and look in the mirror...or, then again, don't.
In other 'news' (there must be a better word for any topic sadly personal)...I finished "Bonk." It's pretty good and very informative, although there's a lot more wisecracking in it than I remember "Stiff" having, and I have to wonder if that's because she was trying to get over the uncomfortableness of the topic or because the editors thought that the readers would need it to get themselves over the uncomfortableness of the topic.
Also, "The Box" is another point for my rule of Never Watch Movies with Two-Word Titles Where 'The' is the First Word. (I think the one breaker so far is "The Departed," which was pretty fucking awesome.)
11.04.2009
Raunch
It looks like we're finally hitting the point where women can treat sex as casually as men do. I say this really only based on a certain famous album, and a few other popular songs (NOT Katy Perry. Go to hell, 15-year-old living in 1948), but the fact that these exist and are massively popular has got to be a sign of something. Namely, that someone thought they could sell, and that they did sell.
Of course, there's still a bit of a price to pay. If you're anything like me, you haven't heard the accusation that Lady GaGa is actually intersex (I doubt it, considering her height), but you definitely know that she's kind of completely insane.
Nevertheless, there it is: women are capable of having casual sex! And not all songs by a woman have to portray her as a "strong" woman who finally got over that one guy but is for some reason still writing a song to him (sorry, P!nk), but can also be about her ability to not be an emotional pussy. Amazing, really, when you think about how prudish American society is.
I mean, people freak out over breasts. To the point where, when those female joggers in New York demanded their right to run topless, an argument was that men would get distracted. Really? Because you don't have any opportunities on your own time to see boobs?
Wait, no, you don't.
But anyway, if you're convinced that you are not a prude, I suggest reading Mary Roach's "Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex." I've only gotten 30 pages in, and have already learned a number of things I didn't know--among other things, something hilariously ironic about the original behaviorist J.B. Watson--and also, surprising (at least to me) that I am not a prude. At least when it comes to other people's sexcapades.
Lastly, I'd like to propose "raunch" (n.) as an antonym for "prude."
Of course, there's still a bit of a price to pay. If you're anything like me, you haven't heard the accusation that Lady GaGa is actually intersex (I doubt it, considering her height), but you definitely know that she's kind of completely insane.
Nevertheless, there it is: women are capable of having casual sex! And not all songs by a woman have to portray her as a "strong" woman who finally got over that one guy but is for some reason still writing a song to him (sorry, P!nk), but can also be about her ability to not be an emotional pussy. Amazing, really, when you think about how prudish American society is.
I mean, people freak out over breasts. To the point where, when those female joggers in New York demanded their right to run topless, an argument was that men would get distracted. Really? Because you don't have any opportunities on your own time to see boobs?
Wait, no, you don't.
But anyway, if you're convinced that you are not a prude, I suggest reading Mary Roach's "Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex." I've only gotten 30 pages in, and have already learned a number of things I didn't know--among other things, something hilariously ironic about the original behaviorist J.B. Watson--and also, surprising (at least to me) that I am not a prude. At least when it comes to other people's sexcapades.
Lastly, I'd like to propose "raunch" (n.) as an antonym for "prude."
11.03.2009
Atheism Doesn't Make You a Scientist
Or, Richard Dawkins is a giant jackass.
I noticed that he's written a book with the word "Evolution" in the title. Since I don't have any intention of trying to find it again, and I'm still trying to convince myself that this is just a terrible hallucination, I can't give you the title, but it looks like he's presenting his own argument for why evolution is true.
I say his own argument, because I highly doubt anyone like this could be a scientist. That is, someone who is not level-headed, rational, and tolerant enough to conduct science, which demands a really high acceptance of results that have nothing to do with what you expected, or for that matter with reason as you know it at all. And which should apply itself to the presentation of argument and use of rhetoric as well.
Let's face it: he's one of the brand of atheists whose ancestors were right there at the front of the Spanish Inquisition, torturing people into agreeing with them.
Because atheism is a religion. Sure, it doesn't have a strong ritual component--unless you count being an intolerant asshole of Christians in particular, and only certain sects follow that--but there's a ton of faith involved. You have to be convinced that nothing awaits us after death, that the body is everything, and that God is, beyond a doubt, nothing more than words on page and a long history of bloodshed. There's even suggested reading, but considering how good the theists are about doing theirs, I somehow doubt atheists are any better.
So, long story short:
Keep your goddamn belief system out of the laboratory! Fanatics these days, bah.
P.S. I'm trying to come up with a symbol that atheists would set on fire in nonbelievers' yards. Maybe a circle with a slash through it?
Addendum: evidently, he has a degree in zoology and taught animal behavior until 2008. Now I'm just completely aghast and trying to figure out where the rationality went. I guess you could say that scare tactics work far better on the vitriolic-minded public, but the whole point of being a scientist is that, well, you don't want to go there. You don't want to become one of the single-minded idiots. (And I found out what the title is.)
I realize you probably don't see atheism this way, so let me present it like this: suppose a man had written several vitriolic books on why God existed, simultaneously putting down other beliefs and especially atheism. He then proceeds to write a book on evolution. Would you be inclined to take this seriously, especially if the title implied that evolution is somehow a circus?
Dawkins should have used a pseudonym.
I noticed that he's written a book with the word "Evolution" in the title. Since I don't have any intention of trying to find it again, and I'm still trying to convince myself that this is just a terrible hallucination, I can't give you the title, but it looks like he's presenting his own argument for why evolution is true.
I say his own argument, because I highly doubt anyone like this could be a scientist. That is, someone who is not level-headed, rational, and tolerant enough to conduct science, which demands a really high acceptance of results that have nothing to do with what you expected, or for that matter with reason as you know it at all. And which should apply itself to the presentation of argument and use of rhetoric as well.
Let's face it: he's one of the brand of atheists whose ancestors were right there at the front of the Spanish Inquisition, torturing people into agreeing with them.
Because atheism is a religion. Sure, it doesn't have a strong ritual component--unless you count being an intolerant asshole of Christians in particular, and only certain sects follow that--but there's a ton of faith involved. You have to be convinced that nothing awaits us after death, that the body is everything, and that God is, beyond a doubt, nothing more than words on page and a long history of bloodshed. There's even suggested reading, but considering how good the theists are about doing theirs, I somehow doubt atheists are any better.
So, long story short:
Keep your goddamn belief system out of the laboratory! Fanatics these days, bah.
P.S. I'm trying to come up with a symbol that atheists would set on fire in nonbelievers' yards. Maybe a circle with a slash through it?
Addendum: evidently, he has a degree in zoology and taught animal behavior until 2008. Now I'm just completely aghast and trying to figure out where the rationality went. I guess you could say that scare tactics work far better on the vitriolic-minded public, but the whole point of being a scientist is that, well, you don't want to go there. You don't want to become one of the single-minded idiots. (And I found out what the title is.)
I realize you probably don't see atheism this way, so let me present it like this: suppose a man had written several vitriolic books on why God existed, simultaneously putting down other beliefs and especially atheism. He then proceeds to write a book on evolution. Would you be inclined to take this seriously, especially if the title implied that evolution is somehow a circus?
Dawkins should have used a pseudonym.
11.01.2009
Booklist, November 2008-'09
x Guards! Guards!
x Night
x Oil!
x Myths and Legends of Japan
x Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance
x The Bourne Ultimatum
x Treason by the Book
x Persepolis 2: The Story of a Return
x Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
x The Setting Sun
x Snakes and Earrings
x Embroideries
x The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
x The Good Earth
x Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood
x The Doctor With Two Heads and Other Essays
x The Castle of Crossed Destinies
x Gods Behaving Badly
x The Secrets of the Chess Machine
x Zorba the Greek
x Cross Bones
x One Thousand White Women
x Blind Willow, Sleeping Woman
x The Bourne Supremacy
x The Bourne Identity
x Soul Music
x Night
x Oil!
x Myths and Legends of Japan
x Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance
x The Bourne Ultimatum
x Treason by the Book
x Persepolis 2: The Story of a Return
x Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
x The Setting Sun
x Snakes and Earrings
x Embroideries
x The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
x The Good Earth
x Persepolis: The Story of a Childhood
x The Doctor With Two Heads and Other Essays
x The Castle of Crossed Destinies
x Gods Behaving Badly
x The Secrets of the Chess Machine
x Zorba the Greek
x Cross Bones
x One Thousand White Women
x Blind Willow, Sleeping Woman
x The Bourne Supremacy
x The Bourne Identity
x Soul Music
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)