 |
|
| FriendFeed is the easiest way to share online. Learn more » |
Got my first 88 string at the five and dime, played it till my fingers bleed.
Twitter / Justin: "I like the dog. If he can ... - http://twitter.com/shitmyd...
TheChive » Blog Archive » I love the smell of irony in the morning (20 photos) - http://thechive.com/2009...
Kseniya Simonova - Sand Animation (Україна має талант / Ukraine's Got Talent) - http://www.youtube.com/watch...
  |
Janice liked this
Wow, I'm just speechless!
- Janice
YouTube - Kseniya Simonova - Sand Animation (Україна має талант / Ukraine's Got Talent) - http://www.youtube.com/watch...
|
Enjoyed San Francisco but it was much too short of a visit.
The fog has rolled in, wish I had more time to spend here.
YouTube - Paperboy Gameplay - http://www.youtube.com/watch...
 |
Who remembers this shit?
- David (slumrig)
from Bookmarklet
apparently these people: http://friendfeed.com/codingh...
- Edward Zwart
Epic: KFC Has A Bacon Sandwich That Uses Fried Chicken As "Bread" - http://consumerist.com/5342699...
too good to be true?
- David (slumrig)
from Bookmarklet
or too true to be good?
- Janice
YouTube - Banana Porn - http://www.youtube.com/watch...
 |
YouTube - Kermit the Frog - Lime in the Coconut - http://www.youtube.com/watch...
 |
Edward Zwart and Janice liked this
Ummm... where did he put the lime? LOL
- Janice
think maybe they were smoking something that week?
- Edward Zwart
YouTube - Simpsons - The Myth Of Creation - http://www.youtube.com/watch...
 |
Edward Zwart liked this
lol, teh doobies...
- Edward Zwart
Edward Zwart and Eivind liked this
Dilbert - COBOL Programmers
- David (slumrig)
LOL, So that's what they look like :)
- Janice
We met one last week. His name was Autumn. I don't have a photo...
- Edward Zwart
Keeping it real, in my mind at least.
Edward Zwart liked this
hallelujah or as my spellchecker suggested: hallucinate :)
- Janice
nice one JB
- Edward Zwart
YouTube - Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" - http://www.youtube.com/watch...
 |
Jack (a.k.a. Jeber), Morton Fox, MikeAmundsen and 5 other people liked this
Very nice response. I like it.
- Jenny Morman
I don't think it particularly helps the person who asked the question though. It's more of an "insiders" explanation. In general, Dawkins often comes across to me as too self-righteous... He could try to put things more... "emphatically". But, at least he gets great response from the crowd. - Exactly what *doesn't* matter.
- Meryn Stol
In general, giving only the slightest hint to others that you might be ridiculing someone elses beliefs makes someone pretty closed to persuasion. People close down if they're ridiculed. It's natural. But ridicule is *great* to make laughs. And to keep camps.
- Meryn Stol
So a good response? Yes, if it were all fun and games. Which it is not. People are dying everyday because of misunderstandings.
- Meryn Stol
The question to begin with was a loaded one so I thought the response was appropriate. I don't feel he was ridiculing the person but rather the logic behind the question itself. It isn't his job to 'help' the person who asked the question nor is it to bring about world peace.
- David (slumrig)
David, I analyze his response in the light of a responsibility in line with his power. Through his fame, he has much influence in the world. I do think that Dawkins has the noblest of intentions though. I'm afraid he just isn't self-critical enough to see what harm he's causing with such manners.
- Meryn Stol
Also. That *you* don't feel he wasn't ridiculing the person does not matter [edit: here]. It's often that a receiving party interprets words differently than the sender meant, especially if they're somehow members of different "camps". The smartest communicators try to take that into account, and treat extra carefully when talking to "outsiders". You can talk much more liberally to insiders. They will interpret your statements in the best light, in good faith.
- Meryn Stol
I disagree Meryn. I didn't particularly like the making fun of overlay but his response truly was a valid one. Accepting one belief system means not accepting another. My delivery would be different but the message is a valid one.
- Jenny Morman
Jenny, I think I'm mainly addressing his delivery here. As an "insider" in the atheist camp, I agree with most of Dawkins opinions. I'm specifically addressing his *response* here. Not his opinion. We're looking at a 1:30 min video right?
- Meryn Stol
"But, at least he gets great response from the crowd. - Exactly what *doesn't* matter." Agreed but again I think his response was a good one. The message was simple and it is a rather peaceful or perhaps humbling message. I can agree that delivery is different than message and it was the message that I was responding to. It sounds like it is the delivery that you are mainly reacting to.
- Jenny Morman
I don't know that it is possible to give a satisfactory response in the venue he was in. Last year I went to listen to Dennett speak in a small venue (only about 100 of us) and he was so reasonable and thoughtful in his responses but that didn't work either. The more open he was and the more thoughtful his answers the more aggressive the questioners got. It got very ugly with the man in front of me having to be physically restrained and on my honor Dennett was the exact opposite of Dawkins in delivery.
- Jenny Morman
Jenny, yes, I say that in my latest reponse above. :) But what can be regarded as a "peaceful or humbling message" can be regarded by others as a kind of ridicule... The existence of the crowd (and their "vocal" support) can make the pain feel even worse. It can seem to another that at the same time the crowd is clapping *for* Dawkins they are clapping *against* Christians, and specifically, against her. THIS is what many atheist risk with their communication style.
- Meryn Stol
Huh, I just lost a comment I posted here. :( WTH. Never happened to me before.
- Meryn Stol
Okay, what would you suggest in this type of format? Grrr...on lost response! That has happened to me before and it is frustrating.
- Jenny Morman
Jenny, that last story of you is very interesting. Maybe I'm overestimating the effectiveness of my alternative - a more emphatical, careful - communication strategy.
- Meryn Stol
Truthfully Dennett's approach worked better *for me* but I don't think I'd have the patience to hear the same questions and insults over and over and over and respond kindly and carefully. That is what most impressed me about the speaking event. Especially because most of the time an educated question could be asked if the asker had read even one article or book before asking. :)
- Jenny Morman
And you pose a very challenging question: How would I respond? Well I don't have a quick answer ready, because I think a good response would require great, great skill. Suppose Obama was an atheist, what would his response be? I think I'd try to have the response the most widely respected head of states would have. Obama would be my reference point in this case.
- Meryn Stol
Note that I'm not accusing Dawkins of bad intent. I think he could do better with his style towards "outsiders". And on top of that, I think with his celebrity, he has a responsibility to do so. I actually think in general he *is* acting out of his great sense of responsibility, just not in the most smartest way. I say there's room for improvement on this particular point.
- Meryn Stol
Okay, my only feedback to that would be that heads of state and educators/authors have *very* different purposes in the world. Dawkins isn't a head of state. He's an author, a teacher and a public figure. His words and approach should be different. Teachers don't exist to comfort us. Authors most certainly don't exist to comfort us. That's how I view Dawkins, now maybe I'm wrong for that and should be viewing him solely as an advocate for atheism.
- Jenny Morman
I think I'll look up some videos of Dennett. Maybe he has been asked the exact same question once. Could be educative. :)
- Meryn Stol
It's hard for me to do though as I've only read his (Dawkins) science books. :)
- Jenny Morman
I love this clip! It's from the first ever vid of Dawkins I ever watched, and by the time this particular questioner (with the oh so sweet and innocent sounding voice) got up to ask this little gem of a question Dawk had already fielded a number of equally disingenuous questions. Meryn, to what do you attribute this responsibility? Do you think there is no space for celebrity to be challenging? Is it never okay to mock?
- Edward Zwart
@Meryn, when I get home tonight I'll try to find a couple of great Dennett clips. :)
- Jenny Morman
Here's the source of the Dawkins zinger: http://www.atheistnation.net/video... First he reads from the God Delusion, and then takes questions. I highly recommend the whole thing.
- Edward Zwart
Oooo, thanks Ed! <--- jealous? ;) okay that was just mean!
- Jenny Morman
". Meryn, to what do you attribute this responsibility? Do you think there is no space for celebrity to be challenging? Is it never okay to mock?" - to the extend mocking can be see in relationship to people dying or suffering, no, I do not think so. If you're a celebrity who never thinks about world issues, you can be more easily excused, but it's not like Dawkins is not aware of what the existence of different religious camps is doing in the world.
- Meryn Stol
And I *sincerely* think Dawkins does not want to cause harm with his communication style. I simply don't want to believe that. He will try to do better if he thinks his manners might cause harm.
- Meryn Stol
I always think of "Toy Soldiers" by Eminem when I'm considering these matters: "It was never my object for someone to get killed. Why would I want to destroy something I helped build?"
- Meryn Stol
@Jenny jealous? mean? I'm lost!
- Edward Zwart
@Meryn What's the relationship between people dying the juju up the mountain? I don't get that either....
- Edward Zwart
at the ! ;) I was using one just to mess with you!!!!!!
- Jenny Morman
ah, hahahaha. (whew, that one was tough)
- Edward Zwart
It all made sense in my head... :p
- Jenny Morman
Edward, the relation is in the misunderstanding. Dawkins can be perceived as "spokesperson" for atheists (since there's not an atheist equivalent of the pope) and if his manners are seem as demeaning towards Christians (or other people of faith) this can easily be extended to all atheists. We now have a situation in which Christians think atheists are demeaning towards them, which could...
more...
- Meryn Stol
Ah, I see. I'll forgo mocking that logic then to prevent a war. ;)
- Edward Zwart
Edward, I hope you understand that I don't see the logic in these kind of things, but a lot of reasoning r by religious fundamentalists can't be called that logical. I think we should treat the existence of people who have weird reasoning styles as a given in this case, specifically because it can lead to much harm if we don't. I think joking and mockery is far more acceptable if all you can expect is a pie in your - or one of your companions' - face.
- Meryn Stol
So we should be irrational too because they are? It's obvious to me that there's no responsibility on Dawkins for any potential fundamentalist overreaction, whether tears or bullets. And the idea that he (or you, or I) should tailor our comments out of fear of such an overreaction is abhorrent. I just see what you're suggesting as lose/lose/lose. a) we water down the message, b) we give in to fear, c) we arrogantly presume far too much the quality of the outsider's ability to rationalize
- Edward Zwart
Edward, no, we (and in particular very visible public intellectuals) should be careful because they are crazy. :) Very simply put of course. Right now, I think I can safely use the word "crazy" because I think I mainly talking to insiders. Also, I don't think I'll be easily regarded as a spokesperson for atheists (even by very crazy peeps), which again Dawkins could be.
- Meryn Stol
Edward, I do share your concerns about watering down the message. However, I think we can - if needed collaboratively - devise a communication strategy which does keep our message strong, without unnecessary risking the chance of misinterpretation. It's not about "your beliefs are as good as mine", it's about respectfully disagreeing.
- Meryn Stol
I think most of recent western history has been about tolerance while on the other hand strictly holding onto "rule of law". Just like with law, I think that in - uhm - diplomacy, there's a kind of ideal way we can travel, and Dawkins is slightly off-road in that. Diplomacy does have to go together with hypocrisy or hurting one's own interests.
- Meryn Stol
I completely agree that "we" should be strategic. But I also think that strategy should include rotweillers. For pretty much the same reason, I don't think "attack ads" should be outlawed.
- Edward Zwart
Hmm the ground is getting murky for me here, because I really can't disagree with this last part. I'm not the kind of person to out-rule any specific measure - I like the wide extend of available sanctions in international law as well. I meant that I think Dawkins could have done better in this case, that's all. And maybe I'm even wrong at that. I'm not a true expert on communication strategy.
- Meryn Stol
:) I'm pretty sure I've never been mistaken for one either...
- Edward Zwart
To illustrate my point: I did like the "God does not exist" banners put on London buses, funded by a group aligned with Dawkins, if I remember correctly. It's hard were to draw the line, and also hard to estimate which kind of things could cause the most indented harm. I don't know what kind of things fundamentalists would see as the most clear proof of the "evil agenda of atheists" or something.
- Meryn Stol
I don't think the fundies know either. :)
- Edward Zwart
excellent question. terrible answer. he missed the opportunity to elucidate the implications of the question. 1) "what if" - what is the likelihood that you are wrong. 2) "you" - You can just as easily be replaced with any person - including the questioner. 3) "wrong" : i assume about the assertion "god does not exist." and it should be offered that the opposite works just as well with...
more...
- MikeAmundsen
"i think she was treated badly by Dawkins and the rest of the room. " - I second that, but I don't think it was intentional. On second though, I do not think she was treated "badly". She was treated "less than well".
- Meryn Stol
I think you two think that because she's got a little girl's voice. And, yet, I doubt you think her question was actually being asked seriously.
- Edward Zwart
Why would one not be serious about "What if you're wrong?" (assuming a Christian upbringing) ? That's the scenario I'm considering... In fact, we don't know her upbringing.
- Meryn Stol
You think she's not trying to be clever?
- Edward Zwart
Huh, no. Why would I?
- Meryn Stol
I dunno, Pascal's Wager has been around a while... Maybe she'd heard it?
- Edward Zwart
Well I think a Christian can be very serious in being concerned about what if no-one believed in God and Jesus anymore while that was what God wanted, and what is necessary for salvation (or something). It's a quite disturbing thought, no-one believing the truth anymore.
- Meryn Stol
Meryn, you don't need me to point out the difference between somebody being ABLE to ask such a question and whether we think that's what she was doing, do you? Her words, what if you're wrong, do not lead me to believe that she is considering her own wrongness instead.
- Edward Zwart
I think the question is arrogant (not excellent at all, and not very original). I bet she thought in her head that the right answer was: then I go to hell!
- Eivind
Edward, considering your own wrongness on this matter is not really an option, not something you are asked for (in fact the opposite, you should NOT doubt it) as a Christian. This is about *faith*, a belief beyond reason. Something beyond proof, something beyond doubt.
- Meryn Stol
This is about faith? Really? I thought it was about the appropriateness of Dawkins' response!
- Edward Zwart
Edward, lol @ your nick. With "this" I was referring to being right or wrong, and if one should question all beliefs. I think Christians think that there are some beliefs (their articles of faith) that one shouldn't question. You could argue that their requirement for non-Christians to consider the wrongness of their beliefs is a bit asymmetric (and I would agree) but the fact that she does not only makes her - in her and her peers - eyes a "very good person" because she is a "very good Christian".
- Meryn Stol
Thank you Eivind, I could not have put it better myself. Its really a nonsensical question and she probably thought that it was clever and would trip up Dawkins but he rightfully threw the question back at her. What if you're wrong about Thor? What if you're wrong about the Tooth Fairy? What if you're wrong about the theory of relativity? It doesn't go anywhere other than their answer...
more...
- David (slumrig)
from my POV, Dawkins has not thought through his answer to this question. i got that impression the first time i saw this talk (the _whole_) talk quite some time ago. the long list of deities in his reply gives me reason to think this question took him off guard. as Doberman already mentioned, why didn't he bring up Pascal's Wager? he's spoken of it many times. still think his answer was weak.
- MikeAmundsen
Questioning every belief is a very peculiar trait that is not shared by many I think. I think it's mainly found among atheists. Some atheists do not seem willing to question their wrongness in there *not* being a God, but I think those are in a minority.
- Meryn Stol
@Meryn But her question's not really what _IF_...
- Edward Zwart
" the long list of deities in his reply gives me reason to think this question took him off guard." - good catch, Mike.
- Meryn Stol
@Doberman: "But her question's not really what _IF_" now you have it! that si my point exactly. he missed the chance to cut right to the heart of the issue!
- MikeAmundsen
Is it a bad thing that he didn't have a rehearsed response?
- Eivind
why is a long list of deities a sign that it took him off guard?
- David (slumrig)
actually, the first thing he says is "well, yes, we can ALL be wrong, can't we?" pointing out the idiocy of the question
- Edward Zwart
And even if it did, what does it take away from his point?
- David (slumrig)
And then he gives a long list of examples why the question is silly. I don't see this as weakening his argument. And anyway, are we now arguing the validity of his argument Meryn? I thought it was the style you had issue with.
- Edward Zwart
@David: my meaning here is that Dawkins flubbed the Q. his answers are usually clear, succinct, and eloquent. i've seen him take on quite rabid and rude debaters and he handles it quite well. in this exchange, i think he did not represent himself well, that's all.
- MikeAmundsen
@Mike He did cut right to the issue. The issue is, "what if you're wrong?" is a nonsense question. His answer makes that quite clear as a matter of fact.
- Edward Zwart
and some people don't like it because of the little girl voice that asked it.
- Edward Zwart
If you're still in doubt as to what Dawkins intended to say, see the comment about the Juju up the mountain.... <snort>
- Edward Zwart
Well, I respectfully disagree. I think he gave the question the treatment it deserved.
- David (slumrig)
@Doberman: the "girl" aspect means zilch to me. i'd be griping about Dawkins' handling of the question even if Daniel Dennet would have asked it of him.
- MikeAmundsen
What would have been a better response? Dawkins: 'Well, I guess I am wrong and will burn in hell for eternity." - that is what she wanted hiim to say, and that will be the answer she'll take from the question in any case.
- David (slumrig)
@Mike Do we agree his answer was "that's a dumb question, I'm doing to make fun of you now"? Do you think her question was a sincere probing of the issue?
- Edward Zwart
@Dober: IIRC, the audience for this talk was filled w/ students from a nearby religious college. this was not the only questioner that seemed bent on getting a rise out of Dawkins. i suspect the questioner thought this was a "sincere" question. i doubt seriously the questioner was going to pay attention to the answer.
- MikeAmundsen
@Mike I've seen the whole vid. Dawkin's second best line of the evening put paid to the nearby religious college's academic standards.
- Edward Zwart
@Dober: oh yea, i recall that now.
- MikeAmundsen
What's the significance of her getting her sincerity wrong?
- Edward Zwart
@Dober: "sincerity wrong?" not understanding you
- MikeAmundsen
@Mike I asked you whether you thought she was sincere, and you answered that you're sure that she thought she was. Made me think you doubted that she really was. I guess what I mean is, no matter what she tells us that she told herself about the question, it's an insincere question. At least, it is if you're right that she had no intention of listening to the answer.
- Edward Zwart
Sorry Edward, I was AFK. In my second last comment, I was still trying to make the sincerity of asking "What if you're wrong?" - while at the same time not considering you yourself are wrong - plausible. I think it's something found with many - if not most Christians (or other people of faith for that matter). But I don't think I'm going to waste much words on this anymore. It's getting quite late here (GMT+2) anyway. :)
- Meryn Stol
@David: "better response?" hehe, now i'm in trouble! i wanted to hear him get past the surface question and get right to the heart. not "it's a silly question," but "that's not your real question, is it?" if he wanted to make light of the question, i prefer he use himself in the answer, not the questioner "well, if i grew up in culture X then my parents would arrange a mod to stone me....
more...
- MikeAmundsen
@Dober: i see your point. on this issue i will say that i have friends/relatives who are quite afraid of the wrath of their god. to them, this is a very sincere question and, if they heard it asked would not for a moment think it foolish. i had them in mind when i heard the question. i had that evening's doing in mind when i judged the intent of that questioner. proly lazy of me, eh?
- MikeAmundsen
@Meryn I enjoyed the convo! I see your plausibility point. Cheers :)
- Edward Zwart
@Mike I would okay with that response too. :)
- David (slumrig)
@Mike Your point about the sincere terror of believers is a good one. And I think Dawk has been more than sympathetic to that cry many times. Every now and then, though, I think it's appropriate to smack down a languishing fear, in a "get a hold of yourself, will you?" kind of way. Would your alternative answer have been better? ...for the girl? ...or other Christians listening? Maybe. But "shoulda coulda woulda". The Juju up the mountain line made it all worth it! :D
- Edward Zwart
@Dober: But "shoulda coulda woulda" quite true. i am confident that Dawkins handles these situations much better than i would were i up there on the spot. my remarks are back-benching all the way. i will also offer that i've seen this small clip used in _churches_ to rally the faithful and put more fear into them. "this is what we have to deal with! this is the devil in our very lives!" bummer.
- MikeAmundsen
I have a feeling they'd find something else to use if they didn't have this clip.
- Edward Zwart
@Edward: quite right. no video needed, actually<g>.
- MikeAmundsen
i recalled last night a slightly similar situation i saw watching archive footage of Joseph Campbell. he was talking about how myth is about metaphor, not facts; how the power of the story is in the 'non-reality' aspect of the tale and what it communicates. almost rhetorically, he asked the small group who had been listening attentively, "...besides, who really believes the story of...
more...
- MikeAmundsen
only very slightly similar indeed. ...and I would say not _every_ opportunity to be sympathetic/encouraging to the misguided needs to be taken...
- Edward Zwart
@Edward: yep, not _every_
- MikeAmundsen
Other ways to read this feed:
