Joined: Mar. 2008
|Quote (BWE @ Nov. 27 2011,12:38)|
|Quote (George @ Nov. 27 2011,10:21)|
|Hey, where'd everyone go?|
For what it's worth, I didn't mean to compare pz with ecoterrorists or any violence or anything violent. †The ecoterrorist thing was only about how some of the louder, less pleasant parts of a movement can set the whole movement back.
Well, to be fair, the movement to marginalize religious bigotry seems to keep chugging along despite street-corner preachers and PZ. Right now, the unlikely hero is a christian.
|However, Drennenís response, concerning the street preacher telling us that atheist were going hell, was that was also wrong, believing that people on all sides, even Muslims, should try to co-exist in this world without mockery, judgment, or imposing their beliefs on others.|
Well, I think mockery has it's place - but it depends on what you want to achieve (do you want to change someone's mind, "convert" them, or just do it for the lawlz).
PZ has to quote other parts of the interview, though.
|During the interview, Drennen said he felt people cannot reach others with such shows that mock others. He does not know how atheists expect to reach others by using mockery and ridicule.|
That just expresses the common view that many have that if you want to reach people, mockery isn't the best. Again, I don't entirely agree with that - a lot depends on the situation and individuals involved. But PZ goes on that point to make it:
|It seems to be an obligatory opinion of people who believe in mockable and ridiculous things that they will oppose mockery and ridicule. Iím afraid there is no magical exemption ó there isnít a set of stupid beliefs that you get to set on a pedestal and declare that no one can call them stupid. Go ahead and retaliate by mocking and ridiculing the stuff I consider important, like science and evolution and reason and empiricism. I will joyfully leap into that fray.|
Not sure how he got one from the other. It seems to me that he is missing (perhaps intentionally, perhaps not) the nuance of the comment. Now, perhaps he did say more in the interview, but then why not quote it - why use that one line instead?
I also question that he will "joyfully" leap into the fray, especially when his holy oxen are being gored with mockery - we've seen his reactions to the whole..what the heck is it...months?...of his cherished beliefs being mocked. He responds with banning, threats, and promotion of hostility and a lack of open debate or discussion. Practice what you preach.
Then you have this bit of childishness:
|Iím also not going to tailor my opinions to pander to Andy Drennanís delusions. Itís only going to work in reverse: Iím now feeling regret that I didnít dump on religious foolishness at all in my Skepticon talk, and I kind of resent that if I speak there again next year, Iíll feel compelled to toss in a few mocking references to the inanity of Christianity just in case Andy shows up, even if they arenít relevant to the subject at hand.|
Seriously? A lot of this crap started with one lush acting unprofessionally, and now you have someone who should know better saying he'll deliberately insert shit where it doesn't belong. No class, no professionalism. It makes me wonder now if what he says about the way he talks in class is true. Sorry, but if something is irrelevant to the presentation, just don't include it. I hate when I go to hear somebody, or watch something, and have to put up with the speaker/presenter's pet peeves - that's not why I go there.
And this is someone who (for reasons beyond me) is being held up as a spokesperson for atheism (ok, I can see that, despite his "dictionary atheist" claim as atheism-as-a-worldview) and skepticism (I have no idea why). Are we (as a movement, which I also find funny) that desperate for Stars and Idols?
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G