RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: How much fun is too much fun??, How mean is too mean< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2006,21:05   

Ok, raging bee told me that I'm offensive and I guess she had a right to feel that way because I did say some things about adherents to religion and she informed me that she took offense because she is a druid.

So, of course I appologized but that got me to thinking, There are some dividing lines that I use in my head but I don't really define them. I don't mind offending some folks at all but some folks I do wish I didn't offend. I realize that this is all too politically correct for my screen personality but it's more academic I guess than emotional.  

Assuming that I am entertaining myself with this childish behavior so I don't want to totally stop, where are the lines? I think that believing in "Magic" is somewhere in there maybe. I guess, another way to put this is where does the continuum of religion become "fundy" at which point I get to let loose?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4375
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2006,01:08   

I think the "fanatical evangelism" criterion works reasonably well -- there is a problem if you can't tolerate that other people do not think the way you do *and* you won't change the subject. This applies to both ends of the faith to non-faith spectrum.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2006,08:29   

Quote
there is a problem if you can't tolerate that other people do not think the way you do *and* you won't change the subject.
The problem with that is certain religious movements with which I would otherwise be happy to "agree to disagree" (most obviously ID) won't let you change the subject. Unless, of course, you're willing to cede control over science and education.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4375
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2006,10:37   

You have noticed what my day job is, right? I certainly don't advocate giving in when confronted with fanatical evangelism. The question up top was a matter of introspection.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2006,10:27   

Hmmm. I guess I am thinking of a more nuanced issue.  Obviously personal attacks are mean, but there is a gray area- e.g. dembski? Dave Scot? But sometimes the only way to cope with an idea that floats so far out in the ether that grasping it is anti-productive is to point out why it is funny, or tragic or whatever. It seems like a lot of us take ourselves pretty seriously here and also most of the creationists etc. do too. So what is the role of humor, which can and often does include ridicule, mockery, sarcasm and etc.? I grew up waaaaay out in the boonies and ridicule was pretty common but it wasn't really intended to make you shut up, it was more intended to get you to laugh at yourself. For me this is easy, for people of different dispositions it is relatively hard. So here are just a few quick examples I found:


http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....t-75733
My point in linking to my other post ( http://brainwashedgod.blogspot.com/2005....in.html ) is that I and many others are simply mentally masturbating, following unwarranted assumptions to forgone conclusions and congratulating ourselves on our cleverness. (re: the link to the politics ignoring facts etc. article http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060124_political_decisions.html ) I am worse about this than many of the thoughtful people here but there is a general undertone.

In no way am I saying that the scientific method is biased to forgone conclusions but people, in defending their “side” apparrently are. I didn’t realize that I was actually getting off on it. I supose I subconsciously knew because I mostly comment to amuse myself but that particular comment was a doosie. Jeez that was like having Sarah Jessica Parker and Agelina Jolie together, y’know?



http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....t-76222
Bury your head in your ass if you wish. Just do not expect people here to agree with you burying their children’s heads the same way; Especially at taxpayers expense.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....t-75874
Great analysis. Had creationists any honor, they would be embarrassed to be part of such a movement.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....t-75757
But, that aside, I’d really like to see/hear/otherwise be given the details of this little get-together. I suppose you should invite some creationists to an equally rigged “debate” similar to the ones they have, and then ridicule them when they won’t show, though.
You know, just to use language they understand. I’m not bitter or anything.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....t-75820
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa…. Are you part of Larry’s crack legal team?
You can’t file suit until the policies are actually drawn up and codified. Duh.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....t-75570
Yes, I think we will see more “naked” creationism. Whereas the KKK, errr, CCC over in Kansas invited B.Dembski to represent intelligent design, the CCC over here in Davis, CA, invited Reasons To Believe (www.reasons.org) to present their “testable creation model.” This model, however, was a list of metaphors and predictions (some of which were identical to those made by evolution) for “testing” the bible. They literally said that they can put gOD in a test tube!

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,06:38   

So, I think I have demonstrated that many regular PT contributors use ridicule in their responses to creationist, er, non-scientific approaches to science. My question then is "Is this a good strategy?" I think it is. I think that someone who uses ridicule exposes themselves far more than one who simply debates. After all, if I say, "How stupid is it to think the sun revolves around the earth. Sheesh, only an idiot would think that. And then I were shown how the sun revolves around the earth, I would be more likely to shut up and learn facts the next time. So, by exposing ourselves this way, we are really forcing creationists, er, those advocating positions exactly contrary to the evidence, to show us why we are wrong or to shut up because they really are idiots (for lack of a better term).

If we could get them to admit that there is no substantial difference between what they are preaching as history and what david copperfield is doing, it could go a long way toward helping our entire society. And, at heart I'm just a big ol softy. I sort of want society to be able to use scientific knowledge to help us avoid catastrophe. (I'm developing a pretty glum outlook on our ability to solve some pressing enviromental challenges with a fundy viewpoint at the helm. That does not mean I am admitting to a political bias though.)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,07:02   

I suggest another tactic: patronize them.  This involves agreeing with them to a point - something along the lines of, "what an interesting little hypothesis you have there!"  Of course, you have to point out the obvious, but you do it in a very condescending (yet cheery) manner, like "I can't wait to see the experiments and tests you've come up with!"

There is one HUGE benefit to this technique over simply ridiculing them: it nearly eliminates direct conflict.  This is important because they THRIVE on conflict.  A patronizing approach is much more passive and will greatly frustrate someone who is looking for a fight/argument.  Remember to keep encouraging them to meet those oh-so-difficult scientific requirements.  After all, you're their friend!

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,07:11   

Maybe a sort of a good cop/bad cop routine. One side ridicules them and the other side says "don't let them ridicule you, show 'em your science and shut those loudmouths up. Let's go get 'em!  That was my basic point at Uncommon descent until they banned me for it.

Maybe we create two distinct organizations, one to ridicule (maybe: Scientists Concerned About Theology) and one to defend the torch of creationism, er, maverick scientists, (maybe: Scientists To Understand Prehistoric Intelligent Design). The 1st one offers up some damning ridicule and the second one answers the challenge by baiting dembskiites into putting their name on ridiculous statements like all the ones they make. Get the papers to print them and the ridicule will have done its job.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
billgascoyne



Posts: 2
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,08:27   

A quotation from an authority on ridicule:

"At least one way of measuring the freedom of any society is the amount of comedy that is permitted, and clearly a healthy society permits more satirical comment than a repressive, so that if comedy is to function in some way as a safety release then it must obviously deal with these taboo areas. This is part of the responsibility we accord our licensed jesters, that nothing be excused the searching light of comedy. If anything can survive the probe of humour it is clearly of value, and conversely all groups who claim immunity from laughter are claiming special privileges which should not be granted."
ERIC IDLE

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,09:54   

And in a free society, those with dumb ideas should be mocked, no matter what political or religious office they hold.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,13:05   

As Dave Scott says, attack ideas and not people :-)

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,13:18   

You say, mocking Dave Scott :)  :(  :D  :p  ;)  :0  :angry:

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2006,13:41   

And DS is a perfect example, his ideas are seriously good material for all the biting satirists out there to work with and, by constantly spewing those ideas, the man himself becomes the target. It's like he's painting it there. For example, answer me this, Does he beleive he is right?
Now answer this: What does he believe?
Now answer this: Doesn't it get you off, just a little bit, to poke some fun at him?
Now answer this: What is more important than getting off on doing something?
Nope. Not that. :p :angry:  ???   :(  :0  ;)  :)  :p  :D

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2006,09:53   

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....t-76819
Quote
From this point forward, there will be no new views of the universe. The ultimate answer from this point forward will be “We don’t understand, so it must be something that God intended.”

Sounds like something the Taliban would have loved.


--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,14:10   

Quote (BWE @ Jan. 31 2006,13:11)
Maybe a sort of a good cop/bad cop routine. One side ridicules them and the other side says "don't let them ridicule you, show 'em your science and shut those loudmouths up. Let's go get 'em!  That was my basic point at Uncommon descent until they banned me for it.

Maybe we create two distinct organizations, one to ridicule (maybe: Scientists Concerned About Theology) and one to defend the torch of creationism, er, maverick scientists, (maybe: Scientists To Understand Prehistoric Intelligent Design). The 1st one offers up some damning ridicule and the second one answers the challenge by baiting dembskiites into putting their name on ridiculous statements like all the ones they make. Get the papers to print them and the ridicule will have done its job.

I volunteer to join the ridicule organization.  It's more fun anyway :D

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Sanctum



Posts: 88
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2006,15:51   

This sounds lie the breeding ground for Ait.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8749
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2006,16:13   

I think ridicule is an important strategy. Plus it's High Comedy. I'm proud to be part of the Panda's Thumb Statler and Waldorf Team.

Statler: Wake up you old fool! You slept through the latest post at Uncommon Pissant!
Waldorf: Who's the fool? You read it!
Hohohohohohoho!

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2006,13:10   

Quote
Maybe we create two distinct organizations, one to ridicule (maybe: Scientists Concerned About Theology) and one to defend the torch of creationism, er, maverick scientists, (maybe: Scientists To Understand Prehistoric Intelligent Design).

Did anybody get these acronyms? Darn, I thought I was off to a good start.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2006,15:36   

actually, i think that was a rather crappy start  :p

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2006,05:14   

Can you come up with a better one? Maybe SLAP or ONETWO or ENGUARDE or something?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2006,13:57   

Sheesh, I guess some people just have too much fun.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....t-82087

Raging Bee, I love to discuss where the lines between us and them are. Cause them's the rat bastards and us'r the good guys. So let'r fly. Tell me how it is. I really like you so I can take it. I promise. ;)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2006,20:33   

I used to be an ex-fundie. Bottom line, people I trusted lied to me. I have a score to settle. I have no respect for them and make it clear, whenever I can. They are dishonest and deserves to be treated as dishonest liars. Futhermore, I am sick and tired of hearing the same old lame arguments from them, year after bloody year. It's not even arguments, just whining.

People who think they have the right to teach (force) their c_rap to other people's kids... not my friends. :angry:

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,07:20   

Used to be an ex-fundy? Double negative. But surely you haven't reverted to the fundy way of life have you?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,20:02   

Had to revive this one. What's the deal with the fundies gettin' all riled up all a sudden? We got AF dave, who went out and defended our country in a darn airplane in spite of his obvious disabilities; Larry has his own blog where Dave scot and JAD are fighting, Thordaddy spins fasterr and faster as he approaches the drain; and Carol still somehow thinks anybody cares. The field is too ripe and the targets are too easy, cant... help.... myself....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Please Wesley, Ad Hominem, just this once?
IDiot, HAHAHAHA!!! Fundiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeee, HAHAHAHAHAH!!!


:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,21:32   

BWE,

I think the best strategy would to be honest.  You've already made is clear that scientists will blur the line between science and ideology.  Nothing has been more clear since I've joined antievolution.

You and many others already make wild assumptions and dismiss relevant information.  This is clear to any discerning eye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,21:48   

I may make wild assumptions and dismiss relevant information but my ability to lie to myself keeps me from recognizing it. So I would have to ask you, please, for the childrens' sake, show me my wildly relevant information and dismissive assumptions or whatever it was you said.

Someone needs to hold my feet to the fire. ANd who beter than a homophobic, dipweed who wouldn't know a Riftia pachyptila from a  Loxodonta africana, and who needs to ask his mommy if it's ok to vote this time to be the one to do it. Spank me sir Moronus Odinus.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,22:14   

BWE,

You asked whether your strategy of ridicule was useful and I've given you an anecdotal indication that it is a harmful strategy in many regards.

Your credibility as a scientist is severely tarnished by your allegiance to a political ideology.

You surmise that anyone that questions your liberal/"scientific" premise must be a fundamentalist.  This is an erroneous assumption and overlooks a plethora of views that exist outside your narrow paradigm.

For instance, you think anyone that advocates for the elevation of traditional marriage does so out of hatred for gays.  But clearly, this is in large part nothing more than the delusion and manipulating cynicism of gay advocates and evidence of your persuaded mindset.

Some people support traditional marriage because they recognize the importance of the tradition.  They also recognize the weakness in the argument of those looking to usurp that tradition.  It's a simultaneous  realization.  It is not a fundamentalist argument.  Rather, it's an evolved argument that questioned the accepted wisdom and saw serious flaws in its foundation.

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,22:43   

THorDog,

You suffer from a common delusion that all people must have an allegiance to either "us" or "them".

You say:
Quote
Your credibility as a scientist is severely tarnished by your allegiance to a political ideology.

You surmise that anyone that questions your liberal/"scientific" premise must be a fundamentalist.  This is an erroneous assumption and overlooks a plethora of views that exist outside your narrow paradigm.

1 )I have very few allegiances and of those I don't have, an ideology is toward the bottom of the list.
2 )I use the word Fundy interchangeably with many other derogetory statements meaning something like "he who's head is so far up his a$s that rational debate is pointless" so, to cheer myself up, I engage in irrational debate with fundies.

But the reality of your gay problem has been stated with the eloquence of Virgil at least in my related posts, mostly on the other thread I believe. And you have not succeeded in showing me that a single one of your assertions is true:
1Your credibility as a scientist is severely tarnished by your allegiance to a political ideology.

2 You surmise that anyone that questions your liberal/"scientific" premise must be a fundamentalist.  This is an erroneous assumption and overlooks a plethora of views that exist outside your narrow paradigm.

3 It is not a fundamentalist argument. (see my definition of fundy, above)

While I have rendered you impotent with my toss off remark about your fundiness from the other thread. In fact I left you so speachless that you had to answer here rather than there simply because you were too afraid to view into the abyss one more time. Very well, I will re post my reply here, It doesn't hurt me:
Quote
Yes,
I am  arguing that if our society were to give state sanction to a man/sheep union then this would NOT be empirical evidence of a "crumbling" society.

I am arguing that if our society were to give state sanction to a man/sheep union then this would be empirical evidence of a society that gives state sanction to a man/sheep union.

I am also arguing that you are a moron.

And that deforestation, salinization or loss of topsoil, desertification, water pollution or overuse, military conflict or loss of trading partners are empirical evidence of a crumbling society. Can you find a single society that crumbled for a reason that I didn't just list? That would be a fun debate. I like debates. How bout it Daisy, you in?


--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,23:07   

BWE opines,

Quote
1 )I have very few allegiances and of those I don't have, an ideology is toward the bottom of the list.
2 )I use the word Fundy interchangeably with many other derogetory statements meaning something like "he who's head is so far up his a$s that rational debate is pointless" so, to cheer myself up, I engage in irrational debate with fundies.


What would someone with "very few allegiances" base his "rational" debate on?  Is thinking that someone advocates for traditional marriage because he hates gays, "rational?"  In my context, what is this "rational" argument comprised of other than the manipulating cynicism of a radically powerful victim group?

I'll answer your other remark in the appropriate thread.

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,23:23   

Quote
What would someone with "very few allegiances" base his "rational" debate on?  Is thinking that someone advocates for traditional marriage because he hates gays, "rational?"  In my context, what is this "rational" argument comprised of other than the manipulating cynicism of a radically powerful victim group?

Ok, you had me going. Darn, you are good. This post just blew your cover though. It's a mark of true talent to be able to parody a fundy that well for so long though. Where are you going to college?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
  38 replies since Jan. 27 2006,21:05 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]