1. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #177480 by jac12358 on May 9, 2008 at 6:53 am

I have to say I'm impressed that this thread has remained #2 on the top 20 threads on this site, DESPITE a month having elapsed between this and the last post. Oh, it was mine! And so was the one before that, making it more like a month and a week.

2. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176907 by jac12358 on May 8, 2008 at 10:26 am

Quite a heated little debate there. Interesting, if not all what I agree is true, or prudent.

I felt compelled to caution that in my previous post I was not condoning a so-called "ultimate solution" which would have been ironic (and perhaps it is because I'm saying it now!) - but I meant that selective force and strict measures, in response and preemptive, are likely to be effective responses over idealistic sit-down chats.

The trouble with clearmind's response is that it perpetuates a neverending cycle of "bad behavior justifies bad behavior," moral equivalency and endless tit-for-tat "it's MINE!" "I was here first!" mentality and behavior. And with GOD on your side, each faction can feel righteous (hence the danger). (I'm waiting for the branch of Islam to break away claiming God has said the Islam are the chosen people and America is their prize.) The atheist, I hope and I imagine, simply wants all the squabbling and killing to STOP. But sometimes to make it stop for real unfortunate methods should be used. Otherwise we simply tolerate it or contain it. No era of peace and prosperity has ever NOT been preceeded by great war. We are animals and this is our "sophisticated" method of doing our territorial pissings for our land and natural resources, with the added feature of religion giving us justification as well as painting us with our tribal colors. It is a real shame, and I am very sad at this reality. I had hoped we were better than this, but just like the hope of god and life everlasting, just wishing it does not make it so.

Just be glad that we are in a position of power and CAN do something about it, if we can have the will. Otherwise, if clearthinker is right, then we (in America) should, amid our current economic troubles, roll over and fork over half of our land and/or money in reparations for all the EVIL that some of our ancestors did in the grand tradition of the human race since recorded history. And it still won't be enough, for we'd have to endure a fair deal of persecution, forced conversion or death, to make the enemy TRULY satisfied. Give 'em an inch...

On the issue of religious criticism and racism: this is a tough one. Some religions are quite mixed ethnically, but some, especially Islam, is concentrated in certain parts of the world and practiced by certain ethnicities to a degree of at least 90%. I don't know any black Mormons or Menanites or Amish, and I don't know any Mexican Hindus, Eskimo Buddhists, White Kwanzza-ists, or Aborigina Zeus-worshippers. Of course there are exceptions, like Christianity, which is probably the most racially balanced religion, but most of this "mixing" is due to relatively recent colonialism and missionary work, which explains all the Catholic Filipinos. Jews are unique because their association, to me, seems to cross not the religion-race boundary, but rather a religion-nation boundary, since "Jew" as far as I know is the only answer that would fit equally in "nationality" and "religion" check box.

So I think to stir things up by saying a critic of religion is being RACIST is to play the race card oneself. True, there is a lot of generalisation and racial profiling, but doing this is merely a convenience which matches most of the time with statistics that have high correlation rates. And as an infidel, a target for death, I reserve the right both to criticize, defend myself, and not worry about walkign on eggshells so as not to "offend" the silent minority of the religion, who do nothing to change things and so in a way condone or enable it to continue.

And "offending" cartoon is just too nice for them.

Sorry.

3. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176867 by jac12358 on May 8, 2008 at 7:55 am

Wonderful article. I could not agree more.

(Now see how boring total agreement and praise are?)

So of course I have a couple things to add.

First is my embarrassed mistake of thinking Hitchens wrote this article! As I read I "heard" it with his voice - I think it is because I recall Hitchens being particularly pro-aggression when it comes to dealing with terrorists, compared to Dawkins at least, and so I assumed incorrectly. Plus, you know, both start with "H" - I know, duh...

Well, as someone already voiced: "what should we foot soldiers do?" Now, I don't like to think of myself as a foot soldier or doing anyone's bidding, but the tone and conclusions of the article suggest and point to an even grander conclusion which is never spoken. Sure, he says "we should criticize even more" so we overwhelm muslims and they can no longer single out individuals who "offended" them and need to die, but this all sounds a bit like Rimmer in that Red Dwarf episode where he gets his hostility sucked out of him, dons a goatee and "Give Quiche a Chance" T-Shirt and suggests battling the enemy by hitting it "really hard" with a "leaflet campaign."

It has been established - when we switch off our slippery-slope detection gear - that being religious leads to insane activity such as suicide bombings. But I don't think anyone would argue that a sweet old church lady would do such a thing. True, she might grimace at gays kissing, violence and cursing on TV, wear a cross, and know nothing of Einstein's theories of relativity and even less on Darwin's, but if you ever crossed paths with her or tried to argue against her beliefs the most she will do is say she will "pray for you," wag her finger, give you the maloik (sp?) or evil eye...

If we - and especially Dawkins with the momentum of a best-seller - can admittedly do no better that convince only current "fence sitting" nice friendly next-door or mother-in-law religious folk, then WHAT can we do with a suicide bomber intent on killing us (who, by the way, makes no distincting whether we are Christian, Jew OR atheist)? How do you reason with them? What can you negotiate in lieu of your own prompt evaporation from the earth, that would please them? Should we appease them with rewards for NOT killing us today, like we do with North Koreans every time they need some cash and they fly a missile into the ocean, which they'll stop doing if we "help them"?

If, as so many say in here, that it is nearly impossible to, on average, convince but a single mild-mannered (but non-fence-sitting) religious Westerner of their delusion, then what chance do we stand against a congregation of thousands of the same, unitied in solidarity and herd-mentality? One notch above that is to argue with them when "they" are armed (physically and ideologically) Muslims and you have a big red "infidel" target painted on you?

It is interesting how the article endeavors to eliminate political correctness from the debate, but itself fails to offer what would seem to amount to the only realistic solution (in effectiveness and which would inspire fear and real respect instead of perceived cowardice) because of a higher pervasive political correctness?

4. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #175973 by jac12358 on May 6, 2008 at 9:58 am

As Bertrand Russell pointed out, it is precisely for this reason that they are so touchy about the subject of religion. If they were more sure of their beliefs, they wouldn't care what others said about them.

Keith, I just started reading Russell's "The Problem with Philosophy" and it is quite interesting. I'm ashamed I haven't read him before but know how often he is referenced. I don't know yet where his whole argument is leading, but I sense part of what he is saying does some damage to what we may think we know about the universe, scientifically or otherwise, but also by throwing punches as philosophers, of whom there are many fans who in one thread or another have endeavored to put me straight on one or two points concerning the discipline and their favoured chosen authority. We'll see.

As for your last sentence, I'd like to add that there are many atheists in here who, according to their sometimes rabid or hostile responses, make one wonder if similarly they are likewise unsure of their positions...

5. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #175965 by jac12358 on May 6, 2008 at 9:42 am

Well, yes and no. According to Dawkins, Stalin was an atheist who did evil things, but there is no direct "logical pathway" from atheism to bad deeds, as there is with religious faith. I have to say I don't entirely understand Dawkins's thinking here -- how, after all, could the executions of religious figures not follow logically from the promotion of atheism?

I've tried pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions like this (though not this one) and I always wish, naively, that people would be a little more measured in their responses rather than by default immediately jumping to Dawkins' rescue and defending or rationalizing his words on his in absentia behalf, while those against him take up the "other side" - I wish it weren't like that, and people would be open-minded, skeptical, fair, non-biased and non-dogmatic in their approaches. All too often I sense a pervading bias, typically measured by the amount of time, words, offense and vitrol expended defending their corner of reality rather than, like me, really really testing to see if something is true, valid, having integrity, etc. Their is nothing dishonorable about doing this, but time and again putting that into practice makes many think automatically that you are "against" something and must be "dealth with," even if in a marginal debate that has long-since jumped off the tracks. I'm already "on-board" with the very-likely mumbo-jumbo-ness of religion, god, afterlife, heaven, etc. And I want to make sure what is left to "believe" is true, inasmuch as we can glean its truth. I call this "kicking its tires" to see how sturdy it is. Some call it "playing devil's advocate." Call it what you will.

As it pertains to the above quoted comment, regardless of your position, it does appear that if Stalin was in fact an atheist and rounded up and killed off religious figures then that is a very strong argument for a link, just as much a the religious link made with those who rounded up and burned the Salem "witches." But what are the WHOLE statistics? After all "coorelation does not imply causation." If you ignore that fallacy, then the above claim of atheism is in strengthened. If you apply the fallacy, then both it AND many claims against religion are weakened. So which is it?

If the number of religious folk murdered by Stalin were of a disproportionate percentage (not number) than atheists, then the claim is supported on that front. What are the facts? Also, what were the REASONS for the murdering of specifically religious persons? Was it wo wipe religion from the earth (as Muslim extremists want to wipe non-Muslims from the earth for very-much-so religious reasons)? Or was it politics, since the church previously weilded much power and any person vying with power had to negotiate or fight with the church for that reason.

On the flip side, likely most or many people of a religious persuasion might have simply been caught up in the hype and peer pressure of going along with the crowd with many-a lynchings, crusades and so-forth, without so much as a thought into the theological rationale for these acts. Therefore this lends credence to the claim spoken in here that the true root of "evil" is man's tribal tendencies and trust in dogma.

I just hope the new atheists today do not become dogmatic as well. All these T-shirts, slogans, quoting from texts, mottos and conference gatherings do reek of the beginnings of cults. Of course what they promote is noble and I hope true, but given to human nature and herd mentality, tendencies to follow charismatic leaders, having a "cause," solidarity, a common "enemy" (religion), and in general a percentage who just don't get it but go along with the crowd anyway and thus are aping without understanding, something can still go awry, and atheists should do whatever they can to ensure this doesn't happen - in short, do things precisely the opposite of organized religion.

True, religion does allow people to commit murder, but so does ordinary "love" especially in so-called "crimes of passion." One can be passionate about anything, from a person, a thing, an idea, country or religion. We've also seen people blow up abortion clinics and - I'm not sure - people who have died either directly or indirectly by the actions of groups like PETA. If love of a bunny can lead to that, then so can a love of Dawkins or atheism, although we all shudder at the thought of it (I hope!)

Remember, the promise of 72 virgins alone was not enough for every suicide bomber in the world. Many were encouraged with political protection and financial rewards and security for their families left behind, and as such one can imagine an - albeit misguided (remember, a religious martyr is as misguided as an atheist one) atheist of perhaps limited education and stressed for money being "used" by some unscrupulous person unwilling to let the facts speak for themselves, or tired of the unrelenting relgious tide, to enlist such a buffoon to bomb, say, a church. It can happen - and what would we be left to conclude if it did?

6. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171502 by jac12358 on April 28, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Evolution isn't chance, it's incremental selection of chance mutations and if IDers believe in only 2 options, that is a fault in their thinking, not in evolution.

The problem with this statement, and variations replacing the words "chance" with "random" is that it is confusing for people who are religious and don't understand evolution. Part of it is their fault, but part of it is a badly worded explanation, which seems to contradict itself by saying it IS NOT chance/random and then saying it selects FROM chance/random mutations. Throw in a dash of quantum uncertainty and they are really confused.

To them if the mutation is random then the whole process is as well. The mutation, after all, is what gives natural selection with the variability from which to "choose." As an analogy, if I had you blindly pull two food items from a sac containing hundreds of foods, those two items would represent the chance mutuation. If I then said you must choose only one to eat which is more nutritious or tasty or some parameter, that would be the selection. But to a large degree it was chance which presented you with the choice. In nature, mutation variability is nearly infinite, and the selection is a yes/no option, represented by live/die or reproduce/sterile etc.

Then, if everything is random and probabilistic on a small enough level, and mutations exist at nearly as small levels, then doesn't this randomness permeate ALL of reality?

Even the word "choice" is fraught with "intellegent" faculties, and probably viewed as a challenge to their "intelligent" god.

I think the whole explanation needs to be fine tuned to address this set of seeming contradictions, or the confusing words eliminated altogether. I understand this, but not everyone.

7. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168907 by jac12358 on April 25, 2008 at 12:49 pm

"seeker_of_truth: The best analogy I have heard is language. "
Interesting. Languages have evolved into separate species over time.

I suspect languages will mutate/evolve more slowly from now on. 1,000 years ago peoples were more isolated, so dialects could evolve the same as local genetic mutations would from limited gene pools. And there wasn't much written material or education. Now with standardized languages and millions of books published, it would be hard to read them if the language kept changing as much or as fast as previously.

One wonders if there will even be a "world language" - probably not, nor a single race resulting from everyone constantly travelling and interbreeding, removing language and racial and cultural differences (and religious?). But it is interesting to think about. The gene pool is much larger now anyway, and with controlled environments and medicine, people are unikely to evolve as animals as fast as before, and so ditto with languages, other than the odd slang or colloquialisms.

8. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168694 by jac12358 on April 25, 2008 at 9:45 am

And for the record, gravity is one of the least understood things going. No one knows what it is. The two major theories of the physical world (being quantum theory and relativity) are mutually exclusive. They can't both be right. Yet, when each one deals with its own particular specialism (the very small for quantum theory and the not very small for relativity) both come up with predictions that are mind-bogglingly accurate. One analogy I heard for QM is that its accuracy is like predicting the distance from LA to New York to within the width of a human hair.

Gravity is far better understood today than by Newton. True, it is very elusive, but so is everything ehrn reduced to fundamental forces. Even electromagnetism is a bear, what with its photons "always" travelling the speed of light regardless of the viewer, and being both particles and waves.

Or, do we understand the what/how/where/when/why of the universe? In other words, is the universe easier to explain than gravity, and if not, does it not follow that anything within that universe, being part of it, is equally unknown? We know things only locally and in mundane practical terms. Describing a bouncing ball does not help explain the universe, but it is silly to conclude that the description of the bouncing ball is "incompatible" or "mutually exclusive" with describing the universe.

Likewise, quantum mechanics and relativity also describe the "local" phenomena they are observed to describe and predict. That a single theory is desired does not mean it is "out there" as anyone who has said the mantra "reality owes nothing to our hopes and assumptions." Sure, it would be nice, but would a carpenter bemoan the use of both a hammer and screwdriver imagining a more "perfect" tool that can do both jobs without being mutually exclusive?

9. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165804 by jac12358 on April 22, 2008 at 11:32 am

Extremely frustrating doesn't even begin to describe it. We have in our history some of the greatest composers, scientists, inventors, philosophers, novelists(and writers in general), poets etc...

Over a thousand years of culture, and for most people, Germany is not linked in their minds with Beethoven, Bach, Schubert, Schumann, Goethe, Schiller, Heine, Kafka, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg - but with Hitler and those 12 years from 1933 to 1945.

It's very sad.
For a recent study, schoolchildren in Britain were asked to name "evil states"... guess what the top answers were? Iraq and Germany.
Among the less educated (and the averagely educated) in english-speaking countries, if you tell anyone you're from Germany, they lift their right arm to the "Hitler-Gruß" and shout "Sieg Heil".

But there are also extremely many people who know better :)

Nevertheless - something has to be done about it... and I would say it mostly has to do with the history education in schools.

It is frustrating, unfair and unfortunate, but I imagine in the history of things that are hard to "live down" the holocaust is pretty high on the list. The last French and German WWI veterans just died this and last year, so there are plenty of people still alive from WWII who were on both sides of the battle and remember what happened firsthand. I think it is great that we've become allies and the past is behind us, but it still exists as history and a valuable lesson. One shouldn't hold grudges, but when a country like the USA is held to such high standards and criticism it is understandable that people would want to remind everyone of the heroic contributions and body count far exceeding anything in Iraq that we accumulated on the world's behalf back in the 1940's.

My girlfriend is half German and half Italian. There are no Hitler jokes in her family, and her German father is such a sweetheart and winner of many humanitarian awards, that the most dinner table banter I hear about it has to do with the relative stereotypes of the Italians in the family beong more open with their affections and the German side being better with engineering, keeping busy and strict time-tables.

When I visited Guam I found it very strange to see Japanese tourists visiting an island they or their fathers half a century ago visited when they beheaded most of the unarmed indiginous Chimorro. What a change having tourism your biggest cash cow is!

What I find harder to swallow are grudges held FAR beyond living memory for events arguably less egregious than the holocaust. For example, as a white male I sometimes feel made responsible for the relatively sad state of affairs and "disenfranchisement" of African Americans. The abolishment of slavery happened a few decades before my Italian ancestors set foot here and the civil rights movement was before I was born, but I too often have to hear that I "owe" them still, and it saddens me to realize it is all very political and unfortunately I think only perpetuates a cycle of welfare, low expectations and dependancy. But that is another matter!...

The perpetual Muslim-Jew hostility if probably the worst, since it takes the cake of being the only one I know to last a millenium and being the most pointless over who has this dry piece of rock.

Nevertheless, I often wonder why given this and the recent holocaust why people give the Jews a hart time to this day while absolving the Germans of anything they've ever done bad.

Too often people cherry pick their statistics, as I've pointed out many times. Sure, let's all forgive the Germans, to which I'd agree, but when one needs a handy put-down for the USA one is only too eager to mention Vietnam (while forgetting the French-connection there) and things like the Iran-Contra and slavery. All I am trying to say is I see this sort of "past coming to haunt you" from both sides, and done rather selectively and unfairly, equalled perhaps only by the personal attacks on political opponents from each other digging up each other's dirt and skeletons.

10. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165776 by jac12358 on April 22, 2008 at 9:51 am

Richard, Great letter. It must get so tiring responding to this mindless 'Hitler was an atheist' nonsense over and over again. Good on you for answering this issue yet again.

I like the letter very much, but what I crave is a debate. We, in here, go at lengths to propose, criticise, counterargue, and so forth, for dozens of posts, taking "sides" and what-not. On the other hand, Dawkins does what might be best descibed as "drive-by posting" in which he drops off his post and then dashes off leaving the argument and debate and dirty-work to us. We shouldn't have to put words in his mouth or explain how he really meant this or didn't mean that, in which case some people are seen as apostles doing Dawkin's legwork by proxy. I know he is a busy man and has books to back up what he writes here, but I think most of us would agree that seeing an exchange between Dawkins and the author of the letter would be a whole lot more interesting, educational, exciting and dare I say entertaining than the way we might be going at it.

Less desirable drive-by / hit-and-run posts are from those who are "just anybodys" who post one provocative thing and are never heard from again, and one imagines them snickering at the heated debate that ensues which they started. Conversational pyromaniacs.

Does Dawkins ever follow up with new comments in an established post, as in "I've read some of the criticisms in this thread of late, some of which take me to task and so not to appear cowardly I am stepping up here to answer some of the more serious charges and points among which I was surprised to discover some very interesting thoughts I had not previously considered, to which I will also respond." ??? If so I'd like to read it.

11. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165601 by jac12358 on April 21, 2008 at 7:25 pm

238. Comment #165371 by MaxD on April 21, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Jac12358,

If David decides to respond he will not address a single substative point. He will make heavy weather of the any vitriol and play the victim. This is his method.

It is disengeious, as his blanket attacks in his own letter to the hurt jewish guy amply demonstrate. In fact he didn't really wish to make his case for theology but rather just imply that it was again atheist who is the problem and imply the only option is his religion. This is strangely the same tactic of the ID/creationsist studies folk. DR only offers the false dichotomy and not much of substance.

It is for this reason people tire of him, and get uh..."short" with him.

Okay, got it. I didn't know the history of him, his tactics or the conversation. In general I still try to answer all questions for the principle of it. Sorry for the confusion and my very late response time!

12. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165360 by jac12358 on April 21, 2008 at 11:47 am

"Of course "moderate" religion paves the way to extremism! What rock have you been living under?"

Is this not a classic example of slipper slope? Of course moderism MAY lead to extremism for SOME people, you cannot say that it MUST.

And I forgot to include in my last post that I was not agreeing with Robertson (whose post I did not read as religiously-steeped as interpreted by others, who I sense were familiar with his other likely more-obviously religious posts) - I merely was asking people to respond to the criticisms at face value which, if weak, should be easy, and more honorable than just attacking him based on his previous posts.

13. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165293 by jac12358 on April 21, 2008 at 9:58 am

Although I not nothing about this Donald fellow, there was a lot of his post which did seem to make a valid argument, and I would suggest instead of simply condemning him altogether (especially when the post in question was practically bereft of discernable hate) that you might address his comments and demonstrate them to be the falsehoods you know they are.

14. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165281 by jac12358 on April 21, 2008 at 9:41 am

Great response from Dawkins.

It is always difficult jumping in to a thread this long, and one's comment does not always answer the preceding post, but here is what I (as did a few other people) found worthy of comment:

Diacanu on April 20, 2008 at 5:51 pm

BillG-
Have you ever used birth control?
Then, you're weren't using sex for its designed purpose.

Careful - are you saying sex was "designed"?

Birth control CIRCUMVENTS sexual procreation and is implemented purely to avoid the natural consequence of sex. Sex, or rather male-female coitus, is not naturally non-procreative simply by "willing" it so, to reap only the pleasure from it. One must intervene. Our "powers" of intervention do not change what sex it, how it got that way, what happens when you have it, and why it feels so good.

Oxygen wasn't "made" for us to breathe, and so we aren't using it "against design" when we fuel a rocket with it.

Have you ever been on a plane?
Then, you've defied gravity.

Incorrect. You've defied gravity with flight just the same as you do every time you stand up on your two feet. Both flight and standing require gravity to work as they do. Without gravity there would not be an atmosphere to fly through, but even if the whole universe was filled with our air, without a center of gravity and heavier gasses falling toward it while lighter ones rise, there would be no preferencial direction with which a wing might acquire "lift" - or if it could (and I think it can), that lift would simply be in the direction of lift, not against a gravitational center, against which "flight" is achieved. Without gravity, standing up would be more like flight, since you would lift off from wherever you were and continue indefinitely until you were stopped, slowed or deflected by something.

Have you, or a parent, or a grandparent been saved by modern medicine?
Then, you owe your existance to someone defying the will of nature.

Nature has no will. Medicine simply exploits the environment using science (no miracles) around us to counteracts the ills (not the wills) of nature making us sick. To say sucking the sap from a branch for its medicinal purposes is "unnatural" would mean a dog licking a wound, thus cleaning it, is also unnatural. Where is the line in which using the environment to heal ourselves is crossed and becomes "unnatural" medicine?

So,how did you "pick and choose", how to "delineate between the proper and improper applications of Darwin's theory".

The notion of free will - if we have it - is still up in the air as far as I am concerned, and I remain "agnostic" about it. However, morals, however they may be "chosen" and defined, shape our notions of what should and should not be, when all nature concerns itself with is laws of physics which should and should not be. In other words, we might find it morally repugnant to place a child in the squashing path of a falling tree, but if the child were there by accident or human intent, the tree would be "obligated" by natures laws to fall on that child him and render as squashed as all the calculations of surface area, mass, velocity, density, viscocity, etc. demand.

The only thing, as I see it, in keeping politics and morals Darwinian is because we "choose" to for "moral" or "altruistic" reasons. However, if a group of individuals lacking a hormone or enzyme found their thoughts uncensored and allowed them without hesitation to successfully commit the mass extinction of a species or race, then how can it be said otherwise by their descenents centuries hence that their "genes" through mutating and chemically altering their host organisms did not ensure their survival whereas the others did not?

That something horrible like this "ought not to be" is a sentiment I share with I hope all of you, it does not mean that it "is not." Same goes for free will, if we wish we must have it even if we don't, and god, if we believe he should exist but he does not, and an afterlife, if we hope for one but there is not.

15. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #163651 by jac12358 on April 18, 2008 at 5:51 pm

I think you may be mistaken if you think I am "on your side". I am gay, I just don't think Steve's speculation is on solid scientific ground.

Exactly. By "side" I did not mean "orientation." If anything I like to think I am oriented toward truth. Therefore we can agree on any number of arguments or points regardless of whom we love. I agreed with the content of your post. It is fallacious to assume that I could not because of my orientation.

We shouldn't have to justify ourselves with "we were born that way". No one asks or cares whether your preference of hot food is the result of nature or nurture.

Quite right.

The way I see it, if homosexuals are born, those who hate us would still say it is a genetic disease, so "blaming the genes" doesn't really get us very far as long as we still see the need to "blame" something for who we are,--for whatever reason. I shouldn't have to be apologetic of the fact that I am attracted to man and I won't.

At least in my case it is not a matter of hate. I don't hate morticians but I'd still prefer my child to not see them at work on a corpse. Believe it or not over 50% of my neighborhood is made of gay couples (quiet neighborhood without children!), and all of them are the nicest people with whom I've never had an argument with (and they know I'm straight: the enemy!). That does not mean I wish to peek in their bedrooms, much less have my kids peek likewise, whether on the real thing or else a televised depiction, watered down or not. Likewise I'd assume they didn't want to peek in on me, nor would I peek in on my straight friends. (Apologies to all vouyers in the audience.)

We are here and we are here to stay. I don't need to justify my sexual preference any more than you have to justify yours. In a rational society no one should even care about anyone's sexuality, whether in real life or on TV.

True. Let's just leave it up to parents to decide if their kids should view it in programmes purportedly made for them,

16. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #163625 by jac12358 on April 18, 2008 at 4:27 pm

You have made the common mistake of assuming that only traits that are expressed in reproductive individuals can assist with the propogation of genes. This is not the case at all. Just to give one example, there are many cases in nature where non-reproducing inviduals assist their siblings and/or parents with the raising of offspring. This is genetic - there is an inherited tenency for there to be individuals who don't have offspring. This actually increases reproductive fitness.

Homosexuality is very widespread in nature, and as far as I know there is no great ape species in which there aren't gay individuals. The functionality of same-sex activity can be different in different species, but in general it seems to have a role in maintaining the coherence of society.

It may also more directly increase reproductive fitness because of the "uncle/aunt" role that gay and lesbian individuals can perform. There is good reason to believe this may be important in humans as our children require a lot of care. Indeed, we have other non-reproductive individuals whose presence is beneficial - grandparents! It is true that average lifespans in the past were much shorter, but many adults would probably still have survived into their 40s, 50s and even 60s.

Thank you for this thoughtful post, Steve. I was pleased by its tone as well. I think Bonzai already refuted some of the things to which I disagree with. I mean, by definition a grandparent has already contributed to the gene pool. And whether one is gay or not does not make one a better altruistic person or societally-necessary caretaker. If evolution favored a species with individuals who did not procreate so they could devote their efforts to the offspring of others (who did), then I don't see how them craving same-sex intimacy would be any more advantageous than if they simply were heterosexual and bore no children (I know, contracption is recent? - or is it?), or simply never married or were otherwise asexual, or better yet, "drone bees" of society - or is it worker? Whichever ones don't have any sex with the queen...

And regarding the rest of your post, Cartomancer deals with it eloquently. I do have to say though that you are talking a lot of twaddle.

We might disagree, but I don't think you can say it is twaddle, at least without proving it as such.

Who cares about reality in a programmes like Doctor Who or Torchwood? If you are that concerned about sampling populations correctly, better get rid of the Gallifreyan.

Ha! Good try. I already said the (sci-)FICTIONAL aspect of the show is no problem, although I'd prefer it to be less anthropomorphic (aliens looking or being humanoid) and so earth/England/modern-day bound. But if we are going to be ON EARTH NOW much of the time, then the setting should be represented as accurately as it can. Make the monsters more outrageous, I say, but for the TARDIS to land in a 100% gay (or 100% or any other inaccurately exaggerated percentage of any trait, like publically eating Spam whist wearing paper propeller hats or anything most people do not do) and NOT have the Doc muse he must have landed in an alternate universe would be disingenuous. Part of the argument of why there is so much popular culture and soap-opera in the show now is allegedly so the masses can "relate" to what is onscreen. This is also why most aliens are humanoid rather then a purple sludge on a rock, because what else can we relate to, empathize with, hate, pity, read emotion from, if not possessing a face capable of recognizable emotions? But we have no alien prototypes in reality, so any depictions are legitimate, even if scientifically less statistically plausible than others. On the other hand, why should other dramatic and supposedly "real life" elements in an otherwise fictional show alter and risk alienating a portion of the majority?

If you are really concerned about representation, then there are more important things to worry about - where are the over 50's in such programmes? Where are the black people? Where are the obsese people? Heck, where are the ugly people? Funny how people get so worked up because of homosexuality....

Remember: it was ANY sexuality, like the Grace, Rose and Martha kisses, that were previously unprecedented.

And from recent memory:

Over 50's: Professor Yana, Professor Lazarus and his wife, the old couple in Gridlock, the captain and the guy from Keeping Up Appearances in Voyage of the Damned, the undertaker (and Dickens himself?) in Unquiet Dead, the doctor in Empty Child, the two elder males shown in Fires of Pompeii, etc. Oh, and Jack, (at least 200 years old) and the Doctor (900!), as truly revealed in Last of the Time Lords! In TW we have the old lady killed by the fairy-things in Small Worlds, some in Countrycide, the old doctor in Reset...

Black People: Martha and her family, Micky and his gran, the captian in Impossible Planet, Donna's would-be husband, the girl in Long Game, the father of the multi-racial family in Attack of the Graske, the leader in Hooverville in Daleks in Manhattan, and in TW Ianto's girlfriend in Cyberwoman...

Obese people: the maid and farmer (both later possessed) in Human nature, the unfortunate hosts of the Slitheen, the Foon couple in Voyage of the Damned and all those the nanny was creating her Adipose creatures from in Partners's in Crime, and in TW Rhys.

(If nothing else I've just demonstrated the extent of my geekiness in the show!)

17. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #163609 by jac12358 on April 18, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Translation - "I don't want to argue any more, I just want you to accept that my arguments are valid even though you don't think they are".

(This is an example of what I mean. Previously you and Steve extracted only the gay portion of my many-pointed post to respond offended to, and as such made it seem to passers-by that this was my only or main point, and that all my other points, if any, were just as weak. Now you take my most recent response and gloss over most of it and respond to me simply suggesting that we get the argument back on track instead of all the personal stuff.)

I did not say I did not want to argue. But I want the argument to be fair, thoughtful, logically based, and if possible, based on evidence. We might disagree, and that is fine. You have a right to think and feel as you do, and I might disagree. We have bothe given our reasons. What more do you want? I admitted I didn't have much more to offer on the topic and so wanted the others I had previously considered to be addressed.

If anyone is playing the victim here it is you. It is very telling that you start your rant with a, frankly irrelevant, diatribe about how you feel your views are not given fair airing - and then once you've stated them tell us you're not interested in hearing anyone else's rebuttals. If you genuinely were ostracised and censored then we wouldn't bother arguing against you - we'd just tag you as offensive and report you to the authorities, trying to get you removed. Criticism of your views is not tantamount to stifling debate on them - precisely the opposite in fact. Get over your wounded pride and try seeing things from a perspective other than your own for a change eh?

Thanks for that paragraph. Would you please post it in the other threads where I'm told quite bluntly without much, if any, evidence that I am wrong, a poor thinker and by extension any other argument I've made which has gone unaddressed is similarly unworthy of response? Tell them to consider MY "other" perspective, and not have such a wounder "PRIDE" (in rainbow colors)? And not just end the debate in fiat or "the cold e-shoulder"?

But that's the problem isn't it? You see the world as simply one big capitalistic nightmare, where money is the only thing that talks and human solidarity can be chalked up as numbers on a balance sheet. It's all the red-in-tooth-and-claw competition between interest groups isn't it, with the strong inevitably triumphing over the weak? Well I have news for you - society does not have to work that way.

No, we have an abundance of alternative ancient and modern governances from which to select: communism, socialism, fascism, despotism, religious states, monarchies...

There are no "have-to-be's," only what we as a society (if democratic) want. True, as you pointed out, I might be in the majority opinion the particular topic, and it might or might not be more or less valid than your (or any) minority opinion. But here, at least, the way to change things is through debate and then voting on that change. As I am in the majority and you the minority, you quite rightly are the one advocating change, and to accomplish this you must bear the burden of advocating your point of view. To label (or suggest) me (incorrectly) as a homophobic ignoramus does nothing to further your cause NOR convince me, and as such bears a resemblance to what some view Dawkins does in alienating religious people by insulting them rather than trying to persuade them.

As for the tooth-and-claw bit, what better analogy or example would make a Darwinian proud? If we truly have evolved beyond the "naturally selected" "selfish-genes" of our ancestors (and ironically more liberally-minded persons would disagree on this than conservatives!), then let us demonstrate it or observe it being thus demonstrated. Otherwise we've simply substituted the "territorial pissings" of yore with these "ideological postings" of today.

It's not a question of a clique of self-interested gay people working hard towards a "revolution" where we somehow fleece the majority of society into doing what is best for us and worst for them. It's a question of the entirety of society re-evaluating their views and doing what is best for everyone, each according to their own needs.

You mean I'm included TOO????

Straight and gay people should and do work together to end discrimination - just as black and white, disabled and able-bodied, male and female have done. If you try to run society simply by the unexamined will of the unthinking majority you don't get democracy, you get ochlocracy - mob rule.

No, no. Good try with: democracy = mob rule. For the minority to exert any form of rule over the majority would require brute force, mandated ignorance and an establishment of a self-elected elite few who "know best."

You know, I DO agree we need to end all this discrimination, but I don't think that automatically exposing children to certain things to which their parents might object. I return once again to showing ANY form of sexual/romantic content in Doctor Who (in case we've forgotten, what the dabate is about, in a family program, NOT some mass censorship program affecting everything). For 26 years the show was faithful to the "no hanky-panky in the TARDIS" policy. Now almost all bets are off, and in the very first season of the new series, as if almost going down a checklist, we have the Doctor not just kissing his female assistant (followed by kissing his very next minority female assistant the 2nd season), but also a male one, as well as an interracial couple. There is nothing wrong with any of this except for the format. Where were your sharply worded letters to John Nathan-Turner (the previous gay producer of the show) imploring him to "turn" the show in this direction? I mean, 1989 isn't even 20 years ago yet, and in 1989 the 1960's sexual revolution was already old news as was "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?"

I don't know if you remember being a kid where, to would-be heterosexual boys, the thought of ANY girl kissing you was "icky?" (This is the same term Dawkins uses to describe his childhood sexual abuse episode.) From this observed fact (which continues today), one cannot conclude that ALL these kids will grow up gay (least of all because kissing a boy would be just as icky, perhaps even if they will be gay) OR that they have been conditioned AGAINST heterosexual behavior. For this reason romatic kissing is best left for soap-operas and dramas. Kids don't need to witness erotic behavior of any kind. If they see it in passing, fine, but one should not endeavor to contrive a situation where they are being captively entertained and then suddenly exposed to it. In other words, a kid might react to the Doc kissing Rose as much as Jack. Therefore my criticism is not aimed at you or your lifestyle (in general, or specifically, in the family show). I think the best depiction of gays was perhaps the two old ladies in Gridlock where they were depicted but there wasn't a big show made of it. Agendas-and-all (or not), even the mighty RTD say fit not to show us (or presumably himself) two old ladies making out in their hovercraft... I expect you are drafting your letter of disapproval to RTD right now for such discrimination...

And yes, we have only picked up on some of your points rather than others. That's because we disagree with those points most strongly. That's how debate works. Should we criticise everything about China simply because we disagree with their human rights record? What kind of a stupid argument is that?

Perhaps not you, but Steve has actually personally impugned my intellectual integrity as an author of reasoned thought or understanding of any number of topics ranging from gay issues to free will. I've been told my other "ignored" arguments don't hold water by extension of a general disdain of some of my comments over the others. Plus, he already told me that simply because my other comments have not been acknowledged does NOT mean that you agree. So telling me that you are "just" responding to this one point you find fault with does not assure me that the other topics are immune. Being as such undebated, I don't know what the conversation would be, but I am interested to learn, which is why I suggested moving away from this current sub-topic.

I should reiterate that it is YOU who consistently confuses the issues of gay/straight representation on TV and the prominence of sexually explicit imagery - and you've made it pretty clear that you do this because you find it difficult to think of gay people in any other way but a sexual one. They're two separate issues - get over it.

I am not confused. I just don't want any explicit sexual imagery shown to kids. I do not at all think of gays only in terms of their sexuality. However, it IS their sexuality that sets them apart as per the definition of the label. What is it other than a preference for sexual and intimate contact with a member of the same sex that makes a homosexual homosexual? Liking spinach? Liza Minelli? No, it is their choice of sexual partner. But if sexual activity is what I'm suggesting we avoid showing to kids, then what is left to show to them? What is left is "a person." The label "gay" becomes irrelevant because the behavior the label implies is not going to be publically viewed. I wouldn't need for people to witness my sexual activities to be be accepted in any way, and I don't want to be defined as straight. Why have a label? Just do what you do. If it is something we do in public, fine. If not, then don't make a show about it. Cops and soldiers are sometimes called upon to use their weapons to kill, but we need not show these killings to kids. And the cops and soldiers would not feel "repressed" if we don't see them doing one of the things they are trained to do, and we undertand they may be called upon to do in their line of work.

And you still cannot get over the fact that you're just as biased in this debate as either of us. It doesn't matter that yours is the majority position - a pro-majority bias is still a bias.

True, (you mean an appeal to the masses, which is a logical fallacy, but in a democracy "accepting" the results at the ballot box is not), but I already addressed this point earlier in this post.

You have completely failed to realise that simply presenting gay people only 5% of the time is, de facto, discriminatory in today's climate.

10% Catomancer - will you not accept my generous 200% increase over the distribution statistic?

(Speaking of statistics, I was reminded of how people often play with them for political agendas. One doesn't even need to alter the truth at all - it can be staring right at you but simply misinterpreted or else ignored - what some of my points suffer. I once debated the topic of who gives the most aid worldwide. if you want to put down the USA, you cite that we give very little PER CAPITA, in which case Denmark, I think, is top, and likely is either a mandated tax-funded charitable donation. If you want to show us in a good light, then you mention that we give the most raw dollars of any nation, which may or may not include some of the largest individual voluntary donations worldwide in the figure. Either way, both statistics are true but can make things look good or bad, or, as they say, the glass half empty or half full. Hence, when I generously and cautiosuly err IN FAVOR of my "opponent" by a margin on 200% AND AM STILL criticized, then I am at a complete loss. For some, whatever you do is never good enough, give an inch and they expect a mile, etc...)

18. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #163567 by jac12358 on April 18, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Bonzai, where have you been?!? I've had to fend for myself for so long... You know, they are right about not wanting those closeted gays to feel so cut off as they do, since I myself admit wanting the solidarity of a few others who feel or think as I do, or at least parallel to my thinking and not challenge everything I suggest and portray it as a weak or irrelevant argument aimed as a personal attack.

In other words, nice, thoughtful and concise post. It will be nice to observe how others digest the words of another and respond to them...

19. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #162136 by jac12358 on April 16, 2008 at 8:11 am

Hmm - I am unable to access page two of this thread on account no doubt of the flagged content there which is deemed inappropriate on this system (at work during my break), so I'll try to respond to what Cartomancer said yestderday based on my memory of it.

I feel history repeating itself again in a new thread. I find a post which contains valid points of view not originating with me. I comment on them and add my thoughts, which are usually many. Then a few people pick out one or two of my NUMEROUS points, take them personally, and then the conversation spirals down from that point. Why must this be? How can it be that we live in an "I'm so offended" entitlement age simultaneously while being subjected to some very offensive things in what is supposed to be a free society? If we disagree, why can it not end there, but continue with insults and usually false assumptions about the other and their intentions or meanings? It is like we cannot even TALK about certain things because they are taboo (like criticising religion) - a sort of reverse-discrimination for gays as there was/is with racial minorities. Backlash. But it gets worse: now people are offended WHEN someone else takes offense, or sees things any differently from them, which is why many things, especially politics, have become SO polarized and partisan.

I cannot even DISCUSS any gay issue in here unless 1) I am gay, or 2) I agree with what someone who is says about it. Period. End of discussion. Otherwise, I'm "offensive" and "have issues." Is that REALLY the best a counterargument has to offer? I had hoped not but it is what I have come to expect. It reminds me very much of the race card - one cannot even DISCUSS race if it suggests a shift in who is responsible or accountable, or even cites statistics which are true and thus troubling to the "offended," who's last resort is always to make a public display of his or her "offense" and brand the other as a "racist." I'm thinking of Obama's camp criticising the fellow who complimented him for being "well spoken" causing an uproar, whereas Obama's comment "typical white person" should pass - but it is all silly because there, LIKE HERE, the focus of the REAL debate, the topics and their solutions is eclipsed by the mudlinging and the subjective misinterpretations, offenses and agendas.

People regularly impugn the academic or intellectual or logical merit and thoughtfulness of my words as if they had somehow self-elected themselves on-par or above any master's or doctoral thesis committee I have had to previously face, or thousands of students I've had and observations and guidelines I've had to meet.

I've stated - as often I do - my point many times that I DO NOT disaprove of gays or their lifestyle, but question the appropriateness of depicting that or any other sexually explicit or implied material to CHILDREN, since the topic of this thread is about Doctor Who, which since 1963 has been a children/family-friendly show. Prior to 1989's final "classic" series, there was barely ANY romantic or sexual innuendo at all. Now we can't have a companion who 1) hasn't kissed the doctor (male or female), 2) hasn't WANTED to, or 3) had to explicitly state that they DON'T want to "mate" (though it remains to be seen how well the writers can resist exploiting tensions to the contrary).

To be fair, so far this season I haven't seen anything like that, so perhaps it is all done with and most of the depictions are concentrated into Torchwood. I don't know. It is more appropriate there since it is an adult show, but there my complaint is often in how pertinent some of the material is and the percentages of it (and I'M the one willing to grant a doubling from 5% to 10%!) - yes they are fictional characters, ONE of whom the regulars is from "the future," but they are supposed to be a sampling from our planet and times. Or maybe something is in the air in Wales... Even regardless of their orientation, the show has been criticized by their depiction as a bunch of non-professional misfits. But let's stay away from that show. I still like it for other reasons anyway.

I'm sure some of you would simply LOVE if the Doctor "came out" - which would be essentially the ultimate 900-year revisionist history "shock" to everyone. But why would that be necessary EXCEPT to to make you "feel good about yourselves" and RTD to spread that agenda? Make a brand new kid's show with a hero and make HIM gay from the start instead. Otherwise we'd immediately have to reimagine William Hartnell fancying Ian, and Pat Troughton hoping for a stiff breeze to blow Jamie's kilt up. Perhaps it would explain all the platonic female companions, so he "avoids temptation." But why even go there in a kid/family show?

Tell you what, my fears are unfounded because I doubt RTD has the guts to do it because either all or part of what I am saying is true, or he fears retribution from the fans - i.e. his source of revenue (via proxy advertisers I imagine). So in the end, money DOES talk and so you'd better aim your criticism at RTD for not making the show gay enough soon enough. I havew NOTHING to do with it, as has been implied with telling me "what I am trying to do."

Similarly I saw this last year with stores across America trying to "please everyone" by saying "happy holiday" instead of "Merry Christmas." A silly debate and topic to be sure, but when that backfired and they annoyed more people than they originally tried to "not offend" they went right back to "Merry Christmas - BUY OUR STUFF!" Seems money talks. Capitalism and the majority do have influence. So aim your vitriol at gays ensconced in positions of power who can't bring on the revolution soon enough, so hampered they are by "the bottom line" - they are YOUR true hypocrites. I'm merely on the sideline, without influence, observing, and suggesting maybe amid all the idealism and self-righteous flustering that perhaps someone ought to look out for the children. Or, does it all remain to be seen if a child seeing some explicit romance of any kind (or violence) is as "abused" as seeing a crucifix, as Dawkins argues? If his opinion is valid, then surely mine merits more than passing scorn.

On the subject of my alleged bias because I am straight. If I grant you this then some of Steve's arguments in other threads crumble. Were I to suggest depicting LESS than 5 or 10% gays in the media, or abolish all references to them not just in children's shows, but also in adult program's, then you'd have a point and call me a homophobe. But this is not what I am suggesting. Simply because my point of view meshes with the majority does not make it ipso facto a bias (correlation does not imply causation). Otherwise I invite onlookers to note that my current 2 critics are both gay and both focusing ONLY on that aspect of a myriad of points I first made in this thread, which by ignoring I assume they agree with, don't care about, or cannot refute. I am alive, so I guess I am biased compared to those dead or things non-living. As a human we are all anthro-centric (?) which is depicted in how central we've viewed the earth as the center of the universe, to how we are the ultimate end-product of evolution, the superior species, the one capable of free-will, and the one capable of cataclysmic word destruction. All share the root cause of over-inflated self-importance, power and abilities. Lose the illusion.

On ther gay gene: You might not have said "gene" but you did say "evolved." Unless you are talking about the evolution of a meme or somethign non-corporeal and non-genetic, then you are talking about some genetic information that can only be passed down via a most-certainly non-gay procreative activity. If you can show me the non-biological-but-not-genetic source of this "proclivity" and how it sustains in our species, then please do. Otherwise it is - if it exists - a mutation which, at best: 1) does not harm us in any way so long as someone else does the procreating, 2) is a form of population control, ensuring adequate resources for species (tenuous at best), or 3) is a form of societal bonding on the intimate level which has expanded beyond the opposite sex.

I think it is more of a capacity for something, and what we actually do is a matter of choice (if you have any, and I guess some of you think you don't so there's one more strike against free will) combined with the environment and our experiences within it that shape who we are. For instance, humans have the capacity to do things like write novels or plant tulips, but people who do do not have specific "novel-writing" or "bulb-planting" genes. The "unwritten novel" and the "unplanted bulbs" do not exist in our genes. Though we may have the capacity do direct our erotic affections on anybody and anything, that does not mean the object of those affections are pre-written into our genetic make-up. I imagine there are other factors biological which, in collaboration with the environment, help shape these things.

Anyway, that is all for now. Let's get back to the original topics, please. I am out of my league to say anything more in this area, I think you will agree (probably barring me from saying anything, I imagine), but am entitled to what I've said, and certainly reflects more than my own views. I've heard yours. Let others decide or chime in, and let there be a variety of respondents.

20. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #161929 by jac12358 on April 15, 2008 at 8:46 pm

I am sorry to come late to this, but I was pretty shocked to read your posts.

I am saddened that your reaction is likewise indignant and taken personally when nothing of the sort was meant. I am not sure why looking after the little ones has to be felt as an assault on one's lifestyle. I'm not about to subject a child to a pig being slaughtered at an abatoir, and censoring that from them in no way indicates any hatred or dislike of butchers, nor diminishes a love of pork.

The truth is, as Cartomancer suggests, that a minority of the population would be "tickled pink" if every child could be "indoctrinated/exposed/what-have-you" to some form of gay expression OVER the objections of their in-the-majority and straight parents (much like wanting to remove their right to teach their kids religious bunk if they want). I'm sorry if the few gay kids have a rough time growing up, but that is life I suppose. Gee, how much better my life would have been if my ecclectic, progressive and classical music tastes were shared by all and programmed on the radio. You can't please everyone, and in a democracy what you try to appease is the majority, and unfortunately at the moment you are not. No offense in that statement. What is wrong with it?

I will respond in more detail later, once I have seen what Cartomancer has written.

He has!

The dealing with gay issues on Doctor Who has been very positive in British society.

I understand they are WAY more progressive than we are. But there has been some criticism. I'm confident if I read it I will no doubt find you challenging them there, because surely you can't be picking on little old me as the spokesperson for the opposition...

And it sounds like you have some serious issues to deal with, and your knowledge of biology and the evolution of sexual preference is as poor as your recently demonstrated knowledge of philosophy.

Let me get this straight: Not agreeing with your minority world-view = "has some serious issues."

I'd say my demonstrated knowledge of philosophy is as evident as yours or anybody's inability to rebut my last posts on the free will topic when I finally referenced something that wasn't just me blabbing away. "Oh, here are the words of those I respect - he found them! And they exist alongside others equally respected but contradicting what we believe! Whatever shall we do? I know, just run and hide, ignore him and nobody will notice. If he eggs us on with "your silence speaks volume" we'll just answer that is a logical fallacy, but still not actually give an answer..."

Oh, and I am a far better person to talk about gay icons with than Carto, if he will forgive me. I have followed everyone from Streisand to Mika.

I humbly bow down and acknowledge without shame your superior knowledge on the subject.

21. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #161893 by jac12358 on April 15, 2008 at 8:16 pm

22. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #161594 by jac12358 on April 15, 2008 at 12:39 pm

I get the feeling that you're trying your hardest to balance your personal feelings with the need for tolerance, respect and understanding. As such I will try to be as civil as I can about what you say. Nevertheless, I do find the tone of your post redolent with a barely concealed distaste verging on the homophobic.

Cartomancer, I must begin my "rebuttal" here with stating my regret that any time a conversation delves or refers to certain topics that certain people become offended or indignant, often to the point of focusing completely on removing the source of the indignation (often misunderstanding it) an ignoring its place in the scope of the conversation at large. This is unfortunate and time consuming on my part (which in turn annoys others) and so it becomes ultimately an unnecessary cycle. This has cropped elsewhere in discussions where free will and other topics top which defenders obviously hold dear to the notion that they have this ability or quality, and so protect it and describe it in noble terms.

Nevertheless, rest assured I am not attacking your lifestyle or even offended by it. Caveats will appear appropriately nested within my reponses further down.

I would like you to briefly entertain the following notions:

1. You are gay and so biased. To what degree can you be completely objective about the topic? Do you overreact or assume the worst in my intentions and opinions, like equating "abnormal" with some horribly negative pejorative with which I disapprove on all levels?

2. Being offended, how much of your "instinctual" defense is based simply on protection of yourself (and how you would like to view yourself in the best possible light) and on the actual facts?

3. Is being gay REALLY 100% genetic? How can you ever rewind someone's life and completely change the environment and human contact and interactions and have the same result? If it IS a gene that is either on or off, then why aren't people either 100% gay or straight? What is a 77% gay gene? Is their a 77% left-handed gene, or a 77% male gene? Perhaps it is a combination that together yield the subtle degrees of orientation - I'm only guessing, but where is the incontrovertible truth or any data which completely refutes contradictory data?

4. Is there not an analogy here between being overly sensitive to a gay person as there is to a religious person, such that one is not allowed to comment (ESPECIALLY if not gay or religious, respectively)?

5. It is common for those in a heated biased argument lacking in proof or evidence to commit several logical fallacies. Something I've encountered is a reinvention of the meaning of words. For example, how often to religious people need to redefine god as NOT some bearded man in sky, so that their position is not (as) laughable in front of current scientific evidence? In recent arguments the meaning of "free will" was being changed simply so "a definition" can exist for which some evidence exists, like: "no blue exists, so let's redefine red as blue: voila! This is a blue vase!" - even though it is obviously red. Even "reality" itself gets called into question when the stakes are so high and the topic is both on the fringes of our understanding and also deeply personal in nature.

Or here, where "normal" needs redefinition.

Why is it that positive images of gay people are considered some kind of propaganda while positive images of straight people merely normal?

Please read my comments carefully. I only suggested an agenda when these three conditions were met: 1) the gay depiction was unnecessarily present or explicit (as in "the PC token gay" or "gratuitious sex scene inserted which serves no other purpose than to show it"), 2) the percentage of gays and/or gay "activities" is way beyond the actual percentage of the population (barring, of course, say, a film dealing explicitly with gay culture, and might feature a gay bar where one would expect a high percentage represented), and 3) the gay content is shown to pre-adolescent children (where any sexual conduct, gay or otherwise, is questionable).

Do you hear me complaining about the "straight agenda"?

Actually, yes! I don't mind - I understand. But let me suggest that it is not an agenda if it is a fairly accurate depiction of reality. The male and female population are split roughly 50/50, so if a film shows 1 male out of 600 females (barring perhaps if the setting is an all-girl school or - "morality tale/dystopia alert" - a ALIEN planet or alternate earth reality where women dominate - i.e. situations that are OBVIOUS by their suggestion fictional on account of the disproportions) then wouldn't that be some sort of female agenda? Grass comes in a few blue and yellow varieties, but most of it is green. Is showing mosttly green grass a GREEN AGENDA? Most people don't like (or know) the composer Ligeti, and so is their an anti-Ligeti agenda at work? Oh, but that is a non-genetic preference. So then quadrapalegics should be offended by the "limb agenda."

Atheism and Liberalism are not comparable phenomena to homosexuality. Nobody is born atheist or liberal - these are, on the one hand, a conclusion about the nature of reality and on the other an opinion on the best way to organise a society. Sexuality is innate, and has a biological basis. It is not negotiable - you can no more indoctrinate a child to be gay than you can indoctrinate her to be six feet tall. Besides, if homosexual is a perfectly natural, normal and acceptable thing to be then what does it matter if children do turn out that way? Even if it were a matter of choice (which it isn't), where would the harm be if massive numbers of children decided they wanted to be gay?

Once again I'd like to voice my skepticism over the alleged genetic predisposition. I have not seen convincing proof yet. What I have seen is the need for acceptance, and it would be much easier for us to accept someone who can't help what they are rather than what they've chosen. Lawyers have capitalized marvelously on this tactic whereby their clients plead some sort of insanity, thereby removing responsibility and changing punishment into rehabilitation. I don't mean to say one should rehabilitate gays as they don't hurt anyone, but the central argument is analogous.

As for having children "turn out that way," we (or I) live in a capitalist-democracy. If the majority want to vote with ballots or their TV remotes or their dollars for what is depicted, then that should be a respected outcome of the system. Anything to sway those votes is also part of the system and this "marketing" often runs a fine line between "education" and "brainwashing."

Actually it's closer to 5% according to the studies I have seen, but that's immaterial.

I stand corrected - IN MY FAVOR! See, I wasn't sure and so erred on the side of caution.

Television, especially science fantasy television, is not about trying to represent society exactly as it is on a demographic level - it has a duty to reach every member of society and provide something they can relate to.

Shows like Doctor Who - but more importantly its spinoff Torchwood - may be fictional, but the characters and settings here on earth (whatever the era) are largely not. If a group of humans are battling a flock of pterodactyls, the pterodactyls are the fictional element. Just because that fictional element is in place does not mean EVERYTHING else is fictionalized. It would be odd indeed if every human inexplicably has 3 eyes or wears angora mu-mu's. Likewise if the entire band of humans are gay (and take a 5-minute break to have a sweaty orgy before the final ultimate battle), would be an unnecessary fictional element. NOW is history as soon as it happens (to us), just as the late 18th century is. To show today's culture as disproportionately gay NOW is as agenda-driven as depicting our founding fathers as all being gay and wearing pink wigs. Maybe one did it in private on Sundays, but not all.

Try to understand this from the perspective of a gay person. When I watch TV or see a film which has some kind of sexual relationship in it (anything from a mild crush to kissing to full-blown over-the-top sex), then 95% of the time that relationship will be a heterosexual one. Now, this is perfectly in line population statistics, but it most certainly does not represent my life experience very well. In my life, 100% of my relationship experiences (if I ever end up having any at all!) will be homosexual ones. When I see heterosexual relationships on TV I can relate to them to some extent, but the closest I can generally get is "that's the sort of thing my friends do", never "that's the sort of thing I might do". In order to adapt the dramatic situations I see to be relevant to my life I always have to re-imagine them to some degree, which is never as emotionally powerful as seeing them up there in a form I can directly relate to.

Because much of my film collection includes directors like Greenaway (who?) and Cronenberg (as well as many other individual films) I have no problem with gay depictions. They are adult films and most of them are responsible and appropriate with the topic. I only "squirm" when ANY sex gratuitous sex scene (not central to the plot or character development) or sexual stereotype (like in The Bird Cage) is depicted, OR if shown to minors, as in the examples I gave last time.

According to your population statistics model, this means that I will be at a loss to relate directly to 95% of the relationship stories I see on TV.

You have used faulty logic as well as misquoted my words (or my intentions). I said nothing about your inability to relate to a male-female kiss unless you substitute in your mind two guys. That doesn't make sense. Perhaps I am more open about this than you are! Likewise, I don't have to be a woman to sympathize with something a woman might be going through in a film (especially if it is something ONLY a female would experience), or handicapped to empathise with one. I also don't have to be a green alien to sympathize with one in sci-fi, although they do half the work for me by anthropomorphizing them...

You, as a heterosexual, on the other hand, will be unable to relate to the other 5%. Does that seem fair? Should TV be a heterosexual medium?

False statements and assumptions abound. TV should be what eveyone (the majority) agrees is should be (and even then there are niche channels like Lifetime and A&E), but if the depiction is reality then it should do that. Otherwise it is fiction, or representing rare enclaves indeed.

Isn't that discrimination? Doesn't it effectively exclude people like me?

No. And no.

I am sorry you find the idea of my sexuality offensive.

I do not. It just needs to be plot/age-appropriate. "The Life of Brian" lampoons this wonderfully when the alien ship comes in unexpectedly to save the falling Brian, and then crash-lands in the same spot only to have the foot-race ensue in earnest. Completely shoe-horned and gratuitous inclusion of aliens for no reason but to flaunt a budget, be funny, or make a point if their is an agenda attached.

Given your other statements I take this to mean that you find it somewhat off-putting to have to watch people like me getting intimate with one another, not that you object to us doing it altogether.

No. Of course what you do in private is up to you, but we all have public appearances. If we all lived in a nudist society you would have an easier time making your case, but as it is most people who want more sex and nudity depicted themselves are too (chicken?) to walk the walk, so they only talk the talk and show the nudity or overtly gay or straight sex IN THE PRIVACY OF OUR HOMES (where we "thought" we were "safe") - this, then, is all done by proxy, vicariously, if you will: "I might not be able to CURRENTLY walk down the street next to your five-year old with my willy hanging out and my tongue down my lover's throat - I am too "shy" or fear being arrested - and so I will instead show it to you on TV just as you're finishing dessert." Getting one's political rocks off, so to speak.

First of all I should point out that showing gay people on TV does not always mean showing us having sex.

Very true. But sometimes it does seem superfluous. If a character blurts our "I like broccoli" one might ask "and, your point is...?" and it would be at best surreal for the character to say this if the character is never shown eating it. Likewise, to volunteer one's gayness seems as non-relevant as announcing your blood-type, or that you wet the bed. I don't need to know if a character is gay on, say, Survivor because nobody will be having sex (or shouldn't be, except for the voyeristic public the producers are exploiting the private lives onscreen to). Similarly, they don't need to say "and here is the black guy." So what? Telling me someone is gay does nothing but permit me to imagine that when the fellow is lounging on a hammock that he is fantasizing about a penis. Try it. Imagine your best friend told you he likes eating raw worms, then just try to NOT imagine him doing that whenever you see him, whether you "accept" it or not, or are comfortable with it.

Secondly, how do you think we feel about all the heterosexuals we see on TV day in day out? Do we find it offensive to have that "agenda" thrust in our faces all the time?

As I said, when it supposed to depict reality it is an agenda to depict OTHERWISE. I already addressed this point anyway.

I appreciate your attempts to show that you are not bigoted or homophobic, and I believe that you are neither of these things deep down, however the language you use here is both flawed and actually pretty offensive.

Thank you for the first part, and apologies for the second, although your offense is your own as I meant or conveyed none.

Just because something is not in the majority does not make it "abnormal". Does that mean red haired people are "abnormal" too? What about left-handed people? what about black people? In fact what about everyone who isn't Chinese? Does that make atheists abnormal because the majority of the world is religious in some sense?

I already addressed this too. Please don't redefine "normal" and "abnormal" - simply remove the negative connotations which you put there yourself. Is it "normal" to have the flu? Is this discriminatory to label an influenza virus thriving in its ideal environment as an "abnormal" state of affairs? We can play this game indefinitely...

Also, my anatomy did evolve to do this thank you very much. My brain evolved to find other men attractive, as did the brains of all other gay men.

Please don't reinvent biology ON A DAWKINS WEBSITE! Your (Sexual) anatomy was naturally selected purely on the efficiency with which it procreates with the opposite sex. By defnition any "perfect/ideal" "gay anatomy" would never be passed on hereditarily except through - you guessed it - heterosexual coupling. Sex FEELS GOOD for a very good reason - if it did not, we wouldn't do it! And there goes mankind. Simply that we CAN enjoy sex without procreating does not mean it EVOLVED purely for it. Such an example of purely enjoyable activity would not require a condom to circumvent its true purpose (or any microscopic stowaways). Say, if the navel were an instant "orgasm button" then I'd be intrigued as to how that developed universally in everyone, and it does nothing else. If you mean sexual intimacy simply to mean any intimacy that strengthens bonds, then that is fine, but a ancilliary benefit.

If that were not the case and my sexuality made me less differentially survivable then homosexuality would have disappeared from the gene pool long ago.

Not so. It simply need not be deleterious to your individual survival. Other than modern cloning or artificial insemination, who else will replenish your "genes" (possibly recessive?)?

The prostate gland is so conveniently located for stimulation in this manner after all...

I'm sorry, but for a moment there I was reminded of that Australian mustachioed religious/creationist guy who appears on TV with Kirk Cameron explaining how the banana and hand were co-designed to fit together so wonderfully...

It is narrowly reductionistic to assume that the biology of human sexual behaviour is only about reproduction. If that were the case it would be a damn sight less complicated and more effective for reproducing.

Would it? What are they?

There are plenty of good reasons why natural homosexual behaviour might have developed.

Could you please support this asserion with evidence. Who exactly does the passing along this "developed behavior?"

"Some gays do not crossdress and some crossdressers are not gay."

Well thanks for that! I think you'll find that the vast majority of gay people don't cross-dress.

You are welcome. Still, even if crossdressing is, as you say, not practiced by the majority of gays (and certainly the majority of heteros are neither), then who, exactly, is crossdressing? You say more heteros do, but then there are more of them. So I ask what PERCENTAGE of each group do this? Even though both percentages are minorities, one likely contributes more. Otherwise, why has this, and other activities, become associated with gays and not straights? Why not, say, with the emancipation and voting rights of blacks? "All they are doing is celebrating their released repression" you might say, so why didn't blacks crossdress en masse (or become associated with it) when they were allowed to? There must be some truth to the stereotypes - but even so, I don't like when I am reminded of them.

As for "gay icons" I'm not the most knowledgeable person on the phenomenon.

It remains a mystery.

In conclusion I hope I assuaged or logically dismissed anyone's offense or misunderstanding and hopefully we can return once again to the topic. I've decided I'm not interested in arguing like this again on the finer points for/against/about gays.

23. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #161593 by jac12358 on April 15, 2008 at 12:38 pm

I get the feeling that you're trying your hardest to balance your personal feelings with the need for tolerance, respect and understanding. As such I will try to be as civil as I can about what you say. Nevertheless, I do find the tone of your post redolent with a barely concealed distaste verging on the homophobic.

Cartomancer, I must begin my "rebuttal" here with stating my regret that any time a conversation delves or refers to certain topics that certain people become offended or indignant, often to the point of focusing completely on removing the source of the indignation (often misunderstanding it) an ignoring its place in the scope of the conversation at large. This is unfortunate and time consuming on my part (which in turn annoys others) and so it becomes ultimately an unnecessary cycle. This has cropped elsewhere in discussions where free will and other topics top which defenders obviously hold dear to the notion that they have this ability or quality, and so protect it and describe it in noble terms.

Nevertheless, rest assured I am not attacking your lifestyle or even offended by it. Caveats will appear appropriately nested within my reponses further down.

I would like you to briefly entertain the following notions:

1. You are gay and so biased. To what degree can you be completely objective about the topic? Do you overreact or assume the worst in my intentions and opinions, like equating "abnormal" with some horribly negative pejorative with which I disapprove on all levels?

2. Being offended, how much of your "instinctual" defense is based simply on protection of yourself (and how you would like to view yourself in the best possible light) and on the actual facts?

3. Is being gay REALLY 100% genetic? How can you ever rewind someone's life and completely change the environment and human contact and interactions and have the same result? If it IS a gene that is either on or off, then why aren't people either 100% gay or straight? What is a 77% gay gene? Is their a 77% left-handed gene, or a 77% male gene? Perhaps it is a combination that together yield the subtle degrees of orientation - I'm only guessing, but where is the incontrovertible truth or any data which completely refutes contradictory data?

4. Is there not an analogy here between being overly sensitive to a gay person as there is to a religious person, such that one is not allowed to comment (ESPECIALLY if not gay or religious, respectively)?

5. It is common for those in a heated biased argument lacking in proof or evidence to commit several logical fallacies. Something I've encountered is a reinvention of the meaning of words. For example, how often to religious people need to redefine god as NOT some bearded man in sky, so that their position is not (as) laughable in front of current scientific evidence? In recent arguments the meaning of "free will" was being changed simply so "a definition" can exist for which some evidence exists, like: "no blue exists, so let's redefine red as blue: voila! This is a blue vase!" - even though it is obviously red. Even "reality" itself gets called into question when the stakes are so high and the topic is both on the fringes of our understanding and also deeply personal in nature.

Or here, where "normal" needs redefinition.

Why is it that positive images of gay people are considered some kind of propaganda while positive images of straight people merely normal?

Please read my comments carefully. I only suggested an agenda when these three conditions were met: 1) the gay depiction was unnecessarily present or explicit (as in "the PC token gay" or "gratuitious sex scene inserted which serves no other purpose than to show it"), 2) the percentage of gays and/or gay "activities" is way beyond the actual percentage of the population (barring, of course, say, a film dealing explicitly with gay culture, and might feature a gay bar where one would expect a high percentage represented), and 3) the gay content is shown to pre-adolescent children (where any sexual conduct, gay or otherwise, is questionable).

Do you hear me complaining about the "straight agenda"?

Actually, yes! I don't mind - I understand. But let me suggest that it is not an agenda if it is a fairly accurate depiction of reality. The male and female population are split roughly 50/50, so if a film shows 1 male out of 600 females (barring perhaps if the setting is an all-girl school or - "morality tale/dystopia alert" - a ALIEN planet or alternate earth reality where women dominate - i.e. situations that are OBVIOUS by their suggestion fictional on account of the disproportions) then wouldn't that be some sort of female agenda? Grass comes in a few blue and yellow varieties, but most of it is green. Is showing mosttly green grass a GREEN AGENDA? Most people don't like (or know) the composer Ligeti, and so is their an anti-Ligeti agenda at work? Oh, but that is a non-genetic preference. So then quadrapalegics should be offended by the "limb agenda."

Atheism and Liberalism are not comparable phenomena to homosexuality. Nobody is born atheist or liberal - these are, on the one hand, a conclusion about the nature of reality and on the other an opinion on the best way to organise a society. Sexuality is innate, and has a biological basis. It is not negotiable - you can no more indoctrinate a child to be gay than you can indoctrinate her to be six feet tall. Besides, if homosexual is a perfectly natural, normal and acceptable thing to be then what does it matter if children do turn out that way? Even if it were a matter of choice (which it isn't), where would the harm be if massive numbers of children decided they wanted to be gay?

Once again I'd like to voice my skepticism over the alleged genetic predisposition. I have not seen convincing proof yet. What I have seen is the need for acceptance, and it would be much easier for us to accept someone who can't help what they are rather than what they've chosen. Lawyers have capitalized marvelously on this tactic whereby their clients plead some sort of insanity, thereby removing responsibility and changing punishment into rehabilitation. I don't mean to say one should rehabilitate gays as they don't hurt anyone, but the central argument is analogous.

As for having children "turn out that way," we (or I) live in a capitalist-democracy. If the majority want to vote with ballots or their TV remotes or their dollars for what is depicted, then that should be a respected outcome of the system. Anything to sway those votes is also part of the system and this "marketing" often runs a fine line between "education" and "brainwashing."

Actually it's closer to 5% according to the studies I have seen, but that's immaterial.

I stand corrected - IN MY FAVOR! See, I wasn't sure and so erred on the side of caution.

Television, especially science fantasy television, is not about trying to represent society exactly as it is on a demographic level - it has a duty to reach every member of society and provide something they can relate to.

Shows like Doctor Who - but more importantly its spinoff Torchwood - may be fictional, but the characters and settings here on earth (whatever the era) are largely not. If a group of humans are battling a flock of pterodactyls, the pterodactyls are the fictional element. Just because that fictional element is in place does not mean EVERYTHING else is fictionalized. It would be odd indeed if every human inexplicably has 3 eyes or wears angora mu-mu's. Likewise if the entire band of humans are gay (and take a 5-minute break to have a sweaty orgy before the final ultimate battle), would be an unnecessary fictional element. NOW is history as soon as it happens (to us), just as the late 18th century is. To show today's culture as disproportionately gay NOW is as agenda-driven as depicting our founding fathers as all being gay and wearing pink wigs. Maybe one did it in private on Sundays, but not all.

Try to understand this from the perspective of a gay person. When I watch TV or see a film which has some kind of sexual relationship in it (anything from a mild crush to kissing to full-blown over-the-top sex), then 95% of the time that relationship will be a heterosexual one. Now, this is perfectly in line population statistics, but it most certainly does not represent my life experience very well. In my life, 100% of my relationship experiences (if I ever end up having any at all!) will be homosexual ones. When I see heterosexual relationships on TV I can relate to them to some extent, but the closest I can generally get is "that's the sort of thing my friends do", never "that's the sort of thing I might do". In order to adapt the dramatic situations I see to be relevant to my life I always have to re-imagine them to some degree, which is never as emotionally powerful as seeing them up there in a form I can directly relate to.

Because much of my film collection includes directors like Greenaway (who?) and Cronenberg (as well as many other individual films) I have no problem with gay depictions. They are adult films and most of them are responsible and appropriate with the topic. I only "squirm" when ANY sex gratuitous sex scene (not central to the plot or character development) or sexual stereotype (like in The Bird Cage) is depicted, OR if shown to minors, as in the examples I gave last time.

According to your population statistics model, this means that I will be at a loss to relate directly to 95% of the relationship stories I see on TV.

You have used faulty logic as well as misquoted my words (or my intentions). I said nothing about your inability to relate to a male-female kiss unless you substitute in your mind two guys. That doesn't make sense. Perhaps I am more open about this than you are! Likewise, I don't have to be a woman to sympathize with something a woman might be going through in a film (especially if it is something ONLY a female would experience), or handicapped to empathise with one. I also don't have to be a green alien to sympathize with one in sci-fi, although they do half the work for me by anthropomorphizing them...

You, as a heterosexual, on the other hand, will be unable to relate to the other 5%. Does that seem fair? Should TV be a heterosexual medium?

False statements and assumptions abound. TV should be what eveyone (the majority) agrees is should be (and even then there are niche channels like Lifetime and A&E), but if the depiction is reality then it should do that. Otherwise it is fiction, or representing rare enclaves indeed.

Isn't that discrimination? Doesn't it effectively exclude people like me?

No. And no.

I am sorry you find the idea of my sexuality offensive.

I do not. It just needs to be plot/age-appropriate. "The Life of Brian" lampoons this wonderfully when the alien ship comes in unexpectedly to save the falling Brian, and then crash-lands in the same spot only to have the foot-race ensue in earnest. Completely shoe-horned and gratuitous inclusion of aliens for no reason but to flaunt a budget, be funny, or make a point if their is an agenda attached.

Given your other statements I take this to mean that you find it somewhat off-putting to have to watch people like me getting intimate with one another, not that you object to us doing it altogether.

No. Of course what you do in private is up to you, but we all have public appearances. If we all lived in a nudist society you would have an easier time making your case, but as it is most people who want more sex and nudity depicted themselves are too (chicken?) to walk the walk, so they only talk the talk and show the nudity or overtly gay or straight sex IN THE PRIVACY OF OUR HOMES (where we "thought" we were "safe") - this, then, is all done by proxy, vicariously, if you will: "I might not be able to CURRENTLY walk down the street next to your five-year old with my willy hanging out and my tongue down my lover's throat - I am too "shy" or fear being arrested - and so I will instead show it to you on TV just as you're finishing dessert." Getting one's political rocks off, so to speak.

First of all I should point out that showing gay people on TV does not always mean showing us having sex.

Very true. But sometimes it does seem superfluous. If a character blurts our "I like broccoli" one might ask "and, your point is...?" and it would be at best surreal for the character to say this if the character is never shown eating it. Likewise, to volunteer one's gayness seems as non-relevant as announcing your blood-type, or that you wet the bed. I don't need to know if a character is gay on, say, Survivor because nobody will be having sex (or shouldn't be, except for the voyeristic public the producers are exploiting the private lives onscreen to). Similarly, they don't need to say "and here is the black guy." So what? Telling me someone is gay does nothing but permit me to imagine that when the fellow is lounging on a hammock that he is fantasizing about a penis. Try it. Imagine your best friend told you he likes eating raw worms, then just try to NOT imagine him doing that whenever you see him, whether you "accept" it or not, or are comfortable with it.

Secondly, how do you think we feel about all the heterosexuals we see on TV day in day out? Do we find it offensive to have that "agenda" thrust in our faces all the time?

As I said, when it supposed to depict reality it is an agenda to depict OTHERWISE. I already addressed this point anyway.

I appreciate your attempts to show tha