Comments by decius

Comment #260871 by decius on October 6, 2008 at 6:10 am

Comment #260869 by Peacebeuponme

either a simplistic ranter, or a lame comedian.

Subjective. False dichotomy, too.

Comment #260866 by decius on October 6, 2008 at 6:01 am

. Comment #260827 by keith

I would also agree with you that anyone who says something hurtful, is then taken to task about it and defends himself by saying 'I was just kidding! ... I don't find his videos at all funny. I just find them true.

Truth is central to satire, but contrary to the treatment it receives in other narrative, it can be stretched or emphasised by hyperbole and other rhetorical devices.

Satire can reach its audience two ways: through thought and/or laughter.

453. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260863 by decius on October 6, 2008 at 5:53 am

Comment #260859 by Peacebeuponme

You are passing subjective judgements and evaluations as objective.

They are not.

Condell has a huge audience of fans. I don't count myself among them, but he certainly is a decent satirist, even if some don't get his humour or the point of his invectives.

454. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260860 by decius on October 6, 2008 at 5:51 am

Comment #260858 by Vaal

Pliny is the reputable historian who reports the tragic epilogue.

In a society where honour was valued immensely, it isn't inconceivable that attacks exposing real weaknesses can lead some to suicide. See modern Japan, where many still resort to suicide whenever their 'honour' is questioned.

455. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260854 by decius on October 6, 2008 at 5:41 am

Comment #260851 by Peacebeuponme

...while they can say "You support Pat Condell, who claims that all muslims are mentally ill."

Now confront with:

"There are two days when a woman is a pleasure: the day one marries her and the day one buries her."

Does Hipponax have to explain to the wilfully dense that he doesn't really mean 'all the women'?

"Hyperbole (meaning exaggeration) and is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally."

Edited for clarity.

456. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260843 by decius on October 6, 2008 at 5:20 am

HIPPONAX

Expelled from Ephesus in 540 BC by the tyrant Athenagoras, he took refuge in Clazomenae, where he spent the rest of his life in poverty. His deformed figure and malicious disposition exposed him to the caricature of the Chian sculptors Bupalus and Athenis, upon whom he revenged himself by issuing against them a series of satires. They are said to have hanged themselves like Lycambes and his daughters when assailed by Archilochus, the model and predecessor of Hipponax.

His coarseness of thought and feeling, his want of grace and taste, and his numerous allusions to matters of merely local interest prevented his becoming a favourite in Attica. He was considered the inventor of parody and of a peculiar metre, the scazon or choliamb, which substitutes a spondee for the final iambus of an iambic senarius, and is an appropriate form for the burlesque character of his poems. He composed in a form of Ionic Greek that includes an unusually high proportion of Lydian loanwords.

Among his aphorisms is "There are two days when a woman is a pleasure: the day one marries her and the day one buries her."

457. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260837 by decius on October 6, 2008 at 5:10 am

Comment #260829 by JAMCAM87

The point is that PZ and RD need to clarify whether they agree with his content or whether they just think it is amusing.

Again, Condell's content is comedy and satire. You needn't treat it as anything else. Being amusing to any degree, while provoking some thoughts in the process is all there is to it.

PZ and Richard need clarify nothing, because they know this perfectly well.

458. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260831 by decius on October 6, 2008 at 4:56 am

Comment #260824 by Steve Zara

So does Richard Dawkins sometimes. But we would not call him a comedian.

Of course.

Is "satirist" something you get to label yourself with?

It's a profession that you freely choose.

You bring your work in front of an audience, and your popularity determines your success. If you fail to win the audience over, you are still a failed satirist.

I won't be going over the history of satire, but it dates back to ancient Egypt and was refined as an art-form in Greece and Rome.

It could be very harsh, at times.
Hipponax (VI century BCE) was so cruel in his satire that many of his targets ended up hanging themselves.
No one would dispute his status of great satirist, for that.

459. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260826 by decius on October 6, 2008 at 4:44 am

I forgot this.

I realise what Condell does, and I know he is appreciated by very many, but please let's not pretend he is up to the standard of Hitchens, or even Brigstocke.

Again, you are pitting Condell up against an intellectual and writer like Hitchens. They belong to different professions with different deontology.

I don't know Brigstroke, it really shouldn't matter whether you find him funnier - it is beyond the point.

460. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260822 by decius on October 6, 2008 at 4:29 am

Comment #260820 by Steve Zara

If you are going to get such leeway, you had better make sure you are damn funny first!

Now we are descending into subjective evaluation. Nothing and no one is universally funny.
Personally, I find him entertaining enough, so do many others as shown in this thread, too. Every now and then he literally cracks me up.
There is a form of bitter comicality in his routines that can be perfectly satisfactory to many of his viewers, probably the majority.

Furthermore, that leeway is not something that is bestowed on occasion on satirists according to personal taste or other considerations, it's an acquired right for all satirists.

461. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260814 by decius on October 6, 2008 at 4:13 am

Steve,

Pat Condell is a comedian and a satirist. By definition, he doesn't have to adhere to the criteria that you propose, which apply to essayists, writers and intellectuals.
Surely, there is some intellectual and thought-provoking content in what he rants away, but this circumstance shouldn't unalterably fix or pre-determine a golden standard straight-jacketing his right to engage in hyperbole, a prerogative to which both the comedian and the satirist are entitled.

Edited for redundancy.

462. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260777 by decius on October 6, 2008 at 3:22 am

Comment #260710 by Christopher Davis

When the bullets begin to fly you have to pick a side.

Says who?
I take the side of being somewhere else.

463. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260563 by decius on October 5, 2008 at 5:05 pm

I am considering whether to move to the US and begin a parasitic life on account of being a maverick.

There seem to be plenty of suckers eager to support me.

464. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #260128 by decius on October 4, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Comment #260125 by logos1030

And we are supposed to believe that you weren't indoctrinated into christianity in the first place, that you actually understood science and evolution, and then somehow you found the evidence for your particular brand of superstition to be more compelling.

Right.

Next!

465. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #260113 by decius on October 4, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Comment #259998 by DasSquid

But the problem is where do we start?

From empowering scientific committees with strategic planning and decision making. They are better motivated and equipped than politicians who only care for creating jobs in their constituency, or for diverting public funds into the coffers of their cronies, regardless of waste (see the space station fiasco).

As a matter of curiousity, what are some of the other possible methods that you know of?

I wasn't referring to new methods for reaching orbit (yawn), but to more rewarding ideas that have been routinely discarded for 'lack of funding', or that are in jeopardy to be blackballed in the near future, and have the potential to greatly expand our knowledge of the cosmos.
Systematic unmanned planetary exploration of the solar system, for instance.

There are too many to mention, I'll just give you an example.

Placing a radio telescope on the far side of the moon. Such a device would look back at the early universe to the time when large-scale structures such as galaxies and stars formed. A lunar-based radio telescope would be able to detect long wavelengths that cannot be sensed on Earth because they are absorbed by atmosphere.
The dish could effortlessly be as large as a huge lunar crater, without the need to build anything but an antenna.
Regolite (the lunar soil) can be turned into a smooth surface by blasting it with a sufficiently powerful laser. A fleet of cheap unmanned orbiters could do most of the job.
The potential for new discoveries is so big that it makes Hubble look like a toy.

466. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260091 by decius on October 4, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Comment #260088 by Old Sarum

Nevertheless, when you return, I would welcome the opportunity to tear apart your New-Age drivel.

Cheers

467. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259994 by decius on October 4, 2008 at 11:11 am

Comment #259990 by DasSquid

I just don't see it as a priority. We have other means to reach orbit and important space projects have been constantly dumped over the past years.

I could list about a hundred; including far, far more fascinating and less costly stuff.

468. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259985 by decius on October 4, 2008 at 10:51 am

Comment #259974 by Enlightenme..

I see your point, but the problem with the SE is that there currently is no guarantee of success, far from it, and many of the relevant experiments have failed miserably.

469. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259959 by decius on October 4, 2008 at 9:30 am

Comment #259943 by Enlightenme..

I think the example that I provided is a far better analogy than the genome project - which consists of data crunching, and could be done by rather primitive computing devices, given enough time.

If we had decided to build rockets in the thirties with the purpose to put someone on the moon, we would had drained all the resources allocated to science and failed miserably. The necessary breakthroughs in multiple fields - that materialised in the next three decades - were simply not there, nor was the know-how.

If I had the power to do so, I would cut all defence budgets to zero and divert the resources to science, but the real world is somewhat different.

The space elevator is a pharaonic project, whose immediate realisation may starve equally important research that has better chances to succeed in the near future. Putting the cart before the horse is never a good idea.

470. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259885 by decius on October 4, 2008 at 4:56 am

Comment #259882 by Steve Zara

Thanks, now I see which sort of space enterprise you favour. :)

I am more in the camp of unmanned scientific missions, considered the current status of technology and the poverty of data available.

While I don't see enough benefits to justify orbital stations, I would definitely support the idea of lunar colonies. It seems that enough water could be found in loco.

471. Christian group calls for a Christian university in Britain

Comment #259875 by decius on October 4, 2008 at 3:57 am

Comment #259871 by lol mahmood

I am all in favour of letting Natural Selection run its course, if that makes them happy.

472. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259872 by decius on October 4, 2008 at 3:50 am

. Comment #259866 by Laurie Fraser

I really don't know. We certainly need detailed assessments of cost vs. benefit and a more realistic analysis of feasibility, as I see it.

473. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259869 by decius on October 4, 2008 at 3:43 am

Comment #259865 by Steve Zara

We don't have the asteroid-mining technology either. I am not even sure if we really need iron ore that badly, as we speak. What resources did you have in mind, specifically?

474. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259864 by decius on October 4, 2008 at 3:30 am

Comment #259859 by Vaal

I would love to see it too, don't get me wrong. It is demented, though, to spend huge amounts of money for pushing the development of technologies that will come of age in due time.
It could be as mad and costly as attempting to develop a space programme back in the thirties.

475. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259861 by decius on October 4, 2008 at 3:21 am

Comment #259858 by ridelo

Diamond, like graphite, is pure carbon, whose atoms are arranged in a particular crystal lattice pattern. I don't know what is less costly, if conductivity is the only problem, there may be other allotropic states of carbon with the same properties.

476. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259849 by decius on October 4, 2008 at 3:00 am

I am highly sceptical about the feasibility of the whole thing.

What about the plasma wakes created by interaction with the ionosphere?
A short tether was deployed by the shuttle in 1992 and snapped under an unexpected surge of 4000 volts.
The whole project seems to me several decades premature, and the cavalier attitude of its proponents reeks of fund hunting.

477. Christian group calls for a Christian university in Britain

Comment #259843 by decius on October 4, 2008 at 2:49 am

Comment #259839 by Vaal

Marvellous. Oh, and the well-deserved vacations, knee-walking in pilgrimage to havens of culture like Lourdes.

478. Christian group calls for a Christian university in Britain

Comment #259835 by decius on October 4, 2008 at 2:30 am

We need a full parallel christian infrastructure.
Christian transportation, christian banks, christian telecommunications, christian sewers, christian public urinals, the full monty.

479. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259712 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Have fun, PalinsChihuahua.

480. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259693 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Steve,

Did you know about this story? Incredible crowd behaviour, previously unheard of, as far as I can tell. Some savagery, you have got there in UK.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKTRE4924WZ20081003

481. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259666 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 5:16 pm

This guy has the thinking skills of a young boy.

482. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259663 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 5:13 pm

In the podcast that I linked earlier they mention reliable witnesses who know of an attempt by Palin to ban a particular book on acceptance of homosexuality in the church. They named one person, too. I didn't listen too carefully, though.

483. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259654 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Comment #259648 by DarwinsPitbull

What has fraud to do with being a book-banning dumb fuck?

484. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259624 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Comment #259618 by DarwinsPitbull

It is abundantly clear to anyone with half a brain who heard Palin speaking that she is an ignorant idiot.

Keep on embarrassing yourself, but you won't succeed in passing on your delusional memes, here.

485. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259588 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Comment #259586 by DarwinsPitbull

Obama and Biden are clearly smarter than their counterparts,

Thats just an opinion, not reality.

AHR AHR AHR

486. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #259532 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Comment #259527 by Bonzai

Thank you, very interesting.
I didn't know the details of the Canadian decision.

I agree with your analysis.

487. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #259515 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Comment #259453 by Peacebeuponme

Yes, I reject the dogma that says that people are not free to settle their differences their own way, just because others don't like the way they do it.

This is a mischaracterisation of the issue. It isn't a matter of taste of 'others', nor is it a dogma, and I will show why.

Are you saying that the enlightenment means forcing people to always act reasonably? This seems like nonsense to me. People should be free to act as irrationally as they want to be, even in a world based on reason.

They certainly are free to do so.

What the secular state cannot do, though, if it wants to act according to Enlightenment's principle of the pre-eminence of Reason, is to elevate faith-based rulings to the status of law.

There may be political, ideological or philosophical reasons for wanting sharia law to be recognised by the secular state.

Let me state very clearly that none of the political ideologies you can think of, such as Socialism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism hold Reason pre-eminent, nor do they have a monopoly on it. They can adhere with different degrees of strength to Enlightenment's principles, while each of their tenets can be independently argued for more or less rationally.

Thus my earlier consideration: I would have expected people in this site to argue for pure Reason and for a secular state unyielding to principles informed by anything that departs from it. This was not intended to diminish anyone in any way.

The position you are arguing for is the Libertarian one. Libertarianism considers individual Liberty and not Reason pre-eminent in the organisation of society.

You are free and welcome to make your case, and do so very well and rationally, but you cannot casually claim that those who argue for pure Reason as primary and unique source of authority are, in fact, willing to impose a dogma, for we are not. Furthermore, it is disingenuous to confuse principles with ideals, or worse, with dogma.

The pure and simple truth, dear friend, is that you have chosen the very noble ideal of individual Liberty over pure Reason, and that's the crucial difference.

Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways.

Cheers.

488. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259391 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 10:08 am

You are welcome, Styrer.

Carto, since you are here, you can count me among the many fans of your Wildean humour and exceptional wit.

489. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259375 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 9:51 am

You are welcome, Caudimordax.

490. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259368 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 9:44 am

The last instalment of Reasonable Doubts podcast features a lengthy criticism of the moron Palin and an interview of Vic Stenger.

Highly recommended podcast, in general.

491. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #259323 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 8:59 am

Comment #259322 by hawt4dawk

Hey!

That name was copyrighted.

492. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259318 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 8:53 am

Comment #259317 by Styrer-

Feel free to choose any base of your liking, my only concern was directed at the general mood of the assembly.

493. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259314 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 8:44 am

Comment #259312 by Styrer-

Your opinion has been duly noted, by now.

Can we move on?

494. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259304 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 8:34 am

Comment #259301 by Styrer-

With all due respect, I think you are using a double-standard here.
If your attacks are vitriol, then Steve's criticism is vitriol, too, and in the worst case scenario.

We have collectively undergone a big deal of distress over this matter.
Fanusi left of his own free will, and I suspect that he will soon return.

In the meantime, if we could stop these useless recriminations and mutual accusations, it would be better for all.

495. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259290 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 8:16 am

Styrer,

give it a rest, would you?

There is no need to accuse Steve of bullying, when he never did any such thing. Surely, he engaged in some pointed criticism of Fanusi, not without reasons.

You often unleash vicious verbal attacks on people, doesn't that constitute bullying, by definition?
The troll button, by contrast, is a feature of this site, and its utilisation is left to the discretion of the posters.

496. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259278 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 8:06 am

Comment #259264 by Gregg Townsend

I don't know him, sorry, but it sounds funny.

497. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #259265 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 7:46 am

Comment #259221 by Peacebeuponme

Err.

I said:

Actually, this is the last place where one would expect to find support for sharia in any form; be it direct, indirect, diluted or even considered as a serious possibility. I will only say one final, uncompromising word, and I won't bother to discuss this any further.

Enlightenment

You said:

Decius is basically saying that people should expect this site to be fundamentalist, when in fact it is a place for reason.

But:

'The Enlightenment is a term used to describe a phase in Western philosophy and cultural life centered upon the eighteenth century, in which Reason was advocated as the primary source and basis of authority'

So, by definition, if you accept reason, you reject dogma.
While we can discuss as long as you want ( I didn't imply to muzzle anyone) about the alleged merits of allowing sharia, ultimately yours is a self-defeating argument, because it doesn't recognise that faith-based rulings aren't to be allowed where Reason is held as the primary authority.

498. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259251 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 7:23 am

For those in need to cleanse their system after listening to Palin butchering the English language, I suggest some Nadsat.

Anthony Burgess reads excerpts from his novel A Clockwork Orange:

499. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259216 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 5:00 am

God here, god there, bless this, bless that, heaven forbid, heaven fuck your harebrained nation.

I have enough with this travesty of secularism.

500. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #259181 by decius on October 3, 2008 at 3:09 am

stephenray

Since our exchange, yesterday, the discussion has moved on quite a bit, and I had the pleasure to expound the matter with highly competent posters with differing views.

If you read the thread in its entirety you will find my position better explained, and why I think your objections to the petition are secondary to the true implications of having religion partially or completely ruling over the lives of a group of citizens.

I am done with discussing against ideological views contrary to the principles of the Enlightenment.

Thanks for your reply, though.