501. Beware the Believers

Comment #155120 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 7:27 am

Please explain why the tumour does not qualify but the conceptus does. All you have done so far is simply assert this by fiat. If you want to afford the one human rights but not the other then you need a valid basis on which to make the discrimination.

502. Beware the Believers

Comment #155117 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 7:23 am

Of course murder and killing have ethical connotations. I was using them because they are the sort of deliberately contentious terms you and the anti-abortion lobby are throwing about.

"Murder" contains the element of intent, and the element of killing a sentient being. We would not say someone "murders" a daisy by plucking it from the ground because it is not sentient. Where the lion in your example does not qualify for the "intent" part of the definition, the conceptus in mine does not qualify for the "sentient being" part. There is no difference here between terminating a pregnancy and picking the flower.

If a tumour is not an individual human being then the conceptus is not an individual human being either. It is, like the tumour, a collection of alien cells in the body of an actual human being. The only difference is what it may one day become, and as I have outlined earlier that is an irrelevant concern.

I don't drink coffee, but thanks for your concern...

503. Beware the Believers

Comment #155105 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 7:15 am

Why does this "realistic chance of becoming a baby" matter?

If I was given large amounts of money and support to acquire a medical degree and specialise in heart surgery I could probably end up saving thousands of people's lives in my surgical career. There is a realistic chance I could be a heart surgeon. Does this mean it is immoral for me not to do everything in my power to become such a surgeon? Is the government immoral for not providing the finances and compelling me to do this?

I might commit suicide tomorrow. I have a realistic chance of becoming a corpse. Does that mean it is immoral not to bury me today?

You simply cannot take a prospective future possibility for suffering as an argument for compelling action in the here and now. In the here and now that collection of cells is just that - a small, unthinking, unfeeling blob of protoplasm. It is not a baby. It has less sentience than a headlouse. That is the "individual" we are dealing with.

504. Beware the Believers

Comment #155095 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 7:02 am

I'm afraid religion is nothing but the kind of group-think that often leads to genocidal catastrophes. Science, the one true Oracle of Reality we have, provides the objective standards and political and ethical philosophy are what interprets them into workable societal models.

Religion is simply an irrational parasite on this process.

Also, if you define the individual from the moment of conception, that means that the majority of fertilised eggs which occur thanks to sexual intercourse are murdered by the natural biological processes of the female body - pregnancies generally result in many such naturally aborted companion conceptuses. And is this bundle of cells truly an independent individual if it cannot survive outside the conditions of the womb? By this same definition cancerous tumours could be considered as individuals...

505. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #155077 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 6:24 am

Why should a mortal man, the sport of chance,
With no assured foreknowledge, be afraid?
Best live a carefree life as best we may.

- Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannos

506. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #155058 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 5:48 am

We build towers of sand because we find towers beautiful, and all we have to build them with is sand...

I find the idea that life is without an objective, metaphysical meaning entirely liberating and wonderful thank you. It allows me to impose whatever meaning I like onto its fabric, and live my life how I want to the best of my ability. It heightens and glorifies my sense of wonder, of love, of achievement and of excitement knowing every day that my successes and my failures are mine and mine alone, and not to be credited to some distant, whimsical arbiter of fate. The tragedies of my life are made more poginant too - there is no reason, no animus, no intelligence punishing me according to its crazy ineffable plan, no vengeful bloated sky-tyrant who despises what I do. No, the only things that cause tragedy in my life are the cold, grinding wheels of unfeeling, unthinking circumstance. What candle can your petty anthropomorphic explanation of fate hold to this grand and majestic vision of the universe?

I laugh. I cry. I love. I hate. I live. I learn. I die. What more meaning could you want from life?

In order for my life to have meaning I don't need a god. I just need me. How I got here is a wonderful and interesting story - a true story that we can learn more about every day - but ultimately it is irrelevant to the purpose of my life. I am here. That is all that matters. What I do now I am here is up to me. IT doesn't mean anything, and nor should it have to - I do enough meaning for the entire cosmos and so does each and every one of us.

507. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #155053 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 5:43 am

Actually, this story with all its credulity and humorous use of logs reminded me of Aesop's fable of the Frogs who desired a King:

A group of frogs lived happily and peacefully in a pond. Over time, however, they became discontented with their way of life, and thought they should have a mighty king to rule over them. They called out to the great god Zeus to send them a king.

Zeus was amused by the frogs' request, and cast a large log down into their pond, saying "Behold, your king!" At first, the frogs were terrified of the huge log, but after seeing that it did not move, they began to climb upon it. Once they realized the log would not move, they called out again to Zeus to send them a real king, one that moved.

Annoyed by the frogs, Zeus said, "Very well, here is your new king," and sent a large stork to the pond. The stork began devouring frogs. In terror, frogs called out to Zeus to save them. Zeus refused, saying the frogs now had what they'd wanted, and had to face the consequences.

508. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #155050 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 5:36 am

Actually, I've just noticed some consciousness-raising that needs to take place. The title of this article "Pastor attacks scientist's talk" should immediately and instantly sound as ridiculous to us as if it were "Chef attacks economist's talk" or "Hairdresser attacks historian's lecture" or "Dustman attacks astronomer's book". I think we really need to hammer home that priests should be credited with no intellectual credibility or standing of their own simply by dint of being priests.

How about "unpleasant little scotsman whines at professor's discussion"? Captures it much better in my mind...

509. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #155026 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 4:52 am

RobinDinsmore, comment #34 -

With most relgious people I would be inclined to agree with you, but as far as Robertson goes I think he has demonstrated outright, knowing duplicity on this very site far too many times to be let off with the excuse that his mental programming makes him do it.

Just ask Paula Kirby...

510. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #155015 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 4:30 am

Where is your common sense?
Does THIS really look like a WHALE to you?!

Yeah, the thing is you're confusing your own investigative method (have a quick look and jump to conclusions) with the scientific method (gather evidence, form hypotheses, test hypotheses, test hypotheses again, alter hypotheses, test again, etc. etc.). Just because you have no more effective tool at your disposal than taking a quick peek and deciding on the spot does not mean that everyone else is the same. "Common sense" is hardly ever the most effective investigative tool to use once we scratch the surface of reality.

Take a look at a picture of yourself as a baby. Go on, a really good cursory look so you get the full revealing force of occasional casual observation. How can that pudgy, tiny drooling thing possibly be you? It's only a foot tall - you're much bigger than that! It can't even walk or talk or eat solid food yet - you can do all of those things! And we're supposed to believe that this soggy, gurgling lump of flesh is an ancestral form of you? Pull the other one! Ok, its brain is probably about as developed as yours is now, but really, all this human infant theory that science tells us about, so much dross...

The reason we find scientific conclusions so compelling is precisely the method used to reach them - the painstaking investigation and theorising and taking evidence into account. And we also understand the provisional nature of those conclusions. Scientists are indeed constantly changing their minds with new experimental results and the uncovering of new evidence - doesn't the fact that the theory of evolution by natural selection has remained intact for 150 years in this powerful reducing crucible of science give you at least some inkling of its explanatory capacity and predictive power? Much more its fit to the evidence.

511. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #155002 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 4:12 am

It is like laughing at a cripple.

Well, yes, it is. But cripples do funny things too. There may be certain concerns over the propriety of laughing in public at such things, and particularly over laughing in the presence of the people concerned if it will damage their confidence, but what harm does it do to acknowledge in a forum such as this that we do, in fact, find them funny?

Laughing at someone's silliness does not, in itself, indicate that we think any less of them. Most of the disabled people I have met are prone to having a good laugh at their own involuntary silliness, and don't mind when others join in - it lessens the sadness and seriousness of the occasion. I think we very often laugh at things like this precisely because they are so tragic and we feel a deep-seated need to blunt the edge of the concern we feel. If we weren't laughing we would be crying - and what good would that do anyone in this situation?

512. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154992 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 3:45 am

You cheeky young scallywag

*wry schoolboyish smile as catapult is tucked back into short trousers and cap readjusted to suitably jaunty angle over tousled hair*

Actually though, now I come to think of it, I'm not sure that particular chat-up line has ever gone out of common use!

513. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154988 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 3:41 am

Hey, even if we play the counterfactual game and assume that a transcendent creator god most certainly DOES exist then there is still no reason whatsoever to believe that one particular ancient text is an account of its activities.

In fact, on this assumption, the only sensible thing to do would be to conduct investigations and experiments to ascertain precisely what it is possible to know about said entity. It would positively behove us to throw out all the old myths as unscientific just as much as, if not more so than, our real-world understanding that gods do not exist does.

514. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154982 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 3:28 am

Compartmentalisation is rather easy for the human mind to achieve though. Especially in cases where the distance of a third-hand internet account shields us very effectively from any real emotional attachment to the protagonist himself as a human being. It's a perfectly natural and normal defence mechanism, I think, not to develop emotional attachments to people we don't know.

515. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154979 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 3:24 am

Furthermore, inasmuch as we can't know anything about it, how is there any other rational response to an imponderable phenomenon than ignoring it entirely?

516. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154974 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 3:20 am

Laughter and ridicule do not preclude acknowledgement of the underlying tragedy. Nor do they preclude compassion where necessary. It is perfectly possible to laugh at someone's misfortunes while simultaneously trying to help them overcome those misfortunes.

517. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154966 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 3:13 am

the idea", concepts, thoughts, memories etc. can be shown to exist independently of "the matter" (the brain) that supports them

Ok then, please do what two millennia of philosophy has so far failed to do and show us how these things can be shown to exist independently of their physical instantiations.

I'm waiting...

518. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #154957 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 3:06 am

No, I don't think Robertson is a creationist - but he is a dishonest, opportunistic little bigot of a man who will use, abuse or distort anything he can lay his sweaty hands on in order to make himself feel important and worthwhile. I really don't think it matters to him what is actually true or not, just whether he can use it to score points in his own crazy little game of self-aggrandisement.

519. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #154945 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 2:56 am

Well of course there's an unbalanced debate. But that's not exactly our fault is it? When you crazy creationists come up with some evidence, or anything even remotely resembling a decent argument, the debate might be a tad more balanced eh? We'd gladly give it to you if we could think of one, but sadly for you we can't make your position sound any more credible either...

520. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154940 by Cartomancer on April 4, 2008 at 2:49 am

THIS thread shouldn't die

Don't worry robo, Even when the name Sally Kearns is just long forgotten footnote in the annals of homophobic bigotry there will still be horrible oppressive nutcases of her ilk for us to talk about. They crop up with depressing regularity these days. The only way this topic is ever going to die down is if we manage to do away with homophobia entirely, and I for one would be very glad if that were to happen!

521. Beware the Believers

Comment #154832 by Cartomancer on April 3, 2008 at 7:24 pm

I've never tried firing sporks with it before. Interesting - that might reduce the friction between the tynes I get from a regular fork and achieve even greater firing distances! I must get hold of some and give it a try one of these days...

522. Beware the Believers

Comment #154829 by Cartomancer on April 3, 2008 at 7:20 pm

What's the official line on antique seventeenth-century crossbows that have been modified to fire surplus cutlery? Do they count as phallic symbols too?

523. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154798 by Cartomancer on April 3, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Hey everyone, stop it with the sixth-form bashing! The best of my sixth-form students are much better at crafting a coherent argument than Robertson will ever be!

524. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154788 by Cartomancer on April 3, 2008 at 5:54 pm

I find it quite easy to abstract the humorous images from the underlying possibility of mental illness as it happens. The difference is that a doomsday cult has comedy value where a depressed mother or a random atheist simply does not. I think it is perfectly possible to laugh at the silly situations a man finds himself in while simultaneously recognising the tragedy that underlies them. The later tragi-comedies of Euripides, for instance, make much play on these sorts of situations. Maybe it's just how I think about these things...

525. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154783 by Cartomancer on April 3, 2008 at 5:44 pm

And the arbiter of beauty will be...?

Well, me in the first instance obviously. I like to think I'm well-qualified given the inordinate amount of time I spend looking at the unclothed male form. But I will consider setting up councils of approved man-hunters to weed out the pretty ones who might appeal to other tastes, and anyone can apply to the Office of Male Beauty for a comprehensive final ruling on the matter! (not entirely dissimilar to the public male beauty contests of classical Greece as it happens...)

526. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154775 by Cartomancer on April 3, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Perhaps it is thus a lifestyle that is good for any nation?

Indeed so. In fact I think it should be made compulsory for all attractive young men between the ages of 16 and 25, like a more fun kind of national service.

Strictly for the good of society you understand...

527. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154772 by Cartomancer on April 3, 2008 at 5:27 pm

I think there is a big gap between commenting on the humorous nature of the story from the distance of the internet and actually laughing at the suffering of a mentally ill man up close where it matters. I doubt any of us would seriously contemplate laughing if we were actually faced with a desperate schizophrenic trying to beat his own brains out. But we're not dealing with the man himself - we're dealing with a report of it third or fourth hand from a magazine article. We're dealing with the palpably absurd idea of what happens when your doomsday predictions don't come true, and the amusing image of a man hitting himself over the head with a log. None of us have actually met this man, nor is anything we say ever likely to influence his life, suffering or condition one jot. As far as we're concerned this story might as well be completely fictional.

There is, I guess, a serious point to be made about how people can be convinced to follow such madmen, but again nothing we do here is going to affect cult subscription statistics either way. I think the humour is entirely unproblematic, given the obviously abstract register and degree of detachment with which it is offered.

528. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154760 by Cartomancer on April 3, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Well, someone got there first with my favourite Theban hieros lochos, and the enlightened custom of Athenian Paederastia is always worthy of a mention, but if you want non-European examples, how about Heian and Tokugawa Japan? How about Old, Middle and New Kingdom Egypt? The earliest evidence we have of a named same-sex couple are a pair of Egyptian royal servants called Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, from the fifth dynasty of the Old Kingdom c.2400 BC, whose tomb paintings strongly suggest they were lovers. The oldest gay chat-up line in evidence (something along the lines of "that is a magnificent arse you have") also comes from hieroglyphs on a tomb papyrus - telling the story of how macho god of desert chaos Set tried to seduce the beautiful young Horus and have sex with him.

Steve Zara probably remembers when this one was in common use.

Funnily enough the Old Kingdom lasted nigh on five centuries, and archaic Egyptian civilization as a whole somewhere closer to four millennia from the Predynastic period to the arrival of the Ptolemies. Think about it - In English terms that's roughly equivalent to the time from the building of Stonehenge to the present day. In American terms it's about forty times as long as the state of Oklahoma (founded 1907) has existed, or seventeen times as long as the period since the declaration of independence was signed in 1776. And this vile Kearns woman thinks she knows anything about the stability of civilizations!

529. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154748 by Cartomancer on April 3, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Well, Richard does use barcodes as an analogy quite a bit in Unweaving the Rainbow. Perhaps our log-toting friend has a copy and just misunderstood all those references when he was reading it...

530. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154743 by Cartomancer on April 3, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Obviously gay terrorists are a threat. I mean they're dressed so much better and their color coordination is fantastic. What's more dangerous than a guy with explosives and a smashing outfit?

You've clearly never seen the kind of ghastly outfits I wear out the door on a regular basis. The Secret Conclave of Sodom are threatening to expel me from gaydom for my complete lack of fashion sense.

(oh, and I've decided not to detonate the harness just yet, so your precious heterosexual civilization is safe from my malign influences for another decade or so).

531. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154741 by Cartomancer on April 3, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Scalding? Well, indeed - large quantities of hot air flying in one's direction can do that if one is not careful...

532. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154627 by Cartomancer on April 3, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Sigh... is that odious little man Robertson trying to get noticed again?

Would anyone like to tell me what he has done to deserve a public voice, apart from his inept and unfounded criticism of Richard Dawkins? If I wrote a steaming pile of sub-GCSE level crap like Robertson's would BBC Scotland come and interview me on matters that I know nothing about and are none of my business too?

Go and get a proper job Robertson - one which actually contributes something to society - and stop wasting everybody's time with your fevered, bigoted rantings.

533. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154555 by Cartomancer on April 3, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Oh how ironic for the state that inspired one of the campest musicals of all time!

Right, where did I put that bomb harness...?

534. BBC 'too scared to allow jokes about Islam'

Comment #154312 by Cartomancer on April 3, 2008 at 5:10 am

Hmm, I wonder. I suspect there probably is a great deal of apprehension among comedians about sending up Islam - out of fear rather than politically correct sensibilities - but I'm not sure that's the only reason we don't hear Islamic jokes in the media very often.

Could it perhaps be that Islam is inherently unfunny? Now, when this thought first occurred to me my reaction was "unfunny? how can a group of grown men who believe such silly things in all seriousness be unfunny?" Surely their pomposity and self-aggrandizing puff are prime targets for the satirist's needle if nothing else? But the more I think about it, the more Islam seems to be the matter of tragedy rather than comedy.

How can you send up something which is, in itself, so inherently ridiculous? How can you point out the amusing logical contradictions in something which abandoned logic seven hundred years ago and is proudly boastful about that fact? What are stinging charges of hypocrisy to people for whom blatant double-standards have been a way of life since birth? Truly great comedy generally plays on these things, and they are almost impossible to bring to bear on Islam itself. Arabic cultural comedy does exist, but that's not quite the same thing. Furthermore, can we really bring ourselves to laugh at an institution which causes poverty, backwardness, the oppression of women and homosexuals, suicide bombing and the like? The Church of England and even the Catholic church have long since ceased to be serious instruments of societal change in the West, which is why we can laugh at them with impunity. Did the Germans in the 40s laugh at the Nazis? I doubt it, but we do today now their influence has waned. Furthermore, the cultural forms of Islam are still rather alien and strange to us - humour often relies on familiarity with the subject matter, and the kind of vile xenophobic humour so favoured by the odious likes of Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson is most gratifyingly out of favour in modern Britain.

Is this why none of us can come up with any good Islam jokes beyond a bit of punning and wordplay? I'd like to be proved wrong here, but the harder I try to think of a good joke, the less funny Islam seems...

535. Beware the Believers

Comment #151734 by Cartomancer on March 29, 2008 at 9:19 am

Give me Tom Lehrer, Roy Zimmerman or Cartomancer (Comment #150405) any day.

That supremely talented impressario Richard Morgan has actually set it to the original music now too!

536. Beware the Believers

Comment #151716 by Cartomancer on March 29, 2008 at 8:49 am

Right, pedantry out the way first:

1. Richard does not have a PhD - he has a DPhil and a DSc. DSc. would fit the metre just as well, so there really is no excuse. I spend half my life trying to explain the minute differences between the Oxford DPhil and a regular PhD to people. This really riles me.

2. Aristotle was just as much a scientist as Democritus, if not much more so. In fact it is to Aristotle that we owe the first foundations of formal logic and experimental method - as far as we can tell Democritus just thought up his ideas off the top of his head. Oh, and the pictures used were from Raphael's School at Athens, representing Aristotle and PLATO, not Democritus (though similar renaissance depictions of Democritus are not hard to come by).

Phew. Right, now that's over...

I guess I must put my hand up and say that I burst out laughing uncontrollably at this too. I couldn't work out which side it was satirizing either, but I don't think that matters because the humour here is not primarily in the satirical content. It comes from the burlesque - the incongruous juxtaposition of radically different style and content. You probably couldn't find a style of presentation further from Professor Dawkins' genteel mien and the staid academic establishment than gangster rap. Likewise, the religion debates are a million miles from the usual content of such music.

The humour comes from the striking disjunct, and has a long and venerable pedigree going back at least to the comedies of Aristophanes. I was reminded of some of the Choral stasima from the Birds here actually.

I guess the Terry Gilliam style talking heads are visually amusing too.

537. Iowa county board gives initial OK for ghost hunters to investigate asylum

Comment #151397 by Cartomancer on March 28, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Yes, the "ghost hunters" are clearly delusional or charlatans or both. That kind of goes without saying. That county officials in a supposedly 21st century advanced society are taking them seriously almost beggars belief. What I most object to, however, is the news report itself. Were I one of our putative visitors from mars I could pick this article up and from it conclude that paranormal activity really does exist on planet earth. Nowhere does the reporting state that these things are just primitive superstitions from a credulous age - the impression is given that there might actually be some validity to these claims.

When people can pick up their newspapers and switch on their televisions to such unwarranted fence-sitting, is there any wonder that the superstition industry is going from strength to strength?

538. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150405 by Cartomancer on March 26, 2008 at 9:00 pm

I haven't had time to compose something new as I intended (blame my DPhil supervisor), so I think I'll go with the original plan and get out my modest Gilbert and Sullivan parody. Apologies to those who have seen it before, but at last I can properly dedicate it as intended, and there is no-one more deserving.

Happy Birthday Richard!

He is the very model of a major modern atheist
Accreditations as a writer, humanist, and scientist
He knows the works of Darwin, and can quote from verse poetical
To peddlers of religious faith his thought is antithetical

He's very well acquainted, too, with matters cosmological
He understands the theories of beginnings biological
About the book of Genesis he's keen to point out that it's tripe
With many cheerful facts about the genome and the phenotype

With many cheerful facts about the genome and the phenotype
With many cheerful facts about the genome and the phenotype
With many cheerful facts about the genome and the phenophenotype

He's very good at pointing out the flaws of fundamentalists
He knows the answer to the claim that any sort of god exists
In short, his writing is among the clearest and the paciest
He is the very model of a major modern atheist

In short, his writing is among the clearest and the paciest
He is the very model of a major modern atheist

He gives the lie to theists on their frankly loopy moral claim
He answers the apologists who bring up Adolf Hitler's name
He quotes in measured sentences the crimes of child labelling
And points out that the moderates are merely faith-enabling

His works inspire charlatans and liars to cacophonies
He treats with great bemusement all the writings of the lot of these
Their arguments a fugue of which we hear a hundred times a day
An order Siphonapterid with nothing of their own to say

An order Siphonapterid with nothing of their own to say
An order Siphonapterid with nothing of their own to say
An order Siphonapterid with nothing of their own to, own to say

He wants to rid our lives of morals writ in ancient cuneiform
And show we might as well believe in pastel-coloured unicorns
In short, his writing is among the clearest and the paciest
He is the very model of a major modern atheist

In short, his writing is among the clearest and the paciest
He is the very model of a major modern atheist

In fact, since he knows what is meant by Russell's flying crockery
Since he can tell at sight a valid argument made properly
Since he renounces theists, be they pope or seminarian
And since he knows precisely what is meant by "pastafarian"

Since he has learned what progress could be lost to ID flummery
and since he sees the child abuse that goes on in a nunnery
In short, since he exposes many dangerous hypocrisies
You'll say a better atheist there hasn't been since Socrates!

You'll say a better atheist there hasn't been since Socrates!
You'll say a better atheist there hasn't been since Socrates!
You'll say a better atheist there hasn't been since Socrasocrates!

Our much beloved Dawkins, light of Oxford's University
encouraging us atheists to come out universally
Indeed, his writing is among the clearest and the paciest
He is the very model of a major modern atheist

Indeed, his writing is among the clearest and the paciest
He is the very model of a major modern atheist

539. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #148402 by Cartomancer on March 22, 2008 at 11:23 pm

Blimey, things do move quickly round here. I missed this thread when I logged on yesterday, and now there are six whole pages of it - with my own name being invoked no fewer than four times! I guess any leviticus-based thread is going to be thus for your average boy-loving wannabe warlock!

Well, given the tone of some recent posts I simply have to mention some utterly fantastic three-in-a-bed gay scrabble I played on a rainy weekend a couple of years back with my beloved and his boyfriend. The scores those two managed to get with "dildoes" and "queeniest" on a triple triple are just unreal...

Such a shame there was no actual sex afterwards. That would really have rounded off the evening nicely. Natch.

Anyway, what was it again? Genetic, environmental or cultural causes of homosexual orientation? Well, as a non-specialist I try not to place too much confidence in the conclusions of my idle musings and patchy reading. To be honest it doesn't really matter to me why I turned out this way, though the academic speculation is certainly very interesting. I expect science will eventually get to the heart of the matter, but without lots more studies on which to base our findings I think that our conclusions must necessarily be of only the most tentative character.

Where I think general speculation and discussion are helpful, though, is with regard to how individuals perceive and accommodate their own sexuality - how it becomes a part of their personality and self-definition. Just as important is how it is perceived by society in general.

The nature / nurture debate is shot through with political implications from the history of the gay rights movement. In the seventies there was a conscious decision among the more postmodernistic elements of the campaigning fraternity to alight on the nurture side of the equation for political gain. The reasoning seemed to be that if homosexual orientation was acquired then anyone could theoretically experience it, and thus discrimination against a particular minority for exhibiting it was entirely unfounded - we're all potentially gay, there's no reason why it couldn't be you on the receiving end of the abuse. There but for the grace of god...

Cultural changes ensued throughout the late seventies and eighties. In particular a wider popular understanding of genetics changed the tone of the conversation - we see an increased prominence in public debate of genetic models and concepts, and the acceptance of the idea that our DNA, to a great extent, makes us who we are. I think we can probably thank a certain Professor Dawkins for shifting the zeitgeist to some extent. Those still seeking acceptance for gay people thus gradually turned to the science of genetics for validation - if homosexuality is coded for in the genes then surely it's just as natural as any other kind of behaviour and, more importantly, it can't be avoided. In part this was a reaction to those homophobes who tried to criticise the old postmodernist nurture model - even if the behaviour was learned, they said, it would still be possible to avoid teaching it in the first place. With a genetic basis for homosexuality, such an argument would not stand.

Both positions are positions of political expediency - trying to argue for the same goals from a radically different basis. Both require the science to be a certain way and thus provide a powerful impetus to distort or twist scientific findings. I would like to think that the modern view is a better and less intellectually unsound one - irrespective of the cause the effect is harmless, so let's just give everyone the rights, protections and opportunities they deserve eh?

I must admit that I approach the question from a somewhat involved position, and potentially I could have a lot vested in the answer. I am indeed the gay brother of a straight identical twin (he's dextral, I'm sinistral too if you were wondering) so the importance of placing and explaining this has actually been somewhat crucial to my own self-definition ever since I hit puberty. From a purely subjective perspective I find it hard to think in terms of a spectrum of sexual preferences like Kinsey did - I have never even been able to entertain the notion of heterosexuality in my own life, so people who are a bit curious either way seem altogether quite strange to me. My brother is the same but from a straight perspective, indeed of all the people I know his visceral reaction to the idea of homosexuality is the most negative by far - the binary opposition between us seems profound in this area.

But I know that it is not wise to conflate personal identity issues with a dispassionate pursuit of the underlying scientific truth. I fear that a large number of people who have debated on this topic in the past have probably not been so circumspect. As ever, the assembled RD.net notables seem refreshingly self-aware in this regard.

Oh, and the Mercy Ministries people? Drowning them in a vat of fizzy drink would be letting them off too lightly. Let us hope the rotten heart of their loathesome activities is exposed for all to see and the unfortunates in their care given proper help and support as soon as possible.

540. Fleabytes

Comment #147110 by Cartomancer on March 19, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Grrrr! I leave for less than a day and the standard of Latinity on this thread deteriorates markedly.

1. Who watches the watchmen themselves?

Quis custodiet, ipso custodies

Actually it's quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Custodes (watchmen) is a plural third declension noun and, as such, a) doesn't have that vestigial "i" from the verb stem, and b) need the plural ipsos for numerical agreement.

2. Sock Puppetry for fun and profit

The calcaneus is technically only the heelbone, so named because it was considered to look like a piece of writing chalk, hence a derivation from calx (limestone, whence also our calcium). Calceus on the other hand is a type of hard shoe. If you want a sock though then there is a perfectly good Latin word for it - soccus - which is a thick sock or soft slipper, and where we get our word sock from.

Puppa is a doll, and where our word puppet comes from, but only medieval latinists would recognise it as a puppet rather than just a normal doll. In classical times the Greek borrowing neurospasta was generally used, or a phrasal circumlocution such as mobile lignum (moving wood). But as a medievalist myself I suppose I'll let puppa go.

So a sock puppet would probably be something like puppa soccea (coining the adjectival socceus, -a, -um to approximate English usage).

3. The great battle of our time

The noble elf would win hands down. No question about it. Especially if it happens to be Galadriel or Lord Glorfindel of Imladris - even the dread Witch King of Angmar fears him. The martial skill of the eldar is legendary I tell you! That hideous hairy Canadian in yellow spandex wouldn't stand a chance, even if he brought all his maladjusted mutant friends along for back-up.

(and I wonder why I've never had a boyfriend...)

541. Fleabytes

Comment #146277 by Cartomancer on March 18, 2008 at 9:35 pm

I don't need the cards to tell me what you're seeing my dear friend - banging my head repeatedly against a hard surface would probably give me a fair indication.

But really now, please, you bore us. I've heard better hellfire-and-damnation preaching hundreds of times before. Your rhythm and delivery is all wrong. The use of scriptural references could be much more dynamic and inspired. There's no theatre, no verve, no feeling!

Come back when you've learned how to give a real heart-stopping sermon and maybe we will be impressed.

542. Fleabytes

Comment #146203 by Cartomancer on March 18, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Damn, there must be some kind of online equivalent to throwing one's drink over those pontificating in the streets...

Suffice to say, Le Clair Penseur, that were you within arm's reach you would now be dripping wet and much more sugary. All in good fun of course!

Right then, now that my feelings on the subject have been made plain I shall resume my session with the blasphemous porn and crack-snorting rent boys...

543. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146184 by Cartomancer on March 18, 2008 at 6:03 pm

I thought he had already died years ago! Oh well, ninety is a pretty good age for anyone. And he sure has achieved immortality more effectively than any number of religious folk who pray for it daily.

544. Fleabytes

Comment #145882 by Cartomancer on March 18, 2008 at 9:11 am

Good guesses, both - but let us not forget the dark arts of our very own Cartomancer ...

My dark arts extend to many things, and I have even been known to put up joke posts under assumed names in the past, but the Pathfinder is most certainly not one of mine. I couldn't bring myself to abuse the humble apostrophe so violently even for a shiny new Richard Dawkins duvet cover set and the chance to star in my very own West End musical...

545. Fleabytes

Comment #145606 by Cartomancer on March 17, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Oh, but the Pepsi Overcoat trick is one of my favourites for disgracing a god botherer when I don't have the time for a good debate. I think it was just about the best £1.19 I have spent all month. Well it was his own fault for standing outside KFC...

546. Fleabytes

Comment #145599 by Cartomancer on March 17, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Damn, I always turn up too late and miss the fun. I never get to these things on time. RD.net should send out text alerts when these things kick off so we don't miss out.

Still, I did have fun throwing my drink over the homophobic street preacher on Cornmarket Street in Oxford today, so I guess that's ok. I've never got a bigger round of applause for shouting the phrase "solipsistic dehumanising nonsense" in my life before...

547. Fleabytes

Comment #144851 by Cartomancer on March 16, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Beer and gin are most acceptable. I'm teetotal myself, but anything which gets attractive young men drunk enough to sleep with me will always have an honoured place in the world.

Marmite and Vegemite fulfil no such vital function however, and as such shall be condemned forever as soon as I get round to writing my next list of Grave Abominations against Decency.

548. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144846 by Cartomancer on March 16, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Hmm. I'm not sure what the most effective way to treat creationist nonsense in British schools is. My teaching experience is in Classics and Ancient History, so it's an issue that never directly came up (and, since I taught at a very liberal state sixth-form college in Surrey, the only religious students I had were of the smiley, harmless, thoroughly denatured variety). I can remember back to my own school days though. I did my GCSE's in 1999 (in a comprehensive school in Glastonbury) and there was no hint of any creationist claptrap anywhere to be seen - we got a good run-down of DNA structure, mutation, natural selection, evolution and so forth. I thought it was pretty interesting and very clever stuff at the time - I can still remember with some fondness the lesson where I learned the word "phenotype" for the first time and kept asking questions about just how the DNA coding is read and effected in the body. I had given up RE lessons at the end of year 9 (13 yrs old) because I felt it was a bit lightweight to do a GCSE in comparative fairytales, and in any case you can imagine what sort of RE you'd get in a kooky place like Glastonbury. I seriously doubt there would have been any sort of creationist agenda there though.

But I guess that in the intervening nine years we've had the odious likes of Ham and his lackeys trying to poison the communal drinking water, so my experiences are of limited value. I must say I tend toward supporting an imperious refusal to teach the nonsense in the science classroom at all - my experience of British teenagers is that they are very switched on to this kind of thing, and the message that comes from such a refusal - this stuff simply isn't science - is the best one to give. Were a student to bring it up then obviously it should be dealt with, but as a digression. Giving it any space on the official curriculum, even as a straw man to take swipes at, is, in my opinion, a mistake.

Actually, come to think of it, I can liken the presence of creation literature in schools to an experience I had last year. I was teaching one of my classes Athenian democratic history - including the Persian Wars - at the same time the comic book inspired film 300 hit the cinemas. Of course, most of the boys in the class went out in force to see it - and what teenage boy wouldn't with such a fine offering of toned man-flesh and glorious balletic violence to tempt them? Inevitably I had to spend a fair while in subsequent lessons getting it straight with them which bits were accurate, which bits were creatively distorted and which bits were outright fiction. I would not have had to do this were the film not around, though in the end we covered the battle of Thermopylae in much more detail than we otherwise would have. I also managed to give them a valuable lesson in the kinds of distortion that can occur in historically inspired literary works, which stood them in good stead for later modules on Vergil's Aeneid and Greek tragic theatre. I guess the creationist tat could be used in a similar way - for a lesson in critical thinking, specifically what makes for authentic scientific methodology and what makes for crazy pseudoscientific garbage.

I'm still not sure I like the idea of conceding ground and humming along with their tune however.

549. Fleabytes

Comment #144821 by Cartomancer on March 16, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Tea! Tea! That's all we ever hear from you fundamentalist Quetzalcoatlists! You're everywhere now! you're taking over! Wherever I go on RD.net these days I see nothing but droning feather-clad priests wielding sacrificial knives and steaming hot cups of lapsang suchong - is this why we fought the great Schismatic War of 1992? Is this why I raised the Royal Standard of Queen Kirby and fought off the hordes of Rabid Reverend Robertson armed with nothing more than a startlingly patterned waistcoat and my trusty crossbow Cecil?

Well no more! This heretic for one is proud to raise today's ninth can of Coca-Cola to the heavens and bellow his defiance of all things tea-related across the vastness of space and time.

Well, ok, maybe not Earl Grey - I quite like that as it happens as long as you put enough sugar in. But all the others certainly. And don't even get me started on that vile scabrous concoction which goes by the name of Bovril...

550. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143583 by Cartomancer on March 14, 2008 at 8:12 am

Actually, I do think this talk of gay people and jews in the holocaust brings up an interesting point. It seems to me that the two groups respond to the issue in very different ways. For most Jewish people I have met there is very much a feeling that it was our family who were killed by the Nazis - even among Jewish people who have lived in England for generations and who didn't actually lose any relatives in Germany at all. I suspect there is a lot to do with the famous Jewish martyr complex here, and the bizarre racial/religious identification prevalent in Jewish culture, among other factors.

Homosexuals rarely feel connected to the holocaust in anything like as profound a way - I know I certainly don't. If we think about our connection to it at all it is generally along the lines of "well I would have been in trouble if I had lived in Germany during the 1940s wouldn't I?" and counterfactual history is hardly something which motivates profound emotional feelings. The holocaust is a spectre to bring up in LGBT rights discussions, but it doesn't seem to evoke nearly the same level of visceral engagement. Obviously the families of homosexuals who did die in the concentration camps and gas chambers have a more profound connection, but the families of dead jews will generally see themselves as jewish and so maintain a link, whereas the families of gay people are, almost by definition, not gay as well.

I suppose this brings up wider questions of how homosexuals and racial or religious groups differ as minorities. Homosexuals are not self-perpetuating, we draw our ranks from all strata of society and, compared to most other minority communities, we actually have very little in common with one another. We also have the ability to hide our differences and blend in with mainstream society to a much greater degree. Racial minorities generally have strong family ties, geographical proximity and community cohesion. It is realistic to talk about some of them as disadvantaged minorities in economic terms, and their numbers can fluctuate out of tune with population trends at large. Religious communities on the other hand spread in a viral pattern, sharing some characteristics with racial communities but also able to acquire new converts where races cannot. Ultimately religious communities are entirely self-chosen communities, though of course large numbers of them have never consciously thought about the possibility they could have chosen otherwise.