601. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #114122 by Paula Kirby on January 21, 2008 at 11:59 am

Difference is Dubya will be gone soon, wheras you could get stuck with Charles until he's a fuckin' hundred.

True. But another difference is that, although Charles is, it seems, pretty stupid, he won't have the slightest influence over anything; whereas Dubya's pretty stupid and he's in control of the nuclear button. With Dubya we cannot rule out the possibility that a nuclear war will be triggered because the President wanted to switch TV channels. Remember - this is a man who can't eat a pretzel and breathe at the same time.

I suspect Charles wouldn't even know what a pretzel is, mind you - but in his case it will never matter.

602. Gay Jesus play blasted by bishop

Comment #114106 by Paula Kirby on January 21, 2008 at 11:35 am

Konquererz: I MUST see this play!

If these bishops were just the teensiest bit life-savvy, they'd simply keep quiet. Who outside Sydney would then have ever even heard of this play? As it is, the thought that, hey, Jesus really might have been gay is now in people's minds across the English-speaking world. And it's a fair bet that the theatre's going to sell far more tickets than it ever would have done without the furore. Honestly, these people are so ridiculous, whichever way you look at it.

603. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #114099 by Paula Kirby on January 21, 2008 at 11:24 am

Cast 'em off. Kick 'em out.

Hmmmm. Elizabeth II vs George W. Or Nicolas Sarkozy! No nation admires its politicians as consistently as the Brits (taken as a whole) admire the current queen. I'm not at all sure that a referendum really would result in a vote to replace her.

604. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #114091 by Paula Kirby on January 21, 2008 at 11:03 am

I don't like monarchies either. If it weren't for the fact that republics seem to fare even worse when it comes to their leaders, there'd really be nothing to be said for them :-)

The present queen has been really rather remarkable, though. Hard to see Charles ever achieving the same level of public approval. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he turned out to be our last monarch. Will may get his turn too - but I don't think the institution will last beyond that. And it's probably right that it shouldn't.

605. Honour Killings

Comment #113683 by Paula Kirby on January 20, 2008 at 10:29 am

[Muslim schools] are in a better position to educate Muslim children (sic) in accordance with their needs and demands.

Hmmm. Something tells me that it's not the children's needs and demands that are the author's real concern here.

606. Honour Killings

Comment #113679 by Paula Kirby on January 20, 2008 at 10:25 am

Richard Dawkins: If only the girls were properly educated to be nice, submissive, docile wives and mothers, WE WOULDN'T NEED TO KILL THEM.

I wonder whether this was the sort of thing Prince Charles had in mind when he expressed his support for "proper fundamentalism" ... (see "Mandrake" thread)

Maybe there's some truth in the conspiracy theories about Diana's death after all ;-))

607. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #113670 by Paula Kirby on January 20, 2008 at 10:16 am

Well, he's right about the lamentable state of the press in the UK and what seems to be the impossibility of achieving even moderately nuanced reporting.

But what exactly is "proper fundamentalism"???? What is "proper" about saying "this is how it is and no, I don't have any evidence for that, but you still have to follow it"?

On the other hand, maybe we shouldn't be surprised that such an approach has its appeal to someone whose position in society ALSO "just is". You can see why he might prefer us to simply accept ancient decrees without asking too many inconvenient questions! :-)

608. Britain cannot put its faith in religiously divided schools

Comment #113575 by Paula Kirby on January 20, 2008 at 4:37 am

ericcolumba: Not all faith schools represent the same danger as not all religions are equally repressive, homophobic, mysoginistic and intollerant of the individuals right to abandon the faith that they never chose.

That's undoubtedly true, but what they all have in common is the sheer inappropriateness of their being funded publicly.

609. Britain cannot put its faith in religiously divided schools

Comment #113553 by Paula Kirby on January 20, 2008 at 2:29 am

Yes, I, too, have been encouraged by more recent news of Ed Balls' position on this topic. But, just in case he gets over-ruled, here are some more ideas for promoting cohesion in our society:

Let's help disabled children be more integrated into society by schooling them separately from able-bodied children.

And there's clearly only one way to overcome the communication difficulties between men and women, and that's by ensuring that the 2 sexes never meet in school hours during their formative years.

As for the lack of understanding between people of different races, well, clearly, the only way to stamp that out once and for all is to keep them apart as much as possible. In fact, why stop at schooling? Why not insist on separate housing areas, separate shopping areas, separate buses and trains? Let's just bring in fully fledged apartheid - after all, that was super-efficient at producing peace, harmony and justice last time it was tried, wasn't it?

610. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113431 by Paula Kirby on January 19, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Yes, you can keep revisiting him and potentially keep addressing the concerns, but each time you "give" to this person ANYTHING you are enabling the behavior to continue and not letting the anxiety of the individual raise to a certain level of pain which then seeks relief, not from the dollar given, but from hitting bottom and making the responsible choices needed to move out of it

That is what you choose to believe, and you are clearly very wedded to that belief, and have no intention of doing anything other than repeat it over and over again. This does not alter the fact that you are wrong. Your comments are based on your odious Social Darwinism; mine are based on practical experience.

I can see no benefit in constantly repeating myself in answer to your constantly repeated misconceptions, and I am finding your posts increasingly nauseating. So I am not going to respond to them any more. All I'll say in signing out of this conversation is that, with only a very tiny number of exceptions, the homeless people I worked with would knock spots off you in terms of sheer humanity and decency. They would be as full of contempt for you, as you are for them. The difference is that theirs would be justified.

611. The God Delusion: Now Available in US Paperback

Comment #113384 by Paula Kirby on January 19, 2008 at 1:22 pm

JamieR: I don't read the articles fully i skim them :P but i probably could read his book and finish it its not a novel so i wont have the trouble at picturing setting or getting confused

It's got to be worth a try, anyway! Let us know what you think of it if you do.

612. New Findings Confirm Darwin's Theory: Evolution Not Random

Comment #113381 by Paula Kirby on January 19, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Shouldn't this article have a dateline of 1859?

613. King Me!

Comment #113374 by Paula Kirby on January 19, 2008 at 12:59 pm

who usually recites Bible verses or uses the faith card.

Well, to be fair - that is all they've got to argue with!

614. The Group Delusion

Comment #113358 by Paula Kirby on January 19, 2008 at 11:22 am

I just re-read a few of the comments at the start of this thread. Did I miss the chance to mention my choice for the possible title of the follow-up to 'The God Delusion'? Surely 'The Second Coming' has to be a shoe-in.

"One Delusion Short of the Trinity?"

615. The God Delusion: Now Available in US Paperback

Comment #113353 by Paula Kirby on January 19, 2008 at 11:05 am

JamieR: I once tried to write a book wrote loads of ideas down but when it came to righting it i couldn't its not as easy as i fought to write a book

That's true, Jamie! I just took a look at your profile and it says you haven't read The God Delusion yet.

I remember you wrote on another thread that you don't own any books because you don't read well - but you are clearly able to read the articles and responses on this website, and you're clearly interested in the subject of religion and atheism - so I think maybe you would be able to read The God Delusion too. Richard Dawkins always writes very clearly. And I think you might enjoy it!

616. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113348 by Paula Kirby on January 19, 2008 at 10:53 am

Scooter, you are choosing to ignore the main point of several of my posts, which is that people are not always equipped to take the choices that they are presented with.

A homeless person "chooses" to reject your help when it's first offered? You then also have a choice: to say "Stuff you, then" and walk away; or to work towards overcoming the barriers that made accepting your help impossible for him.

I am not talking about throwing dollars at him. I'm talking about something far more costly than that: actually spending time with him and treating him like a decent person until it actually begins to dawn on him that perhaps he isn't such a complete waste of space after all, and that perhaps you can really be trusted. THEN you can offer your help again and see what the reaction is, but he'll still need lots of support along the way.

You may not believe that someone has made it through to adulthood without any genuine offer of help - but that has no more bearing on the truth of the matter than the creationist's refusal to believe that the universe didn't have a designer.

617. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113331 by Paula Kirby on January 19, 2008 at 9:57 am

Scooternyc: Paula - there is no problem with those that don't want help, except to leave them to their fate. Two options happen - either they get "it" that no one is going to enable them or they die. But it is still their freedom and choice to make that decision.

And this is where we fundamentally disagree . By adopting this approach, we would condemn a large number of people to horrendous, shortened lives, when actually it needn't be like that.

I'm going to borrow RD's "Mount Improbable" analogy here, and hope he doesn't sue me! :-)

You are saying that we should only help the street-homeless person who leaps at the chance to be helped. What you don't realize is that what you're asking of that person is that they leap to the top of Mount Improbable in one bound – or at least, that's how it seems to them.

There are lots of reasons why a street-homeless person would reject an offer of help (why an offer of help would actually sound terrifying to them, even).

Think of your own life for a moment and try to imagine just how many things would have had to go wrong, how many mistakes you'd have to have made, and how many people would have had to let you down before you ended up on the streets. Well, that's the same for them. They have a track record of getting everything wrong, doing everything wrong, trusting the wrong people.

You, I am sure, would get yourself off the streets very quickly – but you are assisted in this by your life's experiences, which tell you that you're smart, you're clever, you're capable, that things CAN go right for you, and that people don't always let you down.

Most street-homeless have no concept of what it means to have that kind of self-image. They've been told all their lives that they're a failure, and that's been confirmed in their eyes by the things that have happened to them. But now you want them to instantaneously picture themselves being successful? Getting it right? Being "normal"? And you want them to really believe they could be that person? You're asking too much, Scooter. What seems to you like a given, is just impossible for someone in their position to get their head around in an instant.

They turn down the offer of help because they don't feel worthy of it; because they don't trust themselves not to mess up AGAIN; and because they don't trust you to really mean it, and they are terrified of having their hopes raised, only to be dashed yet again. But does this mean they can't or won't be helped at all? No, definitely not.

In the original Mount Improbable analogy, the summit doesn't represent humans – it represents something complex, such as an eye, for example, or a wing. And natural selection doesn't achieve those ends by leaping straight to them, but by taking an enormous number of very tiny, maybe almost imperceptible steps.

In exactly the same way, the summit when viewed in connection with homeless people should not be considered to be "fully integrated into society, holding down a good job, and buying shares". In the first instance, the summit is, quite simply, helping them to reach a state where they are able to overcome their self-loathing and self-disgust so that they can deem themselves worthy of receiving the help available to get them onto the next stage.

It is possible to do this. I have seen it done, with a considerable degree of success. But, as with the Mount Improbable analogy, it's done by taking a series of small, barely perceptible steps, not by just telling the person to pull himself together. And, as with natural selection, it takes a long time. You have to be prepared to spend the time (or for society's nominated charities etc to spend the time) building up that trust, helping the individual person to overcome his sense that the streets are all he's good for, before you can realistically expect him to seize your offer of help with both hands. That happens at the end of a long series of interactions with him – not right at the outset.

Before I incur the wrath of all the scientists on the board, I'll add hastily that of course the Mount Improbable analogy breaks down in that working with the homeless has a definite goal in mind, and natural selection does not! :-)

In the meantime, allowing people to get away with just dumping their emotions all over the place, just encourages them to not grow up

Absolutely – we agree on this too. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about identifying accurately where the problem lies, and taking account of that when trying to find a solution. Of course it's irrational to say, "He had a lousy childhood that didn't prepare him properly for life, so we shouldn't ever ask anything of him"; but it's equally irrational to say, "It's utterly irrelevant that he had a lousy childhood that didn't prepare him properly for life, and we shouldn't take any notice of that whatsoever when dealing with his problems" – since the clue to the solution here actually lies in trying to undo some of the damage caused by that lousy childhood.

This isn't about being sentimental. It's about being realistic about someone's capacity to make the choices that you'd like them to make, and thereby identifying the ways in which we can help them INCREASE that capacity and hopefully make better choices in future.

(Sorry - long post.)

618. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113290 by Paula Kirby on January 19, 2008 at 8:20 am

OK, I'm back from the walk now and reconciled to my long post having vanished into the ether, so I shall try a different approach this time, rather than just try to reproduce what I tried to write last time.

Scooter, I actually think you might be surprised at how much we agree on.

For instance, we agree that not all acts that are intended to help actually do.

We agree that giving a beggar a dollar not only doesn't help but is probably actively unhelpful.

We agree that feelings alone are not the best basis for decision-making.

We agree that there are some homeless people who will never be incorporated into mainstream society, no matter what.

We may disagree on some of the details, but fundamentally you seem to believe all these things and, whether you believe me or not, I believe them too.

We also both believe that the kind of homeless person you've mentioned - the kind who's desperate to get off the streets and make something of his life and is determined to do it somehow, and so virtually bites your arm off with his eagerness when you extend it in order to help him - is deserving of our help and support.

What I'd like to ask you is this: what do you think should be done about those homeless people who DON'T fall into this category? To whom society offers help but who DON'T immediately reach out and grab it with both hands whilst simultaneously dancing a jig and singing the Hallelujah Chorus? Can you think of any reasons at all why they might not accept our offer of help, other than that it's just their choice not to?

(As an aside, you may be surprised to learn that one of the reasons I stopped working for the homeless charity was that I had concerns that were similar to yours: it seemed to me that, through a combination of laziness and complacency, they were making it too easy for the people who came to us to just maintain their lifestyle, rather than improve it. I should stress that this criticism by no means applies to all charities for the homeless that I have encountered: I know of several that have achieved remarkable outcomes. I just came to realise that the organisation I was working for was more interested in being seen to be working with the homeless, than in actually making a difference. I think we'd have agreed on that too!)

619. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113262 by Paula Kirby on January 19, 2008 at 6:12 am

Aargh, just wrote a long reply to Scooter's post no. 477, got timed out and lost it. Got to walk my dog now. Will be back!

620. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113256 by Paula Kirby on January 19, 2008 at 5:24 am

The guy laying on the street, not willing to change his lot in life

Have you read The God Delusion, Scooter? Do you remember the bit right at the very beginning where RD is writing about his wife's misery at school and how much she hated it? And how appalled her parents were to find this out many years later, and asked her why she hadn't told them at the time? And her answer? - "I didn't know I could." That from an educated girl from a "good", loving, secure home. Can we blame her for not having taken the option of telling her parents how unhappy she was at school, if she didn't actually KNOW she had that option in the first place?

In most cases, it's not that the guy lying in the street isn't WILLING to change his lot in life - it's that he really doesn't realise that he CAN.

The lives that the rest of us lead - with steady jobs, respect and liking from colleagues, friends and family, dealing with bills, managing our finances, keeping a roof over our heads, negotiating our way through the many challenges that present themselves to us every day - such lives are outside anything he or anyone he has ever known has ever experienced. He doesn't have the slightest idea how to lead a life like that. In fact, he probably can't even imagine it.

Add to that the deep, desperate sense of worthlessness that is soon revealed whenever you really get into conversation with someone in that position and you realise that even asking them to aspire to such a life is hopeless, unless you're prepared to invest a lot of time and patience and care in helping them to overcome that self-loathing.

Add to that the fact that the vast majority of rough-sleepers have serious mental health problems, and you simply cannot expect them to view their "options" the way other, more fortunate people do.

621. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113249 by Paula Kirby on January 19, 2008 at 5:06 am

Scooter: In a p*ssing contest are we in order to credential sic yourself?

No. Merely pointing out that, unlike you, I am basing my views based on the real evidence of real people and their real experiences. From which I know that your theories simply do not reflect reality.

Again, more distraction from simply addressing the points made or focusing on a subject.

I'm so sorry to have distracted from your flights of malevolent fancy by having shown their incompatibility with reality. How annoying for you! Sadly, though, you would have us apply your theories to reality - which means that we can't leave the issue of reality out of the discussion altogether.

The level of people caught up in the veneer of others is really amazing. No longer is it worth having intelligent discussion, it's all about how "you feel" instead.

No, Scooter. You're the one who has nothing but what you feel to base your argument on. I haven't been talking about what I feel about the homeless or drug addicts; nor about how they feel either. I am simply pointing out that you are absolutely wrong in believing that everyone has the same choices; and I am doing so on the basis of real knowledge of real people leading real lives. A choice is not genuinely a choice if one of the options is out of reach to you. Can you really not see that?

The sort of lives that many drug addicts and homeless people have had - through no fault of their own - puts many choices (choices that seem easy to fortunate people like you and me) firmly out of their reach.

It's no good asking someone who feels as if life is only worth living because they can escape into drug-fuelled oblivion whether they want to come off drugs. If the drugs are the best thing they have in their lives, then why should you expect them to want to give them up?

It's a long, slow and extremely hard process, but the ONLY way (well, not the only way - medical support is essential too, but I'm taking that as read for now) you're ever going to get anywhere with such people is by gradually helping them to achieve the life skills and self-esteem that most of us acquire naturally during childhood. And an addict won't choose to embark on that process until you can convince her that you can be trusted. And, since it's likely that no one else she's ever known in her life COULD be trusted, that's going to take time too. A long time, normally.

It's not as simple as asking "Do you want to come off drugs? No? OK, well, stay in the gutter then."

Life simply isn't as black and white as you choose to believe.

622. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113232 by Paula Kirby on January 19, 2008 at 4:03 am

Scooternyc: "A choice of getting drugs or getting sober?" Is that a meaningful opposition?

I love this statement - it just shows how much you're out of touch with the reality.

Really, Scooter? Is "sober" used as the opposite of "on drugs" in the US? Maybe it is. In the UK the terms would be "clean" or "off drugs" - "sober" is the opposite of "drunk" and applies only to alcohol. As I say - usage may be different where you live.

However, I think you are rash to accuse me of being out of touch with reality on this subject. I suspect I have had more contact with the reality of real people with drug habits that you have. Certainly you have not demonstrated any actual knowledge or understanding of what you are talking about.

623. The Group Delusion

Comment #113019 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 12:59 pm

I'd just like to add my voice to those who are pleading with everyone to simply stop responding to Wooter's posts now.

He's posted his "arguments" and has had his answers over and over again. He'll never accept them - or even understand them - so we're all just wasting our breath.

It's not even worth carrying on for the sake of any other creationists who may be lurking: none of us could possibly point up the madness of Wooter's arguments better than he is doing himself.

We're just encouraging him by continuing.

624. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112922 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 9:30 am

However, there may be a more biological basis for the obvious inability of conservative libertarians like scooter to understand "choice" in the same way as many of the other posters in this thread (who would probably self-describe as liberal).

I'm not sure I'd self-describe as either liberal OR conservative. I'm liberal on some questions, conservative on others.

My views on the question of what leads some people into drug addiction, homelessness and anti-social behaviour of one kind or another are not based on emotions, but the evidence of having actually got to know (and know reasonably well) something like 100 people affected by these issues.

There's nothing unemotional about the view that says, "I don't care what's caused their problems, I just want to go on believing it's all their own fault."

625. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112894 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 8:47 am

Scooternyc: If someone is okay with saying to a drug addict "you have a choice of getting drugs or getting sober" and the person says "I want the drugs" , what then do we call the person who gives the drug addict the money to purchase the drugs.

"A choice of getting drugs or getting sober?" Is that a meaningful opposition?

In any event, who's talking about giving the drug addict money to purchase drugs? You seem to have no concept at all of the reality of what we're talking about here. Helping someone off drugs is a huge undertaking, requiring support from a wide range of people. Even then, it fails over and over again before, in some cases, it's successful. But at its heart it's about giving addicts the skills to live their lives so that they no longer feel the need for drugs. It's about giving them what their desperate childhoods did not - which is what led to their problems in the first place.

I have no sympathy for people who have become addicts as a result of a wilfully chosen decadent lifestyle. But don't include all addicts in your sweeping disapproval: you don't have the slightest concept of what many of them have to deal with.

626. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112892 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 8:37 am

Scooternyc: "I'm only responsible for the 'good' choices I've made; all the bad ones are your fault".

No. Once again you're over-simplifying. No one here - and certainly not me! - is saying that no one is responsible for anything bad that they do. But you have to understand that some people's life experiences are such that - through absolutely no fault or responsibility of their own - the "choice" that you might perceive simply isn't available to them.

Someone who has been brutalised in the way I described above no more has the "choice" of leading the sort of life you might approve of, than I have of becoming an Olympic gymnast.

I absolutely agree that people should take responsibility for themselves wherever it is possible for them to do so. But that is balanced by compassion for those who simply can't.

627. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112881 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 8:05 am

al-rawandi: Choices are only good so long as you know you have them

... and are equipped to take them.

628. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112860 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 7:38 am

Scooternyc: Do we all not understand that choice is a personal freedom each person owns?

And do you not understand that you're approaching the concept of choice incredibly simplistically?

Take a young child. Now starve him. Now beat him. Now thump him, kick him, attack him with whatever comes to hand - maybe a plugged-in iron or a white hot fire poker. Or - a favourite of the father of one of the guys I worked with - a fibreglass fishing rod. Mock him at every turn. Undermine him. Tell him he's stupid, he's worthless, that he'll never amount to anything. Don't let him go to school or, if you do, do everything you can to undermine what he learns there - especially if he comes home proud of some achievement. Oh, and there are plenty of worse stories too: lock him in a cupboard and make him eat his own excrement.

One man I worked with was so terrified of being at home as a boy that he CHOSE (note the word) to break the law so as to be sent to Borstal. And when he was let out, he did it again. And again. Why? Because he knew that his chances of physically surviving into adulthood would be greatly increased that way. Who are you to tell him he shouldn't have made that choice?

Most of us have been fortunate enough never to have experienced this kind of existence, or the degree of sheer misery and despair it leads to.

These people I'm talking about - and I've known people who've been through all the things I've listed above - had no choice in the family they were born into; no choice in their upbringing; no choice in the violence to which they were subjected; no choice about the education they didn't receive; no choice about the way that all spirit, all self-esteem, all confidence, all pride, all hope were systematically kicked out of them.

And yet you still want to maintain that they had a real choice when it came to deciding whether or not to seize on something that offered them some appearance of escape? Yes, they had a choice: take the escape or continue in their abject terror and misery. They're both thoroughly lousy options: continue as they are with no respite at all, or buy themselves some brief but blissful moment of respite at the risk of addiction. You and I may be able to identify other options - but that is because we have had the good fortune NOT to have been taught at the end of a chairleg that we've got no business believing we might be able to make something of ourselves.

A choice is not a choice if your whole experience of life puts one of the options out of your reach.

You condemn these people for taking drugs, when their whole lives have made taking drugs seem like the only option open to them - trust me, you wouldn't survive for half an hour in the environments in which they've spent their entire childhood.

Of course, if more people had shown some real empathy in the early stages of this spiral of deprivation and had intervened to help instead of taking the attitude that "it's all their own fault", then maybe the addicts would never have needed to reach the point where they had to add your scorn to the list of everything else they had to contend with.

629. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112841 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 7:06 am

al-rawandi: Are you a philologist by chance?

Not as such, but I am a linguist. And Greek was my subsidiary subject at university! :-)

630. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112830 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 6:42 am

Annabanana: Scooter, you've missed the point. Most addicts who successfully are able to quit have failed many many times before. The drugs become first priority in the hierarchy of needs.

That is exactly right, Anna. Nor does "quitting drugs" happen in isolation: it always entails huge support in a range of different ways - medical, psychological, emotional, structural(somewhere to live, for instance). None of which would be provided if we were all to take the view that the addict's situation is all his own fault so it's up to him to get himself out of it on his own.

I used to work with homeless people (many of whom were addicts) and I'm familiar with the argument that "they've only got themselves to blame". And, frankly, it's just plain wrong in most (admittedly not all) cases.

The circumstances that some people are born into and then grow up in just beggar belief - most of us, thank goodness, couldn't even begin to imagine the horrors that some of them had been through. Experience the same kind of grinding poverty, brutality and utter degradation yourself first - then condemn those who are broken by them.

631. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112819 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 6:22 am

Yours is just one of many definitions of said word.

I looked up 2 sources, one of them the OED, and both were consistent. Neither suggested for a moment an element of disease!

The original Greek "pathos" refers to feeling, suffering & emotion. Its appearance in the suffix "-path", which does denote disease, is of much more recent origin, and has nothing to do with "empathy" which is actually a hellenized translation of a German word, which itself literally means "in-feeling".

What is the source of your preferred etymology?

In any case, your argument here is circular: you prefer the etymology that you allege simply because it reflects your own view. It cannot therefore be used, as you have attempted to use it, to support your own view. To do so is every bit as circular as when a Christian defends her views on the basis of the bible.

632. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112779 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 4:33 am

Scooternyc: Accountability - taking ownership of one's reality by understanding the choices presented and making a choice at any given moment

Responsibility - being able to respond to the choices made

If you think that the drug addict either "understands" the choices presented in connection with his or her addiction, or "is able to respond" to the choices available, I'm afraid you're revealing a serious lack of understanding of what the hardest drugs do to an addict's brain; or of the circumstances that lead some people to become addicts in the first place.

I suspect such simplistic interpretations of other people's problems are necessary in order to be able to immure yourself to them as you seem to aspire to do.

I'm afraid your etymological knowledge is dodgy too:

empathy
1903, translation of Ger. Einfühlung (from ein "in" + Fühlung "feeling"), coined 1858 by Ger. philosopher Rudolf Lotze (1817-81) from Gk. empatheia "passion," from en- "in" + pathos "feeling" (see pathos). A term from a theory of art appreciation. Empathize (v.) was coined 1924; empathic (adj.) is from 1909.

633. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112717 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 1:26 am

Steve Z: I just thought it would be interesting for some to point out that there are religious belief systems that are quite prepared to step aside as science makes progress, and don't share the "we know best" arrogance of, say, Christianity.

Well, you can see why theistic and non-theistic religions might differ in intransigence. Theistic religions have their information direct from God, after all, so who are mere scientists to argue?

634. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112592 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Steve: It does seem to be the Abrahamic religions that have a particular problem with the idea of scientific evidence, that require mental gymnastics.

Fair comment. I have a tendency to mean "Abrahamic religion" when I refer to "religion", since it's the only kind I'm really familiar with, and the only kind that exercises any real influence in Western society. Also, I find that this slightly lazy habit of mine irritates the pants off a pagan who posts on a different site that I frequent - which makes it all worthwhile ;-)))

635. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112587 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Does anyone know of a SINGLE serious scientist who believes in creationism without having had a prior religious commitment to the idea? In other words, who has arrived at their religion through their science, rather than the other way round?

It just strikes me as so entirely barking mad to believe that anyone could assess the evidence with an open mind and conclude on the basis of that evidence that everything was created by a super-intelligence in the space of 6 days.

There are those who argue that science and religion are not incompatible: but if religion makes you unable to assess the evidence for what it is, as opposed to what your beliefs require it to be, then the incompatibility is undeniable.

636. Questions Delay Creationist Master's Degrees

Comment #112579 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Epinephrine: I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the thought of an MSc. in Creation Science...

Yes. If you'd never heard the term before, you'd assume it was the science of pottery, wouldn't you?

637. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112574 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Goldy: And God talks of himself in the plural....

Well, there are three of him!

638. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112572 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Goldy: Paula, having a quick gander over Genesis (http://bibledatabase.net/html/kjv/genesis_1.html) I see he made man and wman on the 6th day and told them to be fruitful etc

Yes, chapter 1 has it ok. But chapter 2 goes into the creation of man in more detail and from there it's clear that there must have been at least a few days' delay between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. And, given that Adam didn't arrive until day 6, that puts Eve outside the "creation timeframe".

Great, isn't it? 2 chapters in, and already the bible has contradicted itself! :-)

639. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112558 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 1:08 pm

and the Darwinists have no theory whatsoever about the origin of life, none whatsoever, except the most hazy, the kind of preposterous, New Age hypothesis

You know, he's got a point. Believing that God took a handful of dust and breathed life into it is WAY more reasonable than just saying "We don't know yet". Honestly - these scientists really should get their act together.

By the way, why don't we make more of the fact that God clearly wasn't thinking straight when he created humans? Chapter 1 of Genesis suggests he created male and female at the same time, but chapter 2 makes it clear that that the creation of Eve was an afterthought, only occurring to God AFTER Adam had learned all the names of the rivers and the plants, and had named the animals. This rather steep learning curve must have taken Adam some time to conquer, so it's very unlikely to have all happened on his very first day of existence. Adam was created on the 6th day, God rested on the 7th day - which can only mean that Eve wasn't created until AFTER the 6 days in which God allegedly created EVERYTHING.

Wasn't it a pretty fundamental oversight on God's part to forget to create female humans until all the rest of his design work was finished? Can it be that no one had told him the facts of life?

640. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112535 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 12:35 pm

As an American I can only guess it is due to the habit of people copulating next to a running microwave.

I never cease to marvel at just how much I learn on this website ;-)

641. Questions Delay Creationist Master's Degrees

Comment #112529 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 12:32 pm

- Research. Paredes said that the institute "claims that their faculty do actual research," so he asked for "material that documented the research activities under way" and that show the research to be "based on solid scientific research."

Well, it's going to be VERY interesting to see what answers the Institute gives to this! How do you research creationism? And how they have the gall to equate hunting for ANYTHING, no matter how stupid, that might just possibly (when suitably twisted and regurgitated) reinforce the conclusion they've already arrived at, with proper scientific research is just beyond me. But then, so much about these so-called creation "scientists" (sic) is.

Still - a glimmer of hope here, maybe?

642. Queerer Than We Can Suppose: The Strangeness of Science

Comment #112518 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Thanks for bringing this one back from the dead - it's lovely.

I've always loved RD's suggestion that dogs might experience smells as harmonious chords: walking my dog has never been the same since I first read it. I watch her excitement when she's walking somewhere unfamiliar and sniffing everything with such evident joy - and I wonder what exactly she's experiencing. Wouldn't it be lovely to know for sure?

643. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #112499 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 10:48 am

Now that Christmas is over and done with for another year, I'd be really interested to know what effect the "Oh Come All Ye Faithless" tags had on sales.

Someone, somewhere, must have the numbers showing how sales of TGD through Borders compared with sales through other outlets that didn't have the tags.

If anyone at RD.net has this info, please share it with us! It would be fascinating.

644. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112485 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 9:20 am

But within the species, there is competition amongst males, and an analysis of the strategies employed for being the lucky one who gets the lady is quite fascinating and far from being straightforward.

Interesting, isn't it, how in nature it always seems to be the males competing for the females, and hardly ever the other way round? I would argue that, in humans, females compete for males every bit as much as males compete for females. Are we alone in this, or are there other species where this also occurs? And why is the balance overwhelmingly this way round? Answers on a postcard please ...

645. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112175 by Paula Kirby on January 16, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Styrer: But if you have specific ideas as to how we could properly use Huckabee's concession, I would hastily join you, of course.

Nothing specific. Just that it's a point to keep up our sleeves for the next time someone tries to tell you that to be atheist is to be unAmerican, since America and Christianity go hand in hand and that was the way the Founding Fathers intended it to be.

646. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112113 by Paula Kirby on January 16, 2008 at 10:51 am

There's a link to the Tom Cruise video via this page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7191355.stm

647. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112111 by Paula Kirby on January 16, 2008 at 10:45 am

Perhaps we can salvage one lone ray of hope from this otherwise dismal story: at least this is confirmation from a conservative Christian that the American Constitution, as it currently stands, is NOT, after all, based on Christian values! Isn't this what we have been saying all along?! Surely such a concession could prove useful to us, if we use it properly?

648. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #111630 by Paula Kirby on January 15, 2008 at 7:58 am

Goldy: Our own Wee Flea told to cheer up :-)

It's better than that, Goldy - he's telling others in his church to cheer up! Imagine - the man who wrote The Dawkins Letters, which is full of how the devil is at work in the Earth - this same man feels entitled to tell others to cheer up!

Either he's showing a really remarkable lack of self-awareness, or the rest of the Wee Frees are even gloomier than he is. What a thought.

649. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111349 by Paula Kirby on January 14, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Dear George

How lovely to read about you on RichardDawkins.net. It's great to know we have the support of someone like you. Like everyone else here, I wish you all the very, very best for your forthcoming surgery and a full and speedy recovery.

I shall look out for your future letters to The Times with great interest. The more of us there are sticking up for common sense and reason, the better!

Paula xxx

650. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #111306 by Paula Kirby on January 14, 2008 at 9:16 am

Oh, no, wait - they get even better:

several million years for a monkey to turn into a man. oh wait thats right. monkeys dont live several million years.

Why didn't I think of that?