51. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152309 by gyokusai on March 30, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Here's an excellent article from the online edition of the renowned German news magazine Spiegel. Hopefully they'll release the article in English too; as soon as they do, I'll post the link:

Der Populist, der keiner ist von Henryk M. Broder

I'm too tired now for a paraphrase-translation, so if anyone else'd like to have a go at it, be my guest. It's pretty much the sentiment you'd expect to hear from most people posting here on the RD site.

^_^J.

52. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152296 by gyokusai on March 30, 2008 at 4:14 pm

irvine.intervention sez:

How do you see the sound of paper ripping - unless you're a synesthete?

Took 11 comments---way more than I expected! But it was worth the wait, for such a clever line. Thanks! :-)) [no irony, I mean it!]

^_^J.

53. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152287 by gyokusai on March 30, 2008 at 3:53 pm

"Behead those who say Islam is violent!"

That pic was a spoof.

^_^J.

54. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152278 by gyokusai on March 30, 2008 at 3:38 pm

In one scene,the sound of paper ripping can be seen as a reader pages through the Quran.

Directly followed by a written statement that the ripping sound was from a page ripped from the telephone book, and that it is up to Muslims themselves to "rip out" the violent passages from the Koran.

This is not an endorsement, I'm just telling.
^_^J.

55. Beware the Believers

Comment #152238 by gyokusai on March 30, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Brian sez:

I go on record as being very certain that this clever little vid is firmly on the side of pro-science. I shall be suitably embarrased, shocked and ruefully conscious (once again) of how easily I am enthused, if proven wrong:-)

Wholeheartedly sustained & supported.
I'd like to go on record with that too.

^_^J.

56. Beware the Believers

Comment #151960 by gyokusai on March 29, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Richard Dawkins sez:

Oh goodness, I'd hate it if anybody thought I didn't like it because I was being made fun of. I didn't even notice that I was being made fun of. I evidently understood so little that I actually felt quite flattered by my apparent role in the video.

Thank goodness! And yes there's reason to feel flattered, I think, even if you don't find it funny.

And it's not an age thing, I guess. My (atheist) mother couldn't stop laughing when I showed her the clip. My (atheist) father, same age as hers, reacted pretty much the same way you did. (I translated it up-front for both, I have to admit.) I guess it's rather a culture/generation/temperament thing than an age thing. [EDIT: my mother's always been more interested in and/or exposed to (by us children) outrageous contemporary fads than my father.]

Anyhow, how could it be an "age thing" when you just got a year younger again, dangit!!

;-)

Cheers,
gyokusai

57. Beware the Believers

Comment #151802 by gyokusai on March 29, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Richard Dawkins sez:

OK, thank you, now I'm starting to get it. I still don't find it funny but I'm starting to get the point. Sorry to be so slow.

Richard ---

Actually we should apologize here, namely for being totally inconsiderate. It is not us who are depicted here as a menacing, self-aggrandizing bully.

But consider this. Satire---which is seldom as "clear cut" as some posts here make it out to be after my first comment---often purports to speak from the very position it actually attacks. In fact, Swift, Defoe, and many other classical satirists often make it their point to pretend to take the "strawman position" the other side put up. And what I called the "wonderful, incredible, ever-moving, and awe-inspiring Scientific Method" is of course depicted here as the menacing "machine" that, in the deluded creationist mind, mindlessly suppresses deviating thought.

But they can't keep identifying with this fake strawman position for long. Try to watch the video from an ID perspective, and it becomes quite obvious why this piece doesn't show up on the ID camp's blogs: the purported position gets utterly busted from within.

But sorry, again. It's not our very image that's being put up and made fun of in the video.

^_^J.

58. Beware the Believers

Comment #151696 by gyokusai on March 29, 2008 at 8:18 am

When you read the lyrics critically as if you were reviewing a scientific paper or a piece of literature, and especially take linguistic patterns into account (not counting the rap form), there is no way in heck this video could have been made by anyone from the ID crowd.

Secondly, to reverse-quote Ripley from Aliens: "Did IQs just rise sharply (in the ID camp) after Richard and PZ left the 'Expelled' presentation?"

I admit the message is not entirely clear and certainly pokes a lot of fun at "us" too---but most satirical messages are not "clear" in this sense, which is precisely what satire is most often about---but one of the things that convinced me was the "machine" which is, as others have already pointed out, nothing but the wonderful, incredible, ever-moving, and awe-inspiring Scientific Method.

Over at Pharyngula, some people have thankfully updated the lyrics, i.e., Brian, MC Escher, Chris, Viscount (who pointed out the "Dawk" bit), and others. So here's an update: Enjoy!

[EDIT: And, hey, does this line sound "creationist" to anyone:
We might have lost at Scopes, beaten down by the dopes, and the stooges of popes, but in losin' we coped, becomin' more than we hoped, creationists slipped on the soap of their own slippery slope.
Not to me, it doesn't.]

My name is D to the I to C to the K, Yeah I'm the Dickie D,
I gots my PhD and comin' your way on the Youtube to bust your world view so just listen to me and don't you argue.

You see, this battle's been ragin' since Zeus was on the bottle, 'tween Science like Democritus and Faith like Aristotle,
who said the mover was unmovin' like some magic trick but
that's no good logic, my posse is far too quick for this
religious schtick.

Coz science is the only way to know y'all, you stand with me y'all, or you can fall y'all

So go ahead and take your pick...

ES: Yeah you tell him Rick ...
Darwin: Coz if you don't know me ...

RD: YOU DON'T KNOW DICK!!

Chorus: Yeah he's the Dick to the Dawk to the PhD,
he's smarter than you he's got a science degree!
Yeah he's the Dick to the Dawk to the PhD,
he's smarter than you he's got a science degree!

SH: On the shoulders of midgets we built up this machine,
DD: YEAH!!!

RD: Science silenced that watchdog wingnut Paley
growing stronger and harder almost daily, storming Wilber by force as we framed the discourse that faith and science are split in schismatic divorce.

Then Darwin took to the seas to see what no one had seen, and ever since then we've been increasingly keen, they may never adore us, but they'll no longer ignore us,

give it to 'em PZ hit these *BLEEP* with the chorus!!!

Chorus : Yeah he's the Dick to the Dawk to the PhD,
he's smarter than you he's got a science degree!
The Dick to the Dawk to the PhD,
he's still smarter than you he studied biology!


Then there was Darrow dukin' it out with the straight and the narrow,
a ragin' bull in the ring, he did his thing, and took it on the chin like he was Bobby De Niro.

We might have lost at Scopes, beaten down by the dopes, and the stooges of popes, but in losin' we coped, becomin' more than we hoped, creationists slipped on the soap of their own slippery slope.

What was impossible, improbable, is now wholly unstoppable untoppleable, the Dick Dawk'll roll up as you creationists foldup

you haters talkin' bull,
don't you know that this Dick is un-*BLEEP*-frickin' blockable ...

Chorus: Yeah he's the Dick to the Dawk to the phd,
he's smarter than you he's got a science degree!
The Dick to the Dawk to the phd,
he's still smarter than you he studied biology!

Now the machine of our making, sees culture ripe for the taking,

Coz I'm the rappinest, rabidest atheist who unlike the Catholic, Muslim, or even the Jew, believes that no God but science could ever be true, hell if I was dyslexic I'd even hate "dog" too.

Time to open your eyes, get yourself wise, the age of sciences'll rise to be religion's demise,

and while you churchies all cry, shouting 'why God oh why,'I'll still be poppin' my collar earning more dollars than Allah.

Hollah!

Chorus: Yeah he's the Dick to the Dawk to the phd,
he's smarter than you he's got a science degree!
The Dick to the Dawk to the phd,
he's still smarter than you he studied biology!

Chorus: Yeah he's the Dick to the Dawk to the phd,
he's smarter than you he's got a science degree!
The Dick to the Dawk to the phd,
he's still smarter than you he studied biology!

[repeat chorus]

^_^J.

59. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150687 by gyokusai on March 27, 2008 at 9:03 am

Richard, you keep making the world an even more interesting and fascinating place, and I wish you love, health, and everything to be able to keep doing that for many, many, many years to come.

Thank you for everything and Happy Birthday!

***^_^J.

60. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117341 by gyokusai on January 28, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Ultraviolet G sez:
>>HeyBishop

..do the thing with the knife!

Jinx! Only my first thought was:
HeyBishop ... do you need something else? ... Hello, Bishop?

^_^J.

61. Launch of 'Atheists in Foxholes' Book Anthology

Comment #116089 by gyokusai on January 25, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Yes, I also think it's not about flags or even countries, but for far more valuable things one should fight for and has fought for. And the Constitution was (and is) a good start. I really hope this project will take off.

^_^J.

62. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115203 by gyokusai on January 23, 2008 at 6:36 pm

al-rawandi sez:
gyokusai,

I sez, most Pigs are smarter than most of the religiose idiots wandering around the streets of any given country.

I hunt wild boar, because as of yet, it remains illegal to hunt the religiose (I am lobbying for a change).

You're totally right. Funny thing is, I never made that connection! So now I have a new argument in both of my arsenals---when I explain to people why I don't eat pork AND when I explain to people why I don't dig religion! LOL! Yessss ...

^_^J.

p.s. do you really hunt wild boar?

63. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115138 by gyokusai on January 23, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Steven Mading sez:
Without really good means of meat preservation, pork can be a rather dangerous meat. [...]
A lot of the kosher rules can be explained the same way. Even if the reason for them is bullcrap and the useful kosher rules are packaged inside of a lot of irrelevant 'junk' rules, the extreme cleanliness imposed by the rules does tend to increase survivability. So much like a DNA mutation that contains one useful gene packaged with several bits of "junk" DNA, the junk gets carried along with the useful part.

You nailed it. Though some other and rather esoteric reasons enter the equation as well, especially when it comes to the meat/cheese divide, they're rather "after the fact" and don't really count in this "evolutionary" sense. Well put, really.

Steven Mading also sez:
Pigs are just as forbidden under Jewish kosher rules as they are under Muslim rules.

So why don't they care about the Three Little Pigs offending Jews?

Answer: Jews don't have a history of reacting with outrage and violence toward those don't bother following Jewish religious rules. It's the same reason nobody gets worried that McDonalds might be offensive to Hindus who hold cows to be sacred.

Establish a history of irrational violent outrage toward those who do not abide by your religion's strictures and watch people bend over backward to accomodate you instead of telling you to knock it off.

I wish people who gave a damn about human rights would stand up to that crap.

Well you nailed that one too! I was just about to ask, hey, there's other folks who don't eat pork! So why Muslims, exactly!?! Thanks for reading my thoughts!

al-rawandi askz:
What about Jews and shellfish? Jews have the most curious dietary restrictions.

Well fish have to have scales and fins to be kosher, and shellfish seems somewhat challenged in that department. While that doesn't seem to have any explanatory force, many if not most of the kosher rules follow a completely different logic than what's healthy and what's not. No, that's not quite it, how shall I put it ... they follow an elegant logic in completely different realms. Ah, shikes. B.S., anyways! :-) (I don't eat pork either, though, but mainly because pigs are so smart. Hey, what about offending the pigs, come to think of it? They're smarter than dogs, cats, and horses together! They're the most intelligent domesticated species on earth! And I think they're cute. Really, I'm not kidding.)

^_^J.

64. Banned From Church

Comment #115128 by gyokusai on January 23, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Once, when the congregation voted out an adulterer who refused to repent, an older woman was confused and thought the church had voted to send the man to hell.

If there's something I'm going to remember from this article for quite a while, it's this. Truly bizarre.

Deepthought sez:
I brought this up with a "biblical literalist" because he supports war and he says that it is "Thou shalt not murder"
I wonder how this changes matters and what translation he is looking at?

Well, it's the Hebrew translation, from, er, Hebrew, actually. And yes, there's a big difference between killing and murdering. For further information, ask your local legal system. This is why it's okay to fight in a war or put people on deathrow, but not to shoot your neighbor for her new car or kill the president to impress Jodie Foster. (I'm not endorsing war or deathrow here, I'm just saying.) The thing I never understood is that it's okay for Christians to go to war or put people on deathrow because the King James Bible (or the Luther Bible, for that matter), always translates "thou shalt not kill." And they have all that other great advice about, like, turning the other cheek and stuff, too. Beats me!

^_^J.

65. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Comment #114782 by gyokusai on January 22, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Bah, Daily Garlic. Way too much testosterone for my taste, and BNCbright (#4) is right, that logic is garbled beyond repair. What this article lacks in braininess, it makes up for with cockiness, and in terms of witticism it went south pretty darn soon.

^_^J.

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

Comment #112557 by gyokusai on January 17, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Pathetic.

Then again: as far as I can guess, it would not be considered legal for public schools to go for something like Stein's Slime Money, but for Christian schools, sure, no problem. Which says a lot about nurturing Christian madrasahs in one's country! And wasn't the English government also promoting faith-based schools full throttle, recently?

All things considered, pathetic as it may be, it still spells d-o-o-m for science education.

°_°J.

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

Comment #111495 by gyokusai on January 14, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Thank you, George, heartfelt, for having fought for our freedom, and for still being at it on a different battlefield! Good luck for your upcoming surgery, and get well soon!

^_^J.

68. If You Open Your Mind Too Much Your Brain Will Fall Out

Comment #105300 by gyokusai on December 31, 2007 at 7:22 am

All right, all right. And yes, if it had been "husband," it might've been more funny. (Especially coming from a man.) But still! I might laugh about it freely and without thought in another 300 years or so when all this ownership stuff has really faded into history. But "husband" or "wife" is not a symmetric choice for such a joke either, given thousands of years of history packed with guys who "give" their wife to strangers or "lose" them at poker games, and such. The "I give you my wife" riff isn't exactly freshly squeezed. A far better way, b.t.w., to test whether a joke involving women might be somewhat dubious is to do some tweaking and replace them with blacks instead, which can be especially illuminating when you're black (I'm not, but my sister is.)

Yes, yes, I'm blowing this out of all proportions, but Minchin's skit was just to darn good for this ending!!! ;-)

^_^J.

69. If You Open Your Mind Too Much Your Brain Will Fall Out

Comment #104507 by gyokusai on December 28, 2007 at 4:58 pm

Hilarious, absolutely---but, alas, only up to and excluding his skit's last three words. Which is as Abrahamic/Patriarchal a phrase as it can get. Not funny.

^_^J.

70. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #98996 by gyokusai on December 15, 2007 at 6:18 am

Such seasonal opportunism continues to this day. In some states of the US, public display of cribs and similar Christian symbols is outlawed for fear of offending Jews and others (not atheists). [...] I am no lover of Christianity, and I loathe the annual orgy of waste and reckless reciprocal spending, but I must say I'd rather wish you "Happy Christmas" than "Happy Holiday Season".

In Europe, I think, this might be different again. When I worked for a free ads paper in the early nineties, for example, some people knew or at least surmised that I did not believe in God, and when my then-boss wished me the German equivalent of "Happy Holiday Season" instead of "Happy Christmas" with a genuine smile, I not only was totally delighted but suddenly felt enormously "accepted" in a way. Moreover, others from the staff who had not only overheard her "holiday" greeting but also registered the delight that had crossed my face, several weeks or months later came to me and asked me questions that I, again, was delighted to answer.

Here, the "Happy Holiday Season" greeting wasn't used at all to placate other beliefs; it even became a sort of "awareness" moment for atheism as such.

^_^J.

71. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94479 by gyokusai on December 5, 2007 at 6:04 pm

I'm pretty much used to thinking in terms of who could inflict the greatest possible damage and when and how---and although General Sir Richard Dannatt is a strong contender in this regard for reasons I don't want to go into, Archbishop Francisco Chimoio tops the list in the most ghastly way.

(Of course, the papal ban on condoms is helping millions along to their afterlife anyway, even w/o Chimoio ... but we should really exclude Pope Benedict XVI here so others have a chance, and give him an evilness life achievement award or something instead.)

^_^J.

72. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93625 by gyokusai on December 3, 2007 at 6:42 pm

Carl Champagne sez:
He seemed awfully afraid to let his kids see Hitch's book. How can you take someone seriously when they not only admit to denying their children access to knowledge, but are proud of it?

Do you really think he was serious? To me, he seemed rather deadpan.

^_^J.

73. Double-checking Dawkins

Comment #92908 by gyokusai on December 1, 2007 at 6:03 pm

BaronOchs wrote:
So it's true?
I feel strangely moved

Yes, it's true. It's really easy to figure out once you have the right idea where to look (which is hard, and which this guy had).

Bravo. To John, and to Richard! At the end of his inquiry, John writes:

So, while writing this famous text on evolution, Dawkins had time to poke around inside the Apple ][ ROM and write about it in his book.

Respect.

I love this, really, and I feel moved too.

^_^J.

74. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92099 by gyokusai on November 29, 2007 at 9:42 pm

Beth said:
Bravo gyokusai - you and a handful of others seem to be following the intent of the article. Others are allowing their personal 'feelings' about what they think is right or wrong. Richard is asking the question why, including people here, accept so readily the standards and myths handed down by our parents. I am sorry that people have gone through pain - love can be painful, there are no guarantees. However, we need to discuss whether or not there is evidence that individuals are incapable of loving more than one person. Richard is not talking about engaging in sex with just anyone, he is asking about whether people are able to love more than one person romantically - and if so, are there reasons to prohibit such love? As far as I know, there are no studies suggesting that people are incapable of loving more than one person at a time. Can anyone on this list present data that says otherwise?

Falling into the trap of 'how it feels' is not unlike religiosity. I 'feel' that god exists, therefore she must.

I am glad that there are people who are willing to discuss these taboo subjects, I am surprised that so many on this list have so missed the point of the article.

Thanks, Beth, you just sweetened my evening! :-) And now I have to hit the sack before the sun comes up, for a change. "Peace!" as Pat Condell would have it (but without the ironic twist), and bye for now!

^_^J.

75. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92078 by gyokusai on November 29, 2007 at 8:51 pm

The sheer amount of déjà vu I had while browsing through these comments on Richard's "Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster" amazes me. We have this brilliant section here on RD.net where we collect our collective wisdom on how to answer around 20 arguments made against atheism again and again and again ad nauseam. These arguments repeat themselves all the time not because all religious people are stupid (well many might be, of course, and those professional believers who should know better are either that or notorious liars) but because most of them just never really thought about it, and they all come up with the same set of clever questions because they have to make them up on the spot after a whole life of not really reflecting on it.

Now, the same happens here. I'd venture the guess that the majority of the people here have had the same vage and lifelong ideas about monogamy and jealousy as religious people have had about their beliefs. And the arguments against having a romantic/sexual relationship, and a responsible one at that, with more than one person at a time are equally destined to be made up on the spot after a whole life of not really having reflected on it at all.

And it is indeed about reflecting on it. In his essay, he says:
>>
I'm not denying the power of sexual jealousy. It is ubiquitous if not universal. I'm just wondering aloud why we all accept it so readily, without even thinking about it. And why don't we all admire --- as I increasingly do --- those rare free spirits confident enough to rise above jealousy, stop fretting about who is "cheating on" whom, and tell the green-eyed monster to go jump in the lake?
>>

Mind, it's not about free love, it's not about swinging, it's not about sleeping around. It's about having a romantic, responsible, erotic, trusting, and truthful relationship with more than one person, okay?

Now, as a kind of thought experiment, try to imagine 20 or so stock arguments monogamists would come up with again and again, and if it dawns on you that your own ad-libs might very well be among them, well, don't be surprised!

It doesn't mean you have to embrace the concept of polyamory for your own personal life: but please approach the concept of monogamy and jealousy with the same rational thought and astuteness and skepticism you're used to approaching religious beliefs.

76. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91979 by gyokusai on November 29, 2007 at 4:28 pm

If it doesn't work, that's one thing, but to deceive and nurture a new relationship without leaving the old one... I think that's just wrong.

Totally true. And also, it has nothing to do with polyamory, and equally nothing to do with having "seen it fail." But of course: you have every right to believe what you want to believe. Take care, ^_^J.

77. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91962 by gyokusai on November 29, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Brilliant book, but this article? Has Mrs Dawkins read it?

It can't come more condescending than that. Maybe you'd like to write Ms. Dawkins an email? In case she hasn't put a gumshoe on Richard's trail? Hurry, before it's too late!

78. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91951 by gyokusai on November 29, 2007 at 3:53 pm

@home8896:
Well I would think there had been a third way for her to act between these extremes ... to say the least. But what you say about how you've been hurt: no, forget "insecure." With all due respect to your husband, this is exactly the way _not_ to behave in polyamory. I don't want to delve into the details here, but you have every right to feel the way you feel. (Actually, if I were a friend of his, I'd kick his ass so hard he'd join the green-eyed monster in the lake with a splash.) I'm really sorry, and I sincerely hope he can make up for that, some time.

79. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91944 by gyokusai on November 29, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Where exactly does Richard endorse cheating here? Or breaking promises? By the way: loving more than one person doesn't exempt you from the obligation to not commence cheating or not keeping promises in the least. On the contrary!

Loving more than one person is _all about_ consent, openness, and responsibility.

In the RD forum my signature says, "maximum freedom, maximum responsibility"---it mightn't be obvious, but it also pertains, besides living a life free from religion, living a life without making those you love your personal property, even if it seems to them that they want it that way. Or becoming someone else's property, for that matter.

The principle of loving more than one person, with all the extra responsibility involved, is---I would think---another deeply ethical enterprise that, confusingly, can only be achieved _against_ the massive resistance of all these religions brim-filled with "piece and love."

80. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91912 by gyokusai on November 29, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Others have already made the point, but I would indeed rather think that the Oral Office Incident should be discussed less in terms of (private) sex but in terms of (public) power and the possible abuse involved.

But howsoever and whatever the case may be: what Richard says here about jealousy and love would make him MY PERSONAL HERO if he didn't happen to have attained that status already, and quite some time ago!

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you ...

81. Discover plagiarism at the Discovery Institute

Comment #91089 by gyokusai on November 27, 2007 at 7:22 am

Career, LOL!

(You mean when he dies and goes to heaven?)

^_^J.

82. 'Growing Up in the Universe' now available free online

Comment #87932 by gyokusai on November 13, 2007 at 5:06 pm

This is so cool. Thank you very much!!! *smooch* :-))

^_^J.

EDIT:
Guess the servers are flat on their backs right now, each with an M1 Abrams on top. Can't even get the entry page to load fully, not to speak of the videos! Well ... 'twas to be expected, wasn't it.

83. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #84930 by gyokusai on November 4, 2007 at 9:20 am

This is really despicable. And it comes from the same mindset, I think, that revels in the religious indoctrination of children.

^_^J.

84. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81358 by gyokusai on October 24, 2007 at 4:12 pm

D'Souza is a dangerous and very eloquent demagogue, and he will not be the last one to be so. Dangerous, that is. The atheist "onslaught" came as a surprise for these people, but they're beginning to shape up.

With people like D'Souza, you can't just do your brilliant routine and hope to be clear and witty and logical enough to appeal to an audience crammed with people who professionally or by calling refuse to think rationally. Not with debaters like D'Souza you can't.

You have to prepare your act in advance, check your opponent's speeches, writings, and arguments. And then go for the kill. Like in, say, sports. I was pretty sure Hitch wouldn't look too good (some overconfidence plus these loads of shit from D'Souza you can't possibly refute in detail in time), and he didn't. And RD wouldn't take on any ID nutcase on principle. But, with some preps and pre-tunings of his sights, I'm pretty sure Sam Harris would be able to show D'Souza the door.

85. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81149 by gyokusai on October 24, 2007 at 9:18 am

"I hate to say I told you so"---it's pretty much what I expected in my posting on the Shermer vs. D'Souza debate thread, and that it's not going to be a walk in the park for Hitch. (I predicted that D'Souza would look way better because (a) Hitch is prone to becoming overconfident at times and (b) D'Souza has a way of shoveling shit at you in such quantity and frequency that you just can't "argue" against him; at least not within your allotted time during a debate).

Maybe this looks better on video, but I doubt it.

*sigh*

86. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80728 by gyokusai on October 22, 2007 at 8:24 pm

Well, concerning the upcoming debate between D'Souza and Hitch I'd rather hedge my bets. Hitch can be overconfident at times---especially _because_ he is so often so brilliant. And D'Souza is among the worst demagogues around. On average, D'Souza slaps 3 semi-truths, 2 outright lies, 5 preposterous innuendoes, 1 logically upside-down argument, and 2 outrageously misrepresenting rephrasings from his previous speaker's argument into an extended phrase, and he usually gets away with it. Why? Because exposing only one such phrase in detail, it would take even the most brilliant debater half the allotted time. You are just drowned in shit that is shoveled at you in spades. You can't argue against D'Souza, with brilliance or without.

So what would it take? Sadly, it would take someone who does not give a dang about the debate or the topic, but solely sets out to rip D'Souza apart. Nothing else will do. You'd always pick with great precision only the weakest assertion or rhetorical figure from his argument, whatever it is, hand it back to him complete with his ass, and let him look plain silly. Then do that again and again. And again.

I don't think anyone of our "heroes" would be able or willing to degrade themselves in such a fashion. They would try to argue. Which would not work with D'Souza, and D'Souza would, most likely, come out of it unscathed and look like a winner.

87. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #72643 by gyokusai on September 22, 2007 at 4:18 am

For almost a week now, the beyondbelief2006.org server can't be found, and the torrent-link doesn't get started, even after waiting for ages.

Has anyone had access to either since, say, mid September 2007?

EDIT1: Seems the torrent-link is just picky; I tried another client, and now it works. But the beyondbelief2006.org site seems truly down ...

EDIT2: Hooray---beyondbelief2006.org is online again, after having been offline, for all practical purposes, for almost a week.

Might as well drop this comment now, but then again ... maybe someone has an explanation, after all.