1. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #168436 by Aequitas12345 on April 25, 2008 at 6:31 am

He has every right to express himself freely and i support his right to do so.

2. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100242 by Aequitas12345 on December 18, 2007 at 12:17 pm

84. Comment #100237 by marshall1

Really? Did you just post that? I guess you failed to miss the entire discussion regarding the ignorance of the interviewer, who completely failed to understand Dawkins' sex analogy.

Do you know what analogy means?

3. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100215 by Aequitas12345 on December 18, 2007 at 11:43 am

Thank you debaser71, i was just about to say the same.

4. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100200 by Aequitas12345 on December 18, 2007 at 11:29 am

68. Comment #100187 by Rtambree

Sort of unrelated. Your comment reminds me of Hitchens' comments that "Charity is an insult to the poor"; that its an elitist, 'feel-good' passtime of the upper-middle.

5. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100184 by Aequitas12345 on December 18, 2007 at 11:09 am

steve99,

I'll give you the public educator argument. I know that not everyone has seen everything the internet has to show on Dawkins, like i have.

However, you say "Of course, but that is to be expected. Most of the public is not well-informed about evolution and rational thinking". This is not the public. This interviewer is supposed to be(in my opinion of CBC, SHOULD be) an educated, rational and unbiased journalist. Instead he sets up this qseudo-debate with Dawkins on 'his' Sunday program.

Stating that 'its to be expected' is an huge cop out with regards to the standards of broadcasting and journalistic quality in Canada. And I, being Canadian, expect better from my news networks.

--

I do agree that Dawkins did a great job and agree with you that it is not needed that he is sheltered from any questions. He can and has stood up to all the religious bombardment there is to be bombarded with. However, complaining about the questioner, I think, serves to increase the quality of rational debate and discourse between the religious and non-religious.

6. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100171 by Aequitas12345 on December 18, 2007 at 10:44 am

Evan Solomon... Canada's Bill O'Reilly in the making?

7. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100168 by Aequitas12345 on December 18, 2007 at 10:40 am

Some of his comments like the following show immense arrogance and lack of understanding:

"...some serotonin uptake, or some dopamine..."

his lack of comprehension of Dawkins' meaning of "a misfiring" of his Darwinian impulse,

"horny to do good works?"

"...are you demeaning the charitable impulse, which some would say, lies at the heart of religion?"

"...inability to explain good charitable works"



Sorry steve99, but i do not see how 'addressing such common questions' is productive. I dont agree that the interviewer was asking 'blunt' questions, he was asking ill-informed and arrogant questions. And I don't see how this in any way makes us (non-believers or Canadians) appear insecure.

Mine is simply a comment on poor CBC journalism.

8. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100150 by Aequitas12345 on December 18, 2007 at 10:00 am

steve99,

I am all for rigorous debate and opposition of ideas. I am referring specifically to Mr Solomons attempt to undermine RDs knowledge of evolution, even social evolution, his completely unoriginal questions ("You're not going to bring out Hitler and Stalin again are you?") and his complete failure to bring anything other than the 'religion does good for people/society' argument.

I expected a much more intelligent interview from CBC.

9. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100136 by Aequitas12345 on December 18, 2007 at 9:37 am

Very embarrassing to be Canadian. I wrote CBC to comment on the interviewer, Mr Evan Solomon, and his embarrassing behavior.

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/hosts.html

I also found this information illuminating:

"Born in Toronto, Solomon graduated from McGill University with a joint B.A. in English literature and religious studies. In addition, he has a masters in religious studies from McGill."

10. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99718 by Aequitas12345 on December 17, 2007 at 11:56 am

This was a great Christmas present.

Man is Hitchens great. And to anyone who thinks poorly of him, I would suggest reading Letters to a Young Contrarion.

And everyone should give up this obsession about Hitchens' drinking. Theres nobody that can handle a drink as well as he can.

11. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98240 by Aequitas12345 on December 13, 2007 at 10:41 am

I can't believe they bleeped things out. In a discussion regarding Free Speech as one of its central topics?

Does anyone know what was said?

12. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98211 by Aequitas12345 on December 13, 2007 at 9:16 am

Thank you Rtambree.

13. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98177 by Aequitas12345 on December 13, 2007 at 7:58 am

Does anybody know of a working link to this? I can't watch it in IE or Firefox.

Please, for the love of Allah, help me.

14. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81789 by Aequitas12345 on October 25, 2007 at 7:25 am

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/bloggers/dinesh-dsouza/

He must of advertised at his Church.



I see people saying that Hitchens is not fit to debate D'Souza. I completely disagree. I doubt he was drunk, or under the weather. To me, he seemed very nonchalant about the whole situation. Lets see this happen again, in a structured debate more familiar to Hitchins; one where the chance is given to rebut until the argument comes to a natural close.

Perhaps Hitchens & Dawkins vs D'Souza & McGrath.

I think with Hitchens fervor and Dawkins' expertise, no debater would really stand a chance... assuming an appropriately structured debate. Perhaps slightly longer than the usual 1 hour + question and answer.

15. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81210 by Aequitas12345 on October 24, 2007 at 12:15 pm

On Comment #6: "engaging in debates with these con-men are doing atheists no good. "

Dawkins wont debate regarding Intelligent Design as he does not want it to be seen as a "Science". Dawkins does take part in religious debates.

I do agree that D'Souza may feel validated by simply engaging in debate with Hitchens, but written arguments are only read by so many people and can only go so far. There does need to be a push Vocally against theism, IMHO.

16. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81208 by Aequitas12345 on October 24, 2007 at 12:11 pm

On Comment #4:

Syllogistic fallacy

17. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81205 by Aequitas12345 on October 24, 2007 at 12:08 pm

I'm fairly certain D'Souza's debate consisted of many ad hominems directed at Hitchens.

For example, after cutting Hitchens off, D'Souza then blasts him for not citing every example of secular crimes against humanity. How is that constructive? How is that not seen as a childish and immature tactic?

18. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81184 by Aequitas12345 on October 24, 2007 at 11:10 am

I really wish D'Souza would educate himself in rational arguments and critical thinking.

A little disappointing that Hitchens didn't tear him in half, instead adopting a defensive/passive approach. Especially in the face of so many ad hominem arguments directed at him.

Frustratingly biased and poorly structured 'debate'.