1. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179233 by AllanW on May 13, 2008 at 12:19 am

It's waaaaaay past time;

Teratornis! Paging Teratornis! Your prescence is requested on a thread to do with oil prices! Teratornis! Oh! wherefore art thou, Teratornis?

2. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177390 by AllanW on May 9, 2008 at 2:21 am

Quite astonishing.

Firstly, well done Richard. Pithy, sharp, a good performance. Entirely appropriate and well delivered. Really well thought-through to put Humphreys on the sharp end and get the reaction you did.

As for Murphy O'Connor's rambling nonsense, what else have we come to expect from this desperate, caged old man protecting his privileges? But to mis-speak (the new Clinton addition to our vocabulary) by citing 'reason' rather than atheism as he did is a bad slip. I hear the sound of a coffin-nail thudding home.

He'd be well advised to clarify this by the end of the day or it'll become a news story in itself.

Once again, well done today, Richard.

3. Trouble ahead for science

Comment #177379 by AllanW on May 9, 2008 at 1:58 am

Comment #177244 by discipline

I entirely agree with your analysis. Well said.

4. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177376 by AllanW on May 9, 2008 at 1:54 am

Styrer; lighten up, man. This is no big deal. And that's why Dawkins' response was apposite; he laughingly swatted a fly, barely deserving of attention in a cool, clear manner.

Maybe our views of this are a cultural thing; I'd rather see this kind of response than a serious, meaningful point-by-point shredding because quite frankly Boteach is a ridiculous circus performer who deserves no more time spent on him.

The anti-semitism charge needs no more time spent upon it than Dawkins gave it; it is plainly fallacious. If you react in one way only to every snipe you constrain yourself to predictability; Dawkins is becoming more adept at sorting the attacks he needs to spend time upon from the ones he can dismiss laughingly.

My two cents.

5. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177355 by AllanW on May 9, 2008 at 1:04 am

Bravura performance here by Dawkins. The odious little man was treated with contempt and ridicule for his ignorance of evolution but couched in a polite and jocular manner. I think that hits the right tone for a shallow, shrill clown like Boteach.

6. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177075 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Richard, good luck for tomorrow. I know you have the training and the techniques for this kind of thing but remember;

- soundbites, soundbites, soundbites

- short, pithy answers.

For everyone else;

You may feel that this medium and style does not do justice to the answers that can be made to the drivel from Murphy O'connor and you'd be right. Given a choice we'd all rather see an extended debate either on a stage or in writing to do justice to the ideas, their formulation and articulation. But this is an opportunity to reach a wide public and the medium forces compromises. We should take the chances that our opponents provide us (the article above is classic non-speak) because waiting for it to be a perfect chance may mean we wait in vain.

7. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177027 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Richard, in my opinion you should do the programme. But use this non-speech as just a hanger for the points you might like to make. How radical this mans pronouncements have been lately and how disturbing it is that he has tried to use his religious organisation to coerce politicians into anti-scientific votes in the House of Commons may be just a few things to mention but I'm sure you have many more apposite ones yourself. After all, this is what the politicians who go on the programme do all the time :)

8. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176845 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 6:51 am

(stands up suddenly) "No! I'm Gladys!. erm .."

Doesn't sound the same does it?

9. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176802 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 4:45 am

Comment #176800 by ASMarques

'I'll be glad to debate with you any points you wish if you'll be kind enough to organise a little better your texts in the following way:'

You seem to have misunderstood; you have been debating the entire site on this issue for more than a month now.

'Don't quote me in your words (snip) Quote me in my words'

I have consistently done so by using quotation marks (see for example the first phrase in this post and the quote above).

'It's not comfortable at all for me to go looking for something you attribute to me in less than exact words.'

I repeat; every time I quote you the phrase is in quotation marks and every time I paraphrase the difference is clear and obvious. Stop wriggling.

'Don't spend so much time discussing my bad character as you see it'

I have made one post on this topic, my last one. It was made as a result of having analysed your arguments and the data presented and concluding that the only missing piece, for me, was your motivation. You kindly provided that, thank you (comment #164730; 'Do you think it may have something to do with a naked fear of what the Jews may do to you?')

Goodbye.

10. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176760 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 1:01 am

Nicely said JimJ.

11. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176757 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 12:52 am

Another hopeless mishmash of obfuscation, denial and avoidance was presented by ASMarques. To pick just a few hilarious moments (remember, it's not necessary to debunk delusional viewpoints in detail but just to underline them);

ASMarques;
'It's naturally difficult to come up with precise statistics after so much obfuscation, with no real official investigation ever done on the subject, but I would consider '

An interesting revelation of your duplicity here in two ways. You very soon chide Teratornis for asking why virtually all historians accept that there were mass killings of Jews by stating that very few have actually done any real investigation into original references (totally ignoring the accepted premise that, unlike science, historical research can and does rely on reputable investigation without having to 'repeat' the experiments/investigation to verify the results). And secondly, in response to your passionate plea for belief contained in the quote above, I'm sure you won't fail to link to your own original research that allows you to so confidently say that 'you consider'. I'm sure you have it rather than, as you have exclusively done so far in justifying your outlandish views, relying upon other peoples' views. That would be hypocritical wouldn't it?

You then launch into another extensive diatribe about your views but we've seen it all before; repetition can be a signal of deep-seated conflict, can't it?

Yet then direct me to one of your previous messages which you aver covers your reasons for being a Holocaust denier;

- you are an ardent seeker of the 'truth'
- you believe that virtually all historians live in genuine fear of what Jews will do to them if they question the accepted history. (see comment #164730)

I have no problem with laughing loudly at your first claim. You have provided more than enough instances of obfuscation, lying, duplicity and plain craven ignorance in your posts (including the last few) for everyone else to join me in the laughter as well.

Your second point is more troubling. Not for me but for you. I've attempted to have an open mind up to this point but now you put yourself clearly in the tinfoil hat brigade. Teratornis compiled a list of popular conspiracy theories a while back and I'm sorry to say that I refrained from joining in with the general view that you should be lumped into that category. However if, as you state, your whole reason for pursuing this denial position is a belief in a Zionist conspiracy then, I'm sorry, but I too shake my head and leave you to your own mind.

A final quote from you;

'Denial of what? "Denial," just like that? Isn't the denied matter interesting any longer? Is the magic word too powerful to be pronounced by the lesser believers further away from the Holy of Holies?'
As I said at the beginning, sometimes it's only necessary to underline not debunk lunatic positions.

12. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176345 by AllanW on May 7, 2008 at 7:43 am

'That's no way to live life if you ask me. What I fear is intolerance, not someone's fantasy life.'

You deliberately misunderstand and project; shame on you. And I didn't ask you. My life is not filled with fear mainly bacause I don't believe in hellfire and damnation and an eternity in hell as most religious believers (as you put it) do.

On the contrary, my life is pleasant, filled with good things and joys; the only black cloud being religious believers thrusting their dogma into public life and into mine as well; how intolerant is that?

BTW you really should fear someones fantasy life when it starts to affect their real life. Reason and rationality are a good defence against this kind of delusional behaviour; you should try them sometime.

13. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176325 by AllanW on May 7, 2008 at 7:13 am

seeker_of_truth;

'No evidence that your little scared-shitless-of a-deity that you don't believe exists brain can bear to consider.
'

LOL! You fool, we aren't afraid of any god; they don't exist. We ARE, however, afraid of the irrational behaviour of their followers here on earth; they are truly fecking scary :(

14. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176286 by AllanW on May 7, 2008 at 5:47 am

ASMarques;

I've read your posts for the last month or so, read the links you have provided and tried to understand your point of view. Yet I'm absolutely flummoxed by why you want to believe that no mass deaths of Jews occurred.

You position (cutting-through the obvious paranoia) is summarised as;

1. Some Jews still live who were at the camps or were interred by the Nazis therefore they didn't all die.

2. There is no documentary evidence that you are willing to accept that shows every dead body that was created in the Nazi era so you don't believe that vast numbers did die.

3. There are sufficient anomalies between contemporary accounts (whenever are there not?) for you to dismiss that a mass extermination ever occurred in reality and therefore it is all a big hoax. Perpetrated by Nazis, Jews and anybody who aligns themselves with these people. And this hoax is maintained now through constant repetition without reference to any evidence at all.

You plainly believe this holocaust-denial position but my question to you is why? You are not unintelligent; you can plainly read and discover evidence; you are equally plainly interested in something (bordering upon obsessively interested) but it seems to me that this 'something' is not the Holocaust.

Would you care to address the 'why' question, please? I have no further interest in anything you can say, write or link to as regards the Holocaust itself; you have dismally failed to persuade me of your case. I'm only interested in your mental state and motivations for your denial position.

Thanks.

15. Life after Jehovah's Witnesses: website offers help to followers who lose their faith

Comment #175759 by AllanW on May 6, 2008 at 1:55 am

Congratulations to this lady and her fellow helpers both for getting out of this sect and for setting-up this facility.

If people are unsure what they can concretely do to help in the battle for rationality and reason then spend some time helping at one of these groups or just support them with money. The repayment is immense but insubstantial :)

16. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175305 by AllanW on May 5, 2008 at 6:50 am

Comment #175297 by The Smart Patrol

'perplexing that someone who can get things so spectacularly wrong can have had such a long career in television. OK, maybe I'm just being a tad naive here!'

In comparison to someone hanging around this site with an open mind and an interest in the topics raised, most other people will not have the data or viewpoint to feel comfortable.

As for being a tad naive, I wouldn't be so harsh on you :). However I've not bothered wasting my time with mass-media outlets for about ten years now and feel I'm much better briefed as a result. It takes effort and diligence but there are good news sources out there with commentary that is thoughtful and intelligent on any topic you care to take an interest in.

In retrospect, all I'm doing is recreating for myself my own news channel or newspaper that is respected, thoughtful and stimulating; you know, like television or the broadsheets used to be before journalistic standards dropped so far.

Don't forget; any source or site must be evaluated frequently. I fell into the trap once of rating a site as worthwhile but over time its quality deteriorated; just a friendly warning :)

17. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175285 by AllanW on May 5, 2008 at 5:27 am

I'm chuckling to myself here while reading the last few comments about this interviewer. The points are well made but the tone is of injured frustration. What standard of thoughtful and intelligent interview are you expecting? This it television, in the daytime!

This lady's job is to present entertaining, superficial topics while most people are out at work; I think the final comments we see are revealing as to what market the programme is aiming at; go back and see what the upcoming segments address :)

I thought she did a better job than most American stations have done in allowing RD to get his points across without skewing the questions in an obnoxious way (you prefer Fox's blatant prejudice?), better than most of the UK programmes that RD appears on (the risible 'debate format' studio ones are cringe-making) and as measured as it's reasonable to expect from a mass-media outlet.

RD did a good job here in the circumstances but I expect nothing more from this kind of format other than introducing the topics to a wider audience.

18. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #175275 by AllanW on May 5, 2008 at 4:39 am

Re; Comment #175271 by Peacebeuponme

'to promote him here alongside the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens does not seem right to me'. There is a value judgement here that you need to detail. 'Right' implies this; you need to expand the point.

'his pretty simple smug routine would be vulnerable to any decent theist'. Again, you need to show where, with particular reference to details of his speeches, this would be true.

'I think him being promoted here lessens the impact of Richard'. I'm unclear how this is so (as you assert). Please explain.

'promoting him so plainly on the homepage is the wrong thing to be doing I think.' In what way 'wrong'? How do you arrive at this conclusion?

I'm not having a go, PBUM :) but am genuinely interested in understanding how and why you (and some others posters) think the way you do. I'd be even more interested in how you justify your position with regard to these videos.

19. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175250 by AllanW on May 5, 2008 at 2:27 am

Re; Comment #175245 by Ian

Another good post, mate. Thanks.

20. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #175243 by AllanW on May 5, 2008 at 1:53 am

Re; Comment #175191 by Caudimordax

Good point but plainly not all can tell the difference :)

21. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #175104 by AllanW on May 4, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Ok PBUM, you don't find him funny; is that your only problem with Condell? Or do you disagree with the fact that the RDFRS has decided to promote his videos in this way?

22. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174095 by AllanW on May 1, 2008 at 3:50 pm

FightingFalcon
'I don't know what the future holds for the educational levels of our people'. Again, maybe too narrow a view; if you are thinking of the US I would agree with you. There is a problem over there (from what I can see and people who are more informed in detail tell me) that has been going on for two generations and I see no end to it. But look at Europe; still high standards and continuing to creep upwards. Even better, look to the east. India, southeast Asia and especially China. As a species the level of educational attainment-torch has passed to these areas.

'The American election has become a god damned popularity contest and it pisses me off.' Hehe. Yep, 'Election Idol' seems to be about the level of it. Not that much better over here TBH.

'If you want a good satirical movie, watch Idiocracy. That movie accurately portrays where I think the human race is going.' Saw it; quite funny. But I disagree; from what I can see only the US is headed in that direction; most of the rest of us are not. Sorry to say that but it seems obvious to me.

Back on the main point; 'I know that Atheists by nature believe in the progression of mankind but I'm not sure if I can share that sentiment.' Put this the other way around; are you telling me that any African, Asian or Polynesian child, taken at birth to a western first-world economy, lavished with health-care, nutrition and educational opportunities and given the benefit of not having to scrape a subsistence living from the age they can toddle, would not do as well as you or I have done in the same circumstances? I see no inherent lack in their ability to do this, just a difference in the circumstances of their existence.

We truly are the lucky ones.

23. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174010 by AllanW on May 1, 2008 at 12:27 pm

FightingFalcon
I think you may be too despondent about the state of democracy (in both our countries atm :)) and with good reason. But take a little wider view.

One hundred and fifty years ago you and I would not be able to have this conversation; that has nothing to do with the internet or the medium we use. It has everything to do with the fact that as the children of non-elites (I'm making an assumption about you here, sorry if it's wrong) we would have had better than a fifty-fifty chance of not making it to our teens. We would not have had any formal education. We would not have had basic healthcare (in whatever form but don't get me started on the US's inability to care for three million un-insured poor people in your country grrrr). We would be broken in body through work, disease and lack of prospects by our mid-thirties if we even made it that far.

We have these things now because nobler people than I will ever be fought for these basics for all people. I'm very, very grateful for that and want to continue that trend of progress for the vast majority of humankind. I'd like to think that the potential in me (that has been realised only as a result of the advantages I've received by being born in a country like mine in this time) is present in all people. I'm nothing special but have been able to do things, think thoughts and affect the lives of others in a positive way as a result of these benefits. I think that others can too if we give them the same start in life.

Diacanu said it best above; Enlightenment is not a minority right. It can be available for all. In that set of circumstances (still not optimal I grant you) I think democracy can work.

Yeah, I know; I'm an idealist.

24. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #173652 by AllanW on May 1, 2008 at 3:31 am

'A few seconds thought would have exposed this philosophy as the idiocy that it is.'

And a few more seconds' thought may have led you to the conclusion that it was used ironically. Sigh.

25. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #173640 by AllanW on May 1, 2008 at 2:50 am

'Allan, I have to say if Condell is thoughtful I'm the Dalai Lama.' You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I disagree (BTW how's the civil insurrection going?). I lol'd at your comment anyway :)

'He does not like people from cultures or with beliefs different to his own "invading" his White Britain. He makes the rest of us look bad.' This may be the difference between us; I hear him talk about deluded, fundamentalist fools and people who demonstrably seek to impose their misogynistic viewpoint upon a wider audience. You plainly hear xenophobic ranting. Why the difference? And as for the 'making the rest of us look bad' idea, I'm sorry but I don't accept that; there is no defined 'movement' yet for him to be a mouthpiece or figure-head. If anything does exist I would think that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett et all are in the queue for recognition before Condell so what exactly is your problem? Because if you are seeking some sort of membership criteria or evaluation panel to judge a members' acceptability to the movement before being able to express their views then you have missed the point of reason and rationality. I'm sure you haven't though.

'Even when I agree with him, (which happens) there are so many others who have said it so much better than him' Agreed but why criticise someone who is doing it in merely a different format or manner? It all addresses the same issues but may be more successful than some of the others in reaching parts of the population. That's my main point; he adds to the messages reaching the ether (and hopefully causing some thoughts to occur) rather than not. I don't see the downsides of his type of message as being greater than the upsides. So on balance, worthwhile.

26. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173619 by AllanW on May 1, 2008 at 1:02 am

FightingFalcon
I understand your impulse to look at other forms of government, my friend; it's natural when you see the mess most democratic contries make of its operation. But don't you think that democracy would work well enough if the vast majority (you'll always have a small percentage of the population that cannot fully participate in the process) of people had better basic education? Most of your, quite accurate, observations would be obviated if this were made a priority.

I know, call me a dreamer.

27. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #173615 by AllanW on May 1, 2008 at 12:34 am

I don't think Condell gives any topic the tabloid treatment; he's far more thoughtful than that. Maybe people have started to equate straightforward delivery (possibly equated with politically motivated stand-up comedy) with unthinking ranting. I'd suggest they re-examine his videos. His points are clear and though you may disagree with them they are thoughtfully constructed and hit very vulnerable areas of peoples' preconceptions or biases.

After reviewing a couple of his videos last night I'm irresistibly reminded by some of the contributions to this thread of his point in one of them; he gets criticism from atheists that his talks are xenophobic rantings and are too simple, un-nuanced and will not convert any people to atheism. As he points out, they prefer to indulge themselves in paternalistic, rational debates with religiots who do not even accept the premise of reason and rationality. In other words they have a nice hobby for themselves to feel good about while the real world exhibits further religious bigotry and horrors that they carefully insulate themselves from.

I agree with him on that point.

28. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172966 by AllanW on April 30, 2008 at 8:03 am

And it never ceases to surprise me that strong and clear views (always based upon actual events) about the reality of developing situations are slurred and labelled by people who present themselves as more concerned for oppressed people than you are. What egotism!

29. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172758 by AllanW on April 30, 2008 at 3:49 am

Re: comment #172756 Corylus

Exactly. I'd urge joining the NSS as well.

30. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172752 by AllanW on April 30, 2008 at 3:36 am

PJG; LOL!

31. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172743 by AllanW on April 30, 2008 at 3:06 am

I'll be buying this (but only when it's in a different format). Condell's incendiary rants are a vent for some on our side to associate themselves with sentiments expressed as forcefully as they are that they themselves may feel unable to express.

There was an interesting mention of good manners earlier. My grandmother had a saying on manners in public;

"If you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all."

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

Comment #171869 by AllanW on April 29, 2008 at 12:57 am

I share some of Terotornis' misgivings about this thread and would tend to concur with him that his observations, while frequently interesting in themselves (I don't agree with many of them but find them stimulating), touch on issues or are phrased in such a way that many posters here lapse into unthinking responses. I think it's true of a number of other interesting threads as well. The tinge of sadness I detect in Teratornis' last few posts (and that I share to some degree) is for the lost potential of the discussion.

He made a number of observations but I'd single out one to stress; as a self-advertised 'clear-thinking oasis' I think RD could be disappointed sometimes to observe the lack of thinking going on. Pick this thread or a few others of late; go through the posts and categorise them with a simple label of 'Makes substantive, thoughtful points' or 'Makes mainly an emotional response'; compare the totals. What level of emotional to substantive are you happy with? I suggest to you that we are closer to achieving the implied objective of this site with a proportion slightly further away from the emotional/group-bonding end of the spectrum and slightly closer to the 'inspecting and discussing the issue at hand' end than appears to me to exist at the moment.

I'm not advocating for a second that we all become Vulcan. I'm not disparaging emotional responses to the issues posted as threads here. I'm not for a moment underestimating the warmth and enjoyment that a growing sense of community can bring and which is fostered by simple, personal expressions and mutually-supportive posts. Interactions on an emotional level are vital to foster a sense of humanity and community. I've never felt more a part of this community than when, picking a few examples at random, we were responding to wooter/clear mind at the start of his postings or being thrilled at the initial posting of Paula's 'flea bytes' write-up or laughing uproariously at irate_atheist and The Reverend Shayne Dark's inventive, incendiary invective. I love that stuff.

But I would also enjoy exploring in a thoughtful manner many issues such as free speech. That started to happen on this thread; I thought the discussion that was developing was interesting. Yet it stopped. Nothing of any substance has been posted since Sunday morning (GMT). Why? Form your own opinions (if your interested) but my two pennorth is that two things happened; many vocal posters felt impelled to contribute but did so in an unthinking, knee-jerk manner posting their emotional response which was at odds with the deliberately thoughtful 'let's have a rational discussion about this' nature of the set-up. And then the normal group-hug/love-fest took over.

I'm not decrying this; I indulge in this behaviour as well sometimes but consider this; we were getting some substantive contributions from posters that I don't see a lot of around here. That's important. And I felt that by skating over the troubling and difficult nature of the subject and moving onto some fluffy, comfy mutual-appreciation posts we stifled the opportunity for them to contribute more (and maybe frustrated some readers who hadn't commented yet?).

33. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169879 by AllanW on April 27, 2008 at 3:09 am

Re; comment 169877 Steve Zara.

That's the clearest explanation of Rapture motivation I've read. Thanks.

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

Comment #169868 by AllanW on April 27, 2008 at 2:25 am

ZekeCDN; I'm happy to acknowledge the situation as you outlined completely. And it just adds weight to your later comment (which I equally agree with) that the best route forward is to ensure we spend time and effort making sure these support mechanisms are in place where they may be deficient at the moment that help vulnerable individuals cope. Not unnecessarily restricting everybodies ability to express themselves even if this means supporting their right to express repugnant ideas.

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

Comment #169856 by AllanW on April 27, 2008 at 1:39 am

Good morning everyone.

Interesting points by ImagineAll. School as a place of happiness and safety? No; learning and preparation for the real world.

'Either allow them both or don't allow both of them- the double standard is ridiculous' I agree; what are the rules and how do we enforce them? At the moment there is a double standard and that's what I'm examining. Bonzai states that schools currently have rules that 'allow no freedom of expression'. That may be so but should it be so?

Max D;
'Shoule someone be allowed to make a case for exterminating people whose ring and middle fingers are the same length (a sure sign they are werewolves)? I think they should. Because I think people carrying out the actions are the ones responsible.
I admit to not really finding this very emotionally satisfying and more than mildly disturbing.' I agree; disturbing but rational and consistent? Only disturbing if we follow a gut reaction based upon our own tender and worthwhile feelings but ultimately defeating and damaging to our growth as a society? Bonzai states that it is currently a crime but the question before us is not that it is but should it be?

I welcome ZekeCDN's contribution (hailed by many as useful and insightful). Let's examine it without for a second decrying its validity and sincerity.

I'm paraphrasing here; 'Victims of other abuse are more used to it. They have experience in dealing with it. Gay kids are unsure if they will be supported. So they should be treated differently when exposed to abuse.' His next contribution was, for me, right on the money; 'Only the same old cure-all we have for every other kind of ignorance and bigotry: education and time.' Absolutely; consciousness-raising allied with Max D's next point of exposure, illustrated by a great personal example.

Dr Benway gives another facet to the double standard idea in relation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Teratornis dragged us somewhat away from the limited contemplation of homophobic bullying and back to the more basic question at hand;

'In both cases, it looks to me like the victims haven't learned to get over their hypersensitivity to mere symbols. Verbal bullying is not the same as physical bullying, because verbal bullying requires the full cooperation of the victim to be effective. We can certainly blame the victim of verbal bullying for feeling insulted, because feeling insulted is a choice.' Exactly my point, my friend, thanks. Followed by;

'The real tragedy in our schools is not that some kids are wearing slogans on their shirts, but that we don't teach kids how to handle insults. We don't even teach kids the fact that learning how to handle insults is possible. An insult is nothing more than a knock at the door. It's up to the hearer to decide whether to invite the insult in, and entertain it. We need to teach all children to handle insults, by giving them the same kind of training given to police officers and (some) professional athletes. Cops and pro athletes must learn to keep cool heads in confrontations with angry folks who are highly skilled at using words to manipulate another person's emotional state. The trick is to remain consciously aware of our emotional responses to things, and to practice by exposing ourselves to progressively more heinous insults, until we can evaluate anything people say with clinical detachment.'

Right on the mark again; by framing rules that encourage victim mentalities and refraining from introducing an environment at formative ages that develops these skills we perpetuate ignorance, learning and deny the possibility of reaching more of our potential. So tell me again why many here support restrictions to free speech?

Cartomancer suggests in comment 169770 that people, especially teenagers cannot control the results of their emotions at the moment and so shouldn't be expected to. I'm sad that he seems to imply that humans cannot improve themselves either individually or in aggregate.

Teratornis again hits the bulls eye; 'Before we try to legislate away everybody else's right to hate, we might start by excising our own hatred first.' I would only add that the legislative process is not a decision that needs to be addressed but has already been made. He reiterates the points I made earlier and he supports;

'We expect the religious to tolerate all the offensive things we say to them. Do we also reserve the right to be crybabies ourselves? Are we just as self-absorbed and self-unaware as Orwell's pigs? Do we want to be more equal than everyone else? I don't think anyone, whether religious or not, has a high opinion of blatant hypocrisy, so why don't we show the world the right way to deal with insults'.

And;

'In contrast, choosing to be upset by mere symbols is entirely a personal choice. Most people seem too stupid to figure this out on their own, particularly when they are young and most strongly controlled by their emotional brains, so let's give them the training they need to figure it out.'

The rest of comment 169779 is a more detailed explication of the ramifications of these points and is really useful.

Having read the posts so far, where am I on this? I still find no convincing argument for any restriction on free speech. I'm even swaying towards disagreement that schools should have the restrictions they currently have as I disagree with the premise that schools should be a closeted, safe-haven. I certainly see no reason (and think on the contrary) that current hate laws are as irrational and destructive as blasphemy laws are so should be repealed given a concentrated effort to teach people effective ways of dealing with adversarial conflicts. I am, of course, still open to be convinced back to my former position of supporting restrictions on free speech based on my personal tendencies to provide support for oppressed minorities but it had better be good :)

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

Comment #169708 by AllanW on April 26, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Bedtime for me; see you tomorrow.

37. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169704 by AllanW on April 26, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Hi Melissajoy1234.

I know your post was directed at RD but I'd like to comment if I may?

You seem like a nice lady and the responses so far have been nice and polite so I'll just reiterate a few points they made and add a couple of my own.

You call yourself ignorant but I'm sure you're being a little harsh there. Read a few books written by RD or on science in general and I'm sure you'd enjoy them.

As for God's response should RD ever meet him at the end of his life; well, that's the crux isn't it? How are you so sure that he will? Atheists don't believe that his existence has been shown to be remotely likely so far so go about there lives on the basis that all we have is this one life so we'd better make the best of it. Why do you think he exists?

Most people here don't look to argue for the sake of it either; we want to discuss things that we feel are important but do it in a way that stresses the factual evidence not just our feelings; in that regard, believing that RD is searching (and failing) to find peace in his life so far is a statement that should be backed-up by something more substantial than 'I think it'. Would you care to discuss it a little more?

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

Comment #169686 by AllanW on April 26, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Comment #169684 by lostpoet

'One idea -- I try to feel solidarity with people rather than causes. Supporting people who feel humiliated and are in pain is always right. And "might" isn't even needed.'
Can't disagree with this point. My perspective in this discussion is that 'causes' is the term for a group of individuals facing the same kind of problem that causes their hurt. I don't think we have a difference of opinion here.

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

Comment #169682 by AllanW on April 26, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Comment #169678 by lostpoet

'Consciousness-raising becomes particularly powerful when we stand-up with the "target" and refuse to let them be intimidated, wouldn't you agree?' Yes I would; there is power in facing adversaries (whether physical or intellectual) with numbers in many cases. Standing alongside people to show solidarity is effective and I've done it (as you have) many times and in many different causes.

But I would just add that 'might does not equate to right'. I'd always want to be showing this solidarity with a cause that I have thought through and the weaknesses and strengths have been tested and found solid. That's what I'm doing here.

I can't disagree with your last point that emotionally I oppose people who cause hurt to others but I'm trying to come to an understanding of not just my individual position but to an understanding of what might be the most effective manner for society to regulate itself with regard to these issues. I remain unconvinced so far that my personal tendencies on this issue are anywhere near to being justified more widely.

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

Comment #169677 by AllanW on April 26, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Comment #169658 by Sargeist

'If both I and the Beatles *want* to cause people to kill their parents, but only one of us has the power, does that mean only those with the power are to be held accountable?'

Good example; I advanced the view that any speech should be free, even (to pick up on a point by Mphil that touches on your example) the 'Go kill x' variety. Why? Because they are words not deeds. Anybody who performed the deed should be held by society to account not the transmitter.

If the legislation were formed this way then a number of results might be forthcoming such as the scale and type of publicly-voiced opinions would be more forthright; the necessity for people to recognise that they need to discriminate the sources and content of information they receive would be made more obvious; the necessity to actually think about issues would be more obvious; the ability to function in society would require a depth and width of engagement that does not exist now. I submit that most of these results would be beneficial to society as a whole.

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

Comment #169676 by AllanW on April 26, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Comment #169656 by prettygoodformonkeys

'AllanW - explain "dissonance", and I'll try to answer your many questions. Otherwise, no.'

Please yourself.

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

Comment #169674 by AllanW on April 26, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Comment #169645 by lostpoet

'They simply have these experiences.' Ok maybe there is no mileage in looking at how the brain processes these different stimuli.

'I think we can and should do better' than 'sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me' you mean? I'm not sure that this old saw doesn't contain a lot of what I'm getting at here. So the 'should' part of the phrase above is aimed at convincing people to be less hateful and more respectful of differences? A noble aim and one I'd subscribe to in a heartbeat once anyone shows me that legislation (don't forget we have blasphemy and hate crime legislation on our books in the UK) is better at changing behaviour in a thoughtless bully than a combination of consciousness-raising and steadfast refusal by the target to be intimidated.

Your final paragraph is a restatement of the problem; it is disrespectful behaviour but whether it is premeditated or not in my view only tells us more about the sender than the target. Even in this example of the jerk at school does it not provide a terrific justification that more information is better than less in these things? It tells us about the jerk and his opinions. It may tell us something about his family and upbringing. It certainly underscores the free speech issue. It tells the people around him and the school what his reaction to the Day of Silence is. And the downside is what? Gay schoolmates react how? I'm not being facetious here but exactly how much mental torture is this inflicting? I can think of many circumstances (such as those Max D has experience of) that would be a lot more intimidating; being cornered by a bunch of jocks, surrounded and shouted at, hectored. Having a bunch of people follow you across the quad loudly shouting out slogans and epithets directed solely at you. That's not to say that there might be some hurt generated by his wearing the t-shirt but my contention is that this is mainly within the ability of the receiver to affect; water off a duck's back or suicidal thoughts? I know which end of that spectrum would be a reasonable reaction and which would be self-defeating and damaging. And that's the nub; the reaction is individual to the receiver so how can clumsy legislation remedy those effects?

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

Comment #169648 by AllanW on April 26, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Comment #169638 by phil rimmer

'Sorry, I tend to think in slogans, which is no help to anyone.' No apology necessary; I tend to write in shorthand that I understand completely but which leaves others asking questions; it's why I put a smiley at the end of my post :).

I'm glad that you put 'excuse' in commas as for me it reflects the case that many times the abusive bullying is as thoughtless (and devoid of genuinely-held hatred) as not. I thought Sargeists point about the word 'gay' being used in British schools was appropriate here; it is used in almost an asexual manner here not as a sexual pejorative in my experience. The effective solution is a combination of consciousness-raising and non-physical resistance by the target to the abuse rather than trying to legislate it away.

Your point that bullying that is sanctioned by a majority of society is of much greater significance is well made but of greater significance to whom? The minority it is aimed at? Other societies that do not share that particular viewpoint?

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

Comment #169644 by AllanW on April 26, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Comment #169637 by prettygoodformonkeys

'The point is that allowing adolescent gay bashing is much more serious than the navel-gazing, middle class angst you and PBUM seem to be equating it'. This is almost Steve's point from earlier that I disagreed with; he made the point that it is more widespread and you say it's more serious (I'll ignore the pejorative adjectives). My point is that you need to justify why homophobia is more serious than racism, sexism, ageism etc.

'You make some good points within that area'. Thanks :) but which ones!

'it diminishes the importance of the problem to lump it in with, for instance, "being skinny".' Here I'm going to take a contrary position (as I have all along; this is an exploratory conversation not a policy document as far as I'm concerned). I don't have the figures to hand (and it's not a numbers game anyway) but you need to justify why the scale of hurt, damage and loss of self-confidence associated with anorexic and body-image problems is any less serious for those who undoubtedly suffer abuse about this characteristic of their personality than people who suffer homophobic abuse. Is it intent (as was mentioned in an earlier post? Is it to do with systematic rather than isolated abuse?

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

Comment #169636 by AllanW on April 26, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Sargeist;

A minefield is right! After a shaky start I think we're starting to dig into it a little more, as uncomfortable as it may be. But I'd absolutely agree with you that this site is the place to have this kind of discussion as the posters will tend to be the more thoughtful and reflective ones around rather than knee-jerk reaction-mongers :)

Any socially constructed idea should be able to withstand a lot more than the gentle examination we are giving this topic if it is to justify it's place, in my opinion.

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

Comment #169633 by AllanW on April 26, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Hi phil rimmer;

A bigger problem for whom and why? And what is a hateful society? :)

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

Comment #169632 by AllanW on April 26, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Peacebeuponme;

Ok so the differentiator is best phrased as; 'It's unnacceptable bullying if it occurs systematically not as isolated, occasional abuse'. Yes?

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

Comment #169630 by AllanW on April 26, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Thanks Steve; I agree that any abusive comments about things that could change about a person may be different to any comments about a person about characteristics that cannot change. So is that a useful definition of what should be classed as acceptable abuse or not? 'It's unnacceptable abuse and should be subject to legal penalties if it refers to characteristics that cannot be changed about a person'?

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

Comment #169627 by AllanW on April 26, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Peacebeuponme;

I entirely agree that any experience like this can be horrible for the target, no question about that.

I'm just interested in digging-out the social rules that distinguish between abuse that is acceptable and abuse that is not and is legislated against. For you that may lie in the motivation for the abuse; hatred or just being obnoxious as part of an in-group/out-group behaviour.

The other interesting thing for me is that most of the argument seems to be made about the effect it has on the target rather than the intention of the transmitter and there I think there are problems (as I've posted earlier).

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

Comment #169616 by AllanW on April 26, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Peacebeuponme; why is it different? Can you explain how it differs to racism, sexism, homophobia?