1. God hates Mars

Comment #199647 by Grumpy Max on June 26, 2008 at 6:18 am

I can't believe you infidels have neglected the Double Decker.

2. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194564 by Grumpy Max on June 17, 2008 at 12:52 am

Done a bit of Googling- found in the Telegraph 29/06/2004 that Michael Moore is quoted as saying w/r/t the 9/11 hijackers: "If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC and the plane's destination of California â€" these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"
Which is facile, but not quite as utterly hideous as saying "The only problem with 9/11 is that it failed to incinerate Bush voters" as alleged earlier in this thread. Is this the quotation (on the day of the attacks, no less) to which Wheen refers, Fanusi Khiyal?

Again, I should point out that I think Moore an asshole, but if these two sources refer to the same quote you've been disingenuous.

3. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194178 by Grumpy Max on June 16, 2008 at 1:53 pm

@HPMcCall

Ooh! I did enjoy The Name of the Rose and Baudolino immensely. On your recommendation I shall Amazon that one immediately. Ta!

4. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #194173 by Grumpy Max on June 16, 2008 at 1:47 pm

I just remembered reading something years ago about a study whose results tentatively showed a difference in lesbians' cochlea. So I googled (with some trepidation) "lesbian inner ear" and actually got the Wikipedia article on "Homosexuals". There are lists of purported physiological and cognitive differences exhibited by gay men and women (which are sourced either to the original article or related news story), so if anyone is interested in reading up on this subject, that might be a good first stop.

I think Esuther is right to point out that, to an extent, sexuality can be a fluid thing (insert dirty pun about fluids here if you think it appropriate). But it's not entirely a social construct. If the facts are pointing towards correlation between the social and the biological, well...they're still facts.

I suppose these developments are a good thing (I mean beyond the inherent goodness of any advance in knowledge) in that they provide a rebuttal to the allegation that homosexuality is a "choice" exercised out of sheer cussed wilfulness. But if there is an identifiable trigger or indicator for homosexuality, (I mean beyond a fondness for Guys and Dolls) genetic or otherwise, is it not a bit scary to think that it may in the future be recast as a physiological defect (rather than as a psychological one, like in the past)?

EDIT: DOH! I didn't read NoneofTheAbove's comment in detail:

"3. The "nature" versus "nurture" question should be irrelevant from the perspective of political activism.
If being gay is fine, then the reasons for it might be interesting, but they don't matter."

Quite right. My suggestion that this research provides a rebuttal of the "choice" argument would involve an a priori assumption that homosexuality needs be "excused". I beg pardon!

5. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194152 by Grumpy Max on June 16, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Fair enough, they're their churches, they don't have to participate in dragging themselves into further disrepute, although to be fair the Catholic church's reputation is more or less irrecoverable at this point. If someone wanted to make a film about how mean a fictionalised "me" was, I wouldn't let them film inside my flat.

Just to throw in my 2 cents' worth- TDVC showcases some horrible, horrible writing but it was pretty rollicking. I remember solving the "Newton's Orb with Seeded Womb" (or summat like that) puzzle many pages before the protagonist did and feeling really irritated with him. If Angels and Demons is half as silly and half as fun I shall have to try and read it.

And re: Michael Moore- I think his dishonest methods are pretty well documented (although is "propagandist" necessarily pejorative? Does propaganda need be dishonest?) but, Fanusi Khiyal, you should probably source any quote that inflammatory- I flat out don't believe he said that about 9/11.

And, btw, AnnaBanana- is that Charleston Aquarium you're at in the avatar pic? I spent ages watching the otters in there and ended up a half-hour behind the rest of the group.

6. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189719 by Grumpy Max on June 7, 2008 at 3:40 am

Am I alone in finding the idea of atheists being "the new homosexuals" overblown?

I've been an atheist since I was 11. I went to a (nominally) Christian school in England. I didn't meet anyone (except for street preachers) who openly avowed Christianity until I got to university. I found the born-agains perfectly nice although easily ostracised by the overwhelming majority of the other students. Never in my life have I felt victimised as an atheist.

Now, I understand that in America things are different and there are plenty of thickos who will wish not to associate with you if you're an atheist. But is it really anything close to the sorts of problems being gay would historically bring? Are atheists losing their jobs, being denied adoption rights, being denied visiting rights to their children, being beaten? Is there a need for an atheist Stonewall? Can anyone point me to the atheist Matthew Shepherd?

Please don't think I'm suggesting that gay "victimhood" is of protected status- that sort of thinking is reductive and precious and belittling. But I think a bit of perspective is in order.

7. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189713 by Grumpy Max on June 7, 2008 at 3:22 am

Just had to thank Frankus very much for the Newfoundland post. It makes me want to move back to Canada and live there.

8. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189412 by Grumpy Max on June 6, 2008 at 8:21 am

I think all of you will find that the Kent PZ hails from is actually named after Superman. And, Cartomancer, you can take pride that Bob Monkhouse was also a Kentish man. Although I may just be mispronouncing it.

Further aside: are there any Bristols / New Bristols in the US?

9. Darwin still causing waves after 150 years

Comment #188970 by Grumpy Max on June 5, 2008 at 4:37 am

JLD:

I'd second Qomak in recommending The Ancestor's Tale. Not only does it give an account of evolution in the broadest sense, but individual chapters provide lots of fun detail on all sorts of things- what constitutes "speciation", how exactly petrification of fossils occurs, and so on. And there's lots of cool sidetracks into the anatomy and behaviour of specific animals. I annoyed the hell out of my wife when I was reading it because I kept nudging her and saying "Ooh! Listen to this bit about the platypus..." and so on every fifteen minutes.

10. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182798 by Grumpy Max on May 21, 2008 at 1:44 am

There follows a bit of background on the legislation concerned- skip if you're not interested. :D

Section 5 of the Public Order Act was deliberately drafted quite widely in order to cover potentially rather than actively threatening behaviour- the idea being to protect little old ladies who might be quite genuinely distressed by miscellaneous "bad behaviour" which wasn't covered elsewhere.

Then came a 1988 case called DPP v Orum, in which it was established that the "person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" could be a police constable. Since then this piece of legislation has been a de facto method of ensuring Joe Public shows the police "respect". This teenager's pattern is typical- he didn't show enough "respect" so he was given a summons. Normally the arrestee is taken to the station and then released without things being taken further because a) paperwork is a pain in the arse and b) the point was not to prosecute but to intimidate and ensure the person involved never dares cheek a policeman again.

I haven't the statistic to hand, but when I was studying this two years ago it turned out that in the vast majority of recorded offences under this Act (which, remember, was drafted to protect the truly vulnerable!) were cases where a constable was the "victim". It's a crappy piece of legislation which doesn't work anymore.

That all said, I would be surprised if the boy concerned is actually prosecuted. The CPS should drop it like a hot spud.

11. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180864 by Grumpy Max on May 16, 2008 at 1:32 am

At first sight I thought it must be a lady pouring out two bags of coffee in front of her. I thought the scales were the beans, tumbling out.

I feel twee compared to you worldly lot!

12. A natural selection

Comment #180241 by Grumpy Max on May 14, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Mixmastergaz wrote

Only fools boast about doing something that one ought to be doing anyway

I'm not sure this is true. It may be viewed as immodest, but in this instance it sure is useful. It does demonstrate that, whatever arguments you may have elsewhere with these people, there is at least some common ground. Which from the writer's point of view helps alleviate the knee-jerk "you attend church, therefore you're a moron" response, which, understandably, he wants to avoid. And by boasting about it he's got a lot of other faith-heads donating to what we all agree is a worthy cause.

I have a lot of time for thinking Christians (which isn't as oxymoronic as a lot of posters here assume!) and think we should welcome middle ground where we find it. They tend to do a lot of good works and not always as an excuse to evangelise on the side. Creationists are fucktards, though (with apologies to Irateatheist).

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

Comment #176273 by Grumpy Max on May 7, 2008 at 4:25 am

Does this mean Jehovah's Witnesses don't eat black pudding?

I always have difficulty being impolite when they come a-knocking (although I have now learned not to invite strangers in for a cup of tea). I find it hard to express that I am quite happy already with the state of my soul and I do hate offending people. Which means they hang around a bit.

From now on I shall just say "No way, I'm not giving up black pudding for ANYBODY".

14. The History Channel might do something right

Comment #176270 by Grumpy Max on May 7, 2008 at 4:18 am

If we rule out plants and fungi, this 95% doesn't seem too far wrong to me. Insects make up three quarters or more of all animal species, and I'm having a hard time thinking of too many insects who don't have eyes.

Cheers, btw, Bachfiend, I'm now plagued by images of eyeless dogs, bats and platypuses.

15. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161160 by Grumpy Max on April 15, 2008 at 1:23 am

I hate Shakespeare - I think he SUCKED and I didn't learn a single thing by reading him. Even the movies suck.

I know this is meant to be an oasis of free thought, but...STONE THE HERETIC!

16. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159662 by Grumpy Max on April 12, 2008 at 6:37 pm

ME!0364 wrote:

There is a difference between saying "I think she should resign because of her bigoted remarks" and "I think she should be forced to resign because of her bigoted remarks".

I feel that the two have been a bit conflated here. Davis has grievously erred and shown an unpleasant aspect of her character. I sure as hell wouldn't want to have a drink with her. I, like most of the posters here, know absolutely nothing about her professional performance.

To what extent "professional performance" encompasses her own vile ignorance and how and when she expresses it is the relevant question, and I can see that there's a broad spectrum of opinion between us on that score. I don't think her performance has been compromised here any more than Ken Livingstone's was compromised by his infamous remarks comparing a pair of reporters to concentration camp guards (I may be misremembering this and would welcome correction if so). She's a loony- so what? The way to get rid of loonies is by raising the consciousness of the electorate responsible for their appointment. I hope she resigns, or suffers ignominy. Her looniness is not however sufficient reason in itself for her resignation. If pressure is to be brought it should be for more substantial reasons than because she hurt "our" feelings.

That said, if anybody has any more material dirt on this horrid woman, fire away.

17. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157358 by Grumpy Max on April 9, 2008 at 1:32 am

Richard was underused, and I felt bad for the novelist invited along, too. Why (and I don't mean this in a bad way) was she there? Was her novel about some relevant issue or do the Beeb just have a Backup Pundit Dartboard?

And why was Richard separated from the rest of the guests? It was rather distracting to see him alone in the background while Nicky Campbell was doing his links, particularly as his expression was, in repose, quite stentorian. Richard seemed quite literally above it all.

I think that Odone's question to Richard was dodged a bit, as well- I don't think she was explicitly trotting out the old Hitler / Stalin evil-atheist thing so much as trying to pin Richard to an admission that not all faith-heads are of the malignant Falwell / bomber variety. This is an admission which he has happily made elsewhere (without in any way relaxing his stance on the ludicrousness of their beliefs) and I think would have served him well with this semi-hostile audience.

On the plus side, and it's a BIG plus, I actually leapt off the sofa at Richard's first statements. He expressed exactly my incredulity that such a statement ("you wouldn't be here if you didn't have a mother") could get a round of applause in this country. And my wife (a Christian and an admirer of the Professor, if you can imagine such a thing!) concurred, adding, if you'll forgive the courseness, "Bloody Hell, he's got balls". We also greatly enjoyed Richard's assertion that all opinions may be expressed, but not all are equally valid.

18. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114466 by Grumpy Max on January 22, 2008 at 8:54 am

Annabanana,

I would second (third? maybe fourth by the time this has been posted) the admiration expressed above for your letter.

Back to the OT-
Ian, would you be able to direct me to any reading behind your take on the subject? I've heard both that loss of life was avoided by dropping the Bombs and that the bombing was conducted despite the offers of surrender as a show of strength or alternatively a live "test" as to what it could do to a civilian population. But I've only heard these things as pub wisdom rather than from any academic sources, and I would welcome the opportunity to broaden my understanding beyond Wikipedia.

Ta!

19. Changing my Mind

Comment #106544 by Grumpy Max on January 3, 2008 at 5:52 am

Hello, J!

Thanks for the link. I promise, promise, promise I'll leave the off-topic discussion be now. The advice he gives is, you're right, not that bad. But I think that with the exception of "be thou familar", it's the kind of behaviour one would recommend to a spy- listen and absorb, but keep schtum. I dunno- I think becuase Polonius is comedic we attribute to him a benevolence that isn't necessarily there. For instance, the advice he gives Ophelia right after Laertes leaves shows the most cynical interpretation of Hamlet's wooing possible (he just wants into your pants!).

And you're right- language is determined by usage. So, for example (and back on topic-ish), "Sophist" becomes a pejorative by the Elizabethan era, then "sophisticated" changes from an Elizabeth insult meaning dissembling into the modern compliment. So I should shut it, really.

Although it does irk me that people assume a petard is a noose of some kind rather than an explosive.

Back ON ON topic:
A collective name which is chosen for us by precedent, eg atheist, has the Ronseal effect of doing what it says on the tin. A name chosen by us would necessarily be explicitly political and would confer the status of a lobby or a different class upon us. Is that really desirable, or are we just hoping that the spread of open atheism helps inspire more rigorous thought throughout the wider world?

20. Changing my Mind

Comment #106519 by Grumpy Max on January 3, 2008 at 4:31 am

ps, Steve and Baeoz

What about reclaiming the now-pejorative "Sophist"? It may sound a bit arrogant, though.

21. Changing my Mind

Comment #106517 by Grumpy Max on January 3, 2008 at 4:26 am

Hello, all!

I've been lurking for a while now, so I feel as if in some way I know some of you. I am a particular admirer of Steve Zara and Paula Kirby's comments, and I regret that on my first posting I have nothing more substantial to contribute than a bit of pedantry. But, heck...if there's room for pedantry anywhere there's room at a "clear-thinking oasis".

So. Richard Morgan! Lovely post, particular the recommendation that I freshen my breath. But I don't know what you mean by "to thine own self be true"- I suspect you mean "follow your heart" or something similar, albeit less trite than the phrase I chose. I think this is a popular misreading. Polonius' advice in that speech is a gospel of self-interest- when he says "to thine own self be true" he really means "look out for number one and screw the rest of 'em". I don't have the passage to hand (I'm at University today) but suggest rereading it in the whole context of who Polonius is: ie a bombastic courtier to a corrupt throne.

There. Pedantry over. Sorry it was off-topic, and I welcome any correction.

Happy New Year, all!