501. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116657 by Paula Kirby on January 27, 2008 at 1:32 am

JuxtaMonky: If Godtube stands by a video that desperately begs for Christian people to "witness," (what the hell does witnessing mean? As we all know Christianity is based on faith which, in a sense, implies a lack of witnessing...or could it mean a battle of the wits?)

Maybe it should be called "witlessing" instead?

502. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116479 by Paula Kirby on January 26, 2008 at 3:20 pm

markg: I'll leave that to smarter people, like Paula. Oh, wait she's taking a break this evening?

Thank you for the compliment! But no, not taking a break, exactly - I'm still watching with interest from the spectators' gallery :-) Besides, there's nothing to debate with our daffy friend, John: I expect he's gone to ask someone what a museum is.

503. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116437 by Paula Kirby on January 26, 2008 at 1:35 pm

i bet he wont go to the museum he don't care about the truth

JamieR, I think you're absolutely right there.

504. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116436 by Paula Kirby on January 26, 2008 at 1:33 pm

BTW, John isn't necessarily an idiot. The sad Truth (tm) is, that he might be an idiot or he might be a genius

Well, I admire your charitable spirit, JesperB - but to take Richard Dawkins on on his home territory of evolution, and not to realise that the slightest, tiniest, merest smidgeon of factual knowledge of evolution would have been enough to address his objection: to my mind, this makes him an idiot. I nearly added "on this subject, at least", but on reflection decided that no, it's a pretty good sign of an idiot, full stop.

Humour me - it's Saturday evening, I've opened a very nice bottle of red wine, and I'm feeling inclined to leave the measured responses to someone else, just for tonight! :-)

505. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116421 by Paula Kirby on January 26, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Two thoughts:

1) I detest local radio
and
2) Richard, you were great on this: you said absolutely everything that needed to be said, and somehow managed to do so in the 3 minutes they gave you!

OK, a third thought too: John is an idiot.

506. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116405 by Paula Kirby on January 26, 2008 at 12:09 pm

I'm surprised to see so much disagreement with Steve's position here. It is always difficult for Christians to hear criticism of their religion, so it is no wonder that they get upset when we do it. If we are scrupulous in challenging the ideas rather than attacking the person, at least we can be sure that we haven't done anything to make it even harder for them to think about what we've said.

If the worst that can be said about this approach is that it won't always work, then that can be said about every other approach too. The other approaches being: attack the person, or don't challenge at all.

It's a choice between two approaches that are guaranteed not to work, and one that might sometimes. And even if Steve's approach can be shown never to be more effective than the alternatives - well, then there's still nothing to be lost, and it's altogether the more rational approach to debate.

We're (quite rightly) quick to cry foul when theists resort to ad hominems. Unlike them, we have more than ad homs to make our case with. They still won't like it - but it's the only approach that at least stands a chance of success.

507. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116338 by Paula Kirby on January 26, 2008 at 9:08 am

HourglassMemory: Would I be the only one to think that this sort of thinking could also be applied to us as a civilisation on planet Earth?
Our own loneliness on this planet makes us create these supersticions, such as extraterrestrial encounters and ghosts and gods...

What an interesting thought. Carl Sagan would have loved it!

508. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116304 by Paula Kirby on January 26, 2008 at 8:15 am

Gmork: I wish Epley had used your expression "unwanted loneliness", Paula

I prefer the expression "unwanted solitude", since loneliness is always unwanted - as opposed to solitude, which can be actively chosen. It gets confusing if we use "loneliness" to encompass contented solitude. I am very often alone; hardly ever lonely.

509. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116279 by Paula Kirby on January 26, 2008 at 6:17 am

Bluebird: Paula, here in the U.S. there are programs that allow dog owners to take their dog to Nursing Homes; the idea being it gives much needed emotional & physical contact to the residents. Is there something similar in the U.K.?

Yes, there are a variety of schemes. It's a great idea - you can imagine why it would work so well. I really wanted to do this with my own dog, since she most decidedly has the "aaaaaah" effect - but she's just too bouncy and exuberant. That's what happens when you cross a border collie with a kangaroo.

510. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116277 by Paula Kirby on January 26, 2008 at 5:58 am

Richard Morgan: But if ever your dog starts talking to you ...

Well, her eyes and her tail are certainly both extremely eloquent. But no, no signs of her bursting into oratory ... yet. If she ever does, I shall know it's definitely a sign that I need to get out more! :-)

511. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116272 by Paula Kirby on January 26, 2008 at 5:39 am

ScottishGeologist: Its a good point - I think the whole "doctrine of hell" is a major no-go area for a lot of churches.

The Church of England officially denied the existence of hell in 1996. The Catholic church denied the existence of limbo in 2005. Maybe the Baptists will deny the existence of heaven in 2014 and we'll all be able to get on with just living the life we have NOW - and not before time.

It is shudderingly appalling that masses of people are having their lives - the only lives they'll EVER have - haunted and corrupted by such hideous, ludicrous beliefs. Chistians vaunt their religion as the ANSWER to evil: yet Christianity has come up with some of the most warped, twisted, barbaric concepts ever to have taken a hold on the human mind.

512. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116269 by Paula Kirby on January 26, 2008 at 5:27 am

Gmork: There are people who thrive in solitude who also are atheists. I guess that would put a big dent in this study.

Feeling isolated and lonely is a very painful emotional state for people, Epley said, ...

Only if you haven't chosen it, Epley

I think we have to be careful not to read more into the article than it is really saying. "Loneliness" is surely, by definition, unwanted isolation. It is of course perfectly possible to be alone without being lonely, but I don't think the article is suggesting otherwise - so I don't see the existence of happy, solitary atheists as putting a dent in it at all. Nor is the article arguing that everyone who is lonely will turn to religion - just that loneliness has the effect of increasing the likelihood of their doing so.

I love being alone myself - though there's definitely a correlation between the time when I turned to religion and an unpleasantly isolated period in my life. (I've since recovered - on both counts - I'm happy to report!) And I'm not at all sure I'd enjoy my current solitude anything like so much if I didn't have my adorable dog; or the internet! So there was a lot in this article that rang very true to me.

513. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116259 by Paula Kirby on January 26, 2008 at 4:47 am

7Fred7: A religion is a club. If you want to get into the club, it's probably because you're lonely, in which case the entry conditions in are likely to be quite acceptable - welcome, in fact. Once in the club, fear of loneliness will prevent you from criticising it, and cause you to reject criticism from anyone else.

I'm sure this is absolutely right - but I would take it even further. The club of religion doesn't just mask your isolation from people outside the club, it actively exacerbates it. It does so partly by telling you that non-believers are potentially damaging to your spiritual health and therefore not to be allowed to get too close, and partly by filling your head with weird ideas that will make non-members of the club less likely to want to engage with you anyway.

I don't claim that this process is always deliberate on the part of the Christians who lure you in in the first place. I suspect that Dan Dennett has it absolutely right: religion is, quite simply, diabolically good at replicating itself.

514. Darwin Day (Feb 12th) E-Cards

Comment #115594 by Paula Kirby on January 24, 2008 at 11:30 am

Just found this elsewhere and thought people might enjoy it:

http://web.mac.com/arnold_zwicky/TomorrowVirus05.jpg

It's almost on topic!

515. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #115572 by Paula Kirby on January 24, 2008 at 10:49 am

Atheists are not spouting this kind of hate filled crap.

No, we're not, and thank the FSM for that. But I think we have to resist the temptation to suggest that the WBC is remotely representative of Christians at large - it's not.

Of course, it's an interesting question as to WHY most Christians would be as appalled at the WBC's behaviour as we are: after all, the WBC is nothing if not biblical.

I suspect that many of them would say that Jesus revoked such Old Testament attitudes; took gay people's sins upon himself so they could be forgiven; taught us to love, rather than judge, one another. And they would think this reflected terribly well on Christianity and they would be filled with admiration for Jesus, who made it acceptable to view "sinners" with compassion rather than vengeful anger.

Atheists need no such excuse to accept people as they are, and to view them with compassion. There is nothing in atheism that requires us to obtain authorisation before responding to people with kindness. Common humanity suffices. Poor old Jesus. All that suffering to give us permission to deal kindly with people, when it was only the Old Testament that encouraged us to do otherwise in the first place.

516. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115041 by Paula Kirby on January 23, 2008 at 12:57 pm

I am offended, morning after morning, by "Thought for the Day" on Radio 4; presumably the BBC will now ban that too?

517. Banned From Church

Comment #115027 by Paula Kirby on January 23, 2008 at 12:41 pm

I used to know someone in the UK who belonged to a pentecostal house church that exercised this kind of "discipline" over members who showed lapses in righteousness. But she explained that it was all ok because such expulsions were always carried out in a spirit of love.

518. The devilish church practice of exorcism

Comment #114604 by Paula Kirby on January 22, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Hmmm. Where are ADH and Krisking and Wooter and Fides et Ratio when it really WOULD be interesting to hear them try to defend their god?

519. This Week's Flea

Comment #114591 by Paula Kirby on January 22, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Diacanu:This week's flea of Orient are
Bearing gifts we traverse afar
Field and fountain, moor and mountain
Following yonder star

Noisy flea, tiresome flea,
No one's fooled, can't you see?
Twist and mangle our friend Richard's book
All you like - we all know you're a crook.
Come back when you've got proof
Come back when you've got proof.

520. Islam in Europe

Comment #114555 by Paula Kirby on January 22, 2008 at 12:02 pm

technogogo: Isn't there some evidence that these future generations will become more european? Of course this depends on us being able to prevent the creation of isolated and enclosed sections of muslims within Europe.

So NOT isolating them in faith schools might be a good start?

521. Darwin Day (Feb 12th) E-Cards

Comment #114525 by Paula Kirby on January 22, 2008 at 11:15 am

Or a sequence of pictures in their correct evolutionary order:

a bacterium, a reptile, a dinosaur, a bird, a mammal, an ape, a hominid, a homo sapiens - and then a big question mark and the words "Whatever next?"

It never does any harm to remind people that homo sapiens is just passing through and not the final word.

522. Islam in Europe

Comment #114517 by Paula Kirby on January 22, 2008 at 10:55 am

Ouch. Only intermittently funny. But absolutely 100% on the nail.

523. Darwin Day (Feb 12th) E-Cards

Comment #114507 by Paula Kirby on January 22, 2008 at 10:43 am

How about one of a chimp looking at a picture of Michael Behe and saying, "Hey, just think - before we evolved, we used to be that stupid too!"?

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

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

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

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

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

525. Gay Jesus play blasted by bishop

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

Konquererz: I MUST see this play!

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

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

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

Cast 'em off. Kick 'em out.

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

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

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

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

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

528. Honour Killings

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

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

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

529. Honour Killings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

531. Britain cannot put its faith in religiously divided schools

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

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

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

532. Britain cannot put its faith in religiously divided schools

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

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

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

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

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

533. Why people believe weird things about money

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

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

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

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

534. The God Delusion: Now Available in US Paperback

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

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

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

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

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

Shouldn't this article have a dateline of 1859?

536. King Me!

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

who usually recites Bible verses or uses the faith card.

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

537. The Group Delusion

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

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

"One Delusion Short of the Trinity?"

538. The God Delusion: Now Available in US Paperback

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

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

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

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

539. Why people believe weird things about money

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

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

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

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

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

540. Why people believe weird things about money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Sorry - long post.)

541. Why people believe weird things about money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

542. Why people believe weird things about money

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

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

543. Why people believe weird things about money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

544. Why people believe weird things about money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

545. Why people believe weird things about money

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

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

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

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

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

546. The Group Delusion

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

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

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

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

We're just encouraging him by continuing.

547. Why people believe weird things about money

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

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

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

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

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

548. Why people believe weird things about money

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

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

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

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

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

549. Why people believe weird things about money

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

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

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

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

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

550. Why people believe weird things about money

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

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

... and are equipped to take them.