Comments by Steve Zara

Comment #260836 by Steve Zara on October 6, 2008 at 5:04 am

Comment #260830 by Peacebeuponme

Imagine a Gordon Ramsay quote in your local kebab shop that said "The taste of excellence. Highly Recommended". That's exactly what this site looked like when Pat's video's were being plugged.

Spot on.

I'm not trying to shut Condell up. I am very glad that his video was "un-banned".

Many people like kebabs.

152. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260824 by Steve Zara on October 6, 2008 at 4:39 am

Comment #260822 by decius

Now this is an interesting discussion.

Every now and then he literally cracks me up.

So does Richard Dawkins sometimes. But we would not call him a comedian.

Furthermore, that leeway is not something that is bestowed on occasion on satirists, according to personal taste or other considerations, it's an acquired right for all satirists.

Is "satirist" something you get to label yourself with? I don't think so. I think it has to be earned. I don't think you can just come out with some crass statement and say "don't worry, I am a satirist".

I am over-reacting to try and press a point, as is my way. All I am really trying to say is that Condell steps over the line sometimes - the line between being hard-hitting and talking nonsense. He did that when he slagged off "atheists who debate dogma" months ago, and he does it in this video with his quips about Saudi Arabians and liberal elites.

I think you need to work hard at being an effective satirist or comedian to be able to get away with such nonsense without being justifiably criticised.

153. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260820 by Steve Zara on October 6, 2008 at 4:21 am

Comment #260814 by decius

I realise that. What I am after is an acceptance that he isn't up to some golden standard, which has been implied by Richard's endorsement of him here, and also by the frequent support he gets from PZ Myers.

There is another aspect to this which I think is important. To be given the leeway allowed for satirists and comedians, you have to be effective as either a satirist or a comedian. The surprise of some people here (including me) to find out that Condell was a comedian means that possibly very many viewers won't take his views with a pinch of salt - they will see what he says as straight commentary to video, O'Reilly or Olberman-style.

If you are going to get such leeway, you had better make sure you are damn funny first!

I realise what Condell does, and I know he is appreciated by very many, but please let's not pretend he is up to the standard of Hitchens, or even Brigstocke.

154. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260811 by Steve Zara on October 6, 2008 at 4:07 am

Comment #260809 by keith

Why are we being so defensive of Condell, allowing for subtleties of interpretation, when we would not be so kind on what was said by someone religious?

Is this the "No True Interpretation of Condell" fallacy?

155. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260805 by Steve Zara on October 6, 2008 at 4:00 am

Comment #260802 by godspot

Why does this shock you so much?

Because of the hypocrisy.

If someone religious comes on this site and uses phrases like "all you atheists" we rightly condemn them for generalising in such a sloppy way.

Most people here would look down generally on patriotism, as your country is an accident of birth.

But it seems such standards don't apply if you are "on our side". We are supposed to laugh off nasty generalisations about all Saudi Arabians because Condell is supposedly a comedian.

This isn't on a par with saying that Germans hog all the deck chairs on a beach, or that the French all smell of garlic. Condell gets nasty - Saudis are insane.

Do you have a problem with it because it is about religion, or because it is about poor little super rich Arabia? Or some other reason? I really wonder.

Are you kidding me?

156. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260787 by Steve Zara on October 6, 2008 at 3:32 am

Comment #260783 by godspot

I'm sure you mean well,

Oh I do, I do.

About the strawman, you're joking right? What great insight by Graham did I blend out by focussing on his repeated misuse of the term ad hominem?

You were not dealing with his point, simply stating that his point was mislabelled.

The only other point I can detect is a repetition of the one you and others made before, about Saudi Arabia being a mental asylum.

The only other point? Implying that everyone in the country is mentally ill?

If you are happy with that kind of nonsense, then there is not much more to discuss I guess.

157. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260778 by Steve Zara on October 6, 2008 at 3:23 am

Comment #260772 by keith

You are being unfair. It can be hard for some posters to "swim against the tide" and pluck up the nerve to publically criticise a very popular guy. It is only natural that such people may be cautious about their tone. That kind of nerve is to be admired and encouraged. Clear thinking is about making your own mind up and not following the crowd.

(Incidentally, I am not one of those who is nervous about critising, I am just naturally irritating in my use of language!)

158. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260769 by Steve Zara on October 6, 2008 at 2:58 am

Comment #260767 by godspot

Graham's misuse of ad-hominem is a straw man.

His point is sound. I suggest you listen again to what Condell says and see if you don't come to the same conclusion. Put aside the issue of his endorsement by this site, and see if you can get through the video without winceing at some crass generalisation or some simplistic attack on a whole group or country for the faults of a few.

159. Strippers, armadillos inspire Ig Nobel winners

Comment #260766 by Steve Zara on October 6, 2008 at 2:50 am

Comment #260733 by Invisible Talker

The brain works in odd ways. I have been reading "Kludge" by Gary Marcus. It is a fun book, and I can recommend it. Our behaviour and senses can be influenced by context in very unexpected ways.

If someone has a word puzzle that contains words like "intelligent" and "literate", then as they discover these words they will tend to solve the rest of the puzzle more quickly. If someone reads an article about old age, they tend to walk more slowly.

It is a kind of crossover of the senses, but quite unconscious.

160. Dying of the Light

Comment #260760 by Steve Zara on October 6, 2008 at 2:41 am

Comment #260758 by Lev-CapeTown

Indeed. I guess that saying that there must be some grand purpose for life seems more noble than saying "I don't wanna die!"

161. Dying of the Light

Comment #260755 by Steve Zara on October 6, 2008 at 2:27 am

The need for religion to provide meaning seems rather odd to me. I wonder if it is a fear of independence. The idea that we can think for ourselves and make our own way in life should surely not be scary. To want Gods to provide meaning seems to me to be like preferring dictatorship to democracy.

162. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260550 by Steve Zara on October 5, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Comment #260547 by DarwinsPitbull

If you are around crazy christians then you say crazy christian things.

Not much of a maverick then.

163. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260536 by Steve Zara on October 5, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Comment #260531 by DarwinsPitbull

It is a perfectly simple question. Do you believe Palin is telling the truth when she says she thinks the world will end in a few decades?

164. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260526 by Steve Zara on October 5, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Comment #260522 by DarwinsPitbull

Palin says she expects the world to end within her lifetime.

If she is not lying, then she is dangerously deluded, because as President she does not have to deal with long-term policies.

If she is lying, then you can't take her word for anything.

But since she is a crazy fundamentalist, she must be full of shit.

Well said.

So, which is it? Do you think she is a liar, or dangerously deluded?

165. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260514 by Steve Zara on October 5, 2008 at 4:00 pm

DP-

Same thing has been said about Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.. Sorry if I don't believe that they want to bring an end to the world.

You don't seem to get the point. I am not suggesting that Palin will attempt to end the world. But an attitude that the world is only going to last a few more decades is hardly a good one for someone who has to deal with matters which will affect people's lives for centuries to come, such as global warming.

Palin says she expects to see Jesus return in her lifetime. Are you calling her a liar?

What you seem to be trying to say is that Republican presidents say dumb things, but we should ignore that as they lie all the time.

Wow.

166. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260484 by Steve Zara on October 5, 2008 at 3:22 pm

DP-

Dont vote for them then. If you are scared that a novice VP will become president then vote democrat and elected a novice as president. Oh thats right, Palin's inexperience is a bad thing while Obama's inexperience is a good thing. I forgot the double standard.

I don't understand why you are wasting your time posting responses that don't deal with the issues raised.

Palin is far right-wing in her views. She is also a member of a fundamentalist religious movement that believes we live in the End Times.

Obama isn't inexperienced by any standards, but even if he was, he does not believe that the world we live in is temporary and effectively disposable, as Jesus is coming soon.

In a way, it may be a benefit if she does become president that she is such a novice with no clue, as it would be even more dangerous to have someone who knew how to use power and had the same religious views as her.

167. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260468 by Steve Zara on October 5, 2008 at 2:50 pm

DP-

Where have I heard that excuse about a president not surviving before? Hmmm.... thats right. It was the same argument brought up against Reagan when he ran. Its funny how somethings don't change.

This makes no sense as an argument. Reagan had Bush senior as VP. He could have taken over and not been a total disaster.

Your position makes no sense at all. We should not worry about Palin because the chances are McCain will survive?

Actuarial tables give McCain a 20% chance of death in his first term. That is a 1 in 5 chance of getting someone who is a novice with extreme political and religious views.

Sorry, no. That is not good enough.

168. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260452 by Steve Zara on October 5, 2008 at 2:25 pm

The problem you face is that you are arguing against the republican VP

That is the topic of this thread.

I am glad you all recognize how much better Mccain is then Obama. At least we can agree on that.

I think that both McCain and Obama are competent candidates, although I worry about what McCain would do in terms of appointments of judges.

The problem is that there is a significant chance McCain won't survive his time in office if he gets elected. They we have Palin, who clearly isn't up to the job.

169. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260442 by Steve Zara on October 5, 2008 at 2:12 pm

There is a neat parallel here with arguments we have had with some religious people:

Science is supposedly flawed, therefore religion is good.

Obama is supposedly flawed, therefore Palin competent.

170. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260420 by Steve Zara on October 5, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Comment #260419 by DarwinsPitbull

What has your post got to do with Palin's competence?

171. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260390 by Steve Zara on October 5, 2008 at 12:47 pm

DP-

Maybe she was trying to clean up the police department and that chief of police was trying to stop her or slow her down in doing that.

I can understand giving the benefit of the doubt to most people, but you are ignoring something very important - Palin is a politician. Politicians are supposed to wise about the impression they make. So it seems we have two possibilities:

1. Palin is corrupt
2. Palin is so incompetent that she keep givings the impression that she is corrupt

Either way, she should not be let anywhere near a position of national power.

EDIT: DP 0, H4D 2

172. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260312 by Steve Zara on October 5, 2008 at 8:08 am

Comment #260306 by latsot

So what? We can all point out problems without knowing the answers. I do that all the time. I don't think that means the problems don't exist.

There can be a mistaken sense that just pointing out a problem goes some way towards dealing with it. I think this is why some people get satisfaction from writing letters to newspapers or phoning in talk ratio programmes.

I don't see it helping that much to be honest. As I have said before, if you look at just about all disputes about anything, those that aren't settled by actual physical conflict are settled by sitting down and talking with those you disagree with and changing minds.

It's fine to be angry, but how do we change minds?

173. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260305 by Steve Zara on October 5, 2008 at 7:37 am

Comment #260302 by Stephan

A good post.

So I do sort of feel a bit uneasy when I hear someone say "we all know that all of Saudi Arabia is mentally ill" or when I hear someone speak in such a derogatory manner as "the guy is a complete idiot... and so I wasn't surprised to hear he was from Saudi Arabia" or something to that effect.

I feel a lot more than just a bit uneasy!

174. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260303 by Steve Zara on October 5, 2008 at 7:31 am

Stop listening by all means. File it under 'rant' by all means. Who cares?

I care, as I think the message about how religion is a problem and what needs to be done gets blunted if people tune out.

But you are ignorning my argument, which was about the idea that he might be trying to do something different to what you're trying to do and might serve a different purpose from the one you seem to expect him to.

I fully understand your argument, and I wasn't ignoring it. But I have yet to come across any clear idea of what he is actually trying to do, other than post angry videos.

The tales he tells of religious absurdity are available to anyone who picks up a national newpaper. I don't see him contributing that much other than to express what people aready feel, but in a particularly blunt way.

I can see how that can improve morale for those who don't realise it is acceptable to have atheist views, and that can be important.

However, I see a lot of talk about being militant, but not a lot of talk about where people are supposed to go from there.

175. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260279 by Steve Zara on October 5, 2008 at 5:17 am

Comment #260236 by latsot

I sometimes consider what he does as ranting because I don't notice many suggestions of solutions, and he has a tendency to over-simplify, and also to strike out at the wrong targets. It would not have taken much effort to say he was talking about the Saudi government rather than the entire country and people, for example. Also, when I hear someone start silly conspiracy theory talks about "liberal elites", I stop listening, and definitely file what I am reading or listening too under "rant".

176. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260047 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Are you actually asserting that poor abused etiquette has been so trounced by brash meanies that it's a subversive act to debate theists politely?

I am not railing against such acts. Condell is.

177. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260042 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Comment #260031 by Old Sarum

I hope you don't mind if I politely disagree with you. I have read very many of the writings of Richard Dawkins over several decades, and I can say that they have always been reasonable. That does not mean that they haven't been exciting, and harsh, and savage. But Richard has always written with style, and in a way that expresses rational arguments. There have been no gratuitous insults or ad-hominems.

I am a huge fan of Richard Dawins as a writer, as, when appropriate, he has been has harsh on his own mistaken views has he has been on those of others. I discovered that honesty in "The Extended Phenotype", and since I read that book Richard Dawkins has been one of my intellectual heroes.

178. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260039 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Comment #260029 by Cartomancer

I think Condell is relatively harmless generally.

What worries me is when I see a post from Richard Dawkins on this thread saying that Condell is always reasonable in tone, and when I see high-profile bloggers like PZ Myers commenting "Speak it brother" when Condell condemns those who dare to politely debate the religious.

179. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260030 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Comment #260022 by JAMCAM87

I make no judgement about whether or not Condell is a nice guy.

I note that he has a history as a stand-up comedian, and has moved to posting videos on YouTube.

I try to find the humour in his videos, but I have failed. I read that others had tried to find the humour in his previous stage shows many years ago and also failed!

I can only put it this way. When you deal with someone like Christopher Hitchens, you know you have to be on your guard. You are dealing with one of the world's finest writers, who may be putting a point of view just to challenge the consensus. Whatever his real views, Hitchens is a sparkling wit and has an intellect that should be supported by a site like this.

I don't think we can know what Condell is. A failed comedian who is trying to revive a career through publicity through controversy via the atheist cause?

All I can say is that heroes of the cause of atheistm and reason should be truly deserving of the label 'hero'. Richard Dawkins is one of mine, but there are very few others.

180. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260020 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Comment #260007 by JAMCAM87

I think it is more that I am posting in opposition to someone that many, many people admire. Perhaps Sarah Palin would call me a "maverick"!

There is only one thing I want people to do, and that is to think. To really think about what their aims are, and what they want to achieve.

My belief that simply telling other people that they are idiots achieves nothing is based on decades of observing the political scene. I have seen years of conflicts that consisted of two sides just shouting at each other, with no progress. Blunt approaches don't work. We have to be subtle, and clever.

I also despair when people think I am nice. I am not nice. I detest the influence that religion has in our lives, and I am angry about the way that religious leaders attempt to control the roles of women and preach about the lifestyles of same-sex couples.

I want to remove religious influence in public life. But I want to do it in a way that is going to be effective. The effective way is eductation of children about rationalism and critical thinking, combined with persuading religions that a secular society is their best way of surviving in an increasingly mixed-faith and also increasingly atheistic culture. We can tell the Christians that secularism protects them against atheism and Islam, and so on. This is a divide-and-conquer strategy that is practical and polically reasonable way (under the pretence of multiculturalism) to defeat religious influence.

The way for this to happen is for people to write to their MPs in favour of a secular society, and for the campaign to be put in terms of protecting rights to belief (and non-belief).

Isn't this a reasonable and possibly effective strategy for changing our society? Doesn't it seem a lot more effective that simply ranting at religuous people in the way Condell does?

We need effective political strategies, not the tabloid-level rants of Condell, and, to be honest (and I know this may make me unpopular with many), I am disappointed at the level of support he is given here.

181. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #259988 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 11:03 am

Comment #259984 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

I am a Liberal Elitist, so guess who I guess I had better choose Sam Harris' approach as the One True Atheist way.

If Harris ever rants about the non-liberal non-elite like Condell does about the liberal elite, then I guess the Harrisites and Condellites may have to go their separate ways.

And here is me hoping we could all just be friends.

182. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #259972 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 10:17 am

Comment #259966 by Peacebeuponme

I am also glad his videos aren't now banned. I don't agree with Richard Dawkins' assessment of him, but I think Pat Condell has a point of view that is shared by many, so needs to be presented and discussed.

Comment #259967 by Hellene

I think Hitchens is great in the way he deals with religion. He is vitriolic, but rarely to people's faces unless they are being idiots. He is prepared to debate religious dogma, and usually does so in a way that is memorable and effective, showing that Condell's opposition to such debating is wrong.

I dislike Condell's simplistic analyses. There is a role for challenging religious taboos, and militantly standing up to religious oppression (providing it is targeted at those who oppress), but there is also a role for the well-mannered debater, carefully yet politely dissecting the idiocy of religious belief with such skill and precision.

I have seen Jonathan Miller deal with religious ideas extremely effectively, yet with not a single harsh word. But then he really is a clever dick :)

183. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259948 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 8:57 am

Comment #259924 by Mitchell Gilks

I'll report back on my blog when I have installed the thing and got it working. It is huge!

184. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259921 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 7:42 am

Sort of related to space. If I am quiet for a while, there is good reason. I have just purchased "Spore". Purely for the purposes of researching its life simulations of course.

185. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259882 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 4:39 am

Comment #259869 by decius

Asteroid mining is not a problem. It could involve little more than drilling, planting explosives, and catching the results in nets.

Processing the results for extraction of resources is easy - there is unlimited solar power that could be focussed to make high-temperature ovens.

The main resource initially would be water from near-earth carbonaceous asteroids. This (along with the carbon) would mean that space colonies, from orbital stations all the way up to Lunar colonies (or indeed on other asteroids) would be self-sustaining. Once off-Earth manufacturing starts, the budget for space exploration could be basically zero.

186. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259865 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 3:34 am

Comment #259864 by decius

I think a space elevator will quickly pay for itself. The mineral resources in asteroids will be extremely valuable, and it will also make pratical the construction and maintenance of solar-power-capturing satellites, a good way to deal with global warming.

187. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259852 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 3:04 am

Comment #259849 by decius

I agree the project is premature, and the matter of induced currents could be a real problem (although it may also be a useful source of energy). But I hope it happens eventually. It is the only way we are going to get really cheap and routine space travel.

188. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259844 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 2:49 am

Comment #259840 by Tzsak

The engineering issues have been understood for quite some time now. The problem of snapping is mainly due to the weight of the cable. This is why something so much stronger than steel is required - not just so that the cable can be thin, but so that it can be light and so support its own weight.

One of the main engineering problems will be vibrations of the cable, and keeping them under control.

189. Christian group calls for a Christian university in Britain

Comment #259828 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 2:14 am

This is completely barking mad.

I would like to suggest an alternative. A university with the theme of secularism, where each subject includes a short course about how religion has held that subject back, in all areas of the sciences and arts there would be ample material.

No, I'm not serious, but it is nice to imagine

190. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259815 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 1:39 am

Comment #259814 by Diacanu

Wormholes are pretty elegant, and get you somewhere hugely faster than teleportation.

The problem would be getting an quantity of negative energy somewhere the equivalent of the mass of Jupiter to hold the wormhole open. Then a phenomenal amount of processing power to keep the wormhole stable (through some as yet unknown mechanism) as something passed through.

191. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259813 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 1:30 am

Comment #259812 by Bernstein

Teleportation is very unlikely, and would require phenomenal amounts of energy and processing power, which could not be retrieved.

The power required to "beam" a human body up to a starship would require enough energy to wipe out much of a continent.

192. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259808 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 1:23 am

Comment #259806 by DarwinsPitbull

Why don't we stick to the issues and not bring up how she didn't actually ban any books or her religious background.

I am not scared of them taking away my freedom of speech or any other rights. Are you?

Yes. Because of Palin's investigation of the possibility of book-banning, and her treatment of rape victims and her views on abortion and her lack of understanding of constitution issues.

193. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259807 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 1:21 am

Comment #259800 by Bernstein

I have to disagree. A space elevator is a very elegant solution. It reduces the cost of space travel within the solar system by many orders of magnitude. The neat thing is how it saves energy. You can get much of the energy you use to power a "lift" to the top of the elevator back when the lift falls back down.

194. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #259799 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 1:10 am

Pat Condell is hard-hitting, but always quietly reasonable in tone.

I just can't agree with "always" quietly reasonable. Mostly, yes. But sometimes he switches to "Alf Garnett" mode, and is quietly reasonable in the way that Richard Littlejohn is quietly reasonable. His provocativeness is part of his attraction to many.

An example of this is here, where Condell condemns "polite debate":

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/speak_it_brother.php

"To engage dogma in debate is to legitimise it". That isn't just creationism, but any dogma.

Here are more of his comments about his views on debate with the religious:

"Show us all what a clever dick you are".

"You don't have a cause, what you have got is a hobby".

"Save me from the curse of polite and deferential atheists".

(Trying to imagine Christoper Hitchens' reaction to being called a "curse", and a "clever dick" by Condell is quite amusing)

So it appears that a considerable volume of useful (in my view) discussions involving the likes of Shermer, Dennett, Stenger, Hitchens, Miller and Atkins is a self-promoting waste of time according to Condell.

I don't know if Condell's approach helps the cause. I have heard that many young "budding" atheists find encouragement from his videos. But I don't think he can be said to be always quiet and reasonable. If he was, there would not be the sense of anticipation when one starts a new video of his.

195. Catholic priests cane YouTube over blasphemous vids

Comment #259789 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 12:43 am

Comment #259781 by beanson

Actually I think it has some point- the act of outraging a Catholic sensibility by 'desecrating the host' might well lead some to question what it is they are supposed to be outraged about

I may be underestimating the intellect of typical Catholics, but I think that isn't very likely.

I think there may be something else going on here other than a simple desire to change views.

I suspect people are getting so frustrated with the influence of religion and the respect it gets that they want to do something. Anything. Host desecration feels you are actually doing something. So, people do it, and I am sure it makes them feel good and like they have made some kind of statement, and then there is retrospective justification about how it really has the potential to change minds.

A while back there was something called the "Blasphemy Challenge", in which people produced videos in which they committed the apparently unforgivable sin of rejecting the Holy Spirit.

I thought was rather clever, and well-targeted. It resulted in public statements showing people were not afraid of religion. But it was about the views of the people making the video. It was not interfering in the lives or rituals of anyone else.

So, you see, I am not against people being militant, or breaking taboos. But it has to be done right.

If you don't believe that a wafer has religious significance, then don't take one, and make a video explaining why you don't want one.

But, to take a consecrated wafer and to desecrate it on video has a subtly different message - you have already implicitly agreed that the wafer has significance in some way by taking it.

My suggestion is that we should have positive and constructive campaigns that are about our feelings and what we want changed, and not about ridiculing the feelings of others. As I have said, secularism can be proposed as being of real benefit to religious groups, and not a way to shut up the nasty atheists.

196. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259782 by Steve Zara on October 4, 2008 at 12:23 am

Comment #259780 by DarwinsPitbull

Yet bringing up that Palin banned books, when she didn't, is rational, right?

We didn't. We mentioned that she made inquiries in which she requested that books be banned. That has not been refuted. She was clearly not skillful enough to actually get them banned.

The problem for me is not whether or not Obama is a nice guy who really wants change, it is the kind of change we could get from the McCain/Palin team: would the current state of support for human rights and equality in the USA survive McCain and Palin?

I don't believe it would. The kind of judges that they would appoint to the Supreme Court would mean that rights to abortion and rights for gay people would be severely damaged.

You need to stop diverting things off to character assassination of Obama, fun though I am sure that is, and deal with the real issues - do you trust McCain and Palin with your rights?

197. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259707 by Steve Zara on October 3, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Comment #259704 by DarwinsPitbull

If that is what you feel about Obama, fine. That is your right. As I said, I don't think McCain would be a disaster.

But are you willing to take a 1 in 5 chance (based on actuarial tables) that we will end up, leaving experience and intelligence aside, with a fundamentalist creationist Christian who believes that we live in the End Times and that God speaks to her personally in charge of the most powerful nation in the world, and tens of thousands of nuclear weapons?

It frankly terrifies me.

198. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259705 by Steve Zara on October 3, 2008 at 6:18 pm

Comment #259703 by Bonzai

Yeah. It's like there is a third party in the USA:

Maverick Republican

199. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259702 by Steve Zara on October 3, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Comment #259695 by DarwinsPitbull

Awww... must of hit a nerve.

Not really. Just that what you were posting was not relevant to the argument. We were talking about the experience and education of the canditates.

Whether you consider Obama corrupt or nasty is not my concern. I would rather have someone less than perfect in office in the USA providing they actually have the education and experience to cope with one of the most complex and difficult jobs.

Personally, I am not concerned about John McCain. I think he may be able to do a competent job. I would rather have him in office than a hypothetical Bush third term.

For me, the Democrat/Republican choice is secondary. It is about the quality of the candidates. Palin is nowhere near qualified for the job. She seems to have little understanding of the role of the VP, and of major constitutional issues. If McCain has picked someone reasonably competent, perhaps Colin Powell, I would not be so very worried.