My responses to Michael Shermer

[gypsynuke]

Who said anything about political correctness? I didn't.

It was implied. You're upset he didn't acknowledge everyone on the planet.


[/QUOTE] Let's go back to what Shermer did say:


Stirring stuff, makes me want to sing the Star Spangled Banner and wave the flag.

It's just that...I'm not in America. I don't have a written constitution to restrain my government, I don't have a Bill of Rights that means anything. I don't live in a state that guarantees freedom of speech or that separates Church from State (quite the reverse, in fact).

What does Shermer say? I might as well not exist. Shermer could have mentioned the cause of freedom for religious intolerance that the Danes are currently undergoing. Maybe they don't exist either.

I assumed that the JREF was an international organization with an international perspective. Clearly I was wrong. [/QUOTE]

It appears from what you've written that you're upset because you feel every discussion or statement about anything should include everyone. If we're discussing the AIDS crisis in Africa it would be wrong not to include Iceland in the converstion. A conversation about the IRA must involve what the Egyptian stance is on Catholicism and Protestantism. It would be blasphemy to talk about mardi gras in New Orleans without talking about carnivale in Brazil.
Shermer was writing about the United States. What happens outside the United States would be irrelevant to what he was saying.

 

[Numenaster]

[swiki]Pascal's Wager[/swiki]

Well, see, that doesn't count as "yet" since it came after my post.

And I note that someone else thought of the same wrinkle that I was contemplating last night: there are many gods and pantheons in the world, who allegedly require very different behaviors from their adherents, and not all of whom promise a heaven OR a hell.

Pascal's wager is only a compelling argument if you ignore all those other gods. But since there's the same amount of evidence for all of them (i.e. none) it's not logical to privilege one with belief above the others. And since you can't ensure your entry into all possible heavens through belief in any one god or following one set of practices, life is simpler if you just ignore them all.

 

[Jesus Baby Daddy]

Actually you don't. Unless representing them as evil all of the time represents a form of love I am unaware of.

You must be joking?
I live here, and I honestly don't know of anybody who represents them as evil?
"some of my best friends are brits" I consider it my Motherland.
And most of the people on this forum that i've noticed ripping on them are doing it quite lite heartedly. "most".

 

[Ian Osborne]

You must be joking?
I live here, and I honestly don't know of anybody who represents them as evil?

Go watch 'Braveheart'. Then watch 'The Patriot'.

And if you're wondering why we Brits get a little peeved at Americans not realising the rest of the world exists, watch 'U-571'. It's based on a true story, y'know. Sort of. Remember the scene where those brave American sailors were drowned entering a sinking u-boat to retrieve essential code equipment? It really happened. Except in reality, they were British. What an insult to their memory...

 

[egslim]

Though I personally find Diamond's post over the top, I do agree with his point. Let me somewhat paraphrase Schermers quote:

"These cases of childabuse by Catholic priests must come to an end (1). We are Christians (2). Children need to be protected by their elders, not taken advantage of by them (3)."

I assume everyone agrees with (1), because of (3). (2) however, is either completely redundant or implies non-Christians are somehow less likely to hold this position.
Similarly, the "[...] This is America. [...]" - so what? Are non-Americans less likely to be good and do the right thing? If not, then why mention it?

Those aren't retorical questions, by the way. I think Schermer did it to appeal to American patriotism, to get the message better across. However, since any patriotism is generally a claim to superiority it will always be somewhat offensive to foreigners. Second, an appeal to patriotism is really an appeal to emotion - thus a logical fallacy.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Overall I liked Shermer's commentary because it is a nice chance from the commentaries that poke fun at someone or are the same things over and over.

There are some things that were odd, IMO, such as

I don’t mind eating cows and fish, but dolphins and whales have big brains and they’re cool, so I don’t think we should kill them.

Glad to know that one wouldn't kill something due to brain size and because something is "cool". Things with small brains, things we subjectively consider uncool, let's kill em?

And

As for evolution, it happened

And happens, of course.


I dislike how he confuses IMO a scientific outlook with atheism. They are not necessarily the same. At the beginning of the article, even in the title, he talks about science: "I believe in the power of science.. ". By the end of the article, he talks about "..those of us who do not believe in god..". He says "I don’t know why the God question is so interdigitated with political and economic issues, but it is.", but he himself brought up other issues when talking about the "God question", so why can't others?

 

[Kimpatsu]

Hmm... nothing to do with the fact that the British flag was generally the Union flag and that was white, red and blue - I always thought the USA flag was red, white and blue because that was the colours of lag material the first USA flag makers had to hand...

Not far wrong; it's actually the cheapest materials to hand, so many flags could be churned out quickly.
FYI, that's the reasons why British soldiers wore red coats; red was the cheapest dye available.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Those aren't retorical questions, by the way. I think Schermer did it to appeal to American patriotism, to get the message better across. However, since any patriotism is generally a claim to superiority it will always be somewhat offensive to foreigners. Second, an appeal to patriotism is really an appeal to emotion - thus a logical fallacy.

That's not patriotism, it's jingoism--an even worse emotion.

 

[aggle-rithm]

There are some things that were odd, IMO, such as

......

Glad to know that one wouldn't kill something due to brain size and because something is "cool". Things with small brains, things we subjectively consider uncool, let's kill em?

Ever hear of something called "context"? Google it some time.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Ever hear of something called "context"? Google it some time.

Vagueness. It's your friend.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Go watch 'Braveheart'. Then watch 'The Patriot'.

The first is a movie about a Scottish rebellion against the English and the second is a movie about our own Rebellion agianst England. Who should have been portrayed as the bad guys in those movies, the Swiss?

I'm sorry that's just friggin absurd. There are a lot of movies about WWII. In those movies the villians are usually either German or Japanese, because those were our opponents in that particular war. So does it then follow that Americans hate the Germans and Japanese because they are usually the villains in WWII movies? Then we've got all those cold war spy movies with Russian spies as the villians. We hate Russians too. Oh and I can think of a few movies where Americans were plotting dastardly deeds against other Americans, so we hate ourselves too. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

To be brutally honest, I see a lot more hatred of Americans coming from the British than vice versa, around here.

 

[Hellbound]

Well said, Nyarl.

Since we're assuming that movies are directly representative of the populace, how about James Bond? That's, what, like twelve movies to your two? HAH!

It's far more common to see the Englishman as an ally or even the main character, than as the villian.

I have to agre,e most of the ill will I've seen flowing on the board comes west across the Atlantic. Of course, I don't go into the religion or politics forums, perhaps it's different there.

There's no institutionlized or general ill will towards the English here. IN fact, on of the tricks we used to pull when teenagers was talking with a British accent...the chicks dig it. England is regarded as one of our almost always allies on the world stage (as far as politics go), which means a lot (even if we aren't doing the best thing. If the U.S. tried to shoot itself in the foot, England would help us steady the gun ).

I think a lot of this "Americans hate the Brits" sentiment is projection, it's unfounded. First, it's a sweeping generalization that ignores the diversity present in the U.S., second, it's backed up by nothing more than opinion (no evidence), and finally, it's contraindicated by the stances taken by the countries in world politics, as well as in popular television and film.

 

[egslim]

That's not patriotism, it's jingoism--an even worse emotion.

While I agree with that, it really doesn't matter - appeals to emotion clearly don't belong at JREF.

I will add though, that I'm all open to hearing other explanations. As a sceptic should be.

 

[Czarzy]

Not far wrong; it's actually the cheapest materials to hand, so many flags could be churned out quickly.
FYI, that's the reasons why British soldiers wore red coats; red was the cheapest dye available.

Why use dye at all? No dye = no expense.

Hypothesis (not original to me but to many historians and which I find logical) is that red was chosen in an attempt to make the gushing arterial blood from egregious battle wounds less visually (and therefore less viscerally and immediately) shocking to comrades.

Whether screams and smells of mortally wounded people you know, without the accompanying realization of blood, is less stupifying than JUST (dripping irony) those screams and smells: any evidence?

Let's NOT test that hypothesis.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I have to agre,e most of the ill will I've seen flowing on the board comes west across the Atlantic. Of course, I don't go into the religion or politics forums, perhaps it's different there.

Nope. The politics forum is the worst for it, imo.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Well said, Nyarl.

Since we're assuming that movies are directly representative of the populace, how about James Bond? That's, what, like twelve movies to your two? HAH!

It's far more common to see the Englishman as an ally or even the main character, than as the villian.

Oh, and Robin Hood, We have been making Robin Hood movies for DECADES. Of course the bad guys in those movies are as English as the good guys, so maybe that means we are conflicted.

Oh and Die Hard, the main villian is actually German but he is played by an English actor, I don't even want to think what deep down psychological ramifications that has.

And Austin Powers, the good guy is English but is played by a Canadian, the bad guy is Belgian and the villians #2 man (#2) seems like an American. So that means we like Canadians when they pose as English, we hate Belgians and we aren't fond of Americans working for the Belgians either, but since the villians in The Rock were American, we already know we hate ourselves. The villian has a tiny henchman, who is presumably also Belgian, since he is a clone of the first character. What that means, I have no idea. Maybe it means we hate Luxembourg, since it is smaller than Belgium, I dunno. Maybe it just means we hate bald midgets.

This is all so confusing.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Amazing. You misunderstood what I said, and you managed to stretch this to a supposition that to dislike America is to dislike Bush. What flexible strawmen you can build!

So you dislike America but LIKE Bush? I gotta say, that's novel. I usually hear "I don't have aproblem with America but I don't like Bush", you are the first to switch that around. It's novel, I must say.

 

[Nitedawg]

Wasted Energy

What does Shermer say? I might as well not exist. Shermer could have mentioned the cause of freedom for religious intolerance that the Danes are currently undergoing. Maybe they don't exist either.

Diamond, I'm an American and I would have liked to have heard about the Danes current struggle regarding religious intolerance. And you could have enlightened me about that too, except you chose to spend all your energy spouting hate over an article who's only real fault is that it could have been worded better.

Every one in here has gotten your point already. We understand you feel slighted because he focused his article on an American audience and pretty much all we've been saying in his defense is that it was not done intentionaly. It looks to me like he cut an article from another place and just forgot to tweek it for an international audience. Is that really worth this much anger?

Now...what ABOUT the Danish struggle???

 

[Nyarlathotep]

It looks to me like he cut an article from another place and just forgot to tweek it for an international audience. Is that really worth this much anger?

Five bucks says it was originally intended for NPR's 'This I Believe' series.

 

[epepke]

How is it possible for so many intelligent posters to completely miss the point of what I wrote?

I didn't criticize the US Constitution or the Separation of Church and State - quite the opposite.

I criticized the fact that Shermer appeared to be speaking entirely to Americans without regard for other countries. I sarcastically alluded that this sort of Americacentric crap is the kind of thing that is associated with poor white trash.

I agree with you, and I'm even an American!

Actually the Sherman commentary reads to me like a few randomly selected paragraphs from the tail end of the first draft of a rant. However, in form, it might seem to be an abortive entry to that PBS/NPR (?) What I Believe thingie.

Just had a premonition. I will not defend or explain it, but I'm willing to put it on the line. Shermer will be running JREF five years from now.