• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My responses to Michael Shermer

Nyarlathotep said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's entertaining to say the least that I have to qualify every statement. Perhaps I should have put this into the thread:

10540268_F_tn.jpg


To the point:

Shermer's sermon was an Americacentric nationalistic rant. What was it doing on Swift? Did Shermer realise who he was talking to? (Answer: No) Are people from other countries fighting for their political and religious freedoms or just Americans? With all that is happening recently in the defence of freedom of expression and liberty, with Danish, Norwegian and Italian embassies and citizens attacked, do you think Shermer could have mentioned them?

I'm absolutely certain that Randi would never have addressed only Americans on Swift. I can't recall Shermer ever addressing the issues of liberty in my country or anywhere else in Europe.

The idea of Shermer taking over the JREF in a few years is quite frightening.
 
Diamond said:
Shermer's sermon was an Americacentric nationalistic rant.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't, though it was mildly irritating that he chose to address America in an international newsletter. I agree with the posters who said his piece was probably intended for something else. Perhaps he was due to produce a Swift but failed to get it in on time, necessitating a late substitution and an indtroduction from Hal to pad it out?
 
Umm.. this thread is getting a lot of legs that are probably unnecessary. Was Shermer's commentary the best one ever posted? No. As I pointed out, I took (minor) issue with some of his statements as well.

But - considering Randi is recuperating, it was nice he volunteered to give us SOMETHING to rant about in the weekly newsletter.

Is this really worth getting our collective panties in a bunch over? In my opinion, no.

Shouldn't we be debating something much more worthwhile such as... the fact a distillery in Scotland is about to brew some 184 proof hooch?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060227/wl_uk_afp/britainwhiskyoffbeat

Personally, I doubt something THAT potent would have much taste beyond a pleasantly numbing burning sensation. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

-Hic!
 
With all that is happening recently in the defence of freedom of expression and liberty, with Danish, Norwegian and Italian embassies and citizens attacked, do you think Shermer could have mentioned them?
Click to expand...

Yes he could have mentioned them but SO COULD YOU! You could have taken his general message about the danger that religious zelotry poses to free speech and used it as a springboard to compare it to the assault on free speech going on in Europe.

That would have been the high road and would have reduced defensiveness and won respect. You then could have mentioned your irritation about the perceived Ameri-centrism in a more positive and constructive way.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Shermer coulda, Diamond coulda...Can we move on now?

One good thing about this extended rant...It helps remind us that being smart and skeptical does not protect us against emotionalism. It also doesn't make any of us perfect either. Not the Shermers, not the Diamonds, not even the Nitedawgs.
 
151, 160, now 180??

Personally, I doubt something THAT potent would have much taste beyond a pleasantly numbing burning sensation. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

I have drunk Bacardi 151 neat. (So potent, the bottle comes with a flame guard)

I bought some 160 proof absinthe in Athens last week. They sold it with shot glasses. I had to laugh.

The difference (4.5%) was quite noticeable.

But I didn't find anything "pleasant" about the sensation. 180 proof would probably put me off booze for life, and I certainly wouldn't put it in a shot glass and down it.
 
Diamond said:
It's entertaining to say the least that I have to qualify every statement. Perhaps I should have put this into the thread:

10540268_F_tn.jpg
Click to expand...

Ah, but you said you like Bush but dislike America, that's the opposite point of that sticker or whatever it is. It is also the reverse of what I usually hear and I find that odd.
 
JohnF_73 said:
180 proof would probably put me off booze for life, and I certainly wouldn't put it in a shot glass and down it.
Click to expand...
I don't see how it's possible to drink anything that potent without water, which makes its extreme strength somewhat pointless. Unless you factor in the marketing angle and the endless free publicity they get for it, of course.

If anyone knocks back a wee dram as if it were a standard whiskey and dies or goes blind, I hope they get sued.
 
JohnF_73 said:
Personally, I doubt something THAT potent would have much taste beyond a pleasantly numbing burning sensation. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

I have drunk Bacardi 151 neat. (So potent, the bottle comes with a flame guard)

I bought some 160 proof absinthe in Athens last week. They sold it with shot glasses. I had to laugh.

The difference (4.5%) was quite noticeable.

But I didn't find anything "pleasant" about the sensation. 180 proof would probably put me off booze for life, and I certainly wouldn't put it in a shot glass and down it.
Click to expand...


Nothing compared to Everclear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everclear_(alcohol)
 
Ian Osborne said:
I don't see how it's possible to drink anything that potent without water, which makes its extreme strength somewhat pointless. Unless you factor in the marketing angle and the endless free publicity they get for it, of course.

If anyone knocks back a wee dram as if it were a standard whiskey and dies or goes blind, I hope they get sued.
Click to expand...


I used to knock back straight Everclear, which is 180 proof. So it is possible.
 
Everclear is actually 190 proof. It was always fun as a liquor retailer to steer freshly-legal kids who had never had a drink away from the Everclear because they heard it was good. Most often, though, I only managed to steer them to purchasing the pint for a group of four instead of the half-gallon.

We also sold a bourbon that ranged up to about 140-150 proof. I was a hand-selected cask strength, so it varied a little. Booker's, I think? It was part of Jim Beam's small-batch bourbon line.

EDIT: Correction . . . Booker's only hits 127 proof at the top end.
 
Last edited:
Nyarlathotep said:
In those movies the villians are usually either German or Japanese, because those were our opponents in that particular war.
Click to expand...

Not if you're German, Japanese, Finnish, Italian, or Swiss, or any number of other nationalities that were not one of the Allies.

Allied-Centric!!!
 
valis said:
Wow that is scary! You mean that in the early days of America there was less religion in government? And over time it has slowly been getting more and more religous?
Click to expand...
That would be an accurate statement. Religious folk stayed out of politics until Justice Black handed down the Court's decision in Engel v. Vitale. Then they really got upset.

T'ai Chi said:
But again, if there is no evidence of A, what logic tells you that there it is OK to assume A does not exist?
Click to expand...
Parsimony, aka Occam's Razor: Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. Learn it, love it.

T'ai Chi said:
By doing this one is really saying 'I believe A to not exist' or 'I don't want A to exist', or 'I cannot conceive of A existing' or 'I am biased against A'.
Click to expand...
No, what one is saying is "Because I have no evidence of A's existence, I will presume for the time being that A does not exist for the sake of keeping my theories clean. When I am provided with credible evidence for A, I will modify my theories accordingly."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom