For Reason and Science?

[Calilasseia]

It's not a matter of trying to "purify the movement", it's a matter of basic competence and honesty. Which is what LP has been trying to tell everyone from the beginning.

Plus, as I keep reminding everyone with my use of the words "political dimension", publicly castigating creationists for their manifest duplicity is best done from a position of not being duplicitous oneself. The simple fact being that they'll erect the usual mendacious apologetic spin, even if this affair was nothing more than incompetence arising from naivety. That there is now evidence of duplicity at the heart of the organisation, is fucking solid gold ammunition to these people. Or would be if they themselves were competent.

If Dawkins had simply announced honestly that he's in an open marriage, and financed his shag banditry entirely out of his own pocket, then this would be far less of a problem. The fact that he's cultivated an image of respectability, one that is laughably wide of the facts, is what's going to be the stiletto through the heart in this particular Greek Tragedy.

[Tero]

He'll be like Al Gore to the environmental movement eventually. My center right internet pals hate him as the worst liberal on the planet.

[lordpasternack]

What Cali said.

But even there, it's not even just that... Dawkins had intended to donate to his charity to cover the costs of his shag banditry to some extent (while also dishonestly publicly professing his donations to his charity to be a testament of his dedication to the cause) - but it looks likely that his mistress has taken far more from RDF’S pockets than Richard had intended her to, and we still don't know where at least two years' worth of NBGA donations have gone to.

Cornwell was also behind the lawsuit against Josh, which looks like it was a total farce and a fraud right from the outset - and it was most likely paid by RDF funds.

So this isn't just a story of conflict of interest that concerns the stupid things that Dawkins has done to hamstring his charity, for the sake of a relationship - it's a far more sordid and complex tale of what he has done, and what has been done without his knowledge, in which he is both an accomplice and victim.

As things go public, Richard will obviously try to insist that the relationship was at heart a healthy relationship, and that it had no detrimental effects on his charity. He will insist this in spite of the fact that he is already in possession of plenty of evidence from his own behaviour that he hindered his charity for the sake of the relationship, and there's plenty of evidence that she fucked up royally in her role leading the Foundation, even if Richard prefers to defensively handwave those dirty facts and truths away.

The beautiful thing, though, is that even if Richard were to come out and report everything about the nature of the relationship accurately, in an attempt to embrace honesty and exonerate himself - plenty of people will notice what has flown right over his head to this day: the relationship was abusive and exploitative right from the start, and Richard Dawkins is a total mug.

A handful of people to whom Richard was frank and honest have always known this, but never dared to say it, for fear of being targeted as Josh Timonen was.

[lordpasternack]

A beautifully ironic thing that I like to reflect on occasionally is, that in one of Cornwell's brief attempts to deceive me, she pulled the line: "You're smarter than that" - to make me doubt the evidence that I had at that time, and try to win me over. Nice.

Unfortunately for her she was right. I am smarter than that. I recognise that right away as an Appeal to Flattery, and I don't fall for that shit: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_flattery

I just know that she's managed to use that one a thousand times to manipulate Dawkins, though - and of course the irony in that is that what she's actually been saying to him is "I think you're stupid enough". And unfortunately, she's right.

[Calilasseia]

Perhaps this is one of the reasons for choosing the elderly for leadership in the past. They can't get up to sexual mischief if they're past it.

[Brian Peacock]

This isn't a public hearing LP. You don't have to justify your views to us - we've been there, in various ways, and we know your reasons for pursuing this, and that, when you get down to it, people like RD, however much they are 'on the right side' as it were, still need to be held to account when they take money from others under false pretences and/or blur the necessary demarcation between their organisation's charitable activity and their personal whims. Don't get distracted by the personal stuff, just bind up all the apparent financial irregularities into a nice neat package and get it out there.

[JimC]

This isn't a public hearing LP. You don't have to justify your views to us - we've been there, in various ways, and we know your reasons for pursuing this, and that, when you get down to it, people like RD, however much they are 'on the right side' as it were, still need to be held to account when they take money from others under false pretences and/or blur the necessary demarcation between their organisation's charitable activity and their personal whims. Don't get distracted by the personal stuff, just bind up all the apparent financial irregularities into a nice neat package and get it out there.

[Surendra Darathy]

It's not a matter of trying to "purify the movement", it's a matter of basic competence and honesty. Which is what LP has been trying to tell everyone from the beginning.

Plus, as I keep reminding everyone with my use of the words "political dimension", publicly castigating creationists for their manifest duplicity is best done from a position of not being duplicitous oneself.

See? There IS a higher mission, and it's noble, and must be kept morally intact, because, well, because some ground apes are still just better than others.

What's to get exercised about? Accomplished professionals parlay their success in one area into responsibilities in another for which they may not be qualified. Happens all the time. What's it called in the analysis of organisations? The Peter Principle? No pun intended here, with all the pecking away at presumed peccadilloes involving pudenda. But so far, it's all by inference.

Knowing as much as we do about sociobiology, even if we don't have any photographic evidence in hand, we can infer that it must be going on, because, well, that's just the way we know ground apes behave in regard to their collections of bananas and we're fricking rational skeptics. Like time, social science epistemology is an illusion; like lunchtime, internet social scientific epistemology is doubly so.

The way to show you really know what's going on in a polished organisation is to climb up its ladder and become corrupted by it oneself. Look up 'ressentiment' in Wikipedia. It's an education. And this...

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... nd-lies-2/

Not scientific data as I recognise it. These people are all nuts, playing tough for small potatoes. If the author of that piece doesn't want to pursue a legal remedy for some ostensible wrongdoing, an archivist of other people's gossip doesn't really stand a chance. I'm not strictly necessarily committed to doubting that 'stuff went on', but the only reason I should care is that this organisation mattered one iota to me in the first place. If it matters to LP as much as seems to be indicated, then what Peacock said. The real problem is that those here who care about it and the ones at FTB may be the only ones who do.

[Surendra Darathy]

What Cali said.

But even there, it's not even just that... Dawkins had intended to donate to his charity to cover the costs of his shag banditry to some extent (while also dishonestly publicly professing his donations to his charity to be a testament of his dedication to the cause) - but it looks likely that his mistress has taken far more from RDF’S pockets than Richard had intended her to, and we still don't know where at least two years' worth of NBGA donations have gone to.

Cornwell was also behind the lawsuit against Josh, which looks like it was a total farce and a fraud right from the outset - and it was most likely paid by RDF funds.

So this isn't just a story of conflict of interest that concerns the stupid things that Dawkins has done to hamstring his charity, for the sake of a relationship - it's a far more sordid and complex tale of what he has done, and what has been done without his knowledge, in which he is both an accomplice and victim.

As things go public, Richard will obviously try to insist that the relationship was at heart a healthy relationship, and that it had no detrimental effects on his charity. He will insist this in spite of the fact that he is already in possession of plenty of evidence from his own behaviour that he hindered his charity for the sake of the relationship, and there's plenty of evidence that she fucked up royally in her role leading the Foundation, even if Richard prefers to defensively handwave those dirty facts and truths away.

The beautiful thing, though, is that even if Richard were to come out and report everything about the nature of the relationship accurately, in an attempt to embrace honesty and exonerate himself - plenty of people will notice what has flown right over his head to this day: the relationship was abusive and exploitative right from the start, and Richard Dawkins is a total mug.

A handful of people to whom Richard was frank and honest have always known this, but never dared to say it, for fear of being targeted as Josh Timonen was.

The narrative is fracturing, LP, which is what all inconsistent narratives must do when confronted by a request for an executive summary.

Is the story about sexual impropriety? Financial mismanagement of a charity to which you donated? Or simply perceived imperfections in the 'rationality' of someone who had been (correctly or not) perceived to have set himself up as a paragon? Or something else? Only a request for an executive summary will show that there's no there, there.

[lordpasternack]

The narrative is not fracturing. None of those things are mutually exclusive, and they could well be, and are, mutually reinforcing.

Reality doesn’t care about conforming to a single narrative to satisfy you.

[Calilasseia]

It's not a matter of trying to "purify the movement", it's a matter of basic competence and honesty. Which is what LP has been trying to tell everyone from the beginning.

Plus, as I keep reminding everyone with my use of the words "political dimension", publicly castigating creationists for their manifest duplicity is best done from a position of not being duplicitous oneself.

See? There IS a higher mission

Oh please, this principle has universal application. Or didn't you realise this elementary concept in your rush to post the usual apologetics?

It doesn't matter what status one's wish to see principles established happens to possess, that wish is hardly helped if one's conduct fails to meet basic standards of competence and honesty. Whilst the behaviour of politicians seems at times to fly in the face of this, in the end, any act of duplicity comes back to haunt one. You'll find a nice (and particularly lurid) example appearing in UK news outlets at this time.

and it's noble, and must be kept morally intact, because, well, because some ground apes are still just better than others.

Bollocks. Once again, what part of the words "basic competence and honesty" do you not understand?

One can be forgiven for a lapse grounded in a subtle interplay of issues, but then that's what rigorous discourse is for, to reveal such tank traps before they ensnare the unwary. What will almost certainly inflict serious damage upon an enterprise, however, is failure to meet even elementary standards in this regard. That's the issue here, namely, that RD has failed to meet even elementary standards with respect to his publicly stated mission. Or do you not think one should expect better from those in the public spotlight, particularly when they adopt the stance of being in a position to critique others?

What's to get exercised about? Accomplished professionals parlay their success in one area into responsibilities in another for which they may not be qualified. Happens all the time. What's it called in the analysis of organisations? The Peter Principle?

I happen to have read that work. Which is one of the reasons I've offered the critiques that I have. It's called know your limitations. And when you don't know how to do a particular task, find someone who does. RD has been spectacularly inept at even this elementary task.

No pun intended here, with all the pecking away at presumed peccadilloes involving pudenda. But so far, it's all by inference.

Not all of it. That LP has launched into speculation about RD's behaviour in the past, doesn't detract from the evidence of misdoings in the present. Plus, as any competent criminologist will tell you, in the world of sexual misconduct, patterns of behaviour of this sort have a habit of being established relatively early in life. I'm sure that the diligent will find plenty of relevant case studies supporting this general principle, one that springs to my mind being Ian Huntley. On the basis thereof, whilst LP's speculations in this vein remain speculations, until we have evidence, those speculations weren't the products of LP's rectal passage, unlike creationist fantasies. They were the product of known and established facts about human behaviour. But don't let this sway you from your peddling of the usual apologetics.

Knowing as much as we do about sociobiology, even if we don't have any photographic evidence in hand, we can infer that it must be going on, because, well, that's just the way we know ground apes behave in regard to their collections of bananas and we're fricking rational skeptics.

Once again, I'll point you at those competent criminologists.

Like time, social science epistemology is an illusion; like lunchtime, internet social scientific epistemology is doubly so.

Is this Derrida-esque word salad supposed to be telling us something?

The way to show you really know what's going on in a polished organisation is to climb up its ladder and become corrupted by it oneself. Look up 'ressentiment' in Wikipedia. It's an education.

Amusing to see you erect a quote about the purported provenance of "social science epistemology", then resort to an example of the very same epistemology to support your assertions.

And this...

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... nd-lies-2/

I gather the author thereof has, shall we say, an interesting reputation.

Not scientific data as I recognise it.

I don't recall ever erecting an assertion that it was.

These people are all nuts, playing tough for small potatoes. If the author of that piece doesn't want to pursue a legal remedy for some ostensible wrongdoing, an archivist of other people's gossip doesn't really stand a chance. I'm not strictly necessarily committed to doubting that 'stuff went on', but the only reason I should care is that this organisation mattered one iota to me in the first place. If it matters to LP as much as seems to be indicated, then what Peacock said. The real problem is that those here who care about it and the ones at FTB may be the only ones who do.

Well I'm interested in the larger canvas, so to speak. And recognise that failure to be vigilant, with respect to one's own pursuance of an enterprise, frequently attracts an unpleasant cost for that enterprise, regardless of the nature thereof. But again, you seem to be more interested in peddling your own assertions than recognising elementary fact.

[Surendra Darathy]

Once again, what part of the words "basic competence and honesty" do you not understand?

And what about the part where your competence and honesty are showing results for you in terms of the spoons that you're bending? For the present, that would be doors that your knock is opening. As it is, all the knocking is only reverberating in this echo chamber, recruiting the invisible audience of lurkers to another noble cause. Sure, the world may move too fast for Dawkins to keep all the plates spinning all the time, but between the two of you, he's the emeritus British university don with a lengthy additional CV as a convention speaker, and you're not. I've gotten over resenting people whose temperaments and backgrounds gave them what society calls success, and trying to dress that up as moral or technical indignation.

Like time, social science epistemology is an illusion; like lunchtime, internet social scientific epistemology is doubly so.

Is this Derrida-esque word salad supposed to be telling us something?

No, ya humourless drudge. It's a reference to Douglas Adams, as well as a wicked lick taken at internet experts in everything. Don't tempt me to compare you to Samsa.

[Calilasseia]

Once again, what part of the words "basic competence and honesty" do you not understand?

And what about the part where your competence and honesty are showing results for you in terms of the spoons that you're bending? For the present, that would be doors that your knock is opening. As it is, all the knocking is only reverberating in this echo chamber, recruiting the invisible audience of lurkers to another noble cause. Sure, the world may move too fast for Dawkins to keep all the plates spinning all the time, but between the two of you, he's the emeritus British university don with a lengthy additional CV as a convention speaker, and you're not. I've gotten over resenting people whose temperaments and backgrounds gave them what society calls success, and trying to dress that up as moral or technical indignation.

Resentment doesn't come into it. As for spoon bending, I leave that to the usual suspects.

Once again, the principle holds, regardless of the nature of the enterprise. If you want to conduct a given enterprise, certain minimum standards are necessary, though not sufficient (in the mathematical sense) for success in that enterprise. Incompetently pursued enterprises have a habit of failing (the banks notwithstanding).

Plus, him being an emeritus Oxford don with a lengthy additional CV, hasn't stopped him from failing to meet those standards in this case. Which is the issue being pursued. Or don't you think he should exercise competence in this regard?

Like time, social science epistemology is an illusion; like lunchtime, internet social scientific epistemology is doubly so.

Is this Derrida-esque word salad supposed to be telling us something?

No, ya humourless drudge. It's a reference to Douglas Adams

Funny how my reading of said author didn't lead to this connection. Perhaps a more succinct expression would have helped.

as well as a wicked lick taken at internet experts in everything. Don't tempt me to compare you to Samsa.

Many here will point and laugh if you do.

[lordpasternack]

Oh God - I am currently dying to find a copy of a particular post of Richard's in the thread about the original Off-Topic meltdown of 2008.

Richard waxed on and on in a post, about how terrible it is to be vulnerable, on a year by year basis, of losing RDF’S charitable status, how hard it was to obtain charitable status, and how awful it was that we were potentially jeopardising his charity with all our trivia and obscenities.

In light of everything we now know, it would be precious to be able to quote him verbatim.

What was that about jeopardising your charitable status, Richard? Tell us all again about how diligent you are about keeping your charity above board. You can start at the "secret agenda", and finish up with the Non-believers Giving Aid donations... Ready when you are. Try not to mind the cynical laughter and bitter tears.

[piscator]

This thread is sad.