Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[Coito ergo sum]

You're very dimwitted, it seems, since you have extreme difficulty comprehending basic English and simple concepts, and you continually invent things. I talked of escorting people out. I didn't advocate violence.

I object to being called "dimwitted" as I do not think it shows rational approach to discussion. You are welcome to continue but frankly your posts for the time being will receive a low priority from me.

Just responding to your irrationality in kind. Don't write nasty jabs at me, if you don't expect to take it in return.

Whatever. Your first step should be to take your own advice and stop turning my argument into something I didn't write. If we start there, then maybe we'd get somewhere.

Just because you don't state something explicitly is no reason not to infer your meaning.

You could always ask me whether I mean what you think I mean. I can tell you this: I am very explicit in setting forth what I mean, and I pick my words carefully. In serious discussions, I say what I mean.

For example, you repeatedly talk about the correctness of hecklers being "escorted" from the meeting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if hecklers refuse to be "escorted" voluntarily then it is a reasonable inference that you would support the position that they be "escorted" forcefully (i.e. violently).

Your allegation against me was that I advocated violence in the first instance. I did not. Asking hecklers to leave or escorting them out is not violence.

And, no I generally don't advocate violence as a means to escort a refusing heckler out. I advocate notifying him that he is required to leave, and upon refusal, summon the authorities. If the heckler is lawfully being asked to leave, then the police will escort him out.

See? Perhaps you should "ask" instead of "infer."

You didn't write that, of course, and you are free to correct me if I have misinterpreted you.

I have corrected you. You are now and always were wrong.

However, I am also free to draw the inference,

You are free to do anything you want. However, drawing an unwarranted inference is rude, and it usually creates a straw man fallacy. You do it all the time. You make one of your "inferences" and then you argue against your inference. In a discussion or debate, I'm entitled to make my own argument, and it is fallacious reasoning on your part to infer something else and then argue against that. That's sophistry.

and I have done so on the basis of an intelligent assessment of your opinions generally. Therefore no, I will not "stop" drawing inferences from your views, if that's what you mean.

Your inferences are self-serving, purposeful diversions, evasions, and spurious chicanery.

Finally, I think it is fair to say we differ about the appropriate response to heckling in political meetings.

I don't know. You seem to acknowledge that removal of the heckler is on the table. You just don't think it's appropriate based on one word shouted out. I tend to agree, but then again, it is up to the property owner or the people organizing an event. If a person shouted out one thing, I would first tell the person to quiet down and allow the audience to hear the speech or presentation they came to hear. If, however, Obama is speaking at the Kiwanis Club, and some group of folks continually shouts out blurbs and insults, and they won't quiet down when asked, then I'd ask them to leave. If they wouldn't leave, I'd call the police and have them removed.

I have noted your repeated attempts to portray my position as being the same as yours.

I've not done that once, let alone repeatedly. Link to the post where I did that, please, or withdraw your scurrilous allegation.

It isn't, it's different - I value the freedom to heckle in meetings like the Labour Conference and Fundraising Events, you want to stop it in its tracks,

That depends where they're located, and I don't favor stopping them in their tracks. I've said only that the people organizing the events and property owners have the right to control what goes on at their events to the same extent that the local theater putting on a play can throw out hecklers who are ruining the show for everyone.

I value giving students the opportunity to hear diverse religious views at school, you don't. That is a difference of substance.

Absolutely I don't value students wasting time on religion in state schools. That would be ridiculous.

[Exi5tentialist]

You're very dimwitted, it seems, since you have extreme difficulty comprehending basic English and simple concepts, and you continually invent things. I talked of escorting people out. I didn't advocate violence.

I object to being called "dimwitted" as I do not think it shows rational approach to discussion. You are welcome to continue but frankly your posts for the time being will receive a low priority from me.

Just responding to your irrationality in kind.

Whatever else I might have said, I have not and would not personally attack you by implying that you are stupid or use any terms indicating you have low intelligence, as you have done in this case. Since you have stated that you do not consider yourself to be bound by any need for such restraint, I am not prepared to accept your disregard for this basic civilised respect for another member of the Forum.

Please therefore take this message as notification that unless I receive an apology from you, I will not be engaging in any further conversation with you on this message board.

[charlou]

If you are willing to be escorted out of the building for heckling then you have the freedom to heckle for a limited time and everyone will know that there are some folks who strongly disagree with the speaker.

Do you mean you want extend the freedom to completely take hijack a venue that others have organized and paid for to those who are not willing to put in the time and effort to get their own platform?

This is an important point.

As it relates to the original topic, the state funds education on behalf of the people. In a country that comprises people with an array of views, beliefs, agendas and ideologies, none should be given a platform in schools ... if only because none have the monopoly on access to the system. This is a large part of what secularism is about .. taking the most unbiased, unpreferential, objective approach possible.

[Exi5tentialist]

As it relates to the original topic, the state funds education on behalf of the people. In a country that comprises people with an array of views, beliefs, agendas and ideologies, none should be given a platform in schools ... if only because none have the monopoly on access to the system. This is a large part of what secularism is about .. taking the most unbiased, unpreferential, objective approach possible.

So economics students would never be taught the difference between keynesians and monetarists, history students the difference between communists and capitalists, physics students the difference between Einsteinian physics and Newtonian physics: oh and of course, students of comparative religion would not be taught the difference between islam and judaism, or catholicism and protestantism.

No, Charlou, this is not what secularism is about. Secularism is about keeping religion out of the governance functions of the 3 branches of government. The state is there to serve the people, if the people are religious and want the state to fund religious education in schools, then how is that not democracy?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The state is there to serve the people, if the people are religious and want the state to fund religious education in schools, then how is that not democracy?

The government legislates against crimes. Religion is a crime. The government should legislate against religion.

[charlou]

As it relates to the original topic, the state funds education on behalf of the people. In a country that comprises people with an array of views, beliefs, agendas and ideologies, none should be given a platform in schools ... if only because none have the monopoly on access to the system. This is a large part of what secularism is about .. taking the most unbiased, unpreferential, objective approach possible.

So economics students would never be taught the difference between keynesians and monetarists, history students the difference between communists and capitalists, physics students the difference between Einsteinian physics and Newtonian physics: oh and of course, students of comparative religion would not be taught the difference between islam and judaism, or catholicism and protestantism.

No, Charlou, this is not what secularism is about. Secularism is about keeping religion out of the governance functions of the 3 branches of government. The state is there to serve the people, if the people are religious and want the state to fund religious education in schools, then how is that not democracy?

You seem to taking a similar line to homerjay in response to my post.

There's a difference between teaching and/or discussing a topic from an objective, fact-based point of view, and attempting to instill belief by indoctrination.

An example of the former might be to look at the fact that the world has x number of christians, y number of muslims, z number of hindus, etc and the distribution of those numbers globally, and discuss why that distribution exists and the impact it has on the culture, both within regions (yes, I mean regions here, not a typo), and globally ..

... while an example of the latter might be to talk about why one religion is the best, to use value laden language to imply that being part of that religion is desirable, or imperative, with whatever admonishments to believe in the text and heed the tenets go along with that.


Or .. the former might be describing and discussing cultural traditions and practices based around myths, stories and legends ..

... while the latter might be telling the group that easter is the celebration of the death and resurrection of jesus christ so that the listeners might repent their sins, be saved and have eternal life ... and "here's a pamphlet with more about this "good news, see you in church, sunday, where our congregation will be waiting to welcome you into the flock of born again believers".

[JimC]

CES wrote:

In other words, you're just making shit up, and attributing it to me, because you're unable to address what I actually said and meant.

Abso-fucking-lutely!

[HomerJay]

You seem to taking a similar line to homerjay in response to my post.

This is boarding on a personal attack, charlou, since no-one would ever want their position to be compared to the ramblings of exi5tentalist.

You never did explain how 'objectively delivered religious education' wasn't religious education.

[charlou]

I've given examples of the difference in my previous post .. the one you've just quoted a single (and the least relevant) line from.

[Magicziggy]

You seem to taking a similar line to homerjay in response to my post.

This is boarding on a personal attack, charlou, since no-one would ever want their position to be compared to the ramblings of exi5tentalist.

You never did explain how 'objectively delivered religious education' wasn't religious education.

I don't see anything wrong with exi5's position. However this thread has somewhat strayed IMO. It seems destined to debate the desirability of enshrining the Bills of Human Rights on every school. This is not so stupid as many schools are bound to do so by being accredited by the Council of International Schools.

Anyhow. I'm staying with the view that religion is a worthy topic for academic study and one that can be introduced at junior school level.

[HomerJay]

You seem to taking a similar line to homerjay in response to my post.

This is boarding on a personal attack, charlou, since no-one would ever want their position to be compared to the ramblings of exi5tentalist.

You never did explain how 'objectively delivered religious education' wasn't religious education.

Anyhow. I'm staying with the view that religion is a worthy topic for academic study and one that can be introduced at junior school level.

But this says nothing.

It does not make it clear what exposure you feel children should have, which is the crux, are you trying to bully the kids into religious education?

The issue here is around compulsion and the competing needs of different parts of the curriculum.

[Magicziggy]

You seem to taking a similar line to homerjay in response to my post.

This is boarding on a personal attack, charlou, since no-one would ever want their position to be compared to the ramblings of exi5tentalist.

You never did explain how 'objectively delivered religious education' wasn't religious education.

Anyhow. I'm staying with the view that religion is a worthy topic for academic study and one that can be introduced at junior school level.

But this says nothing.

It does not make it clear what exposure you feel children should have, which is the crux, are you trying to bully the kids into religious education?

The issue here is around compulsion and the competing needs of different parts of the curriculum.

I don't know how it would be implemented at primary school. At high school there are four core subjects. Maths, science, English and history. Comparative religion could be incorporated into a year 8 or 9 history course with some reference to present day issues. Preparing young people for the world in which they live is the responsibility of parents and school. To ignore the presence of religion in the world would be a major failing on the part if the education system. I do not support the notion of the proponents of a particular religion having any access at all to to school children. And any church should stay the hell out of offering programmes/ plays to schools. Schools should show some steel and address this.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have no problem with the Dawkin's suit part being split off to a new thread.

[Hermit]

You seem to taking a similar line to homerjay in response to my post.

This is boarding on a personal attack, charlou, since no-one would ever want their position to be compared to the ramblings of exi5tentalist.

Mhh. Boarding...



It never ceases to amaze me - though I should be well and truly used to it by now, it happens often enough after all - how people confuse opinions they find unpalatable with personal attack. Bonus points here for making such a complaint, then following with something bordering on a personal attack in the very same sentence.

[HomerJay]

You seem to taking a similar line to homerjay in response to my post.

This is boarding on a personal attack, charlou, since no-one would ever want their position to be compared to the ramblings of exi5tentalist.

Mhh. Boarding...

Bonus points here for making such a complaint, then following with something bordering on a personal attack in the very same sentence.

Well done for spotting the irony.