Is Richard Dawkins An Arrogant Bully, Or An Honest Truth Seeker?

[babysealclubber]

Part 1

Part 2

 

I see nobody has linked to the vids, so here they are. I watched them last night, and thought that they were pretty good.

[PiracyOfTheHead]

LOL, Vigile, I asked that because some of you are running around praising Dawkins for "debunking" Chopra or some shit but neither Dawkins or any of you have said exactly what the shit it is that he debunked.....

 

All Dawkins did was act like a colossal schmuck towards the guy, apparently being arrogant is proof enough for someone like you....but I'm thoughtful, I require information.

 

I think I know where you can put that sacred cow though.........

[Vigile]

Don't get me wrong, I think its great when someone calls Bullshit on true Bullshit, let me narrow my statements and questions a bit.......how do we know its bullshit??

 

Ah, so we get to the reason you are ranting here. It's not that you don't like his attitude, it's that he has encroached on what may or may not yet be for you a sacred cow. Is that right?

 

How does that foot of yours taste?? hope its mmm mmm good.

 

I know quite a bit about vedic science, studied it in college, read the Upanishads, Vedas and Bhagavad Gita.......I am not going to become a Chopra follower, how the hell did you get that out of what I said???

 

LOL....you just PWNED yourself pal......thanks for playin' though.

 

???

 

I have no hat in the ring here P, I'm just trying to figure out why you are making such a big issue out of this. I don't need to defend Dawkins I haven't even read him. It's just that calling someone an arrogant bully in this context is rather subjective. When you were offended by Dawkin's calling something completely unsupported and contradictory bullshit you seem to take offense to that the way someone would if their sacred cow was challenged. If I misread you that's on me. Whatever.

[Vigile]

LOL, Vigile, I asked that because some of you are running around praising Dawkins for "debunking" Chopra or some shit but neither Dawkins or any of you have said exactly what the shit it is that he debunked.....

 

All Dawkins did was act like a colossal schmuck towards the guy, apparently being arrogant is proof enough for someone like you....but I'm thoughtful, I require information.

 

I think I know where you can put that sacred cow though.........

 

 

Uh, I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills a bit.

[LastKing]

I am not really sure how to feel about him. On the one hand he is really smart and a good debater. On the other there are times I think he's a hypocrit. He always condems the religous for being so abslute in there views, trying to convert every one, ect and yet that all he does. I never read any of his books but I have watch his documenterys like the Root of all Evil. He rasied some good points but I also have to take a few shots at him.

 

Watch frist.

 

 

Frist of all the opening comment I thought had some hypocrisy. Again condeming the Religous for beliving they are always right about everything and yet het he has the same attuide about him self. Now for the actual interview it self there is somthing about it that makes me go hmmm. Dawkins act as if he is surpised that this man said such radical hatfull things but it seems a little odd to me. Why was this man ask to be interviewed on the subject of islam? Dawkins had to look into the backrounds of the people he interviews before he picks them. He has to selecte which ones he will give camrea time. I am not sure I belive that he was uniformed that this man was a radical. If he was that open about his crazy views I really think they would have know it. It like acting shock when the westboro bapthist cruch go on gay bashing rant when you interview them to bring middle gournd views on Christiatny. I think that man was picked becasue of his views and not to bring middle ground. To bring higher ratings, make Dawkins look like hero and make religon look bad.

[Asimov]

He did lie, willfull misrepresentation is lying, hes not stupid, he knows that calling a doctor "someone who used to be a doctor" is not the truth, when its not the truth, its a lie.

 

No, he said "someone who once qualified as a doctor". Dawkins was presenting his opinion that once you stop actually practicing medicine and start goin off about spiritual woo woo as healing methods, you no longer qualify as a doctor.

 

Just like the minute some scientist moron starts going off about Jesus and Creationism, he is expelled from the scientific community because his qualifications are no longer representative of his works and he is letting religion creep into the objective setting of science.

 

Im sure if you were a world reknown author, lecturer and teacher....and got shot down in one little interview that got broadcast worldwide and on the net, you would understand that a whole hell of a lot of damage can be done in just one interview, so I think minimizing its impact is just your way of dealing with the fact that you like Dawkins and the fact that you've engaged in conversation on 3 pages of this thread before coming up with that kinda speaks for itself, are you just going to keep giving your opinion? Youve given it, thank you. If you feel it doesnt need to be talked about any longer then dont reply, move on to a different post. I am not yet done with it.

 

Dawkins HAS been shot down in one little interview that was broadcast worldwide. Have you watched "Dawkins 11 second pause"? Creationists humiliated him after entrapping him.

[woodsmoke]

While Asimov, Woodsmoke and a couple others keep patting eachother on the back for their views, thank you Vomit for YOUR OPINION ON HOW DAWKINS ACTS....which is what I asked for, and not a labyrinth of views and opinions on whether or not religion, folk medicine, alternative medicine or spirituality are valid or not.

Alright, I get it now. You're not really interested in mature, intelligent discussion, you just want people to tell you you're right to some extent.

 

When you're ready to handle dissent as a secure, well-reasoned adult, let me know. 'Til then, have fun seeking approval for your views.

[florduh]

Piracy, you obviously want Dr. Chopra to be right and Dawkins wrong. Personally, I think Dawkins is a poor spokesman for relating critical thinking issues to the religious masses.

 

What has been shown here (in large part) is that Chopra is selling pseudo science and Hindu philosophy/medicine/religion. His universal inferences and the religious precepts he presents as fact are without evidence or logical foundation.

 

Dawkins points that out, he knows his science, and knows how to put together a rational thought or two. His delivery of the information leaves a lot to be desired in the area of style and palatability.

 

Chopra seems friendly and likable while Dawkins is frequently obnoxious and rude. If you can get past the abrasive demeanor, look at the factual and logical content of what Dawkins is saying.

[buffettphan]

Is Richard Dawkins An Arrogant Bully, Or An Honest Truth Seeker?

 

Yes.

He's both.

Brilliant too.

In my opinion, anyhow, for what it's worth.

[Neon Genesis]

Dawkins has every right to be an asshole as long as his weapons are words. "The pen is mightier than the sword" as they say, a sentiment that goes back to the Enlightenment. And if the civil secular society entails that we must all be genteel and mellow... well, fuck that. I would prefer the world of today to that lame-ass humanist paradise.

 

 

 

As long as Dawkins doesn't advocate political repression, reeducation camps, coercion, and whatever else, he's okay in my book. He's doing a great job so far as being a scourge of reason upon the flabby ass of unreason, especially when unreason tries to pass itself off as reason.

Since Dawkins loves to use slippery slope arguments against liberal/moderate religious believers, this begs the question. If liberal/moderate religious believers enable fundamentalist believers by providing a space for them or whatever, then does Dawkins' moderate anti-theistic approach enable more oppressive forms of anti-theism?

[Antlerman]

Dawkins has every right to be an asshole as long as his weapons are words. "The pen is mightier than the sword" as they say, a sentiment that goes back to the Enlightenment. And if the civil secular society entails that we must all be genteel and mellow... well, fuck that. I would prefer the world of today to that lame-ass humanist paradise.

 

 

 

As long as Dawkins doesn't advocate political repression, reeducation camps, coercion, and whatever else, he's okay in my book. He's doing a great job so far as being a scourge of reason upon the flabby ass of unreason, especially when unreason tries to pass itself off as reason.

Since Dawkins loves to use slippery slope arguments against liberal/moderate religious believers, this begs the question. If liberal/moderate religious believers enable fundamentalist believers by providing a space for them or whatever, then does Dawkins' moderate anti-theistic approach enable more oppressive forms of anti-theism?

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Of course, who considers Dawkin's moderate? BTW, I think this is the first time I've ever heard these words strung together by an atheist, "I would prefer the world of today to that lame-ass humanist paradise." Lame-ass humanist paradise? Yikes. Zeus save us! What do we call humanism these days? I thought that was what most atheists prefered to call themselves. Does this mean it's time for open warfare? Reason be damned!?

 

BTW, being a loud mouth, does not make one "a voice of reason". There's a difference between someone stirring the pot, and someone being a visionary and reformist. Dawkins is the former, not the latter, hence my Rush Limbaugh comparison.

[Vomit Comet]

I aren't an atheist, I are an agnostic. And I don't want to live in a world where I'm forced to not be my asshole self.

 

To clarify, I wrote that in response to Piracy making the claim that people should be discouraged or disallowed from behaving like Dawkins if we are to build a secular post-Christian society... or maybe he was implying that such an ideal society would necessarily be free of such curmudgeonly characters, as everybody would be as calm and rational as Mr. Spock on quaaludes. I'm reminded of that Stallone movie "Demolition Man" where Stallone's character was thawed out of cryogenic imprisonment in order to rescue the utopian near future society where people like Denis Leary were forced to live in the sewer and eat rat burgers. Or, if you would like to get more literary, there was Huxley's dystopia, which was kinder and gentler than Orwell's. No thanks.

[Neon Genesis]

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Of course, who considers Dawkin's moderate? BTW, I think this is the first time I've ever heard these words strung together by an atheist, "I would prefer the world of today to that lame-ass humanist paradise." Lame-ass humanist paradise? Yikes. Zeus save us! What do we call humanism these days? I thought that was what most atheists prefered to call themselves. Does this mean it's time for open warfare? Reason be damned!?

When I'm using "moderate" to describe Dawkins I mean like, in the sense that while he can be an ass, he's at least nowhere near as evil as someone like say, Stalin. What I'm trying to say is, if moderate approaches to religion enable more extremist approaches, does Dawkins' approach to anti-theism lead to a more extremist view? Like say someone did decide to start the anti-theist version of the Spanish Inquistion. Would Dawkins' anti-theistic views be an enabler to that if liberal Christians are enablers to fundamentalist Christians? I'm probably not explaining this well.

[Vomit Comet]

Eh, I can't fault him for going after liberal Christians in instances where they are trying to sell themselves as the "reasonable" alternative to fundamentalism.

[Neon Genesis]

But does Dawkins' approach to anti-theism enable more oppressive anti-theism views if liberal Christianity enables more oppressive views of Christianity?

[PiracyOfTheHead]

VIGILE: I have no hat in the ring here P, I'm just trying to figure out why you are making such a big issue out of this. I don't need to defend Dawkins I haven't even read him. It's just that calling someone an arrogant bully in this context is rather subjective. When you were offended by Dawkin's calling something completely unsupported and contradictory bullshit you seem to take offense to that the way someone would if their sacred cow was challenged. If I misread you that's on me. Whatever.

 

Dont worry about why. I asked if he was, I didnt call him one. I wasnt offended by Dawkins, I made judgements abo what I saw. You still havent shown what is unsupported or contradictory. You did misread me. Whatever?

 

Yes, whatever, this seems to be your position the whole way through, obviously the meaning of words means nothing to you, if it suits you to hang on a point to get at me you are all over it, when you misrespresent me and I call you on it, you ignore it or say whatever, that speaks volumes for your participation here, you contributed nothing of value to what I asked, if you dont care, why waste yours and my time?

___________________________________________________________________

 

VIGILE: (Again) Uh, I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills a bit.

 

Nah...I think my impressions of you are right on the mark.

 

Entiendes o no comprendo?

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

ASIMOV: No, he said "someone who once qualified as a doctor". Dawkins was presenting his opinion that once you stop actually practicing medicine and start goin off about spiritual woo woo as healing methods, you no longer qualify as a doctor.

 

Just like the minute some scientist moron starts going off about Jesus and Creationism, he is expelled from the scientific community because his qualifications are no longer representative of his works and he is letting religion creep into the objective setting of science.

 

It was bullshit that he said it and you can justify anyway you want but thats your game, you say this stuff everytime we interact, if you believe it you back it up any means necessary, you never really explain why, but just that if it comes from you it must be true, or you write it off, which is what you will do with this, you only seem to do one of the two, It's getting to the point where I dont care, I wanted to learn by asking the questions I did. Other people that responded helped me learn things and made some sense out of things, you just disagree and have to keep disagreeing, even after you've beaten it to death.

 

If you're going to tell me that someones religious beliefs disqualifies them as an M.D., I dont know what to say to you, but I dont know what to say anyway, you cant be spoken to, you're just always right...dont worry Asimov, one day I will see the light and realize you for the genius you are. But then again, you dont care. Are you like this all the time? About everything, do you just suck and drain from people who are looking to learn? Thats all youve ever done when speaking with me, in fact, I dont remember anything Ive ever said passing muster with you. Why bother?

 

ASIMOV: Dawkins HAS been shot down in one little interview that was broadcast worldwide. Have you watched "Dawkins 11 second pause"? Creationists humiliated him after entrapping him.

 

Once again, the meaning of words apparently means nothing. Did you notice I asked the question about YOU?? Not Dawkins, I have seen the "Dawkins Stump", it wsnt impressive, so what if a person has to think or recollect something, people used to take their time to make intelligent answers, nowadays if you cant spit it out immediately it must be because you're wrong.

 

Yet, I didnt bring it up on this thread because that had nothing to do with what I was asking, it would have been somehting more along the lines of what you would do, if you needed to prove some point.

 

I dont even want to know why you answered a question about you with an answer about somebody else. Thanks for all your input, its more than enough.

 

WOODSMOKE: Alright, I get it now. You're not really interested in mature, intelligent discussion, you just want people to tell you you're right to some extent.

 

When you're ready to handle dissent as a secure, well-reasoned adult, let me know. 'Til then, have fun seeking approval for your views.

 

You dont get it at all, and youre sure as hell not mature, and im finding you less intelligent every post, you're only in it for the shock value it seems, and its not even that funny or clever.

 

I dont want to be right about anything, I asked for info...I never claimed anything, I never supported anybody, I made observations on this guys behavior, its no shock you're so concerned about this topic, you have a chance to act like a dick...thats all you need isnt it.

 

Nobody's dissented from me, I proposed nothing to dissent from, why dont you tell me the meaning of that word, then explain it to me, which you wont, you never follow through when I ask you to make sense of your chatter.

 

I never asked approval for my views, I dont have a view on Chopra or Dawkins, I thought I made that clear from the beginning, hence the title of the thread. You really missed the point of everything here, and majored ont he minors, but you got to throw sucker punches and make yourself laugh, and thats all that really matters right wood?

 

I dont need approval for my views, if youve read anything about me or from me you would see that I deconverted about 5-6 weeks ago, i looked at all my views square in the face and scrapped them, even though I needed that security the most at this time in my life, Ive lost just about everything dear to me, and im looking down the barrell concerning what I have left, I am looking for the truth, as close as anyone can get to that, I chose the truth over a community that I loved and who professed to love me, because I wouldnt live shackled to lies and deception. Only to be left completely alone and in the cold, because those people wont accept my search for the truth. I left a worldview that offered hope for this life and the next at a time when having that hope meant everything, but I chose not to be "right" because I knew I was wrong, the decision has ripped me apart, but I chose to admit I was wrong about almost everything I had ever believed or trusted in, I admitted it to myself, I confronted my priest, I confronted my religious friends, I hid nothing, knowing what the punishment for those crimes would be. You know nothing of me, I know who I am and where Im coming from and where I want to go woodsmoke, I think you may have the opinion that people need to impress you or be in league with you here, but I'll get on just fine without you. If anyone is seeking approval here its you, have you impressed everybody yet?? You are only responding to put me down, anyone whos honest can see that. Hope it worked for ya, hope you feel a little bit better about yourself tonight....

 

Florduh: Your first statement only echoes what Vigile and Asimov and Woodsmoke believe, and I am sorry you see it that way, I still dont get how anybody is seeing where I said Chopra was "right" about anything that he teaches, or Dawkins "wrong" about anything Dawkins teaches, I really went out of my way to make it clear that I was interested in Dawkins' character, Im new to him and starting a long journey into places I have never been with beliefs and science, and I brought that here to the forum, with sincerity, I think in the midst of the crossfire from the triplets I was mistaken for wanting dawkins wrong and chopra right because i was challenging these people to make sense out of their viewpoints and stop offering opinions to support bad behavior and manipulative, misrepresentation and dismissal of a man for all the wrong reasons. In fact I went so far as to explain I know a bit about Vedic science and am not interested, I also stated that if Dawkins were worth it I would like to learn from him some things. How this ended up reversed in your minds is because I challenged some things that were said, It honestly seems to me that you all started with that opinion of me and could not let it go, no matter what I said, you 4 have insisted on 2 things that are simply not true in any way shape or form.

 

Thats my call, you got a first impression and couldnt shake it despite what I said. TBH I think you did it out of misunderstanding, I think the other 3 just do it because they wanted to act that way, not because they were trying to help me understand more about what I had asked.

 

So despite what you believe, I have come to the conclusion I am interested in seeing the good Dawkins has to offer and hopefully I can avoid some of the BS I have been warned about.

 

As far as Chopra goes, I think I would like to read or listen to some of his fiction, from what I have heard hes quite entertaining and he has a positive outlook and is able to express his thoughts in a unique way.

 

Plus I have always loved accents like Dawkins and hes a challenging man, I just really really didnt like the way he presented himself in what I saw with Chopra, thats all, plain and simple....

 

I appreciate the input, well most of it.

[Asimov]

<snip bitching>

 

Not even worth it.

[Vigile]

Piracy, grow up a little why don't ya. Like Asimov says, not worth it.

[florduh]

Piracy, it just appeared to me you have such a hard-on for Dawkins you might read something into responses that conclude he may be an ass, but he is much more correct in his thinking than Chopra. That may have led you to ask that we continue to disprove Chopra's position.

 

FTR, I'd rather go have a beer with Deepak than with Dawkins. I'd probably rather have a beer with you, too!

[Legion]

Just for shits and giggles I’d like to discount for a moment the postive things I see in Dawkins and just concentrate on what I perceive to be his negative attributes. I will speak as if I were speaking to Dawkins himself.

 

Dawkins you are small minded man. It is truly pathetic that you have seized upon evolution as some panacea of understanding or some lens through which we could view the world with unfailing clarity. Is evolution a fact? You bet your Lilly white ass it’s a fact. However it is but one small fact among many facts in a complex universe.

 

Tell us, our esteemed Dr. Dawkins. Tell us what an organism is. Don’t tell us that an organism is that which evolves, because if I were to ask you what evolution is you might say it’s what organisms do. And yet you are so quick to point out the circular reasoning of others in hopes of mocking and belittling them.

 

You are nothing but a boy who has found a sharp stick with which to poke his sister.

[Antlerman]

I aren't an atheist, I are an agnostic. And I don't want to live in a world where I'm forced to not be my asshole self.

I should also clarify that humanism is also the home of the agnostic. In fact that's who really gave it its greatest rise in the 80's. It's a basis of various philosophies that transcend religious or secular political ideologies. Hence my reaction to maligning humanism as some sort "lame-ass paradise". What do you mean by lame-ass? Peace?

 

To clarify, I wrote that in response to Piracy making the claim that people should be discouraged or disallowed from behaving like Dawkins if we are to build a secular post-Christian society... or maybe he was implying that such an ideal society would necessarily be free of such curmudgeonly characters, as everybody would be as calm and rational as Mr. Spock on quaaludes.

I'll let Piracy clarify his own thoughts, but I would say that though I don't agree that ultimately the one-sided rhetoric that comes from those like Dawkins is ultimately the solution, I do recognize its place as the starting gun in creating a more reasoned discussion in the middle. He has his place as a boat-rocker, but ultimately he will fall by the wayside once the discussion in the middle has found common ground and his usefulness as a boat-rocker is no longer relevant. Though he is using reason as the basis of his attack, he doesn't seek far enough to offer answers and therefore it's more just another religious camp. This is why using reason, does not necessarily make one a voice of reason. He doesn't qualify as a voice of reason, IMO. For right now though, he is relevant to some extent for society, which fact is attested to by his popularity. But the very fact those like me or Piracy, as it appears, find that line of thinking to not be where we need to go to find a workable solution, shows that the dialog is well underway in society, at least in some areas. He raises awareness of issues through his voice, but polarization is not what is going to move us forward. Again he has his place, but not as a voice of vision and reason, IMO.

 

I'm reminded of that Stallone movie "Demolition Man" where Stallone's character was thawed out of cryogenic imprisonment in order to rescue the utopian near future society where people like Denis Leary were forced to live in the sewer and eat rat burgers. Or, if you would like to get more literary, there was Huxley's dystopia, which was kinder and gentler than Orwell's. No thanks.

You reject the Bible as fiction, yet you turn to the popular myth making machine of a Hollywood movie to inform you? And BTW, how do you possibly compare humanism to a dystopia? Also, it wasn't kinder and gentler that Orwell's Uptopia. By definition it was worse.

 

In a typical dystopia, there is a total absence of any social group besides the state, as in We, or such social groups being subdivisions of the state, under government control, for example, the Junior Anti-Sex League in 1984.

 

Among social groups, independent religions are notable by their absence. In Brave New World, the establishment of the state included lopping off the tops of all crosses (as symbols of Christianity) to make them "T"s, (as symbols of Henry Ford's Model T).[10] The state may stage, instead, a personality cult, with quasi-religious rituals about a central figure, usually a head of state or an oligarchy of some sort, such as Big Brother in 1984, or The Benefactor of We. In explicitly theocratic dystopias, such as Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, the religion is the state, and is enforced with the same vigor as any secular dystopia's rule; it does not provide social bonds outside the state.

 

Even more than religion, family is attacked by dystopian societies. In some societies, it has been completely eradicated, but clearly at great effort, and continuing efforts are deployed to keep it down, as in Brave New World, where children are reproduced artificially, where the concept of a "mother" or "father" is obscene. In others, the institution of the family exists but great efforts are deployed to keep it in service of the state, as in 1984, where children are organized to spy on their parents. In We, the escape of a pregnant woman from the United States is a revolt; the hostility of the state to motherhood is a particularly common trait.

 

So what you're saying, is that if some sees that certain behaviors and attitudes are undesirable toward the goal of a healthy and peaceable society, that this is someone like "Big Brother" or worse and we should call this humanism.... because?? To help you look into what humanism actually is, as opposed to this idea you have presented:

 

Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality.[1][2] It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism can be considered as a process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.

 

I would say humanism allows for dissenting opinions in the interest of allowing the dignity of self-determination. This however doesn't mean we can't voice disapproval or encourage certain behaviors over others. Exactly where did you get your notions of what humanism is from? Is it a hang-over from the church's demonizing of it?

[woodsmoke]

Piracy, grow up a little why don't ya. Like Asimov says, not worth it.

Seriously.

 

'Course, I suppose this qualifies as just slapping each other on the back some more.

[Asimov]

Piracy, grow up a little why don't ya. Like Asimov says, not worth it.

Seriously.

 

'Course, I suppose this qualifies as just slapping each other on the back some more.

 

Was I doing it wrong? I was slapping on the ass.

[woodsmoke]

I thought I felt someone copping a feel. In hindsight, it really should have been obvious who the hand(s) belonged to.

[Vomit Comet]

I should also clarify that humanism is also the home of the agnostic. In fact that's who really gave it its greatest rise in the 80's. It's a basis of various philosophies that transcend religious or secular political ideologies. Hence my reaction to maligning humanism as some sort "lame-ass paradise". What do you mean by lame-ass? Peace?

 

Lame-ass as in everybody has to be all gentle and nice. "You're sure to meeeeet / some gentle people there." No thanks.

 

I'll let Piracy clarify his own thoughts, but I would say that though I don't agree that ultimately the one-sided rhetoric that comes from those like Dawkins is ultimately the solution, I do recognize its place as the starting gun in creating a more reasoned discussion in the middle. He has his place as a boat-rocker, but ultimately he will fall by the wayside once the discussion in the middle has found common ground and his usefulness as a boat-rocker is no longer relevant.

 

I wasn't talking just about religion. Everything, really. And it's not just about being a boat rocker. It's the right to be inflammatory, to be a dick, to say things that piss people off, even if it's just for kicks.

 

You reject the Bible as fiction, yet you turn to the popular myth making machine of a Hollywood movie to inform you? And BTW, how do you possibly compare humanism to a dystopia? Also, it wasn't kinder and gentler that Orwell's Uptopia. By definition it was worse.

 

I was comparing Piracy's implicit claims about what his secular society would entail to the movie. I was not comparing humanism to the movie.

 

Huxley's dystopia was better because everybody got to fuck and do drugs, and you didn't get tortured and killed for dissent. Also, I think it's worth pretending to be a loyal devotee of Fordism if it keeps me out of the hell of... EurAmerAsia or whatever it was. Huxley's dystopia still sucks, but it sounds better than "denying the orgasm" under Stalinist Puritanism. To me your criteria for kinder and gentler is a matter of rigid principle, whereas I'm just figuring which one would be more tolerable to actually live in. "By definition." Hardly. Soma can make anything tolerable, and endless meaningless sex helps, too.

 

So what you're saying, is that if some sees that certain behaviors and attitudes are undesirable toward the goal of a healthy and peaceable society, that this is someone like "Big Brother" or worse and we should call this humanism.... because?? To help you look into what humanism actually is, as opposed to this idea you have presented:

 

Maybe I was calling his idea a "lame ass" version of humanism as opposed to calling humanism "lame ass." (Granted, I could've misinterpreted what he was trying to convey.) Since I've been made to reflect, it was more the former, though admittedly with a hint of my own personal prejudice.

 

If you're wondering as to my opinion, I am naturally suspicious of universals and any who would deign to implement them. That said, I lift my ethical view from Zygmunt Bauman (appropriating from the Talmud of all places): "you must be for the other before you are for yourself." Well, I prefer to state it another way: "you don't fuck with me, and I don't fuck with you."

 

I would say humanism allows for dissenting opinions in the interest of allowing the dignity of self-determination. This however doesn't mean we can't voice disapproval or encourage certain behaviors over others.

 

And to what extent would this disapproval or encouragement be carried out? In a floating realm of pure rational discourse? I think there are messy, practical matters not being anticipated, and I therefore see potential for abuse.

 

Exactly where did you get your notions of what humanism is from?

 

I could provide an itemized list of what all goes into the construction of my perspective of the world, but I don't want to sound more pretentious than I already do. Also, my perspective on things doesn't have much to do specifically with humanism, no more than it does with art criticism or whatever other specific niche. Of course, my perspective does influence how I view such things if I am asked to explain myself.

 

Also, I wasn't expecting a confrontation over humanism. I was mainly addressing Piracy's ideal secular society as a "lame-ass humanism." I wasn't really addressing it as "lame-ass humanism." I want to be as clear as I can here.

 

Is it a hang-over from the church's demonizing of it?

 

Probably a little bit of that, too. I'll admit that it influences my disdainful view of liberal Christianity. I'll get better about it, though, with time.

 

The other part of it is that I like to speak and behave in ways that humanism seems to want to "discourage", or perhaps I am mistaken? I am going off of the definition of it that you provided, not one that I spun out by myself.