Under GP's formulation of Dawkins's stance, we have the logical expression
Intelligent thinker --> strict naturalist
The converse of this is
not strict naturalist (= believe in God) --> not intelligent thinker --> not intelligent
Thus, GP was correct to assert the equivalence between "Dawkins holds . . . to be an intelligent thinker . .." and "Dawkins calls [a lot of people] morons")
Whether it is a correct assertion that "Dawkins holds . . . to be an intelligent . .." I do not know. But it is true as a matter of first-order logic that if that is true, then Dawkins is in fact calling a large number of people morons. Drooling morons? I don't know. But morons? Absolutely.
Full disclosure: (1) I have never read The Selfish Gene, so my real exposure to Dawkins has in general been through discussion on/. of what he actually says regarding religion. Thus, if there is massive deceit about his actual writings on/., then I'm misinformed about him and my post in general is not correct analysis.
(2) I respect some of what Dawkins is doing (advocacy of evolution). However, I think he is the atheistic equivalent of the guy on the university corner with a bugle calling passing girls "sluts" and telling them if they don't believe in God, they're going to hell. He generates bad PR for his cause in the same way fundamentalist believers do.
Hitchens is far worse, though (although my evaluation of him is colored by his support for the war in Iraq). Dawkins in general I find agreeable (and I am a Christian).
However, re: Hitchens, I will say that I respect him massively for one reason. He talked up a bunch of shit about how waterboarding wasn't torture. Then he voluntarily underwent waterboarding and published a detailed retraction about how it actually is torture. It takes a professional person to so publicly retract previous statements.
Is there anyone stupid enough in Yale or in related circles to believe such claims from our beloved Anonymous
No, but those who would hire the defamed are law firms, and law firms have regular people as clients. And potential clients might be stupid enough to believe such a thing.
Thus, as a prophylactic measure, firms will not hire people who could be viewed negatively by potential clients. It hurts business.
On the other hand, last I heard, the defamed (Iravani) in this case has a real cushy job right now because the defamation was ignored (or because she instituted the suit, making the status of the claims as challenged-as-lies obvious to almost everyone).
If you're a business decisionmaker, you know that clients will also google related individuals. Even if your employee is not that person, some (many?) clients will turn down your business because they suspect it is.
Now, are you willing to take that risk? If your response is "we don't want an idiot's business anyway," and you are a business decisionmaker, then you are likely to need a government bailout sometime in the near future due to your incompetence.
Not only that, but I can hardly see what relevance her sex life has in that forum, especially if the information is hearsay.
You've never been to XOXO. I went there a few times when I was applying to law school to see any posts about average GPA/LSAT combinations for people who got into good schools.
Almost every post is worse than 4chan. Not only is it equally as racist, but it actually targets real individuals about 99% of the time. It's (it was?) populated by the underbelly of the top law schools, primarily. Almost every post when I went there was publicly insulting actual students at Yale, Harvard, Stanford, etc.
The thing is, after the lawsuit happened, a ton of XOXO members moved to Above The Law, a legal blog/tabloid. Now the blog comments on ATL are horrendous and more frequently racist than they were a few years ago.
The sad thing is that there are (you may be surprised to know) a number of good people who are good lawyers out there. However, these comments make lawyers look even worse than the public already perceives them to be (and that is surprisingly possible).
If a real Japanese CEO screws up big time in Japan, they're almost expected to commit suicide (it's one of the traditional and honourable options left for you).
Ahahahahhha. What a ridiculously provincial, offensive, and outdated view of Japan.
For privacy, they have stickers you put on your screen that only permit light to exit straight out of the phone, and you cannot view the screen except for about a 20 or 30 degree viewing angle.
When I lived in Japan, I had one that from the side was Mario jumping on the flagpole from Mario Bros. But looking from the front was a slightly-tinted phone screen.
Five years in prison. You conveniently forgot that part.
If I were an independent inventor and could get five years in prison for accidentally infringing on a patent, I'd move the hell out of that country. Five years in prison, man.
Japan . . . they aren't as encumbered by patents as we
You're kidding, right? In Japan, patent infringement is a crime punishable by five years in prison. I'll even provide a source (the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry -- in Japanese). It says at the end of the page (translated quickly)
". . . persons who infringe patents are subject to up to 5 years in prison or a 5 million yen fine . .."
To be fair, Sex in the City was an HBO show. It was not a broadcast TV show. So CBS/NBC/ABC didn't even take a chance on a female writer living in the city.
That's all fine and dandy, but why the shit does installing Safari require a restart of your computer? That's what OSX just told me when I tried to install it.
No thank you. I'll keep using my browser that doesn't get its tentacles into the OS.
AT&T does not charge for messages from them. I've had AT&T/Cingular for a decade, and not once have they charged me for that kind of thing. And I didn't have unlimited texting until a few months ago.
That is a fair assessment, and I tend to agree. However, I think I am used to adults playing young people in voice acting (anime in Japanese (which I speak), Disney's Ghibli dubs, most US animation), so I expected more. For a child, Fanning was good. I just would have liked to have an adult playing a child's voice, which is what typically happens in animation (I think).
I think the father shouldn't have been played as flat as it was, but it was a fair artistic choice on his part. But yes, the TMBG rendition was not that good.
Maybe his performance just doesn't gel with me rather than it being a poor performance.
Duh. Because the only movies that are any good are slow-paced dramas with barely any sound, and a bunch of gay cowboys with amnesia being taken in by British aristocrats during WWII.
Slashdot Mirror
<blink>Yes, as a matter of fact, it is!!!!!!!</blink>
Under GP's formulation of Dawkins's stance, we have the logical expression
Intelligent thinker --> strict naturalist
The converse of this is
not strict naturalist (= believe in God) --> not intelligent thinker --> not intelligent
Thus, GP was correct to assert the equivalence between "Dawkins holds . . . to be an intelligent thinker . . ." and "Dawkins calls [a lot of people] morons")
Whether it is a correct assertion that "Dawkins holds . . . to be an intelligent . . ." I do not know. But it is true as a matter of first-order logic that if that is true, then Dawkins is in fact calling a large number of people morons. Drooling morons? I don't know. But morons? Absolutely.
Full disclosure: /. of what he actually says regarding religion. Thus, if there is massive deceit about his actual writings on /., then I'm misinformed about him and my post in general is not correct analysis.
(1) I have never read The Selfish Gene, so my real exposure to Dawkins has in general been through discussion on
(2) I respect some of what Dawkins is doing (advocacy of evolution). However, I think he is the atheistic equivalent of the guy on the university corner with a bugle calling passing girls "sluts" and telling them if they don't believe in God, they're going to hell. He generates bad PR for his cause in the same way fundamentalist believers do.
Hitchens is far worse, though (although my evaluation of him is colored by his support for the war in Iraq). Dawkins in general I find agreeable (and I am a Christian).
However, re: Hitchens, I will say that I respect him massively for one reason. He talked up a bunch of shit about how waterboarding wasn't torture. Then he voluntarily underwent waterboarding and published a detailed retraction about how it actually is torture. It takes a professional person to so publicly retract previous statements.
No, but those who would hire the defamed are law firms, and law firms have regular people as clients. And potential clients might be stupid enough to believe such a thing.
Thus, as a prophylactic measure, firms will not hire people who could be viewed negatively by potential clients. It hurts business.
On the other hand, last I heard, the defamed (Iravani) in this case has a real cushy job right now because the defamation was ignored (or because she instituted the suit, making the status of the claims as challenged-as-lies obvious to almost everyone).
If you're a business decisionmaker, you know that clients will also google related individuals. Even if your employee is not that person, some (many?) clients will turn down your business because they suspect it is.
Now, are you willing to take that risk? If your response is "we don't want an idiot's business anyway," and you are a business decisionmaker, then you are likely to need a government bailout sometime in the near future due to your incompetence.
You've never been to XOXO. I went there a few times when I was applying to law school to see any posts about average GPA/LSAT combinations for people who got into good schools.
Almost every post is worse than 4chan. Not only is it equally as racist, but it actually targets real individuals about 99% of the time. It's (it was?) populated by the underbelly of the top law schools, primarily. Almost every post when I went there was publicly insulting actual students at Yale, Harvard, Stanford, etc.
The thing is, after the lawsuit happened, a ton of XOXO members moved to Above The Law, a legal blog/tabloid. Now the blog comments on ATL are horrendous and more frequently racist than they were a few years ago.
The sad thing is that there are (you may be surprised to know) a number of good people who are good lawyers out there. However, these comments make lawyers look even worse than the public already perceives them to be (and that is surprisingly possible).
Reminds me of a joke: Did you hear about the guy who burned his anus and went into a coma? Yeah, he's got a semicolon now.
That sounds like an argument that everything should be criminalized, and nothing should be a civil matter. *shudder*
I'm not sure what your point is. One would hope that "step 1" of "make good product" is "select material other than shit to make phone out of."
Ahahahahhha. What a ridiculously provincial, offensive, and outdated view of Japan.
For privacy, they have stickers you put on your screen that only permit light to exit straight out of the phone, and you cannot view the screen except for about a 20 or 30 degree viewing angle.
When I lived in Japan, I had one that from the side was Mario jumping on the flagpole from Mario Bros. But looking from the front was a slightly-tinted phone screen.
Five years in prison. You conveniently forgot that part.
If I were an independent inventor and could get five years in prison for accidentally infringing on a patent, I'd move the hell out of that country. Five years in prison, man.
You're kidding, right? In Japan, patent infringement is a crime punishable by five years in prison. I'll even provide a source (the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry -- in Japanese). It says at the end of the page (translated quickly)
To be fair, Sex in the City was an HBO show. It was not a broadcast TV show. So CBS/NBC/ABC didn't even take a chance on a female writer living in the city.
That must be some Internet experience you have, being able to go to only one website, OldestCrappiestSiteOnline.com!
Well I'm serving you with my 6UID. The meek shall inherit! The meek shall inherit!
I remember when people used to complain about Microsoft doing this.
That's all fine and dandy, but why the shit does installing Safari require a restart of your computer? That's what OSX just told me when I tried to install it.
No thank you. I'll keep using my browser that doesn't get its tentacles into the OS.
I'd be surprised if you could. You cannot include images in SMS messages, only MMS messages. ;)
AT&T does not charge for messages from them. I've had AT&T/Cingular for a decade, and not once have they charged me for that kind of thing. And I didn't have unlimited texting until a few months ago.
For future reference, "kha-ka" is spelled "caca" and it's a deformation of the Mexican Spanish "cuacha," meaning "shit."
Unless, of course, you meant cockeyed, which should be clear on its face that it means "cross-eyed."
That is a fair assessment, and I tend to agree. However, I think I am used to adults playing young people in voice acting (anime in Japanese (which I speak), Disney's Ghibli dubs, most US animation), so I expected more. For a child, Fanning was good. I just would have liked to have an adult playing a child's voice, which is what typically happens in animation (I think).
I think the father shouldn't have been played as flat as it was, but it was a fair artistic choice on his part. But yes, the TMBG rendition was not that good.
Maybe his performance just doesn't gel with me rather than it being a poor performance.
Maybe because it's still in theaters. Typically films don't show up on DVD until they've left theaters.
I just saw on the news today that the kids are moving to apartments with their families. Source was Nightline on ABC.
Duh. Because the only movies that are any good are slow-paced dramas with barely any sound, and a bunch of gay cowboys with amnesia being taken in by British aristocrats during WWII.
Wasn't it based on a book written by Vikas Swarup, a diplomat from India? Is he an Indian Marxist?