Pharyngula: Care!

#1

Posted by: CSBSH | October 14, 2008 9:19 PM

Frst cmmnt!

[Don't do this. It makes me cranky. -- pzm]

#2

Posted by: Alex | October 14, 2008 9:24 PM

Booo-yah.

So...what's her number?

#3

Posted by: Chris Crawford | October 14, 2008 9:30 PM

All things considered, I think her video would have been more compelling if she had shown more face and less cleavage.

#4

Posted by: Alan Leipzig | October 14, 2008 9:32 PM

Wow.

Now, this is the kind of things that makes me sad that intelligence among girls is considered a negative threatening trait among my students' culture. Or just intelligence in mainstream American society.

She's got screen prescence.

Also, props to anyone that includes a clarifying footnote on a facts montage.

#5

Posted by: Brian X | October 14, 2008 9:34 PM

Interesting presentation -- I presume she's a fan of Kelly from the RRS?

It occurs to me that this might be a good video to forward to all of those people who keep sending right-wing forwards. That is, unless they're likely to drool over the hot ranting girl rather than listen to her words, which are pretty much spot on...

#6

Posted by: Mike W | October 14, 2008 9:39 PM

I didn't think girls like this exsisted,..
I think I'm in love ;)

#7

Posted by: Abstruse | October 14, 2008 9:42 PM

Really Really hawt.

I like smart chicks.

#8

Posted by: Monado in Toronto | October 14, 2008 9:45 PM

Off-topic: the polls have closed in the Canadian federal election. It looks like another Conservative minority government. But if you add up the two main opposition parties, Liberal and New Democrat, they'd win. Sigh.

The Bloc Quebecois (independence party) may take Quebec. At one point some years ago they were Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. :-)

#9

Posted by: Alex | October 14, 2008 9:46 PM

"All things considered, I think her video would have been more compelling if she had shown more face and less cleavage."

*cough-cough* - what? What does that have to do with the message? It detracts? Hmmmm.

If she was nude during her tirade the only difference is that I would have had to watch it more than once in order to make sure I didn't miss anything. That task, would not have been a chore.

#10

Posted by: frog | October 14, 2008 9:52 PM

Wow I'm old. I just don't get this YouTubing thing, where everyone's an actor and you have to have all kinds of quick cuts and color shifts.

I want my words in a nice sequential line, one after the other, with pages I can flip back and forth. And I'd prefer that fashion, body features, and personal symmetry did not have to enter every discussion.

Get off of my lawn, you damn kids!

I also hate cell phones, and I only IM one other person.

#11

Posted by: Sara | October 14, 2008 9:52 PM

Yeah, I thought the strategic placement of cleavage was a little silly, but if it gets more people to listen to the whole thing, I can't hold it against her! Thumbs up on the content of it!

#12

Posted by: ERV | October 14, 2008 9:53 PM

BrianX-- I presume she's a fan of Kelly from the RRS?

*frown* I certainly hope not. Kelly is *not* a role model.

#13

Posted by: Brian X | October 14, 2008 9:55 PM

Alex:

Good point. I do believe you've solved the problem.

#14

Posted by: Muse142 | October 14, 2008 9:56 PM

She could have had a hump and one lazy eye for all it mattered; she would have been just as correct.

Good FSM-damn-it. Someone wanna comment on the content, and not just her appearance?

#15

Posted by: Matthew | October 14, 2008 10:00 PM

Re: #12: Not knowing much about the RRS or Kelly from it, why is she not a role model?

#16

Posted by: Alex | October 14, 2008 10:04 PM

I guess my point is this: If she was merely a bimbo trying to sound convincing, then the cleavage thing would clearly have been some kind of distraction ploy. My attention was certainly more focused on the content of her presentation. Mostly. I mean her words. And stuff.

#17

Posted by: Alex | October 14, 2008 10:05 PM

-Some of that wasn't exactly true (e.g., the relevance of religion to the wars mentioned was questionable)
-"Creationism is not a scientifically accredited study."
-At 3:30 an appeal to nature.

#18

Posted by: Kevin | October 14, 2008 10:06 PM

Great video. Her channel definitely looks worthy of my subscription. I completely agree, and have to tell theists that same rant on a daily basis. I was just planning on doing a video similar to it, actually, since I have to explain why I'm outspoken so often.

My YouTube Channel

#19

Posted by: Nick | October 14, 2008 10:09 PM

I can't believe there are actually states where atheists are barred from public office--why hasn't some gung-ho atheist ballbuster taken this to court with the intent of having it struck down? Would you necessarily have to be elected and denied the position before you could claim it as a discriminatory practice? I know we atheists don't have it as badly here as folks do in some places, but I find that really disgusting.

And incidentally, as a male I'll certainly admit she's not hard on the eyes, but I can't help but wince to see how many people are so rapid to comment just on her looks. It doesn't convey much class or depth, I'm sorry to say.

#20

Posted by: Kimpatsu | October 14, 2008 10:12 PM

Nick, from what I understand, what the federal government gives, the individual states cannot take away. So, even if a state like Maryland has a "no atheists in public office" law, it doesn't matter, because the US Constitution expressly says "there shall be no religious test".
Of course, actually getting elected when people know you're an atheist is a separate problem...

#21

Posted by: Alex | October 14, 2008 10:13 PM

"Some of that wasn't exactly true..."

Yeah, but...did you see her cleavage?!!?!

"Creationism is not a scientifically accredited study."

Are you implying it is?

"appeal to nature"

So wait - just because she made the appeal doesn't mean it's not appropriate. Are you implying that the natural desire for sex is worse than imposing artificial, non-scientific mores of when sexual behavior should occur, and how it should be conducted in a person's life? If so, I'm not sure that position is very defensible with rational discussion.

#22

Posted by: Alex | October 14, 2008 10:14 PM

Also, can anyone watch a video of a person who *happens* to be female without commenting on the person's sex? If the person was male, I doubt their sex would even be mentioned once. So please, everyone, stop acting like stereotypical, unthinking, sexist Americans. Thanks.

#23

Posted by: SteveC | October 14, 2008 10:17 PM

"I can't believe there are actually states where atheists are barred from public office"

It's in the state constitutions, but there was a supreme court case that makes these types of clauses null and void (forget which one). As an atheist resident of Texas, I figure they would just botch any effort to remove the clause anyway.

Look what they did when they tried to ban gay marriage by constitutional ammendment:

"Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Eh, so that bans gay marriage? By a (ahem) straight reading, it seems to ban *all* marriage. Whatever. The words mean what they want them to mean, nothing more nothing less.

#24

Posted by: Annick | October 14, 2008 10:18 PM

I'm all for the hawt and the cleavage. It busts (if you'll pardon the pun) the stereotype that smart girls are ugly.

#25

Posted by: Joao | October 14, 2008 10:19 PM

Good FSM-damn-it. Someone wanna comment on the content, and not just her appearance?

Certainly: she's absolutely right.

#26

Posted by: Alex | October 14, 2008 10:23 PM

"unthinking"

Well now, it seems that in light of the color of your plea, perhaps you should be made aware that there are different types of *thinking* that American males engage in. Some of us tend to engage in it frequently. Most of us can censor the thoughts generated by it before they become spoken (or posted) language. But none of us American males consider the broad-brush stroke of *sexist* precise, accurate, or appealing. Then again, some of us do.

#27

Posted by: Alex | October 14, 2008 10:25 PM

@Alex, #21: No, I'm implying that she sounds stupid; kind of like a politician reading off a list of talking points, except doing a poor job at it.

What I'm saying is that stating something is right because it's natural isn't a valid argument, that's all.

#28

Posted by: shane | October 14, 2008 10:26 PM

Alex @ #22

If the person was male, I doubt their sex would even be mentioned once.

The reason is easy. There is no obvious male analogue to cleavage. Appreciation isn't necessarily sexism.

#29

Posted by: Kaydon | October 14, 2008 10:26 PM

That was probably the most well put together and thought out presentations on the topic I have ever seen (not that I have seen very many, sadly).

And the world needs more good looking atheists (no offense, PZ).

#30

Posted by: The Science Pundit | October 14, 2008 10:31 PM

Laci is an up and coming star of YouTube atheism. We should all support her.

#31

Posted by: BMcP | October 14, 2008 10:34 PM

Sorry, she lost me after the "we turned into a theocracy" line, people have no clue what a theocracy really entails. Not difficult to research to find out either.

#32

Posted by: Alex | October 14, 2008 10:35 PM

"No, I'm implying that she sounds stupid;"

Well, I respectfully disagree with you. I think I can find a very accomplished, thoughtful, opinionated academic who also disagrees. But, whatever.

"What I'm saying is that stating something is right because it's natural isn't a valid argument, that's all."

And all I was saying is that it doesn't necessarily make it invalid either. As a matter of fact, if we were academically debating the point, I would say that the argument for natural behaviors/actions/events would be easier to argue than prescribed interference with them. Small example - global warming. I'm of the opinion that trying to understand and assimilate natural progressions is far better than trying to overly manipulate and control them. Not that it's not possible.

"There is no obvious male analogue to cleavage.

Eh-hem. Perhaps I'm aware of some information that you are not. Yet.

#33

Posted by: Kobra | October 14, 2008 10:35 PM

#31: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

#34

Posted by: Alex | October 14, 2008 10:37 PM

@ Kobra #33

LOLOLOL.

Thank you. Well done.

#35

Posted by: Son of a Nonymous | October 14, 2008 10:46 PM

Okay, Alex, Alex, if you two are going to keep arguing like this, one of you needs to change your name. It's giving me a headache to keep you two straight.

#36

Posted by: Another Primate | October 14, 2008 10:48 PM

Damn.

#37

Posted by: Just Al | October 14, 2008 10:51 PM

but I can't help but wince to see how many people are so rapid to comment just on her looks.

I'd be more inclined to agree if I hadn't been struck, immediately and repeatedly, with how much she was trying to promote them. Can't see her forehead most of the time, but we can always see her cleavage. And the green cast just happened to bring out her eyes...

That said, I liked the message, but thought it could be a little better. Many of the 'religious' wars could be easily debated, and virtually no wars were solely about religion - they usually have their own economic, social, and political motivations. It's more of a valid point that religion played such a part in helping to motivate them, furthering a cause by crassly manipulating a populace, rather than as a causative agent.

I also can't help but think one of the reactions is going to be, "another angry atheist." There's a fine line between fervent and 'losing control,' and while I don't think she ever crossed it, it'd be easy enough to argue that she was becoming 'emotional.'

But mostly, I didn't like the accusatory tone at the end. Scolding people rarely motivates them, even when they badly deserve it - in fact, those people are probably the most resistant. Creating an "Activist Me against Lazy You" stance is likely to work against the message a bit.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the effort and agree wholeheartedly with the message, and I'm glad to see her, and many like her, putting themselves out there to be heard. I just think some refinement could help. Personally, my beef is over the lack of critical-thinking skills in today's societies, and find this to be more important than focusing on one aspect of it. Religion would certainly be an early victim of improved logical capabilities, but so would political rhetoric, quack medicine, and new age mumbo jumbo, to name a few. And it has the added benefit of being much harder to demonize.

#38

Posted by: AAB | October 14, 2008 10:55 PM

The presenter's gender shouldn't even have been discussed here. Stick with the message guys.

#39

Posted by: Zeekster | October 14, 2008 11:00 PM

@ Alex, #22

The reason is easy. There is no obvious male analogue to cleavage.

You'd think otherwise if you saw the billboard for Abercrombie & Fitch here in Orlando. (this is the one)

#40

Posted by: cyan | October 14, 2008 11:02 PM

Agree with her words, but the focus on female cleavage as well as face is analogous to watching male butt-crack plus face for many women: viscerally appealing to half the population while rather obvious & disgusting to the other half: ie not most effective.

Focusing on just the face, instead of that plus the cleavage crack, perhaps would have been more intellectually effective with more people.

Shoe on the other foot: equal in effectiveness to this vid might be a trim, young, intelligent guy with lovely delineation of rectus abdominis sections displaying that abdominopelvic region while making a logical argument.

In this case, I'd be aware that my appreciation of his oral logic is separate from my appreciation of his lovely abs, but I wouldn't like by watching it either the ideas that some others do not discern between the two nor that the vid male was willing to try to manipulate those people because of this, to convert them to his view. Not liking either manipulatees nor manipulators.

#41

Posted by: Alex | October 14, 2008 11:02 PM

@Zeekster, #39, I didn't say that, shane did.

#42

Posted by: Zeekster | October 14, 2008 11:05 PM

Sorry about that Alex. It's past my bedtime.

#43

Posted by: Alex | October 14, 2008 11:09 PM

@Shane, 28: Just because you can see someone's cleavage doesn't mean you should make a comment about it. Also, I'm talking about comments like this one as well:
"Really Really hawt.

I like smart chicks."
It's not just this video either; people here tend to evaluate anything that involves a female based on looks. If you're going to be that petty, you might want to do yourself a favor and not tell the world about it.

#44

Posted by: BobbyEarle | October 14, 2008 11:11 PM

Alex @22...

So please, everyone, stop acting like stereotypical, unthinking, sexist Americans.

You are, of course, right. Her message, and her passion for what she believes are the things that we should be focusing on.

BTW, did you see the cleavage???

#45

Posted by: ThinkingApe | October 14, 2008 11:15 PM

I'd like to share a sigh with you, Monado in Toronto (#8). Conservatives took South West BC and most of the prairies. Goodbye any hope for real climate change action. So long safe-injection site. Au revoir arts funding......

#46

Posted by: Scott M. | October 14, 2008 11:17 PM

Goddamn that girl rocks!! Thanks PZ and GoGreen18!

#47

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | October 14, 2008 11:21 PM

Why I care (one reason):
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/10/adding-insult-to-injury-or-adding-abuse.html

#48

Posted by: sara | October 14, 2008 11:23 PM

Not all theists support "Christian" legislation.

Not only theists oppose homosexual marriage (and many theists are fine with hospital visitation rights and domestic partnerships as long as it is not called "marriage," the name of the sacrament).

And by the way, religious "institutions" are 501(c)(3) organizations, just like Cato Institute and United Way (which sometimes funds Planned Parenthood clinics), and they are prohibited from participating in campaigns for public offices and lobbying is quite restricted. Furthermore, they are exempt from income taxes but not from all federal taxes. So I do not really know what she meant by the comments made while flashing all of the fancy architecture.

I am outraged that I cannot purchase my favorite BJ drinks on Sunday morning when I am in Dallas, and of course, evolution should be taught in school biology. But the superiority complex, the raw defensiveness, and the compelling, compassionate sensationalism (and the tits that everyone is mostly addressing) are unnecessary and distracting from reason.

#49

Posted by: charfles | October 14, 2008 11:23 PM

I love her already.

#50

Posted by: Alex | October 14, 2008 11:27 PM

@Alex, 32: Why do you keep cutting out fragments of what I'm saying? The reason I felt she sounded stupid was because she sounded "kind of like a politician reading off a list of talking points, except doing a poor job at it." In the example I gave of this, it sounded like she thought creationism isn't scientific because it's not "a scientifically accredited study."
And why the appeal to authority?

I'm wasn't arguing one way or the other. I was saying that she was wrong to state sexuality is OK because it's natural. Just because her opponents' arguments are wrong doesn't mean her arguments can't be as well.

You would be wrong to argue that "trying to understand and assimilate natural progressions is far better than trying to overly manipulate and control them" if your reason for arguing that is because it's natural. For some reason I doubt that's why you feel that way.

#51

Posted by: Pyroclasm | October 14, 2008 11:27 PM

Hells yeah! We need more people like this on our side. Young, articulate, intelligent, and (don't kill me) attractive. Seriously, she just broke two major stereotypes about atheists: they're all ugly, and there are no atheist women.

#52

Posted by: ThinkingApe | October 14, 2008 11:29 PM

Sexuality is OK because it is natural.

#53

Posted by: abb3w | October 14, 2008 11:31 PM

cyan: Not liking either manipulatees nor manipulators.

Eh. Here on Pharyngula she's "preaching to the choir" (as it were). The regulars would probably go "woohoo" for the message whether she was showing cleavage or dressed in a hijab.

To drag my mind up into the gutter, if manipulation of the gonads is what it takes to get someone to first consider the applicability of an adaptable worldview over their present doctrinally dictated fixed outlook, is it "bad"? Is it immoral to make use of the naturally evolved sex impulses of those too [adjective] to be persuaded by other means AND too [adjective] to discount such tactics, as mechanism to induce them to consider an alternative course? A larger concern might be that the whacko faction most worth converting will see the cleavage, react briefly "slut", have their present worldview reinforced, and the presentation mode's consequent difficulties may outweigh any persuasive benefits from same.

(I suspect the math may be similar to this bit I wrote up meta-analyzing someones analysis of fundies.)

#54

Posted by: NoFear | October 14, 2008 11:35 PM

I think I'm in love.

#55

Posted by: shane | October 14, 2008 11:37 PM

Cuttlefish @ #47, some of your finest work. I'm sorry for the inspiration behind it.

It is the religious that can be the most hurtful at those times. Like being told by a priest at the funeral that even though the person was not entitled to a service he would do it anyway because he, the priest, is sensitive to the needs of the family! The implication was that the person was a suicide (she wasn't) and didn't deserve a funeral.

And the day after the funeral, coincidently, receiving one of those bible society tracts in the mail saying that if you've lost someone recently they are burning in hell. Nice.

#56

Posted by: Kel | October 14, 2008 11:42 PM

Not only theists oppose homosexual marriage (and many theists are fine with hospital visitation rights and domestic partnerships as long as it is not called "marriage," the name of the sacrament).

Marriage is now a secular institution, the word itself has come to mean a union between two people. It's foolish of Christians to try and claim the word as sacred, it ceased being sacred a long time ago. Now it's a descriptor for being in a committed long term relationship with all the legal rights and duties that come with that. It makes no sense to give homosexuals the rights and not the name, the name is synonymous with the rights that come with it. To deny them the name in a secular world would be treating them as inferior.

#57

Posted by: Evolution is Love | October 14, 2008 11:43 PM

I think that gogreen18's message is pretty damn good. She put together many of the topics that atheists must be more aggressive to address, and she compiled them together into a well-organized presentation. I'm impressed that she managed to sum up the various conflicts in such a smooth, short video.

As for the secondary issue of her cleavage...well, I'll say this from personal experience: as a lesbian, I can understand the attraction. As a woman, I know I'd feel a bit ticked if I delivered a philosophical video and the only reaction I got from some people was, "WHOA! HAWT BOOBAGE!" Lol.

#58

Posted by: shane | October 14, 2008 11:46 PM

Zeekster @ #39, it was me @ #28.
I think the the difference between your picture and cleavage is credibility. There is no way a guy like the A&F model could make any sort of serious presentation that way. He would forever be seen as a himbo no matter what. A bit of cleavage though, while titillating sometimes, doesn't always distract completely... not always... sometimes.

Anyway, guy or gal, if you've got it flaunt it.

#59

Posted by: Craig | October 14, 2008 11:47 PM

What's wrong with 32 year old white males? We think that rocked too!

#60

Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | October 14, 2008 11:56 PM

abb3w at 53

Pretty much a spot on comment, I thought. Emperors and pawns, the manipulators and the manipulatees, whenever we have a human interaction we are always manipulating or being manipulated to some extent.

Some complained about the way she put her message, and I have to agree somewhat with what they say, often being confrontational isn't helpful, that said, both the carrot and the stick are necessary, I feel. In "Thank you for smoking" the character Nick Naylor explains to his son that when he is debating, he isn't trying to convince his opponent - he can't do that - he is targeting the audience. Even if the pretty young lady didn't convince a single one of you she is right, at least she got you thinking about how you do engage with the "other side", and probably made a few people consider that perhaps they should be doing more.

We DO need more loud voices like this one. We also need quiet, rational voices. We need all types.

#61

Posted by: BobC | October 14, 2008 11:57 PM

Great video. I gave it 5 stars and I subscribed to gogreen18.

I like what she called creationism: Magical "Creation" Theory.

Why Christian retards deny global warming: God wouldn't let the world go to shit.

Her request to atheists: It's time to fucking do something.

I couldn't agree more. Every atheist in the world should be pointing at and laughing at religious assholes every day. I'm in favor of relentless ridicule. Christians, Muslims, and religious Jews should be made to feel ashamed of themselves. Every single religious retard on earth brainwashes their own children. That's child abuse and there's nothing moderate about it. All religious people, no matter how harmless they think they are, are part of the problem. All religious people believe there's a magic fairy hiding in the clouds. That's insane and childish and they need to be told it's insane and childish.

#62

Posted by: zoltan | October 14, 2008 11:58 PM

(and the tits that everyone is mostly addressing) are unnecessary and distracting from reason.

Yeah, hopefully next time gogreen wears her chadori to appease the breast-haters.

#63

Posted by: blueelm | October 14, 2008 11:58 PM

Agree with #40.

I feel guilty, but no matter what she was saying 30 seconds of teenage melodrama monologue underscored with emphatic boobage and I have to strain to take her seriously.

I'm not a fan of the sex sells technique. If you have a good point, you have a good point. Her tone at the end makes me ill despite the fact that I agree with her to a large extent. It's just that being emotionally badgered is EXACTLY one of the most infuriating aspects of religious speech.

I don't like being yelled at by anyone, whether they have a point or not.

#64

Posted by: Geoff | October 14, 2008 11:59 PM

*raises a glass to hot-smart atheist chicks*

#65

Posted by: Zar | October 15, 2008 12:01 AM

Crikey, people, they're just breasts! THEY ARE JUST BREASTS. Get over it. Sometimes there is no hiding them. They're there, they're large, and they are in a prominent position. Besides, the high-collared look often makes a buxom woman look awful. It does for me, anyway.

You can try and bring up a male equivalent but there really isn't one, because men do not have two melon-sized pubic regions right in the middle of their chests.

So she shows a little cleavage. So what? What's wrong with making oneself attractive? If she didn't try to look attractive, people would call her a man-hating nerd or something.

#66

Posted by: Kalyn | October 15, 2008 12:03 AM

Impressive. This is a video that I will have to share with my friends. I hope that more atheists watch this and are a little more motivated to speak out. We may not believe in God, but we are absolutely affected by the belief in him.

#67

Posted by: sara | October 15, 2008 12:05 AM

To Kel @ No. 56:

It was not clear that I was not intending to justify the semantic defense rather trying to illustrate that even mostly unreasonable theists (e.g. one with whom I share coefficient of relatedness of ½) will agree that the next-of-kin or legal spouse stipulation is inappropriate and irrelevant.

#68

Posted by: Kel | October 15, 2008 12:05 AM

I haven't seen the video yet since they block Youtube here, but really what's the big deal about enjoying seeing clevage? Why can't we comment about the attractiveness of the messenger, and why does that detract from the message itself? Do we have to act like asexual drones in order to have a valid opinion?

#69

Posted by: BobC | October 15, 2008 12:08 AM

I'm not a fan of the sex sells technique.

I think some people here would prefer that young women be required to wear burkas. I'm disappointed there are some atheists who are no better than Muslim retards.

#70

Posted by: Kel | October 15, 2008 12:11 AM

It was not clear that I was not intending to justify the semantic defense rather trying to illustrate that even mostly unreasonable theists (e.g. one with whom I share coefficient of relatedness of ½) will agree that the next-of-kin or legal spouse stipulation is inappropriate and irrelevant.

Fair enough, I just find that position of those theists to be quite absurd (for the reasons I highlighted above).

#71

Posted by: Dahan | October 15, 2008 12:12 AM

Production, good! Girl, pretty! Message, important!

What's not to like?

#72

Posted by: Evolution is Love | October 15, 2008 12:14 AM

I think that commenting on the attractiveness of the speaker is alright. As long as you address what the speaker is referring to as well. Don't forget the message!

#73

Posted by: andy | October 15, 2008 12:15 AM

epic soundtrack, too!

#74

Posted by: Evolution is Love | October 15, 2008 12:18 AM

@ andy #73

Yes, the soundtrack was quite epic! LOL.

#75

Posted by: waldteufel | October 15, 2008 12:20 AM

Absolutely awesome in all respects.
This young lady gives me hope for the future.

#76

Posted by: zoltan | October 15, 2008 12:22 AM

I think some people here would prefer that young women be required to wear burkas. I'm disappointed there are some atheists who are no better than Muslim retards.

I agree. Not to mention that a lot of her other videos have her in t-shirts or what have you.

If you don't have large breasts, you don't understand what it's like to have to keep them covered all the time. And if you do like it, you're a masochist.

#77

Posted by: blueelm | October 15, 2008 12:26 AM

"I'm disappointed there are some atheists who are no better than Muslim retards."

Thanks.

I apologize profoundly for not liking her production techniques. I will now worship the myspace angle, cheesy soundtracks, and emotionally abusive diatribes.

#78

Posted by: cyan | October 15, 2008 12:28 AM

abb3w,

the math showing that environmental influence has more to do with world view than does IQ (assuming that that is what you meant): I agree with the conclusion (although I don't know the data behind the math you present in the graph) but because of previous evidence I've seen

using whatever we know of so far hard-wired evolutionary "gut" (& yeah lower) responses to try to convert those people who rely primarily on them upon which to base their decisions: no, I still don't agree that this is ultimately the best strategy: maybe more effective in the short-term but not the long

but your view is probably more pragmatic than my more idealistic and so wishful one

#79

Posted by: Patricia | October 15, 2008 12:29 AM

Atheists why do you care?
I sure the fuck care!
Fuck god.
I'm on it.

#80

Posted by: Don | October 15, 2008 12:29 AM

Damn I am definitly getting old and jaded, I didnt't even notice the clevage(did notice her eyes though) Had to watch second time just to see what the fuss was about. More importantly the general message was right on.

#81

Posted by: Maria | October 15, 2008 12:34 AM

I think more people would have listened if they didn't sacrifice her eyebrows in favor of her cleavage!

Sorry, as great as her message is, it's delivered in a sexist, distracting format. That bugs.

#82

Posted by: ekzept | October 15, 2008 12:37 AM

@Just Al,

To the ancient Greeks, who waged war for political influence or economic gain, the mere idea of a war fought for any kind of religious reason was total insanity. That's because, in large part, the ancient Greeks were polytheists and had this synchronistic notion that all you needed to do was bring in their gods into your pantheon, and all was cool.

It takes monotheism to Fuck Things Up.

Sorry.

It does.

#83

Posted by: Kel | October 15, 2008 12:44 AM

It takes monotheism to Fuck Things Up.

And what of the Hindus?

#84

Posted by: Patricia | October 15, 2008 12:48 AM

I said that?
I need to go to bed.
Good night sweethearts!

#85

Posted by: The Cheerful Nihilist | October 15, 2008 12:51 AM

Ah-ha! The Trojan Horse enters the foray (with Kali inside). Let the blood-bath begin.

#86

Posted by: Rey Fox | October 15, 2008 1:23 AM

"Fuck god.
I'm on it."

Slut.

#87

Posted by: SplendidMonkey | October 15, 2008 1:26 AM

She's got that sexy smart Terri Garr thing goin'

#88

Posted by: Alan Leipzig | October 15, 2008 1:27 AM

She doesn't seem to show that much cleavage in most of the videos I watched. I think that this video is deliberately the equivalent of the catchy radio song, whereas most of the other videos are the insightful tracks the fans listen to. This is the outreach.

She's too intelligent to be dressed that way and not know it.

Also, check the Speed dating video. Really funny.

#89

Posted by: Josh | October 15, 2008 1:35 AM

Well, I do and don't blame all those commenting on her appearance - I think she has a nice bit to say, and the content was great. But it's not like anyone could miss what was happening visually (and I'm referring to the still photos). Good video, either way.

#90

Posted by: Bacopa | October 15, 2008 1:50 AM

Noticed eyes, lips, teeth, nose, but not cleavage. Attractive woman to be sure, but I listened much more to what she said than how she looked. And I like what she said. And thanks to her for metioning the genocide against the Cathars in France and Italy. The Cathars, a Marcionian/Glostic Christian sect, were once the third most common religious group in Europe after Catholics and Muslims and may even have outnumbered Muslims in the 1300s. The crusade against the Chathars is the reason Occitan is an almost dead language (though you might argue that Catalan and Occitan are the same thing).

If you want to see someone who posts similar content to youtube but who never looks the camera in the eye, check out "Atheist Blind Chick". Only blind person n YT as far as I know and quite the authority on text-to-voice software.

#91

Posted by: WhenDanSaysJump | October 15, 2008 1:58 AM

Mentioning aesthetically pleasing b00bz ≠ "Daaaaaaaaaaaaayum, I'd stick it between THOSE. YEEEEEEEAH!"

I thought it was, by and large, an excellent video and I'd rather that the focus of the comments was on the content, rather than whether mentioning the female bosom makes one a sickening chauvinist.

#92

Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | October 15, 2008 2:18 AM

BobC @ 21 said:

Her request to atheists: It's time to fucking do something.
I couldn't agree more. Every atheist in the world should be pointing at and laughing at religious assholes every day. I'm in favor of relentless ridicule.

Let me be blunt BobC. Ridicule is your only weapon because you are stupid.

#93

Posted by: NickG | October 15, 2008 2:26 AM

Maria @ 81 (though this is addressed to everyone who made similar comments as well as those complaining about 'gawd she's hawt' comments): "I think more people would have listened if they didn't sacrifice her eyebrows in favor of her cleavage! Sorry, as great as her message is, it's delivered in a sexist, distracting format. That bugs."

I'm a guy in my thirties, an atheist and queer as a three dollar bill. Some of my best friends are women, but I'm just totally not interested in women sexually. I watched that video and said: wow, what an incredible young woman. She's intelligent, has stage presence, and she's incredibly adorable. She's detailed without being dull, obviously gets her facts right, and is passionate about what she believes. She is also cute, has a nice rack, and that red ribbon and the lighting sets off her green eyes amazingly well.

I mean, c'mon... I'm a kinsey six and even I can see she's hawt. But more importantly she's using that hawtness as her gimmick just like that ask a ninja guy uses campy ninja humor. Hell PZ does the same thing... he gives readers substantive information in an entertaining way. And you can bet if PZ had looks like that he'd be using them as well.

Lastly, to expect straight men with a pulse to watch that and notice her obvious sexual attractiveness is like asking me to watch men's swimming or gymnastics and not be interested. At best, you'll get people who hide their sexism a little better - though often the end up hiding it from themselves too. Like idiots who say they are not racist because they don't see race. Sorry but race and that rack can be pretty obvious. You will only fail to see them if you are blind or have epic cognitive dissonance defenses.

Pharyngula

Search this blog

Profile

Random Quote

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

Care!

Comments