Apparently, Chad's dog has at least some of the issues surrounding the PZ Myers/Eucharist desecration issue figured out. I'm not sure, but I think she understands them much better than some of the folks who have been commenting here. And she expresses things with so much more grace and panache than I usually manage.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Over the last couple of days, I've considered posting something on the controversy that's been sparked by PZ Myers' comments about the eucharist, and the reaction of Bill Donohue and the Catholic League to those comments. I've been putting it off because it's not an easy post for me to write. The…
I've barred the doors — I'm sure that any moment now, a squadron of goose-stepping nuns will come marching up the street to wag their fingers at me and rebuke me for what I've started. It seems the Youth of Today are going on YouTube and…flaunting their disrespect for crackers!
People can find a…
Chris Mooney has made an "appeal to authority" (Randy Olson) in asserting that Expelled is a success by Hollywood standards, and this may be correct. PZ Myers and his comet tail may have increased that success as per Mooney's Framing TOE, but the reverse is also true: the science blogging share…
It's Saturday and therefore time for some lazy non-science blogging, especially since after I finish this post I'm going to bury myself in grant writing. Multiple grant deadlines are approaching, and, given that most of my grant support expires towards the middle of next year, I have to go full…
Chad's post did an even poorer job of elucidating the distinction between a cracker and a cartoon than your previous post on the subject. The fact that you agree with it doesn't make it a good post - that's the kind of thinking that causes hordes of Pharyngula readers to agree with some of the ridiculous things PZ says.
I enjoy reading your blog precisely because it tends to not be that type of blog - the "I agree with this person's conclusion, so I will overlook their reasoning" type of post. Be as critical of the things you agree with as you are of the things you disagree with.
I'm gonna have to disagree very, very strongly with you on the aptness of Chad's analogy. This is where I think he's dead wrong:
Imagine if we actually applied this principle in real life, rather than in Chad's imaginary world. Remember that the entire religious right consider other people's private sexual lives to be part of "their lawn", and they bark like mad whenever anyone, anywhere (say, a gay guy in San Francisco) "pees on their lawn" by having sex in a way they don't like. They claim that the private practices of gays "violate their religious freedom".
Chad is absolutely, positively wrong when he says that what really matters is that the dog thinks it's his lawn, so we shouldn't tread on what he thinks is his property, but really isn't. We should not be deferent to people who can't mind their own damn business.
When someone barks to defend a lawn that isn't theirs, anyone who gives a damn about freedom should bark back. That the dog thinks it's his lawn is the problem. And being deferent towards the bullying dog is just a sign of one's own cowardice.