I just got some email that surprised me. It was from Kate Fisher, the marketing director of KKMS radio, a Christian talk radio station I've dealt with before. They had a request.
I am with AM980 KKMS, a Christian Teaching & Talk radio station in the Twin Cities. We would like to do a creation debate in mid-January. I am writing today to check on your interest level in participating in something like this and if you are, what your availability and honorarium is.
I didn't have any problem making a decision on that, and immediately sent my reply.
You know, I had a debate on your station last January — in which I exposed the creationist on the other side as an ignorant fool. The response from your station was then to give the ignorant fool an hour to babble unopposed the next week. I'll add that you also abruptly changed the topic of the debate an hour before I went on, at the request of my opponent, an unforgivable and sleazy tactic. I do not trust you at all, and I think you would abuse my participation to promote the lies of the creationist position.
So, no, you could not get me to play your game for any amount of money. I have no respect at all for "Christian Teaching & Talk radio", thanks to your disreputable actions.
I am, however, impressed with the level of shameless gall you have to ask me again.
I was a little bit tempted to put one pinky to a corner of my mouth and say, "My honorarium will be…one MILLION dollars." I resisted.
Kate Fisher just replied.
My sincerest apologies as I wasn't aware that this was what happened. I was simply given your name as a good debater and asked to contact you about doing an event with us.
Thanks for letting me know what happened.
Now I feel a little guilty about lighting into her. But only a little.
- Log in to post comments
Talk about being thrown to the Lions.
Typical of a christian to misunderstand the meaning of an apology. To apologise is to accept responsibility, not to ask for responsibility to be removed. To say "sorry, but it's not my fault, I didn't know" is not apologising. It's making an excuse. If it's not your fault then don't apologise. If it is then don't make excuses.
Now she knows. Maybe the next person she invites on will be treated less abusively. I don't think you did any harm.
Meh, she is one of them after all.
She was apologizing not for what happened, but for that she was not aware of what happened. Not the same difference! :)
Kate Fisher just replied. My sincerest apologies as I wasn't aware that this was what happened.
She's a Christian so I wouldn't be surprised if she's a liar. In any case PZ's reply was appropriate. Sleazy is a good description of those Christian retards.
Poor woman. They obviously lie to their own as well.
Perhaps this'll get her thinking. Or am I being too optimistic?
That's Great! I remember listening to that somewhere, I think you can find it on google video (yes, video). I remember thinking I can hardly believe he agreed to do this.
Also, I just read some of Richard dawkins books, and he explains why he never engages in debates with creationists.
She may not be "one of them". I once worked in a mall that contained a local "highly religious" radio station. The people that worked there technically (meaning, the technical staff) were amongst the most non-religious I knew at the time.
But the best one was when I had to service some computers at Guideposts, Peal's organisation in Carmel, NY. They were having some printer issues and we were looking at a long printout of some of the titles - "Children are Wet Cement" jumped out at me. The person I was working with said "Can you believe people read this shit??"
I knew I was among friends.
JC
Somehow, I don't really buy her apology. She was just given a name and contacted that person out of the blue? Well, there's a credibility issue with these bastards, and never take any word from these idiots for face value.
Just to be a little bit devil's advocate here: she might just work for them without actually agreeing with their nonsensical beliefs. Heck, I'm considering auditioning for a production of Jesus Christ Superstar; it doesn't mean I'm a xian.
And if she does work for them without sharing her beliefs I feel a bit sorry for her. I'd need to take 17 showers a day if i was stuck around those people.
Well, it's not a personal attack on her, so hopefully she didn't really take it personal. Christian Radio in general quite deserves it, and that's who it was directed at, so need to feel guilty.
Why not? She's probably new. And comment 7 is of course right.
So is comment 12.
This seems a bit harsh of some of the other commenters. (I normally lurk, but post occasionally, I promise.) She probably has ten different things to do, saw PZ's response, was unaware of how poorly the last event had gone, and made an attempt at making some amends, or at least an attempt at sweeping some of the direct connection to the event away from her. We ought not constantly be judged by the organizations we work for, and honestly, she probably didn't spend all day wording an apology just so that Pharyngulites would find it atheist-friendly.
Or perhaps I just find this a bit too small of a fish to fry. Worse things have happened.
Eh, if it actually wasn't her fault, she probably won't feel bad. I've had to work at plenty of jobs where I apologized all the time and didn't really mean it. "I'm sorry, we don't have that item in stock." "I'm sorry, we are out of non-smoking rooms." In those cases, "I'm sorry" just means "My sympathies". I wasn't actually sorry.
Of course, I also had to spend one month working as a telemarketer to put food on the table. That job was horrible, because I was constantly saying "I'm sorry." and I actually meant it; I regretted harming these people. I had to smuggle vodka into work every day to get by.
Whenever I hear the term 'christian radio' I think of the Simpsons episode where they're out in the midwest and Homer tunes through a number of channels on the AM dial, and they've all got a religious guy talking about the Seven Signs of Evil'.
The way she introduced herself in the email threw a flag to me that she didn't know you were already aware of the station, so I thought this would be her response. Of course, it was also generic enough that maybe she was simply copy/pasting that to a list of people.
Why did you need to publish her name? Please respect other people's privacy - it was personal correspondence irrespective of any gripes you may have.
Yeah, they've probably just got a spreadsheet with 'hellbound, godless heathens' and a list of names with contact details.
If we want people to think Athesists can be good people, perhaps we need to act like it. Bringng down judgement on a woman who isnt even n this debate to defend herself is just plain rude. Before we go over-generalising and stereotyping perhaps we shoudl have a look at who our supposed 'opponents' are...like this guy did.
Rosenhouse, J. (2003) Leaders and followers in the Intelligent-Design movement, BioScience, 53(1):6-7.
hellbound, godless heathens
In the Christian tradition it would be more likely to be "people to pray for."
Pete "well meaning fool" Rooke. Please respect our privacy and cease posting here.
Wowbagger, throw in some country-western and NPR and it's pretty accurate.
I know, personally, I tend to apologize not when I think something is my fault personally but as a way of smoothing over ruffled feathers. It's not a good habit, but it gets me a reputation of being 'nice' (if also 'a bit of a doormat'). I could imagine working in a customer service job caught between the people making the policy* and the people the company has annoyed would lead to a sort of caught-in-the-middle trying-not-to-make-trouble approach. My ability to accept a fake apology is inversely proportional to the amount of power I think the person has to affect things.
* Hey, Kate, rustle up a biologist for us. No, we aren't going to tell you which on the list we've offended and won't work with us again.
@Pubcat
Amen, this goes back to what I wrote on the idea of debating the argument and not the person a while ago on this site:
A long time ago at college I was engaged in a heated debate with a classmate, whose name escapes me right now. He was arguing that the idea papal infallibility was flawed. The priest of the college had sat down at the same table and other classmate was entirely unaware of just how offensive he was being. Rather than explode with anger and rightly castigate him and put him in his place, the priest instead engaged thoughtfully and after about 5 minutes had made a convincing case. I asked the priest how he managed to contain himself when I could see he was so obviously upset. He said something I've never forgotten "debate the argument, not the man". It would have been far to easy for the priest to have used his position to stop the conversation but instead he managed to actually change someone's mind and make a difference.
"Typical of a christian to misunderstand the meaning of an apology. "
I say things like this all the time. I'm pretty sure she probably means something like: I'm sorry for approaching you with something that has irritated you. I didn't know there were problems before.
It's actually typical of many people to apologize for things that were out of their control.
Leave it to the Rookie to raise a non issue. Knowing what station contacted him, it is easy enough to get a list of the station's staff. If any of us really wanted to give these people a hard time, it could be done. But why bother?
Perhaps they should not have a public list of their employees.
You're feeling a little guilty. What? Are you turning into a CATHOLIC! Or is there such a thing as atheist guilt?
Pete "well meaning fool" Rooke, when are you going to apologize for your rambling, no point posts here that are often not related to the topic. Time for you to go a pray to find strength never to infest this site again with your blather.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | November 7, 2008
In the Christian tradition it would be more likely to be "people to pray for."
Also in the christian tradition; one of the exquisite pleasures of heaven, smelling the charred flesh of the damned.
No, it wasn't personal correspondence. It was business correspondence where a company officer offered PZ a honorarium for participating in a public debate.
Oh no, now PR will get turned on and never leave. I guess, on the upside, that will give us longer to ridicule our "well meaning fool".
Qwerty @ 27:
No, there is no such a thing. Since I 'converted' to atheism I have never once felt guilt for anything I've thought or done. Ever.
Hey, Pete the Pinhead, don't you know that the last thing in the world that is private is email!
Pete Rooke, sick fuck! Finally found a friend, huh? Good for you.
Considering that in our last back-and-forth, you revealed yourself to either be a complete wackaloon-in-denial, or a true Liar for Jesus™, you really shouldn't be passing judgment on anyone.
Or have you finally done some research and found that your catholic brothers-in-faith did repeatedly rape children, and the church hierarchy did repeatedly cover it up and protect the guilty? Or is that still, as you oh-so-wittily put it, 'worthy of Dan Brown'?
@ 'Tis Himself
It was a message sent from one named individual to another named individual. Ms. Fisher then issued what was most definitely a private apology (appropriately limited) - on behalf of herself, not the station, to Mr. Myers.
It was discourteous to publish this and this isn't the first time that this issue has arisen here.
OT
Interesting.
I hope she and the station appreciate you posting both communications. Her reply is classy and speaks well for her. I may disagree with what she stands for but her reply is adult and professional. You could have just left it with your reply but you also took the high road. I am sure Rooke just missed that and will post an apology.
I would be rather impressed that Pete Rooke continues to hang around here, but I can't see what he wants to accomplish. His non sequitur stories and circumlocutory debating style are both inane and ineffective. So, Rooke, why? You seem to staunchly disagree with almost everything and everyone on PZ's blog, and thus far any efforts to win over new friends or converts or god knows what else have seemingly failed. What's your business and how long do you plan on staying at this fine website?
I was tempted to say 'don't you mean... one hundred BILLION dollars!?' but then I remembered the current economic climate.
That, in my experience, is media bollocks for someone who shouts a lot. She obviously has been lied to, therefore, knowing the way you behave in interviews.
Oh dear... that's just put an image in my head of PZ on a late-night debate programme, shouting with a red face and showering the audience in spit...
haha..."Only a little"
=)
Keep up the great work!
Since I 'converted' to atheism I have never once felt guilt for anything I've thought or done. Ever.
Although this too is what I presume to be a joke it cuts to the heart of the issue, which I mentioned in the previous thread. Namely why, if there is no God do you feel guilty and why do we all have an innate sense of right and wrong..
Then there are those who appear to lack these sense of right and wrong. MLK Jr. referred to them as the Nietzsches of the world.
Pete "well meaning fool" Rooke, you aren't getting it. Your thoughts, opinions, and anything else you have to offer via a post here are considered to be those of a fool. If you say "A", then we know "B" is true. When I say you need to pray to find strength not to post here, I am trying to save your "face" in oriental terms. If you like being laughed at, keep posting. Otherwise, you need to stop posting here.
I found this video on youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GE6P3gOOAk. This guy is so arrogant and annoying. He needs to be shown just how wrong he is.
@ Nerd of Redhead
My eyes glaze over when I see your name, I long ago realized that you seem to have nothing constructive to offer to the debate.. I await in hopeful anticipation that I may be proved wrong
Pete,
Although this too is what I presume to be a joke it cuts to the heart of the issue, which I mentioned in the previous thread. Namely why, if there is no God do you feel guilty and why do we all have an innate sense of right and wrong..
I suggest you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. A good amount if it is devoted to explaining possible ways we evolved a sense of right and wrong, and an urge to be altruistic. You'll find that no god is necessary to explain hard wired morality.
Pete Rooke,
She's the marketing director. She's hardly going to mind having her name out there. Though a couple of atheists here have lit into her, really there's nothing she did wrong and she acquitted herself well. PZ's not exposing a particular failing of her, but of the station.
PZ used "you" a bit too much in his missive when he actually meant, "the radio station". But that highlights that it was a business message. The apology was also a business message. You're defending someone who needs no defense, who probably desires no defense, against charges that aren't being made.
She would have batted her eyelashes at you had she spoken to you face to face. It's bearbaiting -they're the hounds and they'll cheat anyway they can to win because the crowd that keeps their ratings up will go elsewhere if the bear wins.
Rookie, it is very easy to get names of the station's staff. What is your point?
What do you expect from a guy who thinks that his church's cover up is worthy of a Dan Brown novel?
Just out of curiosity PZ, what is your honorarium for a radio show debate? I've noticed that you travel quite a bit for debates and lectures and I never really thought about you being paid for your time. Don't these fools know that they could gather bunches of your wisdom for the price of an internet connection!
"I suggest you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins."
Having read "The God Delusion" I would prefer to read from someone less partisan.
"Namely why, if there is no God do you feel guilty and why do we all have an innate sense of right and wrong.. "
Is there some reason I'm required to be a being of pure rationality just because I'm rational enough not to believe in gods?
I was raised to be nice to people. How's that?
Posted by: Pete Rooke | November 7, 2008
@ Nerd of Redhead
My eyes glaze over when I see your name, I long ago realized that you seem to have nothing constructive to offer to the debate.. I await in hopeful anticipation that I may be proved wrong
My head just exploded!
Mirror Mirror, on the wall, who's the most deluded of them all?
Ah well, I suppose being deluded is a pre-requisite for being a Christian after all.
Pete "well meaning fool" Rooke, you have your head on backwards. You never add anything cogent to our debates, and only come across as an addle minded fool. If you don't like being called a fool, you do have the option of not looking at this blog. Nobody has a gun to your head telling you to look or post here. I fit with this group. You don't, and you know it.
if there is no God do you feel guilty and why do we all have an innate sense of right and wrong..
Having read "The God Delusion" I would prefer to read from someone less partisan.
Wait... your question is about an atheistic explanation, and your objection to reading Dawkins is that you feel he's too partisan? You mean, you don't want an explanation from atheists?
You've just made one of the more ludicrous retorts I've ever seen on a comment thread.
Pete Rooke wrote: ...the priest instead engaged thoughtfully and after about 5 minutes had made a convincing case. [for papal infallibility.]
Now, that's so funny it makes it worthwhile to wade through it all just to find it.
CrypticLife,
Thank you for that response to Rooke. I tried several times to spell out the same message, but I was so taken aback by the silliness of the whole thing I just started banging at keys wildly with my forehead, crying.
@ CrypticLife (a sentiment that is entirely sensible if you hold not belief in God)
This criticism comes not only from myself, but from other scientists.
"long time ago at college I was engaged in a heated debate with a classmate, whose name escapes me right now. He was arguing that the idea papal infallibility was flawed. The priest of the college had sat down at the same table and other classmate was entirely unaware of just how offensive he was being"
Yeah, it was prettty offensive for the priest to join in uninvited in a private debate like that.
I find it hard to believe that the marketing director of KKMS radio couldn't manage a simple Web search (leaving aside internal records) before approaching a prospective speaker.
The search term "KKMS radio PZ Myers" brings the previous event as the first hit.
I can't believe anyone here actually thinks the radio station would send a woman -- with no prior knowledge of the debacle of the previous "debate" to handle P.Z. MYERS.
Um, sorry, no. While I can believe she didn't know "our side" of the debate -- the slimy tactics used and the unfairness of it -- I am sure that she knew who she was being sent to communicate with.
This radio station wouldn't casually just send whoever was free to e-mail a request to P.Z. Myers after what happened the last time. She had to have SOME idea of who she was being sent to speak to. I find the whole "whaaaat?" angle a bit laughable.
That isn't to say that I accuse the woman who communicated with P.Z. of any kind of malarky. I'm just saying that if anyone believes she was blindly sent to wrangle him and then was shocked to hear his side of things, those people are sorely misled. <3
Ah, but they can't control him on the interwebz. They want content they own and can misrepresent, censor and follow up with unopposed rantings by their pet losers trying to pretend they were winners (and other distortions of reality).
And wow, through crappy typing, that looks like I was just saying "I can't believe they sent a woman to handle P.Z. Myers". I meant to have another "--" in there. *LOL* Don't take that the wrong way. :D
My local skeptics group has been approached for evolution/creation debates, and we have a standard reply: We will provide one individual whose career position has in the past, and currently depends upon, published research in peer-reviewed scientific journals in the field of evolution and biology to support Darwinian evolution if the other side can provide someone with the same credentials to support creationism.
No takers yet.
Pete Rooke's story about the priest and his arguing skills has convinced me not only of papal infallibility (I mean, how could the Pope be wrong, anyway?) but that Rooke himself is standing firmly on the right side of this debate.
How can you people be so blind?
Oh yes, your own fundamentalistic beliefs (such as not believing without evidence) cloud your eyes from seeing the obvious truth!
You're gracious if you assume she's telling the truth when she claims she didn't know about last January's misbehavior.
So, PZ, did they find a more gullible atheist (oxymoron alert!) to fill in for you? How are they handling the show now?
Posted by: Pete Rooke | November 7, 2008
This criticism comes not only from myself, but from other scientists.
Silly question time. What scientist is going to reject an argument from Richard Dawkins, or any other scientist, just because that person is an outspoken atheist?
Don't be so unfriendly to complete strangers!!!!
Burning Umbrella, why don't you teach EricA a thing or two about comedy. He seems to think he is funny, not pitiful.
Golly gosh do I ever hope my penis will be bigger when I get to heaven.
notedscholars=science and math defeated=crank
#72, it is bad form to use the name of a follow poster and add trash like that, even if it is our favorite "well meaning fool" and there might be a bit of truth in there.
Rooke,
This criticism comes not only from myself, but from other scientists.
*rolls eyes*
The question of why we are moral comes from other scientists as well, but so what? They're not invoking god as an explanation. It's theologists who invoke god as an "explanation". No scientist who's acting as one is going to go to such an unparsimonious hypothesis as "an intangible entity, who also happened to make the universe and set up extradimensional realms for 'punishment' and 'reward' of various favored behaviors, gave humans who he also created with some imperfect set of knowledge of the kinds of behaviors favored. The most important of which being belief in the intangible entity".
The scientists are going to likewise give you an explanation that does not rely on a god. An atheistic explanation, even if they're devout Christians, providing they're acting as scientists.
And, you're asking here. Do you expect those posting here to be less "partisan"?
pseudo-Pete Rooke. It is bad form to use an other person's moniker. It is not funny and it is not what the Rookie would say.
Nerd, the fact we both used the same term has me just a little concerned.
Janine, I was paraphrasing our good Rev. BDC. Sorry if we overlapped. I'll concede full credit to you.
I feel I must bring out my disgust at the abuse many individuals (not to named), such as "Janine" and Nerf of Redhead" are heaping on "Pete Rooke" who on his own side has demonstrated how one should always debate the ideas, not humans, and how using other people's nicknames to launch petty comments on certain minorities is beyond dump.
Pete Rooke #41 wrote:
Question: if there IS a God, then why do we feel guilty and why do we all have an innate sense of right and wrong? Think about the answer carefully -- because it can't be given like a story about parents and children which superficially assumes a lot of background. You're apparently asking us to give the scientific explanation for why and how humans evolved a sense of conscience. You're demanding a high level of detail, a mechanism, a step-by-step chain of events: why and how did the group-dwelling human animal evolve an understanding of fairness and duty, and a desire to live up to both? That's the question we're trying to answer, with a scientific explanation.
The "answer" on the other side isn't that sort of explanation. As I said, it's a story. Once there was a Being with a Nature of Goodness. He created little beings and gave them a little bit of that Nature of Goodness, so they might recognize Him as their Father.
What "goodness" is isn't clear or specific. It's a sort of disembodied property which is supposed to be understood on an intuitive narrative level that skips over details in order to get to the plot.
If God "gave us" a "sense of right and wrong" -- what does that mean? Gave how? Sensed how? Can you provide any details? Mechanism? Process?
I get the feeling that the net is up when we're supposed to hit the ball, but taken down for the other side. And the other side isn't playing the same game.
No need to, you got your statement up first. And I also was borrowing from Chimpy. I will give him full credit.
Burning Umbrella wrote:
Your concern is noted. And stupid. Especially as you (obviously) haven't bothered to read up on someone who's getting an automatic wall-of-loathing on a thread.
Pete Rooke is a disturbed individual whose creepy sadomasochistic/necrophiliac fantasies have sickened us all on numerous occasions. He's also a misogynist and a liar and is so caught up in defending the 'good name' of the catholic church that he denies that priests have ever committed sexual misconduct or that the church covered it up. He considers it a conspiracy theory 'worthy of Dan Brown'.
Do some research.
When did the number of people believing in a concept make it correct?
All your inclusion of others does is make the group of people in error larger. How inclusive of you.
Because sociopaths -- those that lack a sense of right and wrong, those who never feel guilty -- tend to die out: nobody likes them, nobody helps them...
Natural selection. :-|
And just why would she do that?
I'm on a list of listeners at the local right-wing talk radio show as a person good at stirring things up. Should they be Googling me every time a new producer runs the show? Being on the list is enough for them to know I can do something for them. That is all they want.
As an aside, I now refuse to go on the show because I caught the host in a number of lies and he responded by cutting me off and then responding in a dishonest way.
Wowbagger, Burning Umbrella posts "Poes". Methinks sometimes the satire is, well, just too dry.
I'm willing to give the lady a benefit of doubt. There is no proof that she knew, and not all christians are liars. I'm willing to give them that: most christians aren't batshit insane.
However, I gotta ask... why didn't she ... I dunno, look it up first? She could have, it must be in their archives.
I don't believe in any gods, but I do tend to feel guilty. It bothers me because I don't view guilt as a particularly productive feeling. Most of the time, some kind of consequence will he heaped on you for bad decisions so there's no real POINT in guilt. That being said, my own experience with feelings of guilt sans religion gives me a hunch that guilt may have a non-theistic explanation.
In my case I tend to feel guilty because I have let myself down and failed to act according to my own *gasp* moral principals.
PZ used "you" a bit too much in his missive when he actually meant, "the radio station".
Perfectly correct modern English.
We used to have a difference between second singular and second pluarl, but using "thou" these days gets you some funny looks, and "Y'all" is not really acceptable in formal speech/writing.
And namestealers are cowards. Besides, Petey's bon mots are stupid enough on their own, why muddy the "Search" waters?
Pete Rooke wrote:
Wrong.
Gary,
Um, professionalism and competence?
David Marjanović, OM, #84:
The innate sense of right and wrong evolved, just like everything else in our body. It's a survival trait, one that is useful for complex social interaction. We aren't the only animal who has that evolved sense, ever had a pet dog?
#2, You're rendered blind by your prejudice. She wasn't apologizing for the initial offense, she was apologizing for offending him with her invitation, and explaining that she was unaware of the initial offense and would not have offended PZ with an invitation had she known. Don't be such a dick.
Don't feel guilty about tearing into her. One of the consequences of her employment by a sleazy outfit is hostility from those her employer has mistreated. Hopefully, by learning just what kinds of dirty tricks they pull in a manner that leaves a deep impression, she may even decide to change jobs.
-jcr
Namely why, if there is no God do you feel guilty and why do we all have an innate sense of right and wrong..
Hm. Here's an interesting conundrum for those who advance this argument: Atheists who have arrived at their atheism through philosophical, scientific, or moral reflection also feel the innate sense that they have done right. Believing in God on faith feels wrong.
So, if I were to go through a difficult time in my life and slip into thinking "God is in control, He is helping me get the strength to get through this, everything is part of His plan" -- I would feel guilty. It would be abandoning my disciplined sense of honesty and courage for something cheaper and easier, a crutch used to make myself feel better.
Would this sense of guilt come from God?
Graculus@89
PZ used "you" a bit too much in his missive when he actually meant, "the radio station".
Perfectly correct modern English.
Yes, I didn't mean it was ungrammatical, just that it was ambiguous. He didn't actually mean that Kate Fisher personally did those things, but that the radio station did. And "too much" is really just my own judgment call on how PZ might have adjusted his tone in a way that would make him feel less guilty.
"Eh, if it actually wasn't her fault, she probably won't feel bad."
They *like* feeling bad.
Anyway. If they were *really* sorry, they'd give PZ an hour.
John,
Perhaps, but it doesn't match common practice. In my experience, common practice and pragmatism would suggest to her that PZ, requested by name by an authority from the station, had already been vetted. In her mind there would justifiably be no need to research further.
The hosts are guilty, the producers are guilty and the station is guilty but not knowing PZ and his history with the station doesn't make her guilty of anything other than obeying her boss.
I think you are demanding too much from someone doing as they have been asked.
After what the producers/hosts did to PZ, I would be more willing to believe they wanted her going in cold and held information from her than believe she's an incompetent tool.
I'm curious to know where Pete the vile troll thinks is a convincing argument for papal infallibility. Also, does the pope become infallible when they give him the silly hat, or at some point before that. Specifically, was the current pope infallible when he said that talking to the authorities about child abuse by priests was punishable by excommunication. Was he infallible when he said that African bishops should help spread AIDS in Africa by saying that using condoms helped spread the disease.
Malcolm, #100
Pete Rooke, sick fuck, doesn't believe there was any child abuse by priests or cover-up by the church hierarchy. Here's exactly what he wrote in another thread after I confronted him with it; emphasis mine:
I've encountered denial and profound intellectual dishonesty before, but this is something else.
Gary @99, you make a plausible case that Kate herself may well not be dishonest, but I stand by my disbelief. See, had I been in her position, I would have looked up PZ and any previous history with KKMS before posting off the email invitation - particularly for a debate on a topic at the frontline of the culture war.
Basically, I can only see that she is either incompetent or disingenuous, but perhaps I expect too much from people, and perhaps "marketing director" is an overblown title for an office junior.
Malcolm @100,
First, what Wowbagger said.
Re your comment, think of the Catholic Church as a corporation, the Pope as the CEO, and his infallibility as relating to setting the corporate policies.
Kel@#93,
Our innate sense of right and wrong wasn't enough to guide us through the interactions of the larger groups we found ourselves in when agriculture began dominating our culture. Much of what we call moral is an extension and modification of that innate sense brought about through trial and error. I suspect religion originated, in addition to an attempt to explain the unexplainable, as as tool to reinforce those learned values in the human psyche and to enforce compliance. Unfortunately for humans, the authoritarianism characterizing religion prevented it from evolving as cultures did.
In my belief, morals/ethics developed outside of religion and society used religion simply as means of preservation and communication, as well as a cudgel. For some reason, religion, instead of just recognizing its role as the morality police, has claimed ownership of the development of those morals. In the process it's put out some incredible nonsense. Religion has never been necessary for the development of general morals, and is certainly not needed now as a medium of transmission. Now, most of us can read and write.
Agreed, but that wasn't the question at hand.
Sorry Kel, I didn't go back through the sidebar thread you were engaged in to find the complete context. I had assumed it was the typical CrIDer claim that religion is necessary for morality so atheists cannot be moral.
I'm finding the lack of cretards and the blog format with its inability to support easy trackback through threads a bit disconcerting and I'm having trouble adapting my debate style.
Voices for Evolution
John@#102,
I had assumed you would be basing your evaluation of her on your own work habits. When I still managed I would have loved to have my full staff exhibit your work ethic, but unfortunately that isn't reality.
While you may be too demanding, perhaps I'm not demanding enough.
That said, I would still like to see the hosts (I believe one of them is also the producer of the show) take the licking they deserve rather than the messenger. I've always believed in going to the source of the bullshit to stem the flow.
Well, I'm seeing a fair amount of baseless speculation here about Ms. Fisher's attributes and character. She's a Christian. She's dishonest. She doesn't know what an apology is.
I'm glad to see that some other commenters realize that she isn't necessarily any of the above; that she may just be someone who happened to land a job at this station, and who honestly had no idea that PZ had been on this station before and how they shafted him.
To the first group, I say, use your brains and don't shoot off the first thing that comes to mind. It doesn't reflect well on you as either scientists or skeptics - and if you aren't either one, why do you read this blog?
I agree with Tualha. Having worked at a TV station and been exposed to the egos involved (and the turnaround), it's quite possible she knew little of the back story. And it's a credit to PZ for feeling guilty. Having said that, I doubt she's losing sleep over the exchange. She may well get screamed at by her supervisors five times a day.....
Fair enough, I was just responding to that cracker cultist Pete Rooke. I should have made it more explicit.
baseless speculation
Tualha, I think Kate Fisher may or may not be a liar, but most definitely she works for sleazy idiots who make a living letting creationist retards spread lies about science on their radio station. I can't prove anything, but I think it's very likely Fisher is a creationist retard herself. She might be nice, she might be honest, but if she's the creationist I think she, then she's a world-class idiot.
Malcolm #100
Back in 1870 Pope Pius IX got the First Vatican Council to declare papal infallibility. After all, could a pope be wrong about something like that?
Wikipedia article on papal infallibility
I like the last sentence of the declaration on infallibility: "So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema." In other words, "if you don't like it, too bad, nyah!"
Perhaps she's Canadian.
Papal infallibility is a pipe-dream coughed up by the church once they realized that their secular and regional power was a gone and not to be retrieved. For the time that it's existed it's been invoked a mere two or three times. For every time it's used, it becomes that much more dangerous for them to possess. Can you imagine papal infallibility during the Avignon Captivity; the Investiture controversy, etc., with all these "True Popes" roaming around infallibly thundering on about this or that. In other words, everytime a Pope babbles infallibly, it constrains his successors to play his game... for eternity bwahahahaha.
So, most of what a Pope says or does is not done with a sky-fairy tm stamp of authenticity. God's own imprimatur is very much missing from the day-to-day papal bull. So, yeah, when the Pope makes a statement about why the church facilitated child rape for decades, his has the luxury of declaring that he is speaking only as a man in silly clothes; and not as god's inerrant emissary on earth bedraped in silly ostentatious threads. I guess that's the theologian's version of crossed fingers. Who knows. Is pageantry supposed to make logical sense? More importantly, is it supposed to be taken seriously? Considering that a lot of Catholics in the U.S. just voted for a non-Catholic, baby-eating terrorist, I'd say the majority of the religion's adherents would answer: "no".
Parting shot, pageantry has survived in modern western civilization in only two major social contexts: Beauty Contests and the Roman Catholic Mass.
Look out Nerd, you're making ol' Pete the Perverts eyes glaze over. I think he has the hots for you. Better alert the Redhead to sharpen her talons.
I'm listening to your debate with this Dr. Geoffrey Simmons fellow right now. I CANNOT BELIEVE HE JUST CALLED OUR DESCENDANTS MONKEYS. I CANNOT BELIEVE HIS IGNORANCE AND AVOIDANCE OF ANYTHING RELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT.
Oh my, I'm about to throw my computer. Or punch it.
Way to stay cool, articulate, and able to muffle your laughter.
You mean, christianists lied?!? Wow, next thing you'll tell me is that the world took longer than 7 days to build, that Noah wasn't a great shipbuilder/animal husbandry expert, and Mary had sex.
Patricia, the Redhead is a knitster. She'll have half a dozen holes in poor PR before he knows what hit him. Thanks for the warning.
PZed, I hope instead that you get an invite to this place, as I think you're more likely to have the right to enter, and the requisite entry fee.
Poor Pitiful Pete Rook.
The dissonance in my brain from this statement has given me a migraine.
How about this statement Petey?
Eeewww! Ick!
Quick RUN Nerd, stop her. If she pokes holes in Pervy Pete who knows what disgusting fluids may erupt on to your floor.
Or
Patricia:
Any yummy pie tonight?
Having read the bible I would prefer to read something less partisan.
E.V. - Nope sorry! I was busy making "hemp" salve today.
But the white pumpkins are in, and my pullets are laying eight to ten eggs per day. Pumpkin pies and Yorkshire pudding are just about to bust out for Thanksgiving.
If PZ cuts loose with an open foodie thread for turkey day I'll post my pumpkin pie recipe. Thanks for asking!
Keep in mind that Patricia and Nerd the Redhead tend to forget that they are dealing with other human beings while conversing on-line. Thus they engage in behavior they would not face to face. It is a sign of youth and hopefully something they'll grow out of as they grow older.
PZ on the other hand is a grumpy old fart who gets irritated at the punks who keep messing with his intellectual lawn. While I do not agree with Professor Myers on everything, at least he takes the time to explain his position.
Having read the Catholic Catechism I would prefer to read something less partisan.
Our innate sense of right and wrong wasn't enough to guide us through the interactions of the larger groups we found ourselves in when agriculture began dominating our culture. Much of what we call moral is an extension and modification of that innate sense brought about through trial and error. I suspect religion originated, in addition to an attempt to explain the unexplainable, as as tool to reinforce those learned values in the human psyche and to enforce compliance. Unfortunately for humans, the authoritarianism characterizing religion prevented it from evolving as cultures did.
I'm going to disagree on two fronts. First of all, what are "morals" BUT our "innate sense of right and wrong"? They are the same thing. They may have become codified as our groups became larger, but I don't see that as a significant change. (On a prehistorical note, I also think you are overestimating the size of the groups involved at the time our culture became primarily agrarian).
I also do not buy that religion was originally authoritarian. Religion goes back to H erectus, and anthropologisyt Pascal Boyer has noted the one common thread to *all* religions, and it isn't authoritariansm, or re-inforcement of social mores.
In the Eurasia (West and East, and everything in between) we are faced with various religions that have co-evolved with authoritarian societies for thousands of years. Of course you are going to see a strong authoritarian streak in them. However, that is not evidence that religion *has* to become authoritarian. There is nothing inherently authoritarian about agriculture (although a case could be made for an inherently authoritarian structure to pastoralism).
Non-religious technical staff: entirely possible
Non-religious secretary: less likely
Non-religious marketing director: extremely unlikely
Hardly, they just realize they're dealing with the intellectual cesspool of humanity and thus give them the respect they deserve.
Your defense of such a cesspool is telling, however.
I wish that you could have said what your wrote to her on air.
I would just like to remind people that self-delusion and stupidity are not the same thing, and if you continue to conflate them in your mind, you're doing more harm to your own cause than to the creationists.
Are creationists deluded? Yes. Are they dishonest? Hell yes. Do they twist evidence into pretzels until it fits their preconceptions? They sure do. And if you want to say that their victims, the politicians and ordinary citizens that they trick, are stupid, I'm inclined to agree. Ignorant, at least, and not trained in critical analysis. Sarah Palin comes to mind immediately.
But hard-core creation advocates are generally not stupid. They can't afford to be. They have to come up with plausible-sounding counterarguments against an enormous amount of hard scientific evidence, well-developed theories, and well-armed defenders like PZ and Richard Dawkins. It's not easy to do. Look at Kurt Wise, he's no dummy. Or Jonathan Sarfati. I'm sure you can think of others.
If you persist in thinking of them as stupid, you will underestimate them, and your arguments against them will fail to persuade. Don't call them stupid - they don't sound stupid to a lay audience, they sound erudite. Call them dishonest. Point out how they cherry-pick the data, and use fallacies in their arguments. That will work better.
Hahaha!
Had no idea it exists. Very strange concept...
OT and may have been mentioned already, but Dr. Isis the Scientist is now on Scienceblogs:
http://scienceblogs.com/isisthescientist/
@#6: "She's a Christian so I wouldn't be surprised if she's a liar."
Surely the road to peace is not via these sorts of prejudices.
Evidence for that? I'm not saying it doesn't, but in the absence of flint hymn books, I can't see how we can know.
Somehow (probably because of the appearance of Pete "milkman with rotten teeth" Rooke), no-one's got round to this, so I'll do it:
pubcat@20: concern troll is concerned.
Folks, the next issue is warn whoever they get in place of PZ how unethical KKMS is.
Unfortunately, they don't post anything like an schedule on the web site (though I may have missed it). The closest thing they have is a generic list of show times with no details on individual programs.
There may be a way to track this by monitoring the proper blog, though we'd have to know who the hosts are first and if they post anything on upcoming shows. Unfortunately, if it's the old interviewers ( kkms . com /blogs/JeffandLee), they give no details on future programs, just an overview of past shows.
Anyone have other ideas on how to track this? It would be a shame if they habitually get away with this.
Oh, and as a further enticement to visit Dr. Isis' blog, she's already received a poem from Cuttlefish:
http://scienceblogs.com/isisthescientist/2008/11/dr_isis_goes_and_gets_…
Don't feel so badly for her, PZ. I'm not surprised by the disingenuous bait-and-switch you had experienced on that show. You did the right thing to refuse to re-appear. What you described is par for the course for that type of "discussion". That's the reason I have never appeared on TV or radio with fathers' rights activists. Those kinds of shows are not interested in discussion. They want arguments and divisiveness, and I didn't play that game. Those kinds of shows are set-ups. I don't blame you for turning them down.
Yikes. It all sounds good in name but when you talk to them.... whoa.
Nick Gotts @ 139:
Graculus might be referring to the existence of burial customs or something similar.
Exactly, Rev. Some of them really froth at the mouth, too. The more "reasonable" ones set up their shows so that the Evil Bad Feminist gets raked over the coals. I wanted no part of that, either.
Fugeddaboudit!
Evidence for religion in prehistoric, preliterate times is of two types AFAIK; burial with tools and food that are perhaps intended for the deceased to use in the afterlife, and carved icons and artwork that might be intended for ritual use. Burial customs are found in the Neanderthal, artwork not until Cro-Magnon (modern humans). I haven't heard of any from H. Erectus; they are known to have had stone tools and fire, but I haven't heard of them having burial customs or artwork.
PZ isn't a GOOD debater - he's a MASTER-debater...
I guess I have to disagree with your disagreement.
We seem to be arguing with different definitions.
Our innate sense of right and wrong developed long before we developed agriculture, much of it was part of our pre-homo and early-homo heritage when group size was probably between 40 and 100 individuals. The group dynamics of a 40 member group is different in many ways than within a group of 1000 or more individuals. This is true even today where you have small hamlets of a couple dozen people, such as the one my grandparents lived in and slightly larger towns of 500-600 individuals such as the town my grandparents moved to several years later. The differences in interpersonal interactions was obvious even to me, an eleven year old kid.
Any innate, by which I mean hard coded as opposed to learned, interpersonal rules we embody (wrong word, but I'm getting old) developed to give preferential treatment to immediate relatives and those rules tend to change, to loosen, as genetic distance increases. Rules based on genetic distance does increase violence within larger groups. This is evident even today although cultural and religious differences are becoming more important than genetics. That change from genetic to cultural is due, not to any innate set of rules, but from rules developed as a culture in order to specifically reduce the influence of genetics.
We are growing beyond our programming.
The codification of interpersonal rules is due to cultural needs and in some cases are the same as the innate but in others are contrary.
Watch a group of Bonobos using sex as a form of mediation and compare that with our cultural view of moral sexual activity. Then question why we deemed it necessary to codify sexual activity as part of a moral system. Obviously our current value, or the Bonobos current value, or both, is not innate. This is an example of morals gone beyond 'innateness'.
For curiosity's sake, what was that common thread?
Again we are arguing about definition. When I wrote my comment I was envisioning the beginning of religion as an organization. You are obviously including death based customs from much earlier.
You are also talking about what could happen while I'm concerned with what did happen.
The question that comes to mind is - why did religion become organized and authoritarian? I agree with your comment that religion does not need to become authoritarian, in fact I described my ideas about that earlier, but that doesn't answer why most did. I'll have to repeat an earlier claim here - organized religion is not necessary for moral conduct but instead is a result of the social need to develop morals. The religionists, who believe our cultural mores are the result of religion, have the sequence backwards - morals developed first and then religion got organized and realized its original purpose. Religion was a cultural tool, but something (arrogance, power?) switched that around so religionists believe their religion is the source of necessary social rules (morals). They have additionally made all of those rules absolute. (that isn't to say we don't have universal rules)
This is indeed bad for society because it prevents socially beneficial rules from evolving with the culture.
Now, who's going to argue that morals and social rules aren't the same?
Holey shit.
Sorry about the length of that last post.
Hm? We are a different species. It's not likely that we share the exact same innate dispositions.
I agree that the particular values we have are not innate as such. But it actually makes sense that we would have a more restrictive sexual morality than bonobos, since we form pair bonds and our babies are more helpless, requiring more investment from people besides the mother. (That doesn't mean that more restrictive values are right.)
HOLY SHIT!!
Stop the presses, alert the media, batten down the hatches and man your battle stations:
LITTLE PAUL MYERS ACTUALLY FELT A MOMENT OF REMORSE!!!!!!!
Unheard of in Western History.
#153: such feeble faux-sarcasm is the spoor of a troll of the "jerk" variety. Pathetic.
PZ, PZ when the cow walks into your yard it needs to be milked.
"My usual honorarium is $6,666 dollars, plus expenses up to $1,234. In advance."
thx
err this belongs here an not on the oxy thread..
Do not think that BobC is come to bring peace. He is not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Allan Kellog - You assume that I do not speak to people exactly as I write here. Well, sir, you are wrong.
I say exactly what I think, unless it would be painful to someone that is handicapped or actually retarded. I do use provocative phrases and medieval language every chance I get. I'm also a busybody, biddy, shameless hussy, strumpet, and ignorant slut.
However, I will take your comment on my youthful behavior as a compliment. Thank you.
Patricia, @157
You forgot, "Small circle of friends and few outside contacts." Would be interesting to record you as you interact with people online and offline. I think you'd be surprised at the differences.
I can't believe anyone here actually thinks the radio station would send a woman -- with no prior knowledge of the debacle of the previous "debate" to handle P.Z. MYERS
Which is why I think PZ Myers is making up the entire story. His blog hits must have been down this week, hence another "manufactured controversy" is necessary.
yawn
Nah, if he wanted a traffic boost he'd do something to warrant an influx of a whole bunch of whiny pinheaded libertarians who'd just go on and on and on about their invisible sky fairy superior economic theories.
Hang on...
Rev., you know yawns are contagious. Yaaawwwwnnnn
They don't need PZ to write something related to libertarianism, they just come anyway...
Hmm, maybe they're from Bizarro Libertarian world - in that case, all PZ needs to rid the site of them is to write specifically about libertarianism so they get bored and wander off.
I worked in marketing for nine years. That doesn't make me an expert, but I can speak from my experience within that time on a couple of points.
Anyone who works in marketing, especially in a director position, must have a ThickSkin(tm). It is absolutely essential, regardless of the institution and its market. Anyone who does not have a ThickSkin(tm) going into marketing, or anyone who does not aquire ThickSkin(tm) within a few months of working in marketing, is in for a rough time (ThickSkin(tm) is not available in stores! Call the number you see on your screen to order ThickSkin(tm) today! Why wait a moment longer to develop the tough exterior necessary to navigate the sometimes harsh waters of a modern marketing workplace? Operators are standing by; call now!)
So, in general, marketers, and marketing directors deal, on a daily basis, with some level of harshness in communication, because there's always someone who doesn't want to be the target of marketing that day, or who wants to be the target but is dissatisfied with the particular message/product/offer that came along, or who is just looking for a fight about something.
Furthermore, if the marketing director from the story is a solid professional, she also knows that a function of her job is often not to take things personally, even if the other person in the communication does.
All of those points is NOT to say that marketers aren't people with feelings, and aren't people who get hurt, and so forth. It just may be that, given the amount of communication this particular marketer has with the big, bad world on a daily basis, she's likely gotta a pretty well-insulated sense of self-confidence. Especially if marketing is what she really wants to do, in which case she's likely ambitious about her prospects and all about going out and grabbing opportunity by the horns, he said, mixing his metaphors slightly.
Moreover, if she's marketing in radio, she knows that a fairly healthy portion of her job is about generating listeners, and whether those listeners are outraged at the content, or fully on board, is sometimes secondary to the fact that they're tuning in at all. My guess is this also solidly places her in the likely category of "tough enough to hear criticism" and perhaps also puts her in the "secretly hoping that said criticism generates ratings" category. Her whole job is to promote the radio station. It may be that she's in line with the radio station's core ideology, but that may not necessarily be a core requirement for her job. It would certainly help, but there are plenty of marketers who simply love marketing and are less worried about in what capacity.
Which, again, is NOT to say that this particular marketer is (or is not) one of those. Whatever the ideological message of the radio station in question, one of it's other goals, and my guess is AT LEAST as fundamental a goal as disseminating its ideology, is making money. That's the marketer's job: find the market, identify the deficiency in the market, promote how the organization the marketer represents meets that deficiency, and then expand the market.
Whether or not that woman is a Christian, or even the particular allegiance the radio station may have, at some level, she's got to deal with all kinds of harshness from numerous people on a weekly basis, and if she really loves her job, she probably even loves that part of it because it's more of a challenge to expand the market.
If she's easily wounded by verbal sparring, she needs to get the hell out of marketing.
As to whether she's new to the station, and citing "didn't know" as truth in explanation to help maintain good communication with a former radio guest (and possible future one again - for a marketer, no "former" contact is ever gone for good), or because it's how she genuinely feels, or whether that's a clever dodge to make herself look innocent, I don't know. From PZ's standpoint, the radio station itself has a long way to go to demonstrate good-faith (of the non-supernatural kind), and maybe this will start to lay some groundwork, but it's not going to totally do the job. From the radio station's standpoint, if the market analysis shows that having PZ (or anyone in similar capacity) to debate issues is good for ratings, then the radio station has a long way to go to laying groundwork for PZ to (possibly) return, in which case they better get started.
All of which is not a case for being rude; I don't think PZ was rude in his e-mail, given how he had been treated before. I think he was honest, and expressed in no uncertain terms a desire not to participate in circumstances inherently dishonest and unlikely to have changed without evidence to the contrary. It's important for customers (or potential customers, in the marketer's eyes) to relay such information to the marketer, and it's important for the marketer to get that feedback, otherwise they have less information to know how to adjust to the market, and ultimately, businesses that don't adjust to market changes (not necessarily all of them, because change has to be balanced with a certain amount of stability), don't live very long.
Thanks for hanging in if you read this whole thing.
No kings,
Robert
Can you imagine papal infallibility during the Avignon Captivity; the Investiture controversy, etc., with all these "True Popes" roaming around infallibly thundering on about this or that
Sounds like a sitcom to me. Maybe you should write up a script or two, and shop it around hollywood.
-jcr
I've heard that interview and at the tail end of the debate you did appear to agree to be perfectly willing to participate in future discussions. I think you are perfectly justified in not wanting to go back on, there's clearly a heavy bias on that station and its tough playing soccer on a hill, so to speak. By the same token, though, I think given your statements at the end, it seems perfectly reasonable for them to have asked you back on, particularly from someone who didn't participate in the original debate and potentially may not have even heard it. Given that context, I think your response was over the top, and a polite rejection would have been more appropriate.
Disclaimers: I enjoyed that interview, I'm a fervent atheist (to the extent that one can be 100% sure of anything etc.), and I enjoy what I have seen of your writing and speeches very much.