Let's all join the politeness on blogs challenge! March 31st for 24 hours. Thanks to Saskboy again for pointing out Canadian Cynic's idea. We shouldn't let anonymity rob us of our civility and we should remember to try not to say things on the internet that we wouldn't say if we were talking to people face to face.
p.s. The Wikipedia article about politeness is very interesting.
p.p.s. My goodness there is a surprisingly large amount of controversy about this! Check out some of the links to Canadian Cynic's posts. Yeesh, times like this I'm glad my blog is relatively insignificant and uncontroversial.
I'm pleased with how much discussion is going on in the comments of my Earth Hour post. I thought I would make a reply post for this comment though because I had a lot to say.
It's really none of your business how much energy I use - if I want to crank up the power, then that's my decision, not yours. Climate change is a fantasy you and your ilk have cooked up to make yourselves feel like superheroes. Instead, in reality, you behave like fascists, complaining about the harmless actions of others, and attempting to impede modern conveniences and slow down progress.
March 30, 2008 6:37 PM
Really Sean? What makes you say that? I mean, I know why I said what I said. I know that climate change is happening based on abundant research (if you want me to give you articles I can but you may have to wait a little). The only question is the degree of influence that we are having on it. If we set aside the issue of climate change (which I realize is controversial), I know that non-renewable resources are finite so we shouldn't waste them. I know that pollution befouls the environment and hurts plants and animals (including people). I know that environmentally sound technology is cheaper and more efficient and the very definition of technological progress. Think about what London was like during the industrial revolution (pollution was so thick that people would get rickets because they never saw the sky) and what it’s like now, or look at the picture of Mexico City to the right. That's pollution, does that look like a fantasy to you? I also know that unless you somehow produce your own natural resources then quite frankly how much energy you use IS my business (for that manner how much I use is your business too). I’m not talking about you personally of course but as a group we are all responsible to each other for how much we use and how much we waste. Obviously no one person is expected to change the world by themselves (even though some do). Most people aren't even expected to do anything that is moderately difficult or even inconvenient. The point of Earth Hour was to raise awareness and show how easy it is to do little things and be sensitive to these concerns. Then maybe people in power will see how important this is to so many people. It does not make sense to just say environmentalists are making everything up and your actions are harmless with no explanation.
It also does not make sense to just accept what we are told without evidence. I always try to back up my opinions with reason and logic and I hope that I did just that in my previous blog post and in this one, but if I have not please let me know and I will try harder. I feel that if you are going to have an opinion you should be educated about the topic (as much as possible) and talk to people who have differing views than you and learn about them instead of judging them based on limited information. To that end I must admit that I have never actually had the opportunity to personally speak to someone with views like yours (only read their opinions and struggle to find reason in them) so, I think it might be constructive if you tried your best to educate me about your views in an open manner. That way I can learn why you think the way you do and hopefully understand you better. As I pointed out in an earlier post about anonymous religious comments, random spurts of opinions in comments on blogs are counter-productive. They'll only make my friends angry at you and no one will come away learning anything. Everyone will just end up with the same opinions as before and if anything there will be even less understanding. So please respond to this and explain your views to me so that I can try to see where you are coming form. I promise I will try just as hard (or harder) to understand you as you did to understand me and my views. I say this for two reasons: 1) I am responsible for what I say on my blog and I assume anyone who reads it is curious about my opinions so I will respond to any comment with as much thoughtfulness as I can; 2) you took the time to read and reply to my blog but I am unable to do the same. I understand if you would rather not make your profile public but I hope you comment back and please let me know your blog address so I can visit it sometime.
Update: Turns out I committed a case of mistaken identity. I hope there are no hard feelings. Sean (another Sean) was even kind enough to reply and I got to learn a little bit about him and his art so all is well that ends well I guess. I will take it as a lesson in not assuming. Anyway, thank you to the other Sean for replying and I'd like to say I appreciate your photography a lot more now that I better understand the meaning behind it.
The project is meant to raise awareness and it shows how easy it is to reduce consumption, I doubt anyone will suffer because of the lack of lights for one hour. And maybe one person doing it won't matter, just like maybe one person attempting to offset the project by consuming even more won't matter. But what if everyone, everywhere did it?
The info in the following two adds is basically the same. Which do you think is more compelling?
Update Part 1: Check here if you are curious about Lurker's reference to the Facebook Earth Hour group in her comment.
Update Part 2: Even Google "turned out its lights". I think it's important that influential sites like Google to promote awareness of issues and to have a social conscience. Further, companies will reflect what the public demands. However, I am always in favour of considering opposing views on any issue (it's the basis of science after all) so have a look: here and here (these are just two that happened to pop up associated with the Google lights out thing). The former laments all the conformist idiots who are going along with Earth Hour (what a beacon of original right wing fundamentalist thought, no blind conformity there) and the latter, well he showed us because he turned on his house lights and went for a drive to see all the lights that were still on in Saskatoon. Well he may have a point that a lot of lights stayed on in Saskatoon but he derides the integrity of a couple who had turned out their lights and were sitting in their window with a candle. If these people were doing this so that others would see them don't you think that they may have been doing it because the whole point of the movement is to increase awareness by making a statement? Besides who are you to judge people whom you've never met and know nothing of other than they live in a nice house? Do they drive a hybrid and keep the temperature at 15 degrees in winter? Do they have energy efficient appliances and buy organic local produce? Maybe, maybe not the point is you don't know do you. I also Googled anti-Earth Hour and here is a person who actually started an anti-Earth Hour petition! What is that supposed to accomplish? Lousy Earth! What has it ever done for us eh?!
Update Part 3a: As part of Earth Hour SaskPower has promised to measure today's power use and compare it to another typical Saturday. I'll keep track of the results of this and post it later.
Update Part 4a: The more I think about it (the people trying to "offset" Earth Hour by using more energy) the angrier I feel and I have to rant about it otherwise I won't be able to go back to work. But, before I do, let me say that no one is perfect, and sometimes everyone forgets to turn out the light or leaves the computer on or takes a longer shower than they needed to. It happens because if we perceive an excess of available resources then we want to use them and we tend to waste them, it's human nature. We forget, we are careless, we are human. That doesn't make us bad and everyone does it. But, like many stupid or careless things that we do, we do know better! We know we have to conserve resources so there will be more for later (that's why we have things like agriculture and freezers and Tupperware) and we all know that resources aren't infinite (we've killed off enough tasty or furry or otherwise useful or in the way animal species to know that). If you don't "believe" in global warming or in the Earth Hour movement well whatever, that's up to you, you don't have to participate just go on with your life. Whether you are protesting Earth Hour because you think it is hypocritical or it is useless or you just don't care, you've made your point. Good work! You're a savior of humanity and its right to rape and pillage everything in it's path! We're all free now! Hurray! But where do you get off actually trying to use MORE energy than you would have normally!? What is wrong with you!? That goes beyond jaded or apathetic or indignant (those are at least understandable, there is hypocrisy out there on both sides that fuels it and we all feel it sometimes). It's downright petulant, selfish, and even cruel. Just think about what you are standing for! Even if you don't believe in global warming do you believe in wastefulness, exploitation, or greed? Obviously those are things you proudly stand for. Do you believe that there are people in the world who don't have access to all the same resources that you do? Does it make you feel good to show them that you can choose to maliciously piss away these resources if you feel like it? Do you realize that every bit of energy you waste represents time, effort, and money that could be better spent being actually used for something!? Maybe if more people thought about those things before they acted as childishly as you are acting then we wouldn't need Earth Hour.
Update Part 5: Saskboy also had a few things to say about Earth Hour (I like to give shout outs) and he links to someone else who found the same anti-Earth Hour blogs that I've talked about. I appreciate the irony that people who are against these fools (like me) but went to the sites out of curiosity helped to increased their popularity. Oh irony you're a fickle bastard!
Update Part 3b: Here's a news update, looks like Regina actually used a little more power. SaskPower suggests a cold night may have had something to do with it. I wonder how much power would have been used if it hadn't been Earth Hour? More? Maybe, but if that's true I also have some elephant repellent to sell you. They say they are working on some provincial stats and I'll post that when I find it.
Update Part 4b: I got noticed by the smalldeadanimals website that I linked to about the anti-Earth Hour petition mentioned above. I actually ended up having quite a few people visit my site from the link on her post (see Update 5 re:irony). Anyway one comment specifically mentioned me:
Who knows Johnny, but at least our Kate can count. Unlike the author of chickensinsaskatoon, updates part 1,2,3,4,5,3? Did we annoy her that much that she got lost after she ran out of fingers and thumb on one hand? Posted by: Jim at March 30, 2008 8:40 PM
Jim had a problem with my use of the designation 3' (ie. Update 3 prime indicating a sub group of or linkage to the original Update 3). Mathematical symbology is obviously not his strong suit. Since this is the closest thing to actual legitimate criticism of any of the content of the post, I have altered the post so that it is now the more idiot-friendly "Update 3a" and "Update 3b". I assumed Jim was literate since he reads blogs and wrote the comment so hopefully this will alleviate the confusion.
I'm pretty sure the following comments were about me too. The middle one definitely is anyway, but the first and 3rd may have been general. For the record I clearly refrained from implying that the SaskPower results would show anything (positive or negative). In 3b I called attention to the Regina results on purpose, I didn't hide or avoid the issue (I didn't even mention how Canada's larger participating cities all showed a marked decrease in power consumption i.e. Toronto's was 8.3%) because I thought it was interesting. I simply relayed what the article said and I was even sarcastically pessimistic about it. In addition, I wasn't actually mad at people who were refraining from participating in Earth Hour (they have the right to be conscientious objectors if they wish, for whatever reason), I was mad at people trying to actively offset Earth Hour. There is a difference and I believe I specifically belabour this point in the post and in my replies to the comments (even expressing my respect for a skeptical individual who did not feel the need to "offset" Earth Hour like some petulant child). If you are going to criticize me, at least criticize me for things that I actually say (like that petulant child remark, you can go nuts on that, hey it isn't politeness on blogs day anymore so what the heck). Is this a commentary on the reasoning behind "skeptic" arguments perhaps? Nah, that would be an unfair generalization so let's not interpret too much from these:
The leftist bloggers sure work themselves up into a frenzy over SDA. Their foot-stomping overwrought emotionalism is something to behold. How dare we not get with the program? It's offensive enough for a complaint to the HRC.
Yikes - the left is really up in arms about this aren't they? All high and mighty and huffy that people would dare NOT participate in Earth Hour. I found it funny how the first leftie blogger was all excited over how Sask power would PROVE that it had been a success, then the justification of colder temperatures when it wasn't. And - I thought RT had quit blogging - Is this not about his 5th reincarnation? He is as indecisive as the hapless Dion. Posted by: Alberta Girl at March 31, 2008 9:22 AM
The lefties, the gaia followers, have went right off the deep end about this. To work themselves into a lather because someone told them they didn't want to sit in the dark like a mushroom, because they didn't believe in that shit, is sending them over the edge. I am having a hard time believing something as stupid as not participating in a gaia celebration, is enough to make them want to throw stones at us. Posted by: Honey Pot at March 31, 2008 9:34 AM
Wow look at that propaganda! Its got everything! Mounties wearing dress uniforms all the time, intolerantly stereotypical depictions of native people, helpless women folk wearing off the shoulder dresses whilst crossing the plains in a wagon. I don't even know where to start with this! Wait, yes I do...why is Saskatchewan in the Rockies? Bah!Update: Here is a link to an article in the Globe and Mail about this and a few other similar misrepresentations of Canadian geography and history. Neat.
Hurray! I was hoping someone would make a comment like this. It looked like no one was going to but then BAM someone did! What fun!
Anonymous said...
The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Repent and believe the gospel.
It's awesome whether it was serious or not! And it's all the more amusing in the wake of my "Anonymous" post. So, whoever you are Anonymous commenter, I have this to say (Note: if your comment was serious please go directly to Response #2):
Response #1: if you were being facetious you should have left your name because you are hilarious and I want to thank you for renewing my faith (ha!) in the ironic sarcasm of my readership (I hope you will find response #2 amusing, I figured I should make an alternate response just in case and it's funnier with the contrast).
Response #2: if you were serious thank you for your opinion. I'll certainly take it under advisement. However, obviously you don't really care about my soul or you would have left your name so that I could get in contact with you and follow up on the wonderful world that your two sentence anonymous comment has opened up to me. It is clear you are very dedicated and passionate about your religion based on the time and effort you put into crafting it. Thank you so much for your intriguing and original ideas, but you gave only a taste of your genius and I crave more! I have so many questions! Like what hand is the kingdom of heaven at? Is it the right one? It's the right one isn't it? Also, what religion are you? Your conscientious and articulate assessment of my opinions has won me over and made me realize that I am clearly in need of some conversion and repenting and must follow your religion (you shining representative of whatever religion you are! You represent it so well!), but to whom do I repent!? Sweet zombie Jebus I need more instructions! Please comment on this post because I am in need your guidance and I would love to debate the pros and cons of various religions with you in a frank and open exchange of ideas.
p.s. In retrospect, even though I have been morbidly curious whether some religious nut(s) would take an interest in my ramblings, it's a bit of a mixed blessing (ha!). Like when you think that someone is a moron and then find out you were right but realize that that person probably has 10 kids. Even if it wasn't serious (which I realize it probably wasn't because I know a lot of people who like to take advantage of how gullible I am - but whatever, I think it's funny either way), it easily could have been real since there are tons of serious examples out there. It makes you wonder at the mental state and motivations of someone like that (I really hope they respond to this so I can ask!) and what do they hope to accomplish with a random anonymous comment? But mostly I just hope they understand sarcasm.
p.p.s In future let's all try to keep the anonymous comments to a minimum (unless it's really obvious who you are). I'm still worried about having to go on the lamb from the "Anonymous" people and I don't want to get any more paranoid than I have to.
I was listening to some random music on my computer and I realized that I had 2 versions of this song on there (the Taco one and the Fred Astaire one), and I wondered what was up with that. So, I bring you the first installment of the Chickens! "this music in history" series.
Inspired by the Ritz hotel, "putting on the Ritz" is an old timey slang expression meaning to dress fashionably (also used to refer to something being high class or extravagant ie. "this room is very ritzy"). This popular song was first written and published in 1929 by Irving Berlin and introduced by Harry Richman in the musical film "Puttin' on the Ritz" in 1930.
Its next famous film depiction was by Clark Gable in the 1939 film Idiot's Delight.
Next we have the incomparable Fred Astaire in the 1946 film Blue Skies (note the revised lyrics)
Of course the amusing Young Frankenstein version performed by Gene Wilder and Peter Boyle in the 1974 Mel Brooks film.
Then we skip straight to the highly popular synthpop version recorded in 1982 by the one hit wonder Taco Ockerse. This baffling music video was the only music video version of this song ever made.
The most recent version is by Rufus Wainwright. He went back to a more classic version on his 2007 DVD release "Rufus! Does Judy Live at the London Palladium".
Project Chanology: Anonymous' war on Scientology. Anonymous is a movement that began with the picture and opinion forum website 4chan (this is an encyclopedia link, if you are interested in going to the actual website there is an external link to it at the bottom of the article).
Possibly fueled by the hilaristurbing Tom Cruise Scientology indoctrination video. Possibly not. Who knows.
Anyway, FOX did an "expose" on Anonymous.
Anonymous launched a video announcing the war on Scientology.
Operation Clambake author criticizedthe supposed DDoS attacks that Anonymous was launching (though he also pointed out that there is no proof of any such attacks). And Anonymous listened, and a massive peaceful global picketing of Scientology centres worldwide was accomplished in February. Then, in honour of the Ides of March, L.R.Hubbard's birthday, they did it again. Disclaimer: Chickens! does not associate itself with the group Anonymous or any of its works. I don't think I am bored or angry enough. Therefore I feel justified in violating rules #1 and #2 (see Fight Club if you don't know what they are). Frankly, some of the things spouted by anonymous individuals are just awful (from racism to homophobia, it's disgusting and upsetting).
However, I do consider the movement to be cool in a scary way and probably inevitable. Also, I approve of the good they are trying to do, if not the boredom fueled anarchy (real or imagined by FOX). Also, I applaud their use of peaceful tactics in their protests against Scientology. Violence (real and virtual) will only trivialize what you are trying to do. You have to use the power of the Anonymous mob for good, not evil. Just remember what we've learned from Spiderman.
p.s. I forgot to give a shout out to Updog&Indy's post on Scientology. And Madman's post.
I refer you to my "St.Patrick's Day is Crowded" post of a year ago. Wow has it been a year already? Where has the time gone?
Additional Fun Facts to learn and know about St.Patrick:
A popular legend about St.Patrick is the one that tells of him driving all the snakes from Ireland. This is most likely a metaphor for driving pagan religions from Ireland, the serpent being a common symbol for such things at the time.
In fact, there have never been any snakes in Ireland, New Zealand, Iceland, Greenland, or Antarctica as well as many of the smaller islands. In addition, there are no known examples of snakes migrating to islands over water. And even if snakes would have slithered their way over to a northern island (like Ireland) during a time when it may have been connected to the mainland by a land bridge, the Ice Age would have made snake-sicles of them.
p.s. The above Irish beer panda is brought to you by the Scary Go Round shop. It's a so-so, but kinda funny sometimes, internet comic from the UK with cool images on their merchandise. Like several other comics that I have swiped images from, I found it because he did a guest comic for Dr.McNinja.
You may remember these parodies from such posts as "A Response to "Yes I Watch Bad TV"". The ThoseLilRabbits guys made a third installment of their David Blaine Street Magic Parodies. "He sent me back to Dinosaur times!"
p.s. Click the image at the top for their official website.
Of course The Hour has had innumerable amazing interviews with everyone from Gerard Butler to Andrew Lloyd Webber but for a quick sampler also check out SJ and WF and the other side of the spectrum DC and JC. Crazy. McShanty points if you can guess who the initials stand for before you look at the interviews.
He also always does a funny skit at the beginning of each episode. Here's one with Dave Grohl. George has done several interviews with the Foos, maybe I'll post one later in a concert series post.
p.s. Feel free to comment and recommend your favorite interviews that George has done.
Terror birds (Family: Phorusrhacidae): Giant, flightless carnivorous birds, which stood up to 10 feet high, lived in the Americas (mostly South America) during the Cenozoic. Anything even close to resembling it in the old world died out millions of years ago. It had been previously thought to have existed as recently as 10,000BC in South America but the most recent fossil has been re-dated to around 2 million years ago. Woolly Mammoths and Mastodons: Mastodons were native to both Eurasia and North America but died out in Eurasia approximately three million years ago and were browsers not grazers like the mammoths. The woolly mammoth (Mammuthusprimigenius aka tundra mammoth) was found in North America, Northern Eurasia, and Siberia. They evolved from the steppe mammoth (M.trogontherii) which was 15ft at the shoulder and lived in Northern Eurasia but it was replaced by tundra mammoth about 250,000 years ago. Most mammoth species were no more than 10ft tall at the shoulder max (that's 2 ft taller than my ceiling) and had much smaller ears than modern elephants (closer to 30cm long compared to 6 feet). They began disappearing with the other Pleistocene megafauna about 12,000 years ago, with the last dwelling on islands in the Arctic until as late as 3,000 to 4,000 years ago. They did not (and could not) live in any warm locations such as Africa (besides the long fur, mammoths had a 8cm think layer of blubber beneath their thick skin), although there is some evidence that suggests that Egyptians may have known about them. Also, while the tradition of training elephants may go back some 4 000 years in the Hindu valley, there is no evidence to suggest the taming of elephants or the use of elephants for labour in any way before this time (let alone mammoths!).
Sabre-toothed cats: The most popular sabre-toothed cat was Smilodon(aka the sabre toothed tigre; no close relation to actual tigers). It stood about as tall as a modern lion (but was about twice as heavy, around 400kg) and lived in the Americas. The lesser known Homotherium(aka scimitar cat) lived in Eurasia, Africa, and the Americas but only survived in the old world until about 30,000 years ago. It was the size of a modern lion and had relatively short upper canines compared to Smilodon. The giant sabre-toothed cat depicted in the movie was at least 2 to 3 times larger than anything that ever existed in real life. Just like this:
Animal Domestication - Horses: As early as 30,000 years ago we see depictions of horses and horse hunting in Paleolithic rock art. In 10,000BC horses were still being hunted for food and in the process of going extinct in the western hemisphere (though there is evidence to suggest that some of the North American horse species migrated to Siberia before this time). The horse may have been domesticated in central Asia as early as 4000BC (around the same time the wheel was invented. Yes, I know the "wheel" existed earlier than that but that was for pottery not transportation), but these may have been merely "tamed" wild horses; the earliest evidence of bit wear dates to around 3500-3000BC; chariots and other material evidence clearly indicate the horse was definitely fully domesticated by 2500 - 2000BC and in common employment throughout Eurasia. Anatomically modern horses (Equuscaballus) are a product of selective breeding by humans. Animal Domestication - Sheep: Sheep were one of the earliest agricultural animals to be domesticated (along with goats), perhaps as early as 9000 years ago (even as early as 10 to 11,000 according to some, soon after agriculture, but that is still only 9000BC at the earliest) in SW Asia. But woolly sheep weren't being selected for until several thousand years later.
Plant domestication: Occurred independently in several major centers around the world. It occurred in the Fertile Crescent region of the Middle East as early as 9000BC. Here we have grains and some legumes like wheat (einkorn and emmer), barley, pea, lentils. Around 8000BC, we see the domestication of Mesoamerican/South American plants like corn, squash, tomato, lima beans, white potato, sweet potato, chili peppers, peanuts, guava, and avocado. These species don't make their way to the old world until the 1500's. So, to sum up, while arguably a case could possibly be made for horticultural cultivation of some transitional domesticate crops in some regions of the Middle East as early as 10,000BC (though there really isn't any evidence for this), these crops would not have included New World domesticates like corn or chili peppers.
Metallurgy: While small amounts of soft natural metals like deposits of gold may have been cold hammered and/or used as decoration as early as the late Paleolithic period (40,000BC), the technology of metallurgy began around 3500 B.C. in the Bronze Age.
Monumental Architecture: The earliest Neolithic townsites date to around 8000BC, actual monumental architecture (except for megaliths) doesn't clearly show up for at least a few thousand years after that.
p.s. Visit some of the other blogs in my blogging community for more angry rantings about 10,000BC here and here. p.p.s. Another rider to this. I guess the movie isn't so bad because my Mom didn't have to worry about anyone in it, everyone got theirs in the end. In my disapproval of the movie I failed to give extra points for its Mom-friendliness. Let that be a lesson to me. Also, in further defense of the movie, the only thing that actually didn't ever exist were the giant sabre-toothed tigers (of course even though the other things existed, they didn't exist in the same times or places and definitely not in the Old Wold in 10,000BC).
Brought to you by Captain McShanty's "Topic o' the Day" topical ointment and rejuvenating cream cleanser and by the Chickens! Procrastinate By Learning Foundation.
Question: What characterizes a religion? What I mean is, in a religion debate is it more important to discuss what can be determined as the "facts" of a religion ie. the widely accepted doctrine of a religion or do we consider the opinions of anyone who claims to be that religion regardless of how their beliefs coincide with the core ideas typically associated with that religion? Does any crazy whack job with crazy whack job ideas who calls himself a Christian or Muslim or Deist or whatever, have the right to call himself that because that's what he thinks he is? Who is another Christian or Muslim or Deist or whatever to say that that crazy guy is or is not what he says he is just because their belief in that religion is defined differently? I guess what I'm asking is are religions defined by their believers (even the crazy whacked out ones) or the other way around? Maybe, like most problems, it comes down to a misunderstanding of what things are or on judgments based on a misunderstanding, lack of information, or a stereotype (often all three), whether it be about religion, or a scientific concept, or a culture and not just about other peoples religions, cultures, etc. either, but one's own as well. The funny thing is people often get angrier with people of their own religion or group that they think are misrepresenting their group in some way, than they do with people of different religions or groups with opposing ideas. You know why? Cognitive dissonance (this one's for my Dad)!
A lesson in intra-religion intolerance and cognitive dissonance:
Let's say person "A" feels they are part of a group and so feels defined (at least partially) by that group. Now let's say that persona is damaged when another member (person "B") of that group commits an act that is not in line with what person "A" understands to be what he and his group represent (say by discriminating against an outsider, person "C", in some way). So there is cognitive dissonance in person "A"; "A" doesn't think he is a mean person who would discriminate against the innocent "C" just because "C" is different, but he saw that someone in his group, someone who is part of of a defining portion of his identity, would. So, to relieve the resulting dissonance does person "A" change his understanding of himself and his group to include person "B"? No, of course not! Person "A" strives to separate himself and his group-related persona from person "B" through disapproval, or anger, or hate. If anything, person "A" is more enraged by person "B" than person "C" was. What's more, the reverse is the same because "B" thinks "A" is a bad group member for not standing up for the group and for being too soft on outsiders like "C". So, there you have it - intra-religion intolerance explained by cognitive dissonance.
Wait! What about person "C" you ask? Well that all depends. "B"'s actions probably caused "C" to develop some unseemly stereotypes about "A" and "B"'s group, especially if this was his first interaction with one of them. If "A" works hard enough to separate himself from "B" then maybe "C" will recognize them as separate groups (like protestants vs. evangelicals or something), or maybe "C"s initial experience will create a stereotype towards everyone identified as that broad group (like all Christians). So, it all depends.
All pancakes aside though, this is all a rambling spurred by the various angry rants of my friends here and here. Like I said, I think much of the various religion or ideology controversies can be chalked up to lack of understanding. Just like religion vs. science and science vs. science and culture vs. culture controversies. So to remedy a small fragment of this and for a final kick at the religious can I have decided to pit various religions/anti-religions against eachother in an all out battle royale! BwaHaHaHaHa!
Round 1: Scientology vs. Operation Clambake Notes: a simple and very specific religion vs. anti-that religion pairing. Of course I think Scientology guys are freaks but those Clambake people are pretty angry.
Round 3: Roman Catholics vs. Evil Bible Notes: Swears you can say because they are in the Bible: hell, damn, ass, whore, etc.
Round 4 (Half-time exhibition match): Buddhism vs. ummm I dunno this is a tough one...something old, monotheistic, and zany...how about Zoroastrianism Notes: Neither of them showed up because the Buddhists were too busy being peaceful and trying to find enlightenment and the Zoroastrians believe you must be born to the religion and so they tend not to recruit. Oh well. Instead of our half-time exhibition match we bring you a cat trying to take down a deer:
Round 5: Any non-Evangelical religion...how about Hinduism or Jaimism or...NO! I know! The Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) vs. the Christian Countercult movement (aka Discernment ministries) Notes: Check out the irony of using a religious tolerance website to explain about a religious movement based on intolerance of other religions (I love irony). Now something like the Christian Countercult movement is basically against almost everything so that one is a bit of a cop-out, I could've used it for anything. But Mormonism is one of the major no-no's according to discernment so it's a good match.
Round 6: Religion vs. Science/Non-religion - CANCELLED Notes: I'm not going to pit science against religion because science is not religion and vice versa, ergo they shouldn't be compared in this context. That's that. I suppose in lieu I could do something like compare religions with a non-religion religion like Atheism (yes, what's known as "strong Atheism" or the belief in no god(s), is a belief system too because, while there is no way to prove there is a God/god(s), there is no way to prove that there isn't a God/god(s) either) but, I could've compared this to anything too, which was too easy, easier than countercult even, so I won't bother. I suppose we could also go with Satanism against any of the Christian-y religious factions, although apparently only one branch of Satanism is actually defined as the "Anti-Christian". Interestingly, for Satanism I used the Wikipedia article for the link because it had an illuminating yet brief description (I did not find this for most other religions on there, which tended to be long-winded and baffling). But I digress.
And the winner is...[drumroll]... the Christian fundamentalists who defeated the Christian fundamentalists with a clear KO. Wow! What an upset!
p.s. Obviously any literature promoting a religion (or defaming one for that matter) will be biased and must be taken with a grain of salt. However, I like these two websites for "unbiased" info on basically everything: Religious tolerance Religion Facts
This is from an improv group called "Improv Everywhere" whose motto is "we cause scenes". What an awesome sociological experiment! A group of over 200 people froze in place in Grand Central Station for 5 minutes. See the back story here.
This was so popular that other groups have been staging their own copycat stunts in multiple countries around the world. Here is one from London:
Ah nature! It's is so beautiful and mysterious! I like my evolution medium-rare please. Meet the Super Cow
Even National Geographic has a MySpace page! There is a sweet video on there of an octopus eating a shark! And there's one about how Neanderthals may have made glue (the actors remind me of Klingons).
Let's all join the politeness on blogs challenge! March 31st for 24 hours. Thanks to Saskboy again for pointing out Canadian Cynic's idea. We shouldn't let anonymity rob us of our civility and we should remember to try not to say things on the internet that we wouldn't say if we were talking to people face to face.
It's really none of your business how much energy I use - if I want to crank up the power, then that's my decision, not yours. Climate change is a fantasy you and your ilk have cooked up to make yourselves feel like superheroes. Instead, in reality, you behave like fascists, complaining about the harmless actions of others, and attempting to impede modern conveniences and slow down progress.
March 30, 2008 6:37 PM