tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post226261106196361637..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Watch Madeleine Bunting get totally owned ... this is goodRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-58222217684321465582010-03-13T02:22:09.844+11:002010-03-13T02:22:09.844+11:00Hi Folks
I found an SWEET site last night when I ...Hi Folks<br /><br />I found an SWEET site last night when I was surfing with my boyfriend. Check out this [url=http://www.girlsteachguys.com/PlayVideo.aspx?LiveClip=54][b] Sex Positions [/b][/url] Video I found there. <br /><br />Hope this helps folks here wanting to try something new… LOL <br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />MelissaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-71078981145705878342010-01-14T22:25:08.881+11:002010-01-14T22:25:08.881+11:00Great post you got here. I'd like to read some...Great post you got here. I'd like to read something more concerning that matter. Thanx for sharing that data.<br />Joan Stepsen<br /><a href="http://gadgetproducts.com/" rel="nofollow">Gadget sale</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-53508755911444936452009-06-27T10:39:04.120+10:002009-06-27T10:39:04.120+10:00Benson: "No, it isn't, because we're ...Benson: "No, it isn't, because we're not symmetrical."<br /><br />You're right. You have a far more public profile than I do, and you can easily do far more damage to my reputation than I can to yours.<br /><br />Benson: "For the last week you've been slandering me and the book that Jeremy and I wrote on the basis of part of a paragraph on the final page"<br /><br />Pardon me for quibbling, but I count four paragraphs <a href="http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=2804" rel="nofollow">quoted from you</a>, and then there is Stangroom's latest bit. Ok, you can argue that this is still not enough to judge a book by, but let's at least get the facts straight.<br /><br />Benson: "Then you got downright vicious, and I defended myself."<br /><br />Vicious? Pointing out how Aisha Duhalow's death can be used fallaciously, and saying that you shouldn't even try to do it? That's your idea of vicious? Calling you on using something right out of <a href="http://fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html" rel="nofollow">FallacyFiles.org</a>?<br /><br />And your defense of yourself involves <a href="http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/badmovesprint.php?num=64" rel="nofollow">mind-reading</a> like this: "as if he's the cop on the beat, shoving my arm up behind my back until my shoulder breaks. The bossy note. That adds an extra level of deliberate offensiveness, as if he'd caught me picking his pocket or molesting his child."<br /><br />And you thought I read too much into what you had quoted from your book?J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-54732860179416823252009-06-27T09:57:15.560+10:002009-06-27T09:57:15.560+10:00Parrhesia: "It's been a momentous struggl...Parrhesia: "It's been a momentous struggle for the West to arrive at a secular society. People have been threatened, ostracised and murdered for dissenting (or even merely appearing to dissent) against religion"<br /><br />I am going by my memory here--which is always dangerous--but the bloodshed that led to secular society came from wars amongst the religious, the kind that Jonathan Swift satirized in his story of the Big-Endians versus the Little-Endians. Laws on religious tolerance evolved from disgust and weariness of this carnage, and from religious tolerance, the framework of a secular society developed. I'm sure that I'm oversimplifying here, but you give the impression that secular society came about from the irreligious rebelling against the religious, which AFAICT, isn't what happened.<br /><br />Note too that up until relatively recently, secular societies have been largely religious, that is, while the government is secular, the people in the society have religious beliefs of their own. The U.S. is still pretty much a religious secular society. The transition within various secular societies from religion to irreligion has largely been quiet and fueled more by apathy about religion than activism against it.<br /><br />Parrhesia: "Her murderers GOT AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE THEY DID IT IN THE NAME OF ALLAH."<br /><br />Take a look at what I had noted above from the BBC News article about Asha Ibrahim Dhuhulow. Her murderers got away with it because they had the guns. There's a telling quote from a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/02/somalia-gender" rel="nofollow">Guardian article on this</a>:<br /><br />"Inside the stadium, militia members opened fire when some of the witnesses to the killing attempted to save her life, and shot dead a boy who was a bystander."<br /><br />It's not as if the witnesses were all standing idly and acquiescing to the supposed will of Allah. This wasn't regarded as legitimate even by the locals.<br /><br />Parrhesia: "If we are not honest in assessing how the tragedy came about, we won't be able to make it less likely to re-occur."<br /><br />I agree. As <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn3CzIl4o4k" rel="nofollow">Scott Atran put it</a>, "We've got to get real. We've got to get some data." Now to be fair, he was objecting to his fellows making all these judgments about religion from their own intuition. I'm not sure if you've read the book or not, so you may have more raw facts than the people to whom Atran was speaking, and the book may very well have provided decent arguments as well. (Ok, I personally doubt it, obviously, but I'm trying to be charitable and not overreach.)J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-68159096423994050902009-06-27T09:15:23.776+10:002009-06-27T09:15:23.776+10:00"Also, it is strange for you to say that I lo..."Also, it is strange for you to say that I look like I'm on an obsessive vendetta when you single me out three times on your own blog."<br /><br />No, it isn't, because we're not symmetrical. For the last week you've been slandering me and the book that Jeremy and I wrote on the basis of part of a paragraph on the final page, all the while defending the practice of slandering the book without having read it. After a few days of it, I finally wrote a post on the subject rather than clutter up Russell's blog any more. Then you got downright vicious, and I defended myself. You're not defending yourself, you're attacking. Repeatedly.<br /><br />"It's amazing how you got mad at me for assuming bad faith on your part, only to be quick to do it yourself."<br /><br />No it isn't; see above.Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-64666262789826515532009-06-27T08:40:08.399+10:002009-06-27T08:40:08.399+10:00Benson: "This obsessive insistence otherwise ...Benson: "This obsessive insistence otherwise simply looks like a bizarro vendetta."<br /><br />This isn't a vendetta. This is a discussion that snowballed into an argument that snowballed into a case of <a href="http://xkcd.com/386/" rel="nofollow">SIWOTI syndrome</a>.<br /><br />Now I have most certainly screwed up. Pointing to a blog post entitled<br />"<a href="http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2009/05/science-religion-weasel-words-and.html" rel="nofollow">Science, religion, weasel words, and the meaning of life</a>" was probably not the best way to note how one can push a viewpoint without saying it outright, since the "weasel words" part implies intentional dishonesty. I could have said that Benson's metaphors were inconsistent with their context without calling them a shell game. I could also have noted that Stangroom looked like he was likely to mislead the reader into thinking that there is a causal link between Islam and FGM without implying that he did so on purpose.<br /><br />I also overextrapolated from the quotes from the book to the whole. It is one thing to note internal inconsistencies within a few paragraphs. It is another to assume that the book never puts forth a good faith argument to "demonstrate the causal connections between what religion is and the ugly things done in its name." That was stupid.<br /><br />I have to admit that I was suspicious that Benson and Stangroom were trying to insinuate things that they couldn't prove, since I figured that a book entitled <i>Does God Hate Women?</i>, especially coming from an atheist derided as being "strident," would be alleging that religion leads to misogyny, a thesis that, if made, would be nonsensical due to the huge mishmash of conflicting beliefs that can be found in religion as a whole. Of course, that's hardly the only possible thesis such a book could have, and I was presumptuous to presume bad faith on the part of its authors.<br /><br />I apologize for this much.<br /><br />However, I do not apologize for saying that the way Benson pointed to Aisha Duhalow in her reply to Bunting was fallacious. There is a ways to go to get from armed rebel thugs murdering and claiming to do it in the will of Allah, and the broader vague claims that religion is a warthog in a dress, etc. She should have cited at least an outline of that chain of reasoning that got her from here to there. Now maybe her logic was clearer in her book, and obviously, I have no way of knowing that. However, her replies to Bunting both in the comments of Bunting's article and on her own blog are not part of her book, and if she doesn't bridge the gap between an emotional appeal and her conclusions, then all she's presented is an emotional appeal, and that's fallacious.<br /><br />Also, it is strange for you to say that I look like I'm on an obsessive vendetta when you single me out three times on your own blog. Further, it is a bad move to be speculating on my motivations or say without any evidence that I am getting my jollies off of goading you, and worse, it's a bad move pointed out <a href="http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/badmovesprint.php?num=64" rel="nofollow">on your own site</a>, albeit by Julian Baggini, not you. It's amazing how you got mad at me for assuming bad faith on your part, only to be quick to do it yourself.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-11558740654227363842009-06-27T04:03:38.863+10:002009-06-27T04:03:38.863+10:00Dishonestly selective quotation by J J Ramsey.
&q...Dishonestly selective quotation by J J Ramsey.<br /><br />"Stangroom: "And lastly, READ THE BOOK""<br /><br />That's dishonest, because Stangroom didn't say 'read the book,' period. He said<br /><br />"And lastly, READ THE BOOK, then criticise it. It's much better that way around."<br /><br />This is the point, obviously. Nobody gives a rat's ass whether Ramsey reads the book or not. The point is that it is dishonest to fixate on part of one paragraph in order to assert over and over and over and over again that the whole book is bad. Read in context, as part of the chapter in which it is embedded, the paragraph's intended meaning is clear enough. Repeated insistence that it isn't is worth precisely nothing coming from people who haven't read the chapter much less the book. This obsessive insistence otherwise simply looks like a bizarro vendetta. Like so:<br /><br />"With all due respect, I prefer to read books when I see signs that they are likely to be good. Every quote that I've seen from it so far--and quotes cited by the authors at that--show problems, and not just in tone but in content."<br /><br />With all due respect (which in this case is zero), what do you think you're doing? What can be your point? Do you generally embark on campaigns to insist that books are bad without having read them? If so, you shouldn't. It's epistemically ridiculous and ethically contemptible. If not, your vendetta against this one in particular is incomprehensible, and deeply suspect.Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-56479086039602763232009-06-26T23:00:54.301+10:002009-06-26T23:00:54.301+10:00Underverse, you said "I'm curious to know...Underverse, you said "I'm curious to know whether Ophelia will disavow your positive impressions of the book to the same extent as Ramsey's critical impressions, seeing as how neither of you (nor I) has read it." She ignored my comment in favour of one directly after it, which exhorted JJ to read the book. So I took that not as an outright disavowal, but not as an avowal of agreement either. Neglect is next to reject.<br /><br />Btw, I think your implication that Ophelia might only be affable toward people who don't challenge her is an unfair assault on the level of her intellectual sophistication. She very clearly accepted some points JJ made, but unfortunately he missed the opportunity to carry on the discussion in a less belligerent manner.Parrhesianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-61215986853432616812009-06-26T22:44:39.222+10:002009-06-26T22:44:39.222+10:00JJ, you make it sound like a walk in the park: &qu...JJ, you make it sound like a walk in the park: "god(s) can and are reinterpreted to fit with the cultural "Zeitgeist." It's been a momentous struggle for the West to arrive at a secular society. People have been threatened, ostracised and murdered for dissenting (or even merely appearing to dissent) against religion, if they were able to see through the brainwashing (which would have been hard when religion held more of a grip and there were little opportunities for education). Those "re-interpretations of the Zeitgeist" have come at great cost for many people, because of the fact that religion, by its nature, is hyper-opposed to the questioning of its tenets or actions, and will fight tooth and nail against it. We shouldn't forget our past and take our rights for granted, and denying the terrible historical report card of religion is to minimise the heroic efforts of those who fought against it.<br /><br />The case of Aisha Duhulow is a tragically perfect example of the way religion is explicitly used to justify injustice: a horror like this could not be justified in a secular country. Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes the point that there is a big difference between injustice being perpetrated in spite of the law, and injustice being perpetrated in accordance with the law. What happened to Aisha Duhulow was perpetrated in accordance with the law, a law based on the quran. That's significant.<br /><br />I think the honourable thing to do is for us, in our privileged, wealthy and educated positions, is to help protect the vulnerable from fates such as Aisha's. If we are not honest in assessing how the tragedy came about, we won't be able to make it less likely to re-occur. In the case of Aisha, of course there were other factors at play, but her murder was successfully justified in the name of religion. Her murderers GOT AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE THEY DID IT IN THE NAME OF ALLAH. You have to question a system of belief that so easily lends itself to the justification the gruesome murder of an innocent rape victim who was only 13 years old.Parrhesianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-63185755967173977162009-06-26T22:37:53.664+10:002009-06-26T22:37:53.664+10:00I shouldn't do this, I know I shouldn't. A...I shouldn't do this, I know I shouldn't. And I said that I was outta here. I'm bad.<br /><br />But J J, I thought you'd be interested:<br /><br />I don't konw whether you know this, but a while back, the Denialism blog - I've got no clue what that is, or why anybody would be interested in it, but hey, I'm on a roll here - pointed to an article about how repeating a myth by denying it can nonetheless reinforce people to believe it.<br /><br />Now I'm very concerned you're being weaselly in suggesting that the idea there's a straightforward link between religion and misognyny is implausible.<br /><br />I think what you're really doing is trying to plant the idea in the readers of this blog that actually such a link is *not* implausible.<br /><br />You're very naughty, though I do like the cut of your jib.<br /><br />Nevertheless, please don't do it again. We need to protect vulnerable readers from such heretical thoughts!<br /><br />Hurrah for the Denialist blog!<br /><br />Yours in Solidarity Contra Weaselliness,<br /><br />JerryJeremy Stangroomhttp://www.jeremystangroom.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-18078141741997668242009-06-26T21:56:31.079+10:002009-06-26T21:56:31.079+10:00Fascinating.
So what you're basically saying ...Fascinating.<br /><br />So what you're basically saying is:<br /><br />(a) We need to be concerned about the difference between correlation and causality;<br /><br />(b) A chapter long treatment of this issue is not permissible, unless we establish in advance that we're talking causality rather than correlation.<br /><br />"you shouldn't bother even mentioning the issue."<br /><br />ROFL!<br /><br />Bang goes a whole literature on the the relationship between Islam and FGM.<br /><br />You're a star, J J. An absolute star!<br /><br />I'm outta here, but it was lovely to make your acquaintance!Jeremy Stangroomhttp://www.jeremystangroom.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-82088094072098506512009-06-26T21:29:18.500+10:002009-06-26T21:29:18.500+10:00Stangroom: "The only thing it is possible to ...Stangroom: "The only thing it is possible to say with any certainty is that a causal link remains an open possibility."<br /><br />A while back, the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/09/mythbusting_its_harder_than_yo.php" rel="nofollow">Denialism blog</a> pointed to an article about how repeating a myth by denying it can nonetheless reinforce people to believe it. Now what you are doing isn't exactly the same thing. You are referring to a common perception that Islam and FGM are related, but neither confirming or denying a link. Still, the effect is similar: You are repeating an allegation, and thereby reinforcing it in the mind of the reader. That's weaselly. If you don't have enough evidence to make at least a probable causal link--and you already admitted as much--you shouldn't bother even mentioning the issue.<br /><br />Stangroom: "And lastly, READ THE BOOK"<br /><br />With all due respect, I prefer to read books when I see signs that they are likely to be good. Every quote that I've seen from it so far--and quotes cited by the authors at that--show problems, and not just in tone but in content. How is this supposed to persuade me to plan on buying the book in the future when it comes out in the U.S., or if in a hurry, try to find a way to get a copy from the UK?J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-41292839030740369142009-06-26T20:25:57.113+10:002009-06-26T20:25:57.113+10:00J. J. Ramsey
I'm not going to get involved in...J. J. Ramsey<br /><br />I'm not going to get involved in this beyond posting this one thing(mainly because I think it is absolutely absurd to try to guess at the content of a book from a few paragraphs that appear right at the end of the book).<br /><br />This business of causality. Here's some stuff from Chapter 6.<br /><br />"Therefore, it follows that the fact that non-Muslims practise FGM, and many Muslims do not practise it, does not rule out a causal link between Islam and FGM.<br /><br />"However, it is important to understand that it is not ruled in here either. The significant point is that we cannot infer causality from these broad relationships: on their own, they tell us little about the link between Islam and FGM. The only thing it is possible to say with any certainty is that a causal link remains an open possibility.<br /><br />"In fact, it will be very difficult to establish the existence of such a link - or indeed to show that there is no such link - just by looking at statistical data on the prevalence of FGM. To get a sense of the complexities involved here, it is worth briefly considering some of the findings of a UNICEF study titled... ETC, ETC."<br /><br />If you think that I'm unaware of the complexities of causality, causal relations, correlation, counterfactual conditionals, etc., then you're wrong. Have a look at this posting, for example:<br /><br />http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=31<br /><br />(I wrote it!)<br /><br />And lastly, READ THE BOOK, then criticise it. It's much better that way around. (And I have no doubt that there is stuff to criticise with regards to the complexity of the causal links between religion/misogyny: it's an enormously complicated issue).Jeremy Stangroomhttp://www.jeremystangroom.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-47175771161174787152009-06-26T17:22:26.728+10:002009-06-26T17:22:26.728+10:00No, Chris, I wasn't trying to say that Bunting...No, Chris, I wasn't trying to say that Bunting should consider Ophelia an ally. I was saying that JJ should. As far as I know, JJ's actual metaphysical policy views are pretty much the same as hers, but he spends a lot of time and energy attempting to distance himself from such people if he thinks their rhetoric has gone beyond some pretty narrow bounds.<br /><br />He's entitled to do so, and he's welcome to comment here, but I do wish he'd get over his fear of being, or seeming to be, one of <i>those</i> atheists.<br /><br />And Bunting doesn't just say what you quote (complete with the additional sharpness, second guessing, ad hominem ... blah, blah). The whole piece is a very nasty personal attack. I mean, she could have just said the bit you quoted. Right? This is still nastier than the wording I suggested, as you agree, and even <i>that</i> wording may well be doing Ophelia an injustice. But she didn't even use her chosen wording on this point about metaphors and leave it at that. There was a helluva lot more, much of it unfair and offensive, which is why she got the kind of reaction she did from her readership.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-13659467217418098122009-06-26T15:21:41.541+10:002009-06-26T15:21:41.541+10:00But to do something really bad and think that you&...<i>But to do something really bad and think that you're doing good takes something like religion...</i><br /><br />Graywizard,<br /><br />Not the first time I've heard this, and surely not the last time someone will assert such a thing without resort to logic or evidence. (The most famous and pithy example being Weinberg's "for good people to do bad things takes religion.")<br /><br />I guess you inserted the "something like" part so that we can include Stalin and Pol Pot. Which means that everyone, I suppose, is "something like religious" except for the small band of Kantian angels who only ever make important decisions based on the free exercise of reason, and never allow any of the passions to play a role.<br /><br />I'm still looking for some kind--any kind--of cursory demonstraton of what makes religion different in this regard from human nature generally. We are all, as far as I can tell, prone to cloaking bad deeds under "specious claims to goodness," whatever our philosophical outlook. We are all tempted by fantasy and self-aggrandizement. If you have some kind of scientific evidence that religious beliefs potentiate this tendency more than non-religious beliefs, now is the time to share it.<br /><br />Parrhesia,<br /><br />I'm curious to know whether Ophelia will disavow your positive impressions of the book to the same extent as Ramsey's critical impressions, seeing as how neither of you (nor I) has read it.<br /><br />Russell,<br /><br />I agree that loading a metaphor with excessive amperage is a risk for every writer who wants her or his reader to take interest in the work. But it seems to me Bunting writes just the kind of critique you say she prefer she had. Here's your proposed language:<br /><br /><i>Benson and Stangroom sometimes make statements that are reasonable, but then attempt to make them vivid by the use of metaphors that imply more than the literal statement. Thus, a stronger (and less reasonable) statement is insinuated to the reader.</i><br /><br />And here's what she actually wrote:<br /><br /><i>It's not that Benson doesn't have a point, it's that she overstates it with such crudeness and lack of insight that I'm staggered anyone wants to publish it.</i><br /><br />Bunting's is much sharper, of course (and includes second guessing and ad hominem), where yours is more conciliatory. But outside of politeness I don't see a whole lot of daylight between "a stronger and less reasonable statement is insinuated to the reader" and "she overstates [her valid point] with such crudeness and lack of insight." (That's exactly what over-reliance on metaphor is: rhetorical crudity, for better or worse.)<br /><br />These two statements say essentially the same thing, except one is considering its object as a friend, and the other an adversary. Which is interesting given that it's the "new atheists" who have apparently decided that good manners and warm feelings were just getting in the way of effective argument. If I didn't know better I'd suspect Bunting was trying to make a point about dishing it out but not taking it.<br /><br />While I prefer a little more moderation of tone myself, I'm not sure on what grounds Bunting should consider Benson an "ally," except on terms proposed by other people, perhaps including yourself, who claim the only legitimate disagreement is between reason and superstition. That's not a statement all secular people are on board with.Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-60479223979526857482009-06-26T15:03:07.649+10:002009-06-26T15:03:07.649+10:00Well, there's no doubt that these kneejerk ath...Well, there's no doubt that these kneejerk atheists such as Ed refers to do exist. Even PZ Myers finds them annoying, as we all discussed on another thread some time back. <br /><br />But Ophelia is hardly one of them, and getting so focused on her metaphors to distance oneself from these other people seems obsessive. But that's okay, JJ. I don't really mind; I'm just a bit bemused.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-17665990946516284532009-06-26T11:25:19.813+10:002009-06-26T11:25:19.813+10:00Russell Blackford: "But I do wonder from time...Russell Blackford: "But I do wonder from time to time why this particular activity is so important to you."<br /><br />Ed Brayton had mentioned that <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2005/12/dawkins_on_religion_and_evolut.php" rel="nofollow">in his past</a>,<br /><br />"When I left Christianity now nearly 20 years ago, I did what many others have done in the same situation, I became one of those evangelical atheists one encounters in chat rooms and on message boards so often.... I would sit there in the chat room bashing anyone who dared to believe in anything religous at all. If you believed in God, you were clearly an idiot and that's all there was to it."<br /><br />I never became that kind of atheist, but rather I was afraid that becoming an atheist would make me that kind of atheist. I had also seen atheists who used pseudohistory to blast religion, and often they were the same people as the jerkish atheists that Brayton had described. Part of becoming an atheist was distancing myself from atheists like those.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-39566584976617277822009-06-26T10:57:35.185+10:002009-06-26T10:57:35.185+10:00By the way, folks, I do welcome discussions like t...By the way, folks, I do welcome discussions like this. I'm not keen to get too involved, myself, in dissecting the details of Ophelia's (and Jeremy's) use of metaphor, but I find it all interesting enough.<br /><br />I'll just say this. Bunting could have said: "Benson and Stangroom sometimes make statements that are reasonable, but then attempt to make them vivid by the use of metaphors that imply more than the literal statement. Thus, a stronger (and less reasonable) statement is insinuated to the reader."<br /><br />I haven't gone back to read the passages, and I'm looking forward to reading the entire book. But for all I know maybe a claim like that would have been correct. Whether or not it's correct of Ophelia and Jeremy's prose, I'm sure it's sometimes true of mine. Indeed, almost anyone who writes something that uses metaphors to try to appeal to a popular audience, rather than writing something very dry and academic-sounding, falls into this trap from time to time.<br /><br />But whether or not this precise charge would stick in the particular case, Bunting obviously goes a lot further than saying, "Look, here's a danger with all popular writing and I think Benson/Stangroom sometimes do this." If that was all Bunting had said, I doubt that there'd have been the kind of reaction we saw to her piece.<br /><br />Ophelia has vigorously and ably defended herself even against this charge. As I sort of said, I'm not planning to adjudicate. But even if the charge were correct, it would not vindicate Bunting. Also, I'm not sure why this point is so <i>important</i> to you, JJ. You're right that I, too, am sensitive to such elements of tone, rhetoric, and nuance. If you were merely making this point, perhaps you could persuade me - at the least, I am open in principle to persuasion on such points. But it's not enough to vindicate Bunting. And sometimes it seems to me that you are obsessed with identifying such rhetorical overreach in the work of people who are, broadly, your intellectual allies.<br /><br />That's fine. Maybe someone needs to be there to make sure that we don't go too far in our rhetoric, and so damage our credibility. if that's the aim, though, it would normally be wise to raise the point with said ally in private rather than undermine her in public.<br /><br />Still, you're perfectly entitled to spend a lot of time doing this, and I won't stop you doing it on my blog, and you don't even have to explain why you do it. Generally speaking, I enjoy interaction with you. But I do wonder from time to time why this particular activity is so important to you.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-76371011827248401142009-06-26T10:51:58.663+10:002009-06-26T10:51:58.663+10:00parhesia: "If 'god' is both invisible...parhesia: "If 'god' is both invisible and absolutely right, how can we argue with him / her / it to overturn these injustices?"<br /><br />"God" may not be argued with, but god(s) can and are reinterpreted to fit with the cultural "Zeitgeist." Razib on GNXP <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/06/abortion_religion_-_an_interna.php" rel="nofollow">pointed this out</a>, noting, for example, that "In other words, a Catholic in Germany tends to have the same attitudes as a Protestant in Germany, while a Catholic in Ghana has the same attitudes as a Protestant in Ghana."<br /><br />Oh, and I see that <a href="http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=2812" rel="nofollow">on the other thread</a>, Ms. Benson took the bait that Michael Fugate <a href="http://merkdorp.blogspot.com/2007/02/oh-that-other-embarassing-thinggetting.html" rel="nofollow">unwittingly laid</a>. Wait until she finds out that P.Z. Myers used "insult my daughter" to mean pointing out that his daughter had called other people retards, and used "several times, after being warned" to mean once.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-44093145828880958062009-06-26T10:31:04.310+10:002009-06-26T10:31:04.310+10:00Stuart: I think my record for number of comments o...Stuart: I think my record for number of comments on a post is something like 180.<br /><br />I do like having syncophants. Some sycophants would be good, too.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-82222367046104101242009-06-26T09:26:16.818+10:002009-06-26T09:26:16.818+10:00I think you are entirely missing the point, J.J.Ra...I think you are entirely missing the point, J.J.Ramsey. Here's what I just wrote at B&W about the quotations from which you seem to be drawing such umbrage.<br /><br />"From my impressions, the book (very explicitly) does not seek to demonstrate a causal link between religion and misogyny, it just shows how religion has been perfectly suited to the role of enshrining and codifying ancient injustices such as misogyny, because of the particular nature of religion. If "god" is both invisible and absolutely right, how can we argue with him / her / it to overturn these injustices?<br /><br />Seen in this light, religion is clearly a pernicious social force, and therefore portraying it as the "heart of a heartless world" is a case of Orwellian doublespeak writ large. "Warthogs in party dresses" and "lipstick on pigs" are visual evocations of the concept of doublespeak. Particularly fruity and entertaining ones, in my opinion."<br /><br />Hope that helps.parrhesianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-44668428865191462382009-06-26T09:06:56.072+10:002009-06-26T09:06:56.072+10:00Sorry about the double post, but I took a closer l...Sorry about the double post, but I took a closer look at the case of <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7722701.stm" rel="nofollow">Asha Ibrahim Dhuhulow</a>. I had gotten the impression from Ms. Benson that what had happened to Asha was the normal injustice that one might expect in backwaters of the third world.<br /><br />Upon further examination, it looks more like a case of corruption with a religious cloak. Asha reports a rape committed by members of a militia terrorizing the region and gets two members of this militia arrested. In retribution, the militia then intimidates the police and uses them to turn the tables on Asha, punishing her for daring to stand up to its lawlessness. If it weren't for the Islamist court, the manner of her death would probably be different, but at heart, this looks like gun-barrel thuggery.<br /><br />If I had known this, I would have called Benson on it sooner.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-89910148381445879052009-06-26T08:12:47.186+10:002009-06-26T08:12:47.186+10:00underverse: "Your kung fu is strong, but you ...underverse: "Your kung fu is strong, but you still might want to call for back up, or at least take some vitamin supplements, as Ophelia has linked to this thread from B&W."<br /><br />And now she's made a <a href="http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=2812" rel="nofollow">second thread about me</a>, insinuating how obsessed <i>I</i> am for posting on and off for a week in my own free time. Who's the one who started two threads, again?<br /><br />I did notice one commenter asking a sensible question:<br /><br />"I think what I'm missing here is whether the book actually seeks to demonstrate a strong causal link between religion and misogyny or does it just catalogue a list of doctrinal statements and religious abuses and infer a general association?"<br /><br />I hope he or she gets a straight answer.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-14454551161166446042009-06-25T10:43:02.810+10:002009-06-25T10:43:02.810+10:00What, specifically, is the baleful element that ex...<i>What, specifically, is the baleful element that explains why "religion" is sometimes a social evil, and sometimes a social good?</i><br /><br />Religions usually encourage people to base their morality on superstition, ossified into dogma. They often encourage people to step away from critical thinking and embrace moral dictates on the basis of authority, rather than evaluate them on the basis of their benefits to humans.<br /><br />The problem with religion, in other words, is essentially the problem with the Divine Right of Kings. Religions, as with dictators, may be benevolent, or they may not. It isn't sufficient, when arguing over the merits of Divine Right, to note that <i>some</i> kings were nice guys. The problem is that you're a slave.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12404448630593670371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-22368703382552814372009-06-24T20:41:32.363+10:002009-06-24T20:41:32.363+10:00Oh, dog, not all over again!
"...the quotati...Oh, dog, not all over again!<br /><br />"...the quotations that Bunting cites in her piece are not particularly softened by the kind of context that you provide here ..."<br /><br />Did you think that Ophelia and Jeremy wanted to soften what they were saying?! Good grief!<br /><br />I'm still looking for the inconsistency. There is not a single sign that in the authors' view religious people cannot do good. Even you can do good! And, as I've said before, that doesn't take religion. <br /><br />But to do something really bad and think that you're doing good takes something like religion, something that cloaks it under specious claims to goodness, justice, or doing the will of the vicar of some (good) god or other (or even being the outworking of some historical process that will end in the promised land). Finding inconsistency here is easy. It's the bad that so many religions call good.Greywizardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04125006513512601904noreply@blogger.com