15th August 2011, 3:35 PM
I remember when SOME kid's cartoons were like that. Others were Monster Max. SOME of today's cartoons are like that. That particular animation studio is still around in fact, still making stuff like Young Justice (though that show really cranked up the angstyness).
Welty, publishers get to pick book titles, not writers. You are literally judging a book by it's cover. Read The Selfish Gene. His arguments aren't just "I'm smart", he actually goes through the evidence and makes it from there. Even if we might disagree with him on faith or whatever, he's not an unreasonable pompous ass. He makes his arguments and leaves them at that. What he doesn't do is what he views as "coddling" someone else's belief. He sees adding caveats like "but that's just my opinion" or "but let us not forget the comfort these beliefs can bring" as mealy mouthed. I'm really playing devil's advocate here aren't I? Anyway, having actually read some of his books and noting his style, he never came across as rude or condescending, just as a matter of fact person. People who think HE of all people is being rude just for making an argument come across as people who've never REALLY had their religious views challenged by someone, always having it coddled as though their views were fragile as glass. Honestly I find that more insulting. Consider just how much vitriol people exchange on politics or sporting events, and yet in that arena it's considered perfectly appropriate. This very forum is home to much more scathing attacks on someone's politics than Dawkins has ever done to someone's religion.
Read Christopher Hitchens, THEN you'll have something to drop a monocle over. THAT'S a rude arsehole.
Welty, publishers get to pick book titles, not writers. You are literally judging a book by it's cover. Read The Selfish Gene. His arguments aren't just "I'm smart", he actually goes through the evidence and makes it from there. Even if we might disagree with him on faith or whatever, he's not an unreasonable pompous ass. He makes his arguments and leaves them at that. What he doesn't do is what he views as "coddling" someone else's belief. He sees adding caveats like "but that's just my opinion" or "but let us not forget the comfort these beliefs can bring" as mealy mouthed. I'm really playing devil's advocate here aren't I? Anyway, having actually read some of his books and noting his style, he never came across as rude or condescending, just as a matter of fact person. People who think HE of all people is being rude just for making an argument come across as people who've never REALLY had their religious views challenged by someone, always having it coddled as though their views were fragile as glass. Honestly I find that more insulting. Consider just how much vitriol people exchange on politics or sporting events, and yet in that arena it's considered perfectly appropriate. This very forum is home to much more scathing attacks on someone's politics than Dawkins has ever done to someone's religion.
Read Christopher Hitchens, THEN you'll have something to drop a monocle over. THAT'S a rude arsehole.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)