And I thought Canadian Cynic was a somewhat reasonable blogger
October 29, 2008 by Dirk
Although I have always been reluctant to link to his blog.
Seems to me he spends to much time attacking people ,on a personal level, but to be fair he does make a few good point ever now and then. But his methods…well that’s another matter.
Seems my latest post ‘In defense of Religion‘ and myself as a person,has come in for some criticism ridiculing.
The sad thing being,that CC in his haste to trash someone or something,totally misses the point.But then again ridicule & personality attacks seem to be the raison de etre of his blog,so should I really be surprised ?
That said it should be noted,that some say cynicism is the last refuge of the broken-hearted & disillusioned. So I do understand where you are coming from CC, my condolences.
I’d almost ask you what, if anything, is reasonable about: “get Richard Evans — and use his kids to do it.”
I’d almost ask you what, if anything, is reasonable about: “so a 23-year-old man pushed a 69-year-old off the roof of a car? That’s fantastic!”
I’d almost ask you what, if anything, is reasonable about: “I’d rather Gilles Duceppe actually destroy Canada than see Stephen Harper as Prime Minister.”
But it sounds as if you’re learning all about that particular fascist clod.
He actually thinks that promoting religious intolerance is “progressive”. He has no idea what that political philosophy entails.
Obviously you have an axe to grind with CC.That said do not confuse my criticism of C.C as having anything in common.We are talking about two different things here.
Fascist…?
Listen. Let’s take just a few seconds here, and realize precisely who it is we’re talking about here:
This is a guy who just advocated kicking all religious people off Progblogs.
This is a guy who applauded a 23-year-old man pushing a 69-year-old off the roof of a car because he disagrees on the topic of abortion.
This is a guy who encouraged people to go after a political opponent — or, if you prefer, blogging rival — through his kids. At their school.
Not enough for you? He’s a guy who defended the tasering of a University student because he asked John Kerry too many damn questions.
He’s a guy who said all those poor people in New Orleans deserved to be left to drown simply on account of being Americans.
So, on that note, I don’t really think that labelling him a fascist is anything even resembling hyperbole.
And no, I don’t think we’re talking about anything too terribly different here. You used to think he was reasonable, as you yourself said.
Now you’re finding out quite different.
In a certain sense, maybe it could be considered quite noble of you to evidently sympathize with the “wounded, disillusioned Canadian Cynic”. I can respect that if it’s your honest appraisal.
But my thought on Cynic is simply thus: an asshole is an asshole.
CC is in need of an intervention.
lol @ Patrick. That’s really the only appropriate response.
CC’s a pretty diehard atheist, MB. I didn’t much care for your post either, but generally don’t see apologetics as worth addressing. The comments on your post seem to express pretty much the same thing CC did. So, I fail to see the problem.
ADHR said…”MB. I didn’t much care for your post either, but generally don’t see apologetics as worth addressing”…
Like I care,and don’t.But you decided to respond anyway because…?
That said,”apologetic” ? wtf does that mean?
Christ already,is anyone capable of understanding the point of the review and hence my post ? Not even a potential PHD candidate ?
And by the why what does atheism have to do with one ridiculing others for over their faith.In fact I am not religious myself nor have I ever been part of any organized religion.Yet I still would not be so arrogant as to ridicule other peoples beliefs.Although I might call them on those beliefs if they are in actuality practicing the opposite of what they preach or supposedly believe.But there to,only if those actions are impacting others ,against their will/expressed desire(s).Otherwise why would I even bother ?
And further more I don’t really care if Maher etc feel some need to ridicule fanatics,just be sure that one understands and does not create the impression,that those fanatics are in some way indicative of or representative of the vast majority of those that consider themselves people of faith.Indeed there is no stereotypical caricature(s) of what it mean to be a person of faith,why would anyone want to create such stereotypes.
Maher is tarring all peoples of faith with the same brush.What’s particular galling is that he uses people/orgs that are in conflict with the very tenets of the faiths that they are supposedly speaking for.
No where does he show or interview those religious people & orgs that do good work and hold progressive values.
Which says to me that he is intentionally misrepresenting the reality of the religious “community”.
That is the point being made in both Sarah’s review,& my post.
For those interested here is a link to one of those religious progressives that Maher,and the Dawkin’s of the world do not speak about or attempt to engage with.
http://www.progressiveandreligious.org/podcasts/feature.php?id=30
There’s nothing wrong with ridiculing fanatics. There is, however, something extremely wrong with ridiculing fanatics and then attempting to apply that ridicule to ordinary and reasonable individuals.
Maher’s “cure” to fanaticism is the destruction of religious belief itself. As a matter of fact, he insists that one cannot be a religious believer and still be considered reasonable.
I consider, that you are not right. I can prove it. Write to me in PM, we will talk.
I consider, that you are not right. Let’s discuss. Write to me in PM, we will talk.
I congratulate, the excellent answer.
I congratulate, it is simply excellent idea
Unequivocally, ideal answer