Discussion (41)¬

  1. Anonymous says:

    LOL! Very sharp!

  2. DocAtheist says:

    Brilliant! Who did write it?

  3. Author says:

    Some old white guy, unfortunately.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Who is the egg stealing ferret?
    Thinking ideas should stand on merit.
    That flies in the face of cultural bigotry.
    Equal treatment for all of humanity.
    Fairness, reason, who can bear it?

  5. Clare Bryant says:

    yeah who wrote it? I hope it wasn’t one of those atheist hippies

  6. Rebecca says:

    or some dizzy chick

  7. Ilsa says:

    If only this were true. But it’s been well established that people do not abandon ideas when they are patently wrong. Instead, they will dig in their heels and deny even the most overwhelming evidence.

  8. Smee says:

    “One thing is certain the value of an idea cannot be judged by its provenence” Unless you oppose the batshit crazy ideas of US feminist social justice warriors

    In that case prepare to be metaphorically lynched on social media for expressing your own opinions. Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong ill, Eat your heart out.

    They might even come round and burn your house down. Especially if you’re

    jewish;they really hate you! Don’t try to study at

    a University in the US or Europe, These rascist anti-semites are out to make yer life a misery.

  9. jb says:

    In fairness, most ideas are not freestanding, like mathematical theorems, which can be judged entirely on their own merits.

    In many (if not most) cases, when people advance ideas, there is an implicit or explicit claim that they have done research and acquired information supporting their arguments. So the listener, who is generally not in a position to replicate that research (or at least not easily), must evaluate not just the arguments themselves, but also the competence and trustworthiness of the person making the arguments.

    Given that the world is full of advocates who are utterly biased, this second evaluation is just as important as the first! In a full-information world the provenance of an idea would not matter. But in the real world people instinctively pay close attention to provenance, and frankly they are right to do so.

  10. Trevor H says:

    jb – agreed

    In an ideal world you would research the idea before accepting it, but in an information-overloaded world the provenance is a convenient shortcut

  11. Jason says:

    Good god, not another typo. . . . provenance, right?

  12. Someone says:

    Trevor H, that effectively sums up my malaise with social media.

  13. Deimos says:

    My bias for accepting anything is not it’s origin but does it fit my worldview.
    If it doesn’t I naturally look for ways to discount it, origin, where its published or I get picky about the grammar.
    If an idea disagrees with my own narrow focus then its toast.

    Oops sorry…. I had my honesty filter turned up way too high.

  14. Alexis says:

    “or some dizzy chick” – well it takes four dizzy chicks to balance the testimony of one (obviously sane, logical, virile) man. /s

  15. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Alexis says:
    June 22, 2017 at 2:38 pm
    “or some dizzy chick” – well it takes four dizzy chicks to balance the testimony idiocy of one (obviously possibly insane, illogical, virile paedophilliac) man

    There, all fixed. 🙂

  16. DC Toronto says:

    AoS – Alexis had a /s at the end of their statement indicating sarcasm. Your changes would reverse the meaning and therefore you would be suggesting that it would be sarcastic to label the man in question as insane or illogical or a pedophile.

    sorry to be so pedantic, I just couldn’t help myself today

  17. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    DC, I didn’t include the ‘/s’ because I didn’t want to suggest that I was being sarcastic. Leaving it on would have denoted sarcasm.

  18. Anonymous says:

    DC Toronto & Acolyte: Thanks for explaining a convention which is new to me. I was wondering why the “/s” was at the end of Alexis’ post.
    Alexis: I thought your sarcasm was pretty obvious even without the “/s”!

    I’ll bear this convention in mind next time I refer to Scottish racism, ie tolerant & accepting of everyone, regardless of colour, language or creed – except the English. /s !

  19. Son of Glenner says:

    DC Toronto & Acolyte: Thanks for explaining a convention which is new to me. I was wondering why the “/s” was at the end of Alexis’ post.

    Alexis: I thought your sarcasm was pretty obvious even without the “/s”!

    I’ll bear this convention in mind next time I refer to Scottish racism, ie tolerant & accepting of everyone, regardless of colour, language or creed – except of course the English.

    /s !

  20. DC Toronto says:

    AoS – I’ll apologize in advance, I’m having one of those days.

    you finished by saying you fixed it for Alexis. That suggests you intended it to be sarcastic just in the same way that the original was. You were ‘fixing’ the sarcasm.

  21. Son of Glenner says:

    Sorry for double post. I blame the technology!

  22. Nitram says:

    Even the ability to judge provenance seems to be declining.
    My daughter regularly shows me articles that appear to be on a professional website, good graphics, well formatted, and so on.
    She therefore assumes that the authors of the articles have some “authority” or credentials.
    Often, after some digging, they turn out to be just opinionated laymen/women, like myself.

  23. Some Dude says:

    @DC Toronto: Being myself a huge fan of pedantry, I love your pedantic comment.

    Being sarcastic is a risky business sometimes. I once posted a comment on YouTube which was, in my opinion, very obviously sarcastic about how “peaceful” Islam is. I even said things like “there are only about 100 Islamic terrorists all around the world” and still I got a lot of nasty comments about how deluded I was.

    That’s why I appreciate the inclusion of ‘/s’ (which I hadn’t seen before) in a sarcastic comment.

    Beware of your own sarcasm, this world is full of Sheldon Coopers.

  24. Son of Glenner says:

    Some Dude: I was mystified by your reference to “Sheldon Cooper”, whoever s/he might be. So I did my research and found he is a man after my own heart, albeit fictitious (and American – but nobody’s perfect!), and an excellent rôle model for the regulars at the C&B pub.

  25. HaggisForBrains says:

    SoG – you must check out Channel E4 ( Freeview 28, Freesat 123, Sky 137, and Virgin 146) for endless repeats of The Big Bang Theory. I think you might enjoy. I recommend a box set, so that you get the full story from the start. Yes, I’m a nerd.

  26. Someone says:

    I have been told I should watch Big Bang Theory because I have a personality akin to Sheldon Cooper, plus I am an admitted nerd (or geek; somewhere in between).
    I sat through maybe 5 minutes before sensibly changing the channel, rather than giving into my baser urge to ram my foot through the screen.

    In short, not a fan.

  27. Anonymous says:

    The Big Bang Theory is a great show. It’s specially recommendable if you’re a nerd like myself and know at least a bit about physics or calculus or something like that. There are “nerd-only” jokes, many of which I am able to enjoy as a scientist.

    Cheers 🙂

  28. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    I’m not at all geeky or nerdy, not a fan of Star Trek or Star Wars and similar, don’t play computer games or read comic books, and have no real interest in the technical side of computers. I do, however, have an abiding interest in science itself, particularly physics and biology, and pretty much anything space-related.
    Despite my glaring lack of geek credentials I am a fan of The Big Bang Theory, though I have to admit that over the last couple of series (no ‘seasons’ here. Hah!) it seems to be running out of steam and is becoming mundane, like Friends, only with geeks and less smugness.
    I think it has made the same mistake as so many good programmes and gone on beyond the point where it should have bowed out gracefully. I just hope that when it does come to an end there are no spin-offs; they very rarely work – anyone for Frasier? Now that was flogging a dead horse killed by eating the scrapings of the barrel-bottom.

  29. Laripu says:

    I liked Frasier … but hated Cheers. I mildly disliked Friends … and the Big Bang Theory.

    I strongly recommend a new show: the Carmichaels.

    Mostly I watch these available American shows, but I was able to see the British show Coupling, and loved it.

  30. Someone says:

    I suppose my biggest problem with Big Bang Theory is that it played like Two and half Men (another I don’t care for) with nerd/geek jokes that come off as smug pandering instead of natural conversation.

    The only show I’ve been enjoying lately is Fargo. But that’s a show I find is consistently relatable and philosophically stimulating, even at its craziest.

  31. Son of Glenner says:

    Now that the C&B conversation has descended to the level of discussing TV shows (I have no TV and get by fine without it), what did you all think of the recent series “American Gods”, which I believe was roughly equivalent to only the first third or quarter of the book?

    I’m in the middle of reading the book for the second time round after loving it the first time. It’s even better on a re-read. (Thanks to Acolyte for recommending it).

  32. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Not me, SoG, I think it was FreeFox.

  33. DC Toronto says:

    Big Bang Theory is really a cross-over nerd/geek show. The nerds aren’t true nerds, but they are close enough for the mainstream to feel like they now relate to geek culture. And it has just enough science thrown in to send a bunch of watchers to Wikipedia to figure out what they’re talking about.
    It’s a bit like Elvis bridging the musical gap from southern black music for a white audience or like Benny Goodman doing the same …. or Vanilla Ice trying to do it more recently.
    My biggest quibble is that they have brought Schrodingers Cat into the mainstream and it is now referenced ad nauseum – often incorrectly.

  34. Son of Glenner says:

    Sorry, Acolyte. So, thanks to FreeFox (or whoever) for recommending the book “American Gods”.

    It’s still a great read.

  35. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    DC, only the references you hear are incorrect; the ones that you don’t hear are both correct and incorrect.

  36. DC Toronto says:

    AoS – Excellent! well played sir! It took me a full minute of wondering what this fool was prattling on about before I got it. Still chuckling.
    ps – referencing a previous discussion – apologies if ‘sir’ is not the correct way to address you. Hopefully you get my drift in any event. That was good.

  37. Great punchline once again, Author. Didn’t see this one coming at all.

  38. Okay, I’ve been trying to resist responding to Smee, but now I’m two scotch down and resistance is feudal, eh.
    Smee, what the hell are you on about? Can you provide some links to this batshit crazy you talk about? This persecution? As a committed feminist and SJW, I don’t get it. I don’t see it in the feminists I know and admire. And if you aren’t a social justice warrior, what exactly are you? One of the bad guys? What, you are opposed to social justice?
    You have thrown out a whole shipload of MRA buzz words. Were you being sarcastic? Ironic? Provocative? Please post some links that demonstrate this great feminazi evil.Or just explain yourself,eh.

  39. smartalek says:

    Q: How many “dizzy chicks” does it take to balance one portly orange man?
    A: Trick question.
    Even an infinitude of dizzy chicks are outweighed by one portly orange man, when that man occupies (every sense of the term) the Oval Office.

  40. Smee says:

    Darwin Harmless:

    If you want just a minor example of ” batshit crazy” google the actions of these people on US and UK campuses over the last few years.

    I’m just fed up with their constant attacks on free speech, enlightenment values and their demonisation of anyone who holds a contrary opinion. Something I see that has been your automatic reaction to my views.

    In both the US and the Uk this has had a deleterious effect on both academic and personal freedom, and caused the creation of artificial crimes like hate speech, which is directly derived from Orwell’s “Thought Crime”

    Best Wishes from a proud “Thought Criminal”

  41. Scott says:

    Catching up on this late, but so true. I once found some Catholic theology students very resistant to an argument I was making, then pointing out that Alasdair Macintyre had also made essentially the same point. Suddenly their informal leader announced that they should at least seriously consider it. It doesn’t get more naked than that.


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.