From: Iain Strachan (iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 12:12:01 EDT
Ah, well, here is one respect in which Dawkins is right.
The "Meme" that now equates "gay" with "sad" has spread the world over.
Will "Bright" get to mean the same as "Dim"?
"Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom
of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased
through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." (I
Cor 1 20b-21).
I wonder if the above verse is part of the reason for the high proportions
of atheists in the NSA. These are people who are the wisest and most
intelligent in their field & have made it to the top through their own
efforts and brilliance.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Iain .G.D. Strachan
There are 10 types of people in the world ...
those who understand binary and those who don't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sondra Brasile" <sbrasile@hotmail.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Dawkins dissembles?
> Ian,
>
> I'm in Michigan, USA and the meaning of "gay" (I have four+ teens living
> with us, three are ours biologically) you refer to is commonplace here as
> well, exactly as you describe. Something that is "so gay" is stupid or
lame,
> when someone is being "gay" it means the same, stupid, lame or
disagreeable
> somehow. If they are making fun of someone and say, "how gay" it means
they
> are a shameless geek or dork.
>
> Sondra
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Iain Strachan" <iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com>
> >To: "Dr. Blake Nelson" <bnelson301@yahoo.com>, "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> >Subject: Re: Dawkins dissembles?
> >Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:12:47 +0100
> >
> >Richard Dawkins writes:
> >Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> >Precedence: bulk
> >
> >. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the
> >universe is natural rather than supernatural; those of us who rejoice in
> >the
> >real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our
own,
> >a
> >word like "gay". You can say "I am an atheist" but at best it sounds
stuffy
> >(like "I am a homosexual") and at worst it inflames prejudice (like "I am
a
> >homosexual").
> >
> >I'm just wondering if it's possible to be more naive than this. Does
> >Dawkins not realise that to say "I am gay" in today's Britain inflames
> >prejudice just as much as "I am a homosexual". We all know what the word
> >means now - the meaning has altered. It just means "homosexual", and
> >people
> >ignorant enough to have prejudice against homosexuals and do
> >"queer-bashing"
> >are no less likely to be prejudiced if the word "Gay" is used.
> >
> >Besides which, Dawkins et al can't do anything about the evolution of
> >language & force it the way they want it. If my particular area of
> >Oxfordshire is anything to go by, the meaning of "gay" has evolved again.
> >My kids come back from that hotbed of lingusitic evolution, i.e. the
local
> >school, now using the word "gay" to mean "sad". It no longer necessarily
> >means "homosexual", but rather someone the speaker thinks is pathetic, or
> >definitely un-cool. "Don't be so gay!" or "That is soooooooo gay!" are
> >expressions of strong disapproval that don't imply the person is a
> >homsexual; just that they are boring, uncool, or Sad with a capital "S".
> >I'd be interested to know if this particular meme is just local to
> >Oxfordshire (Dawkins' home territory indeed), or if it's spread to other
> >places, or where it came from. I would suspect that it's the public at
> >large's deeply entrenched homophobia that has led to this new usage.
When
> >it was coined by the homosexual community, it was a word with positive
> >connotations, but nowadays it carries negative connotations to the
> >prejudiced & hence its adoption as a negative or insulting word in the
> >general sense.
> >
> >Also, the word "Bright" in post-modern cynical ironic Britain doesn't
> >necessarily have positive vibes. When you say "Oh yeah, he's very
bright,
> >he is", you don't mean it as a compliment. No-one likes a smartypants,
and
> >a suspect no-one with appreciate someone calling themselves "a bright",
> >without mentally following it with another "B" word casting aspersions on
> >the persons parentage.
> >
> >But perhaps the most down to earth response to the Dawkins article was
from
> >my wife. When I told her that atheists wished to use the term "A bright"
> >to
> >describe themselves, she just gave me that stony stare that I know so
well
> >when she thinks I'm talking a load of rubbish (um.. this happens quite
> >often
> >:-) Then when I read the relevant section from the Dawkins article, she
> >was
> >rocking with laughter. She had quite some difficulty believing it wasn't
a
> >spoof & that I'd been fooled.
> >
> >Meanwhile I propose an alternative slogan to "Glad to be Gay".
> >
> >How about "Delighted to be Dim"? (Check 1 Cor 1:20ff for the scriptural
> >justification).
> >
> >Iain.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Dr. Blake Nelson" <bnelson301@yahoo.com>
> >To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> >Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 2:18 AM
> >Subject: Dawkins dissembles?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > FWIW, did anyone see this Dawkins' piece from last
> > > month's Guardian?
> > >
> > > http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html
> > >
> > > He cites the figure the Skeptic published as 93% of
> > > NAS members not being theistic. IIRC, this is a
> > > statistically invalid number, because the survey of
> > > American scientists was not designed to specifically
> > > sample the subset who were NAS members and the Skeptic
> > > basically pulled out only the respondents who were NAS
> > > members to come up with the percentage. (IIRC an
> > > article based on the 93% was rejected through peer
> > > review, although not by the Skeptic.)
> > >
> > > Now, given that Dawkins is supposed to be all for
> > > banishing superstition, why does he choose to rely on
> > > bad statistics in his anti-religious polemics? I
> > > think I know the answer, but to paraphrase Dawkins,
> > > isn't anyone who claims that 93% of NAS members are
> > > not theistic based on a statistically invalid sample
> > > either lying, insane or stupid? Which one of those
> > > categories does Dawkins fit into?
> > >
> > > Anyone know if someone wrote to the Guardian about the
> > > misrepresentation of survey data (presuming my
> > > recollection is not faulty) by Dawkins?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> > > http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 12:12:27 EDT