Ashamed? No. I live on this planet. I don't live in some future
utopia.
On THIS planet, you have to get along with other people.
If you do NOT learn to get along with people and alienate them,
you create enemies even if they don't exist.
Shame? Not at all. But please, tell me why I should feel shame
and I'll consider it an option. Except in matters of life and
limb, I see no valid excuse for a dialogue that is uncivil. We
are having a civil dialogue. I appreciate that. Two things:
a) I read it.
b) I will continue to use the tone argument if that is the
issue. I was aware of Krauss long before this singular
article.
Again, I live in a real world with history and extra-article
knowledge.
Should I limit myself solely to the article in question?
Certainly, if this was middle school and you were my teacher.
If this was a Universe of Nothing and the only information I had
available to me at all was this singular article and I had
complete amnesia about life, perhaps you would have a valid
point. I'm not against the issues Krauss is bringing up for the
MOST part.
But "What about the children?" and the divisive tone are an
appeal to emotion and the kind of tactic that distracts and
ruins his overall message.
You can ignore it if you like. I can't. It comes across that he
is a bitter man that is angry and has a point to prove to the
world.
He's not as bad as Dawkins, granted. I kinda like Krauss
generally. I liked Dawkins too, until he started on his mission
in the late 90s. Now he comes out like a crackpot. I won't get
started on Maher either; his Islamaphobic and ahistorical
comments over the last few years sounded like stuff coming out
of a Evangelical Christian Evangelist... 'cause they complain
about the same kind of stuff the same way.
