Comment on the experiment from my point of view: I underestimated the value of being able to discuss religion. It turns out to be worth a bit more than $20 a month. I saw a lot of things posted during the month that I would really quite have liked to rip to shreds, and twenty dollars is not enough compensation.
If "a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject", then I have presumably demonstrated that I can at least change the subject; which is worth something in itself. But having demonstrated it, I have no need to demonstrate it again; so for future reference, buying my silence on any subject for a month will cost at least $100.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM:
quote:I believe you. I underestimated the value of being able to discuss religion. It turns out to be worth a bit more than $20 a month. I saw a lot of things posted during the month that I really quite liked. I can change, which is worth something. To again buy my silence will cost at least €100.
FTFY. Welcome back to the world of freedom of expression. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Fanatics can't be bribed?
A comment on the experiment from my point of view, not that it was solicited or anything;) - apparently the price to buy you off from attempting to help people around here overcome the very dangerous and harmful folly of religion is really quite low.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wouldn't say $20 a month is all that low, especially as an introductory rate.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
The mere fact that he'd accept money, 20 dollars or 100, to squelch views he is so passionate about?
I think KoM did it to be interesting. Which is why I think he espouses the views that he does and which is why he likes to "rip things to shreds."
You have a healthy ego, my friend. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Welcome back.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
KOM, I sent you a message yesterday asking for your e-mail address so I can paypal you the money. Please respond.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Payment sent. Treated your wife to a romantic dinner at McDonalds.
It was well worth it to me to see how easily you can be bought off.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The mere fact that he'd accept money, 20 dollars or 100, to squelch views he is so passionate about?
For the record, I will gladly accept $20 to not discuss any topic of someone's choice for a month. It's not a violation of my principles to not have a conversation on a given topic. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have to say, I think all this "bought off" talk is uncalled for. It was a month. (A rather pleasant and far too short month, but nonetheless.) On a single forum. He didn't sell his soul or his right to free speech or any other such nonsense.
And he's been quite gracious about the whole thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Indeed.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Gracious, yes. But it IS odd, because KoM, as BB pointed out, portrays himself to be on a mission to save people from stupidity. It was like, the altruistic side of him...
I mean, I'm actually glad KoM said that it was hard for him, and that he'd raise the price - bc apparently, that altruistic side of him is too strong to be bough off by a mere 20 dollars.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
KoM is on a mission to amuse himself however possible through these forums and its bizarre cavalcade of silly and superstitious people. He can portray this through any narrative he wants.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Yes. And that's what he has portrayed. That he is here to amuse himself.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Wow, has it been a month already? I haven't been on hatrack much lately, but still.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The mere fact that he'd accept money, 20 dollars or 100, to squelch views he is so passionate about?
For the record, I will gladly accept $20 to not discuss any topic of someone's choice for a month. It's not a violation of my principles to not have a conversation on a given topic.
I'll do it for $18. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I think KoM did it to be interesting. Which is why I think he espouses the views that he does and which is why he likes to "rip things to shreds."
That's rather uncharitable. I think he did it because *it* would be interesting. Also to get Rabbit to donate to his charity, which iirc was one she wouldn't normally support (is that right?). It's not so interesting to not see KoM doing anything. I for one didn't even notice it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I think KoM did it to be interesting. Which is why I think he espouses the views that he does and which is why he likes to "rip things to shreds."
Also to get Rabbit to donate to his charity, which iirc was one she wouldn't normally support (is that right?)
Not unless KoM has become a charitable cause. I paid him $20 not to bash religion or religious individuals on hatrack for a month. For my $20 dollars I (and the rest of hatrack) got a one month break from his anti-religious tirades and as an added bonus, I can rib him about how easily he could be bought. I found it well worth the price. Evidently, he did not.
You judge who won.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I have to say, I think all this "bought off" talk is uncalled for. It was a month. (A rather pleasant and far too short month, but nonetheless.) On a single forum. He didn't sell his soul or his right to free speech or any other such nonsense.
*shrug* I wouldn't have made the point if KoM had not frequently in the past justified his often vicious and insulting rhetoric by claiming it was at least in part to do some good deed. Now, I've never actually believed that, so by claiming he's been bought off I'm really just playing along. I don't think he was bought off because I don't think he was ever much on in the first place.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am kind of glad the month is over.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I sure am.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The relief is palpable!
I'm not going to palpate it, though. Yuck.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
See, this is why I love hatrack. Literally everything is up for debate.
"2+2=4!"
"The #!$% it is! It's 10, and you're an uneducated fool! Oh, and here are my references."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's not 10, it's 100.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
4! = 24
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I have, as you might expect, an internally coherent narrative which does not paint me as a hypocrite. You can accept it or not, as you choose. It is that, by convincing a theist to deconvert, I am doing them and the world a favour; by taking money from a theist, I am doing the world a favour; and that a certainty of doing a favour of the second kind outweighs the rather slim possibility of doing a favour of the first kind in a month. (Assuming the sum isn't too small, of course.) Additionally, there's the possibility of doing my reputation here some good, and thereby becoming a more effective persuader, through demonstrating that yes, I can in fact be quiet.
As I noted, though, I underestimated the difficulty of keeping my mouth shut - what can I say, I'm from Bergen, we're noted for having the biggest mouths in Norway - and having gotten whatever reputational benefit there is to be had, I'd want more money for a hypothetical next time.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'll admit, in my book, your acceptance of the money has made you more interesting, and indeed, more likable. But I don't think you wre happy to take money from a theist because that somehow reduces their power, or their stupidity in the world. I don't think you do the world any favors by taking money away from a theist.
But yes, you were definitely interested in showing that you can be quiet, and rational, and in my book, you have definitely affirmed my perception of you as an elitist, but also, as level-headed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I don't think you do the world any favors by taking money away from a theist.
Well no, naturally you would not think so. But if it's ok with you, I'd like to be allowed to have a different opinion on the point. Thanks.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I don't think you do the world any favors by taking money away from a theist.
Well no, naturally you would not think so. But if it's ok with you, I'd like to be allowed to have a different opinion on the point. Thanks.
That's fine. I would totally appreciate it if you would share the logic behind the opinion though.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Theists are actually crab people, which, as we all know, are hell-bent on world domination. Take their money, save the world.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Some of the most dangerous theists I know are actually quite poor.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Additionally, there's the possibility of doing my reputation here some good, and thereby becoming a more effective persuader, through demonstrating that yes, I can in fact be quiet.
Speaking for myself, the wager did nothing to improve your reputation-the conversation I had with you a few months ago, on the other hand, did.
I'm not sure if anyone around here doubts your ability to remain silent. I certainly never did, in fact I would've been quite surprised if you had lost this bet, not for the money's sake, but for the prestige. Now, if there were some way to wager $20 on whether or not you could go a month without being crass, hostile, insulting, or rude to or about a religious person...that would be a wager I'd be interested in. How such a thing would be judged, though, I can't imagine.
quote: It is that, by convincing a theist to deconvert, I am doing them and the world a favour; by taking money from a theist, I am doing the world a favour...
The only part of this narrative that I, and I suspect others, have ever really doubted, is the part where it is to be believed that you honestly think your methods are likely to convert anyone around here. Or, I should say, former methods, because it seems to me you have become much less vitriolic and aggressive than you used to be.
Back in the day, frankly your posts always smacked of the choir-preacher to me. Logically consistent, interesting and thought provoking on purely technical grounds, but your tone hardly ever made me think, "This is someone trying to persuade me." Your tone consistently made me think, "This is someone who wants to sneer and tell people they're stupid." I could very easily be mistaken, but I suspect I am far from alone in thinking that-especially among the people who don't already share your outlook.
So anyway, depending on which KoM comes back from the wager, I'm glad the month is over too.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I don't think you do the world any favors by taking money away from a theist.
Well no, naturally you would not think so. But if it's ok with you, I'd like to be allowed to have a different opinion on the point. Thanks.
That's fine. I would totally appreciate it if you would share the logic behind the opinion though.
Well, it's not very complicated. Money is an IOU; it is a claim to some amount of the production and services of (in the case of dollars) the US economy. In other words, money is power. A hundred dollars will let you do things which a medieval king could only dream of; some of those things are violent. Just for example: A gun small enough to conceal in a pocket, recoil small enough to be fired with one hand, with a magazine of eight bullets, and accurate out to say twenty meters? Amazing! Magical! We only think of these things as mundane because we are, frankly, spoilt brats. A rational population wouldn't need drugs, they would go around in a constant state of amazed awe at the stuff they can do. Only because our memory is so short do we fail to do so; or as it was once put, "I remember when I dreamed of flying by the use of magical potions; and I remember when I, reluctantly, accepted that I would never fly; and I remember that I flew." We take the last as the normal state, but it's not.
Now then: The power of money, like any other power, is dangerous if badly used; theists, being irrational madmen, are substantially more likely than atheists to misuse their power; therefore, taking money from them is a good thing. It's fair to say, certainly, that 20 dollars is not a great deal of money or power; I can't object to that. But every bit helps.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Now then: The power of money, like any other power, is dangerous if badly used; theists, being irrational madmen, are substantially more likely than atheists to misuse their power...
I can see why this would be an appealing line of thought for you, but I do wonder: is there any evidence of it that would persuade you if you didn't already believe it?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
But I would argue that money does more to make a theist less religious than the logic of the most convincing atheist. Religious fervor and radicalism tend to decline as a religious community becomes more wealthy.
I'd also argue that what makes theists powerful and dangerous is not economic power, but the power of ideas, superstition, emotion, establishment, community etc.
Is it possible that you have set yourself behind by not discussing your atheist views, and by making Rabbit a bit poorer, and therefore, closer to God?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I rest my case.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, I gave you a list of charities that I support. How do you think that I would use my money or power differently or better if I were not a theist?
If you don't recall the list, I will reproduce it.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
So, am I supposed to be reading the title of this thread as though said by Lou Costello?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Now then: The power of money, like any other power, is dangerous if badly used; theists, being irrational madmen, are substantially more likely than atheists to misuse their power...
I can see why this would be an appealing line of thought for you, but I do wonder: is there any evidence of it that would persuade you if you didn't already believe it?
Well, the statement has two parts: One, irrational madmen use power badly; two, theists are irratonal madmen. The first part seems almost tautologous, no? So the question is, what evidence would show that theists are irrational and mad? Well, just for one thing, they believe in things they haven't got evidence for. And... done.
quote:KoM, I gave you a list of charities that I support. How do you think that I would use my money or power differently or better if I were not a theist?
Just for one thing, you would give no money to the Catholic Church.
quote:But I would argue that money does more to make a theist less religious than the logic of the most convincing atheist. Religious fervor and radicalism tend to decline as a religious community becomes more wealthy.
So logically then, I ought to take money from above-average-wealth American theists, who while nuts aren't virulent about it, and give it to the poor al-Qaeda fundies, in the hope that it'll make them less religious!
The effect you describe exists, but only on generational timescales. Making Afghanistan wealthy might reduce its religiosity, but making any particular person poor does not increase it. Besides, presumably I decreased my own religiosity, small as it might be, proportionally, so there's no net loss.
quote:I'd also argue that what makes theists powerful and dangerous is not economic power, but the power of ideas, superstition, emotion, establishment, community etc.
Power can be used for military purposes, for consumption, or for investment. The ideas and so on causes theists to make different tradeoffs; they put a lot of their scarce resources into military uses. Consider a nation with GNP 100 versus one with 50; if the former uses 10% of its resources on its army, the latter can still match it militarily by putting 20% to the army. This does not change the fact that reducing their GNP to 49 would reduce their total power; they might maintain the same military power by re-allocating, but they would have to make the choice.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Originally posted by King of Men:
quote: KoM, I gave you a list of charities that I support. How do you think that I would use my money or power differently or better if I were not a theist?
Just for one thing, you would give no money to the Catholic Church.
The money I give to the Catholic Church is specifically for Catholic Relief Services and has been targeted for specific causes - Haiti, Indonesia. How, aside from your particular bias, would it have been better used? CRS has a pretty good record.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:So the question is, what evidence would show that theists are irrational and mad? Well, just for one thing, they believe in things they haven't got evidence for. And... done.
It could be rational to believe this as a general rule of thumb when deciding whether to hand out money to random theists that you don't know. (And even then, only really works when you are choosing to give or take money from a person in a blind test where the only fact you know is whether they are superstitious or not).
It falls apart pretty terribly when you know the theist in question. I am hard pressed to believe there was the slightest chance that Rabbit's $20 was going to go anywhere that would have been more wild and crazy than the average atheist's $20.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Catholic Relief Services has one of the best track records in disaster relief (among other things), anywhere. Anyone who cares about disaster relief should at least strongly consider giving money to CRS, theist or atheist (or apatheist, as my position is).
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: So, am I supposed to be reading the title of this thread as though said by Lou Costello?
You may as well. I am!
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Can anyone point me to the thread where this deal was made?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: But yes, you were definitely interested in showing that you can be quiet, and rational, and in my book, you have definitely affirmed my perception of you as an elitist, but also, as level-headed.
Oh noooo.... not an ELITIST!!!!
Bwahh....
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The money I give to the Catholic Church is specifically for Catholic Relief Services and has been targeted for specific causes - Haiti, Indonesia. How, aside from your particular bias, would it have been better used? CRS has a pretty good record.
:raises hand: It would be better used by an organization that doesn't own billions upon billions of dollars in property and fine art and luxurious accommodations and vehicles, not to mention mountains of obligation free cash, and doesn't hide valuable historical archives from the public...etc.
Now, what *that* organization is, I don't know. I never had enough money to give to charity. I'm not much of a believer in NGOs or anything- I tend to think charity is an inefficient and corruption-vulnerable sector of the economy, and I would rather give my money to a government that knew what to do with it... also unrealistic, I understand.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Orincoro: that's an argument to give money to CRS. CRS (you do realize that it isn't the same as the Catholic Church?) has a stellar track record for effective use of funds. Read a little bit about it sometime. What's more, all administrative costs of CRS are funded by the Catholic Church, so every bit of money you donate to CRS means less money available to the Catholic Church for other purposes, if you happen to dislike those.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Ok, just based on the title I can see why I wasn't reading the thread. It would have been interesting to have known that this was the case. I guess I failed to notice that there was any difference.
Some time ago I was asked to hold money that was being collected in a similar (but far less likely) agreement. The theist had promised to raise money to send the atheist's children to college provided the atheist pretended to believe in God and took his children to church for the duration of their childhood.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
KoM,
quote:Well, the statement has two parts: One, irrational madmen use power badly; two, theists are irratonal madmen. The first part seems almost tautologous, no? So the question is, what evidence would show that theists are irrational and mad? Well, just for one thing, they believe in things they haven't got evidence for. And... done.
Well, no, the first statement isn't a given. It really depends on the type of irrational madness (and isn't that redundant?), doesn't it? That's a serious objection, btw, not just a rhetorical one. If one's 'madness' leads the person to support worthy causes, such as CRS, in what way can it be said to have been badly done?
As for the second...well, no, not even remotely done. But that's an argument that's been gone over and over, so it will just have to suffice to say that believing something that cannot be proven to you does not, in and of itself, make one mad. As appealing to your vanity as that might be.
-------
quote: It falls apart pretty terribly when you know the theist in question. I am hard pressed to believe there was the slightest chance that Rabbit's $20 was going to go anywhere that would have been more wild and crazy than the average atheist's $20.
Blanket generalizations usually have that sort of pitfall.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It falls apart pretty terribly when you know the theist in question. I am hard pressed to believe there was the slightest chance that Rabbit's $20 was going to go anywhere that would have been more wild and crazy than the average atheist's $20.
No need to speculate, just ask. If I hadn't spent the $20 buying KoM silence for month, I would not have donated the money to a religious cause. There are two likely possibilities.
1. I would have blown the $20 on a few hours of entertainment. Dinner or a movie most likely, but I might also have bought some really good chocolate. I found this sufficiently amusing to be the better value.
2. It would have gone into my retirement savings. But right now I'm way ahead on my savings goals so if this had happened it would likely have ended up as part of my estate when I died. Since I have no descendants on which to bequeath it, I have willed my estate to a scholarship fund for underprivileged children and a variety of environmental conservation groups. You'll have to ask KoM to be certain, but I don't imagine him taking pleasure in having deprived these causes of my $20 + interest in the hopefully far distant future.
I suppose there is the possibility that because of this purchase, my husband and I will completely deplete all of our savings before we die and spend our final days in abject poverty, at which point I may regret my choice but probably not nearly as much as I will regret many of my other financial decisions (like the usb charger that runs on a bicycle dynamo which I'm seriously considering right now). Once again, you'll have to ask KoM whether or not he considers that (hopefully unlikely outcome) a net plus for the Universe or not.
[ June 23, 2010, 07:26 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
That's pretty much what I figured.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Tangential to the main discussion and divorced from the moral/strategic dicussion: In practice and in theory, do (or should) people (who tithe a percentage of income) tithe from income from capital gains and dividends, or only earned income?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know if they do - there are lots of people from different groups who tithe, after all - and I don't know what they are told they should do by religious authorities, but it seems to me they should tithe from capital gains and dividends, too. Not doing so would seem pretty...legalistic in a way that is contrary to the spirit of the endeavor.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)