Richard Dawkins

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

The above doesn't hold true for me. I appricate that he challanges religions, in fact, I read his book in the hope it would provide some insights, and possibly nudge me off the fence I sit on. It didn't however, and the option that would improve Dawkins agruments isn't listed above. You've neglected:

3) Drops the arrogant tone & stops belittling people he chooses to debate.

It's quite simple really, no matter how correct you are, once you start slagging people off, or belittling them, your points fade to the background (it can be seen in many threads here on Boards). This makes for VERY tedious reading for alot of people, others love it (clearly). Personally I prefer more from a book.

You must not be a big fan of The Simpsons :P

Sam Vimes

prinz, going back to the Lisbon debates again I'm sure you'll remember how the no side were often accused of lying and to try to say that the yes side were just as bad they took the slogan "Yes for jobs" and said it was a lie. Of course you and me know what the slogan was supposed to mean, basically that a yes vote was a hell of a lot better in terms of jobs than a no vote but the people on the no side wanted to think that it was a lie so they decided that the "yes for jobs" meant something along the lines of "100,000 jobs given to us by the EU the day after the referendum and the recession over for next Thurdsay" and since this was clearly not going to happen, the slogan was branded a lie. Basically someone's desire to brand the yes side as liars made them take a meaning from something that was never intended and was so clearly ridiculous that it couldn't possibly have been meant in that way. I'm sure you can see the parallels.


Another thing that happened a lot in those debates, as I'm sure you'll remember, was that someone would make a comment about "the no side" and invariably someone on the no side would start giving out about "blanket statements" etc. The whole discussion would become about the exceptions to the statement and the point that was being made would be lost in the noise. Of course as we both know statements of this type were never intended to apply to every single person who had ever considered voting no, we knew when we were making them that they didn't apply to everyone but they applied to some no voters and so making the statement was still valid. It actually came to the stage where any time I would say anything about "no voters" I would add a footnote that said something along the lines of "this statement is not meant to apply to every single no voter. If it does not apply to you, feel free to ignore it" because if I didn't I'd just have yet another argument about something that nobody was disputing, that the statement was not universally applicable, rather than the point I was trying to make. The fact that the statement was not applicable in every single case became the issue and the real issue, that it was applicable in some cases, was forgotten. Again, I'm sure you can see the parallels.

Turtwig

prinz wrote: »

Yes AFAIK it was (at least repeated) in a talk with Krauss. A talk in which Dawkins also made mention of the fact that he was more interested in 'killing religion' than he was in educating people. Showed him up for what he is tbh, a one-trick pony.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

No, let's not. Quoting a few minority examples does not justify making a sweeping statement about the majority or of the whole.

PDN. You yourself have hovered between literal interpretations of genesis. I remember a while back you made arguments for Noahs flood, at least in terms of not completely dismissing it.

Many christians here have stated time and time again that they have no problem with science but that in the case of abiogenesis or the big bang or other scientific theories which potentially contradict religious teaching they are 'not convinced'.

Theres a good number of christians here who have stated they have no problem with gravity and the same people have stated they have a problem with evolution. There is just as much evidence for evolution as there is for gravity and yet here on this very forum we have mainstream christians who are 'unsure' of it because of the potential religious consequences.

Take Noahs Ark. The evidence is absolutely insurmountable against such an event, the evidence clearly dismisses the notion of a worldwide flood. Biological evidence is insurmountable against the idea of a man taking two of every creature on-board a wooden boat and yet you yourself have made half arguments supporting it in the past.

What other reason can there possibly be for not acknowledging the evidence besides your religion ?

What's wrong with those statements is the dishonest attempt to present them as being comparable. The first is a false statement about religion in general. The other two are cherrypicked examples of particularly unrepresentative varieties of religion.

Christianity - Teaches that homosexuality is against god and therefore wrong. Christians frequently deny evidence which suggest homosexuality is a completely natural phenomenon in nature. i.e > They're not interested in learning homosexuality is 'normal' because they already know its 'wrong'.

It is the kind of comparison that is excusable when made by someone on an internet message board who freely acknowledges that they have little knowledge of the subject of religion, but inexcusable when someone sets themselves up as an expert and puts it in a book.

Are you under the mistaken belief that I care if Dawkins was wrong or right ? I don't.

I don't think I'm lowering you at all by placing you on that level.

Well I put you on a higher level before, perhaps I was too hasty.

Religions are made up of people. You are now splitting hairs to avoid admitting an elementary mistake. You cannot make a sweeping generalisation about religion in general on the basis of how one minority group within one religion behaves.

Religions are made up of people. People do not always accept religious teaching. The subject is what religions teach, not what people believe.

That would be an equally silly sweeping statement. Some forms of politics may indeed do so, but to apply that to politics in general would not be true.

Oh ? Under what political system currently in operation are the populace not controlled ?

You could use the same bad logic against history, mathematics or science.

No you can't. history, mathematics and science are open to correction based on evidence. The way to make a name for yourself in any science is to correct someone else's mistake. If I for example discovered the theory of gravity was wrong I'd be collecting a nobel prize.

Religion doesn't work like that. If I showed you (irrefutable) evidence tomorrow that Jesus was a woman how many christians would change their faith and accept this ?

There are certain things that we all accept as facts. Indeed, these facts often provide us with the foundation we need to conduct investigation and experimentation.

Theres very very little accepted as fact which is not up for change. Science is all about change and disproving something we previously accepted as the most likely explanation for something.

Zulu

Wicknight wrote: »

You must not be a big fan of The Simpsons :P

I've never read a Simpsons book if thats what you mean.

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

prinz, going back to the Lisbon debates again I'm sure you'll remember how the no side were often accused of lying and to try to say that the yes side were just as bad they took the slogan "Yes for jobs" and said it was a lie. Of course you and me know what the slogan was supposed to mean, basically that a yes vote was a hell of a lot better in terms of jobs than a no vote but the people on the no side wanted to think that it was a lie so they decided that the "yes for jobs" meant something along the lines of "100,000 jobs given to us by the EU the day after the referendum and the recession over for next Thurdsay" and since this was clearly not going to happen, the slogan was branded a lie. Basically someone's desire to brand the yes side as liars made them take a meaning from something that was never intended and was so clearly ridiculous that it couldn't possibly have been meant in that way. I'm sure you can see the parallels.


Another thing that happened a lot in those debates, as I'm sure you'll remember, was that someone would make a comment about "the no side" and invariably someone on the no side would start giving out about "blanket statements" etc. The whole discussion would become about the exceptions to the statement and the point that was being made would be lost in the noise. Of course as we both know statements of this type were never intended to apply to every single person who had ever considered voting no, we knew when we were making them that they didn't apply to everyone but they applied to some no voters and so making the statement was still valid. It actually came to the stage where any time I would say anything about "no voters" I would add a footnote that said something along the lines of "this statement is not meant to apply to every single no voter. If it does not apply to you, feel free to ignore it" because if I didn't I'd just have yet another argument about something that nobody was disputing, that the statement was not universally applicable, rather than the point I was trying to make. The fact that the statement was not applicable in every single case became the issue and the real issue, that it was applicable in some cases, was forgotten. Again, I'm sure you can see the parallels.

+1 good post

Unless a person speaks in legal jargon the whole time it is easy to take what they say and twist it to mean a literal exact thing and then find an except to beat it over the head. Ironcially the theists here often accuse us of doing this, good to see they are not above it themselves.

For example someone on this forum once said something along the lines of "I actually like being a Christian, Christianity makes you happy" to which they were instantly met with an example of a Christian who was depressed and committed suicide.

The poor Christian then got into a debate with the non-believer over how his statement was "a lie" because clearly the non-believer had found an exception to this statement thus proving it false.

Of course only a moron would think that the Christian was statement that every Christian ever where was happy in everything they do in life and never was unhappy.

If he wanted to be exact he should have said "Christianity can and often does make some people happy or at least happier than they were before since happiness is a relative concept, and only happy for a period of time. Terms and Conditions apply, please see website for details" :P

Reading that exchange I remember thinking how pointlessly argumentative us atheist can sometimes come across when they simply want to win a point rather than make a point.

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

I've never read a Simpsons book if thats what you mean.

No, I mean you must not enjoy satire or laughing at the ridiculousness of some positions, which the Simpsons does brilliantly

All through the God Delusion Dawkins happily laughs at the ridculousness of religion and religious position. Why not, the book is not for religious people, I doubt he cares if they find this insulting.

My fav example is the story of the Church of English gentlemen dismissing a small religious tribe in the Pacific as "people will believe anything!" and then proceeding to discuss the resurrection of Jesus. You could almost taste Dawkins delight at the sheer hypocrisy of these men.

I'm sure some don't like this, or feel it is belittling. But that is what people always say when others find their views or beliefs humorously ridiculous

http://www.snpp.com/other/papers/ss.paper.html

One of the most satirized topics on The Simpsons is religion. The Simpsons "takes more satirical jabs at spiritual matters than any other TV show"(Dart 12). "According to a study by John Heeren of California State University at San Bernardino… religious content appears in nearly 70 percent of the shows" and 11 percent of The Simpsons' episodes main theme is religious (Dart 13). From houses of worship to religious leaders, The Simpsons ridicules every aspect of religion.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The fact that the statement was not applicable in every single case became the issue and the real issue, that it was applicable in some cases, was forgotten. Again, I'm sure you can see the parallels.

Well so far we haven't seen his statement as applicable in one case.

Zulu

Wicknight wrote: »

No, I mean you must not enjoy satire or laughing at the ridiculousness of some positions, which the Simpsons does brilliantly

I got your point; I think you missed mine, or else you've deliberately avoided it.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sure some don't like this, or feel it is belittling. But that is what people always say when others find their views or beliefs humorously ridiculous..

Which is perhaps why Dawkins is more interested in killing religion than he is about spreading knowledge, science, education etc. I guess he feels belittled by religious folk.

Personally I love the Simpsons. The satire and parodies on religion are one of the best aspects of the show and are crafted like a fine art. I don't feel at all offended, or belittled, and I laugh as much as the next person, for one reason and one reason alone..the one thing the creators don't do is treat people like morons. Dawkins could learn a thing or two a massive amount from the creators of The Simpsons. He may even end up having me enjoy reading his works as much as I do watching The Simpsons.

Turtwig

prinz wrote: »

Yes AFAIK it was (at least repeated) in a talk with Krauss. A talk in which Dawkins also made mention of the fact that he was more interested in 'killing religion' than he was in educating people. Showed him up for what he is tbh, a one-trick pony.

Krauss ask's "Destroy religion? Is that really your purpose?"
Dawkins replies "No no.."

Here we go..
"Kill Religion"

"Whoops I made a boo boo"

iUseVi

Zulu wrote: »

3) Drops the arrogant tone & stops belittling people he chooses to debate.

It's quite simple really, no matter how correct you are, once you start slagging people off, or belittling them, your points fade to the background (it can be seen in many threads here on Boards). This makes for VERY tedious reading for alot of people, others love it (clearly). Personally I prefer more from a book.

Yes, but what the religious call arrogance is often simply what I would call "truth". I saw one video where Dawkins literally read from scripture and got attacked for being harsh.

iUseVi

Zulu wrote: »

3) Drops the arrogant tone & stops belittling people he chooses to debate.

It's quite simple really, no matter how correct you are, once you start slagging people off, or belittling them, your points fade to the background (it can be seen in many threads here on Boards). This makes for VERY tedious reading for alot of people, others love it (clearly). Personally I prefer more from a book.

Also, I don't remember him slagging people off, can you provide example(s) of this please?

Zulu

iUseVi wrote: »

Yes, but what the religious call arrogance is often simply what I would call "truth". I saw one video where Dawkins literally read from scripture and got attacked for being harsh.

That cuts both ways: I'm not religious & I find him arrogant. Because someone is religious, doesn't make them always wrong.

prinz

Malty_T wrote: »

Krauss ask's "Destroy religion? Is that really your purpose?"
Dawkins replies "No no.."

Will be watching later, ta.

Zulu

iUseVi wrote: »

Also, I don't remember him slagging people off, can you provide example(s) of this please?

You missed my point.
I said: "once you start slagging people off, or belittling them, your points fade to the background "

Two things to note here:
1) I didn't said Dawkins
2) I don't mean you "iUseVi" specifically

Replace "you" with "one" if you prefer.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Well so far we haven't seen his statement as applicable in one case.

Christians believe that the universe was created by god. No need to try to find out how the universe began so, snice we already know and we know that it's so incredibly complex that we could never hope to understand it.

Christians believe that god created the heavens and the earth. No need to study how planets form, we know it's because god formed them.


christians believe that a sense of morality is given to us by god, a great many believe it could only have been given by god and the existence of morality is used to argue for god's existence. No need to study evolutionary psychology or sociology since we already know the origins of morality.

Christians believe that the reason we're more intelligent than other animals is that god has given us a soul. No need to study the mechanisms of the brain, we already know that we have superior cognitive abilities because god gave them to us.

Christians believe that god performs miracles such as curing people who are at death's door. No need to find out what actually happened so we can cure other people, we already know god did it so what happened is not repeatable

Christians believe that god fine tuned the universe for life*. No need to find out why the laws of the universe are actually as they are, we already know it's because god set them that way.


Christians believe that god reveals himself to people in visions. No need to study how these visions and auditory hallucinations are created in the brain and, far more importantly, if these visions are being caused by a medical problem that may well kill the person. Having listened to some people on this forum talk about their direct interactions with god I honestly fear that they have some kind of mental illness/chemical imbalance/brain tumour or whatever that they're not getting checked out because they think it's god talking to them.


Yes, in each of these cases a religious person can believe all of these things to be true and still continue to study the mechanism by which they happen but in a significant number of cases this doesn't happen. People are satisfied with the knowledge that "god did it" and how he did it is viewed as being beyond our comprehension. They have an explanation and that's good enough. Then there is also the problem that in some of those cases (e.g. the visions and hallucinations and the origins of morality), finding out the mechanism by which they happen would actually show that god didn't do it which might well shake the foundations of their faith. If ever there was a disincentive......
edit: I've even heard some believers describe scientists as having "an atheist agenda" because they were doing research in an area where it's normally believed that god did it and producing results they didn't like



*which usually changes to fine tuned for 'something' when it's pointed out that life can only exist in about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe.

Zulu

.

Zulu

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes, in each of these cases a religious person can believe all of these things to be true and still continue to study the mechanism by which they happen but in a significant number of cases this doesn't happen.

I think your brain may have failed.

That's not a trait of being christian, or religious - thats a human trait.
Only SOME people will bother to study these things and seek out answers, MOST people don't - regardless of faith (or lack there of).

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

Do you have a problem with this Fanny ? To me Haggard and people like him represent the very worst aspects of religion. People like this do not listen to reason or facts or reality, they don't listen at all so what is left only ridicule ?

Look at the creationism thread. Our little resident creationist has been wilfully ignoring the truth and lying through his teeth for 5+ years. People come to the thread, they always start by debating him with facts and evidence until they realise that he won't listen to facts or evidence.

Some people are so close minded and mentally warped that they deserve ridicule.

Well, we'll have to disagree. I think the facts speak for themselves. If an objective somebody was to walk in on a discussion and see a number of people ridiculing one person - heaping scorn and laughter on them - then I think you are damaging your own position. That objective somebody might even walk right out the door in disgust without ever hearing the facts.

Even though I accept evolution, I find the language that you use to describe another member who doest to be a perfect example of how frustration leads to supercilious insults, not debate. It would be far better if you simply didn't bother. If, after 5 years of butting your head against the wall, you can't see any light, I suggest that it is time to move on.

monosharp wrote: »

Can we agree on this ?

In general term, I think so.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes, in each of these cases a religious person can believe all of these things to be true and still continue to study the mechanism by which they happen but in a significant number of cases this doesn't happen. People are satisfied with the knowledge that "god did it" and how he did it is viewed as being beyond our comprehension. They have an explanation and that's good enough..

Was going to reply point by point but seeing as how it's all nonsensical I won't bother. A "significant number" of cases.. how significant? How have you come by that phrasing? What is significant? 0.0000001%? A significant number of atheists are totalitarians who idolise Stalin. You seem to have ignored the contradiction that one can be religious and not satisfied with not understanding when according to Dawkins that it exactly what religion teaches us.

iUseVi

Zulu wrote: »

You missed my point.
I said: "once you start slagging people off, or belittling them, your points fade to the background "

Two things to note here:
1) I didn't said Dawkins
2) I don't mean you "iUseVi" specifically

Replace "you" with "one" if you prefer.

Ok...it was kinda implied in the context. But just to clarify, you don't think spends his time slagging people off then?

Zulu

iUseVi wrote: »

But just to clarify, you don't think spends his time slagging people off then?

That depends: do you want my opinion, or are you going to ask me to trawl through quotes to find specific instances of him slagging people off?

iUseVi

Zulu wrote: »

That depends: do you want my opinion, or are you going to ask me to trawl through quotes to find specific instances of him slagging people off?

Well if it were true that he slags people off I don't think it would take much "trawling" to find such instances tbh. But then we would probably disagree about whether such instances were slagging or merely straight talking. So...probably not a lot of point taking this further. I honestly think Dawkins is a gentleman, and that this is not at odds with being firm about what he believes to be true. Anything less than full truth is intellectually dishonest, no matter if that offends certain sectors of society.

I'm happy to leave it, since it is unlikely we will agree. But if you are going to claim he slags (and I'm not saying you have claimed this), I think examples would be in order, yes.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Even though I accept evolution, I find the language that you use to describe another member who doest to be a perfect example of how frustration leads to supercilious insults, not debate. It would be far better if you simply didn't bother. If, after 5 years of butting your head against the wall, you can't see any light, I suggest that it is time to move on.

Actually I wasn't even specifically talking about Evolution, rather the irrefutable facts inside the debate as a whole.

What I mean are those facts which are there staring you in the face. e.g > 'Someone' has been repeatedly told that there are dozens of methods used to date the Earth. Its an indisputable fact, its everywhere, its in hundreds of thousands of scientific papers, if someone wanted to they could run these very same tests themselves and see the evidence right in front of their eyes.

Yet this same someone continues to argue against one type of dating method which was 'off' in some cases and uses this as proof that they are are all wrong all the time.

As for moving on, I don't tend to post there anymore, simply because it is absolutely pointless.

I'd agree with you about not ridiculing people 99% of the time but theres that 1% of the time where theres just nothing else to do. I don't like words like 'moron' or 'idiot' but theres a reason they exist.

Heres something we might agree on, do you ever see the news programs where they bring in two 'experts' on a debate ? One side might be a medical research scientist and the other a Homeopathy practitioner. Or one side might be an astronomer/cosmologist and the other an astrologist ?

Do you really think these two sides both deserve to 'have their say' ? As equals ? Absolutely not.

In general term, I think so.

Good. And just for the record, I do agree with you on this issue mostly. I just think he overuses (far too much) it whereas you think he shouldn't use it at all.

Glenster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To quote Jimmy Carr for the second time in three days:

I'm not arrogant. The word you're looking for is 'correct'

That's a joke though, to say that is to be arrogant. Joke.

It's very funny and everything but you cant think it means that if you are right you cant be arrogant.......can you........??

Glenster

Zulu wrote: »

You missed my point.
I said: "once you start slagging people off, or belittling them, your points fade to the background "

Two things to note here:
1) I didn't said Dawkins
2) I don't mean you "iUseVi" specifically

Replace "you" with "one" if you prefer.

Been there mate.

monosharp

prinz wrote: »

Was going to reply point by point but seeing as how it's all nonsensical I won't bother. A "significant number" of cases.. how significant? How have you come by that phrasing? What is significant? 0.0000001%?

May I point out yet again that Dawkins said "religion teaches that ..". He didn't say '(all) religious people believe that ...'.

You understand the difference don't you ?

My mother teaches me not to curse. -> It doesn't mean I don't curse.
Religion teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world. -> It doesn't mean (religious) people are satisfied with not understanding the world.
Scientology teaches people to ignore established mental health practice. -> It doesn't mean all scientologists don't have any (established) mental health treatment.

A significant number of atheists are totalitarians who idolise Stalin.

Really ? Where in the atheist bible does it say that ? I mustn't be a very good atheist.

You seem to have ignored the contradiction that one can be religious and not satisfied with not understanding when according to Dawkins that it exactly what religion teaches us.

Buddhism teaches its practitioners not to cause suffering. (kill animals, eat meat etc) -> Many Buddhists cause suffering and eat meat etc.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Christians believe that the universe was created by god. No need to try to find out how the universe began so, snice we already know and we know that it's so incredibly complex that we could never hope to understand it.

A total falsehood. Many Christians, myself included, would find it absolutely fascinating to know how God created the universe. The fact that we see God as being the first cause does not lessen our interest in understanding the process.

Also, because the universe is so incredibly complex, and because we believe that it exists for the glory of God, that gives us an added incentive to understand it.

Sam, you are committing this same leap of logic so often, even when it is pointed out to you, that I'm beginning to think that you are just having a laugh rather than engaging in serious discussion.

Christians believe that god created the heavens and the earth. No need to study how planets form, we know it's because god formed them.

Again, the same falsehood. This strawman is getting really tiresome. I, and many other Christians, find it fascinating how God forms planets. Last Sunday in Church, as part of the sermon, we actually watched a video using imagery from the Hubble Telescope to explain how stars are dying, being formed etc. Our congregation found it so fascinating that they were queuing up at the bookstall to purchase the DVD.

Sam, if you're going to make statements about Christians then maybe you should find out what Christians actually believe rather than cherrypicking the most damning examples you can find to construct a strawman?

christians believe that a sense of morality is given to us by god, a great many believe it could only have been given by god and the existence of morality is used to argue for god's existence. No need to study evolutionary psychology or sociology since we already know the origins of morality.

Wow! I wish I had known this when I was at University. Then I could have claimed exemption from the evolutionary psychology and sociology courses that were part of my theological studies. :rolleyes:

Imagine those ignorant boneheads in the theology faculty making us study that stuff when, if they'd only listened to Dawkins and Sam Vimes, they would have realised that their job was to teach us that we should be satisfied with not understanding such things!

Christians believe that the reason we're more intelligent than other animals is that god has given us a soul. No need to study the mechanisms of the brain, we already know that we have superior cognitive abilities because god gave them to us.

No, this is another schoolboy howler. All the Christians I know and have studied with believe that intelligence and the soul are too very separate concepts.

Sam, if I made pronouncements about science in a science forum when I clearly had no idea about what I was talking about, then everybody would laugh at me, and rightly so. The same holds true when you try to tell us what Christians believe.

Christians believe that god performs miracles such as curing people who are at death's door. No need to find out what actually happened so we can cure other people, we already know god did it so what happened is not repeatable

At this point the bit of my brain which makes me want to be sarcastic is lighting up like a Christmas tree.

So believing that God can heal people on occasions is incompatible with studying medicine? Sam, you are doing yourself no favours whatsoever with this dogmatic, illogical, untruthful tripe.

Does this mean I have to gather together all the doctors that attend my church and instruct them to find another career?

Christians believe that god fine tuned the universe for life*. No need to find out why the laws of the universe are actually as they are, we already know it's because god set them that way.

You know what? I'm sick of this idiocy.
If you can't discuss things sensibly then please don't bother.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

Actually I wasn't even specifically talking about Evolution, rather the irrefutable facts inside the debate as a whole.

What I mean are those facts which are there staring you in the face. e.g > 'Someone' has been repeatedly told that there are dozens of methods used to date the Earth. Its an indisputable fact, its everywhere, its in hundreds of thousands of scientific papers, if someone wanted to they could run these very same tests themselves and see the evidence right in front of their eyes.

There is no need to repeat yourself. I understand, and I believe that I made this clear in my last post.

monosharp wrote: »

As for moving on, I don't tend to post there anymore, simply because it is absolutely pointless.

Good for you. But I notice that you just posted there :pac:

monosharp wrote: »

I'd agree with you about not ridiculing people 99% of the time but theres that 1% of the time where theres just nothing else to do. I don't like words like 'moron' or 'idiot' but theres a reason they exist.

Then we have a very different outlook on debate. While you think it is fine to point and laugh at this arbitrary 1% of people. I don't. Attack the post, not the poster and all that.

monosharp wrote: »

Do you really think these two sides both deserve to 'have their say' ? As equals ? Absolutely not.

Are you asking or telling? Whatever about your scenario, I certainly don't believe that someone should be brought to national television to be laughed at.