IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 17th June 2022, 10:25 AM   #841
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,613
I'm going to say something nice about Amber Heard

At this time there's nothing nice, absolutely nothing at all, that can be said about Amber Heard. The one thing she's still going for her is that, although older than she used to be, but she's still hot; but her unconventional potty training makes her, at least in my view, exactly the opposite of attractive. So that you couldn't possibly say anything good about her now, not if you were paid to do it.

Except: You can, actually. Even if somewhat tangentially.

Came across this fairly long (1 hour +) interview of Dawkins by Amber. Apparently she's an atheist herself. I've only watched a few minutes of it so far, but I've bookmarked it, and intend to watch some more of it, maybe all of it if it's good, later when I'm free. In the very short time I've watched it she hasn't embarrassed herself, and conducts herself well enough; and it's a Dawkins interview after all, so naturally you enjoy listening in; except, maybe, this one, so far at least (I'm at that part where he's reading his hate-mail), is kind of ...lightweight? Somewhat surprisingly for a Dawkins talk? But I'm only at the start, I guess it will pick up further in.

Here's the link, if any of you'd like to check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h39rMawlcms

This has nothing to with the trial, of course, and as such has no relevance for this thread. Nevertheless, given that people, including me, have been piling on on to Amber in this thread, and rightly so; and given that those few who've been trying to defend her in this thread haven't done too good of a job of it, and for no fault of theirs because there's no way in hell she can justifiably be defended; so that, having found something about her that I like and approve of, I thought I'd watch it, as well as share it here, with absolutely no further subtext implied. (What I specifically liked about her in all of this, is that in the midst of all of this controversy, she had the courage [or it could be the naivety] to openly talk about her atheism, and in company of the arch-atheist. Either way that speaks well of her.)



Incidentally, right at top of the comments section you have, not unexpectedly, and kind of amusingly, people saying things like: "I would listen to Mr.Dawkins even if he was talking to a tree," and "Regardless of the luggage of the hostess, it's always a delight to hear professor Dawkins speak."
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2022, 06:36 AM   #842
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,279
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
Does anyone else here find it amazing that someone found to have committed malicious defamation by a court of law is free to continue with that defamation (on national teevee, no less)?
And putting forward the idea that defamation suits are about "silencing" people from "speaking their mind."

While simultaneously saying she didn't want the trial exposed to the public...

These are the kinds of "double bind traps" that leave me doubting her veracity.

Disclaimer: I am in no way saying Depp is a swell guy.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 18th June 2022 at 06:42 AM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2022, 11:56 AM   #843
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,613
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
At this time there's nothing nice, absolutely nothing at all, that can be said about Amber Heard. The one thing she's still going for her is that, although older than she used to be, but she's still hot; but her unconventional potty training makes her, at least in my view, exactly the opposite of attractive. So that you couldn't possibly say anything good about her now, not if you were paid to do it.

Except: You can, actually. Even if somewhat tangentially.

Came across this fairly long (1 hour +) interview of Dawkins by Amber. Apparently she's an atheist herself. I've only watched a few minutes of it so far, but I've bookmarked it, and intend to watch some more of it, maybe all of it if it's good, later when I'm free. In the very short time I've watched it she hasn't embarrassed herself, and conducts herself well enough; and it's a Dawkins interview after all, so naturally you enjoy listening in; except, maybe, this one, so far at least (I'm at that part where he's reading his hate-mail), is kind of ...lightweight? Somewhat surprisingly for a Dawkins talk? But I'm only at the start, I guess it will pick up further in.

Here's the link, if any of you'd like to check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h39rMawlcms

This has nothing to with the trial, of course, and as such has no relevance for this thread. Nevertheless, given that people, including me, have been piling on on to Amber in this thread, and rightly so; and given that those few who've been trying to defend her in this thread haven't done too good of a job of it, and for no fault of theirs because there's no way in hell she can justifiably be defended; so that, having found something about her that I like and approve of, I thought I'd watch it, as well as share it here, with absolutely no further subtext implied. (What I specifically liked about her in all of this, is that in the midst of all of this controversy, she had the courage [or it could be the naivety] to openly talk about her atheism, and in company of the arch-atheist. Either way that speaks well of her.)



Incidentally, right at top of the comments section you have, not unexpectedly, and kind of amusingly, people saying things like: "I would listen to Mr.Dawkins even if he was talking to a tree," and "Regardless of the luggage of the hostess, it's always a delight to hear professor Dawkins speak."

I take that back. Often enough I've watched full talks of Dawkins, even long ones; and often enough I've left midway, having other thngs to do; but for the first time I left a Dawkins talk in disgust. At the 20 minute mark. Thanks to the atrocious interviewing by Amber.

She's a compulsive liar, there's no doubt about that. Dawkins discusses his hate mail, and she pipes up, claiming she receives a great deal of hate mail herself, which is entirely believable, but then she claims that she gets her hate mail because she's an atheist. What utter BS. Then she tells Dawkins she's been taught Creationism in Catholic School. So Dawkins is surprised at that, saying Catholics at any rate he understood to support evolution, given that the last four or five Popes, whom he names, recognized and supported it. So then she changes her story, and says she was taught evolution in school, but elsewhere around her is where Creationism ideas were all around. And she'd keep hamming away ridiculously, and would keep interrupting Dawkins and keep on talking, so that at one point I found myself actually saying aloud, "Shut the **** up, and let him speak!"

Yes, she probably did herself no favors by identifying with atheism and with Dawkins so publicly like this, but she's one crazy lying person, and her associating with atheism at this troubled time owes less, I think, to either courage or naivety as to simply crazy. Eww, what an utterly repulsive human being --- despite the superficial surface hot-ness. Must be actual hell for anyone to be latched on to someone like that.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2022, 04:22 PM   #844
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 16,689
I think it probably is doing oneself a favor to identify with atheism nowadays. Among young educated people it is not risqué to be an atheist. People who go see standup comedy, for instance, have to be prepared for some religion bashing.

When you look at the comedians who have become talkshow hosts, I think that the majority of them are atheists, with Stephen Colbert as an exception, but even he seems to be more of a Cultural Catholic than an actual, old-fashioned one. And many of his favorite guests on The Late Show are either very outspoken atheists or at the most Cultural Christians: Neil deGrasse Tyson, Ricky Gervais, John Oliver, Jon Stewart ... With some of them, it's hard to tell. Stewart may be culturally Jewish rather than an outright atheist.

Bill Maher, Jimmy Carr, Sarah Silverman, Anthony Jeselnik, Samantha Bee, Nikki Glaser, ... atheist, agnostic, or cultural whatever, is my guess for all of the ones who aren't openly atheist.
There are the very old ones like Woody Allen and the long deceased ones like George Carlin and Lenny Bruce. (However, I can't think of any black comedians spending much (or any) time poking fun at religion, for some reason.)

Are there any actually Christian comedians at all?
I couldn't think of any, so I had to google it: 27 Top Christian Comedians You Need to Know (Updated for 2020). I never heard about a single one of them, and they are supposed to be the Top 27!!!
It's a little like Christian rock'n'roll in that respect.

Face it, it's cool to be an atheist today, at least in cool circles it is. Hipsters, if they still exist, will soon have to become Christians to feel special.

Heard may just have noticed a trend and decided to try to jump on the wagon. She is (or was) in show business. She is not running for office and trying not to offend voters in the Bible Belt. (And dressing up for court to the extent where she almost looked Amish didn't work out!)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 19th June 2022 at 04:25 PM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2022, 06:23 PM   #845
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,255
Originally Posted by dann View Post
I think it probably is doing oneself a favor to identify with atheism nowadays.
You're missing the point completely. Heard did herself a disfavor, by identifying as an atheist, to an actual atheist, when she hadn't actually thought about atheism at all and couldn't discuss the topic intelligently.

This thread isn't about atheism, it's about Amber Heard and Johnny Depp. Notably, it's about Heard trying to convince people she's a serious person with serious insights on serious topics, and failing miserably where it matters most. For example, when interviewing Richard Dawkins and trying to convince him she's a serious atheist when she isn't.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2022, 09:11 PM   #846
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 16,689
Because it was a secret to her that her interview with Dawkins was being recorded, and she never expected anybody else to see it, right?!
You are missing the point completely!
Quote:
Heard has been involved with LGBT rights, Amnesty International and the United Nations program Girl Up. Her beguiling physicality has also landed her on numerous magazine covers, including Missbehave in April 2008. In that issue, she talked about how being raised in "a strict Catholic environment" led her to know "I will never be a religious person."

In an interview, she recalled students at her Catholic middle school getting extra credit for "community service" by protesting at abortion clinics. "I remember going into the classroom during homeroom and [my classmates] were making these posters with terrifying images, and I remember saying to myself, 'I would rather be unpopular than do that to another human being.' " (net-a-porter.com, Nov. 30, 2018)

"I'd like to thank the way I was raised for giving me enough knowledge about organized religion to make the adult decision to live the rest of my life without it. I don't think you can believe or not believe in anything unless you know a lot about it. I know Christianity, especially Catholicism, like the back of my hand. And my education has given me the freedom to know that it is completely absurd for me to believe it."
—Missbehave magazine, April/May 2008
Amber Heard (Freedom from Religion Foundation)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 19th June 2022 at 09:19 PM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 07:15 AM   #847
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 772
Unexpectedly low ratings for Heard's NBC interview apparently. I wonder if a lot of people didn't watch it (at least, in its entirety) for the same reason I haven't - she goes so far over my cringe threshold, is just so embarrassing that I can't bear it. I'm not joking.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2022, 09:39 AM   #848
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,613
dann, theprestige,

Neither of you have directly quoted me, so it could be you were merely referencing the video I’d linked, and not so much my own comments; so that this clarification, in that case, would be irrelevant; but still, I’d like to clearly spell out where exactly I was coming from.

I'm not very sure when exactly this talk/interview is from, but the comments at the top date from about a year ago, and that is when Amber was already embroiled in her legal troubles. And, while it may well be that atheism is getting to be more "cool" in certain circles — which is a great thing to be happening, absolutely — but still, if you're looking for general public sympathy with the average American (as you'd probably do, if your fortunes depended on what a random jury comprising "average" Americans might think of you), well then advertising your atheism like this is then not a very canny thing to do. Either it is courageous, or else it is naive. And either of those, I thought, would speak well of Amber, the former for obvious reasons, and the latter because it shows she's not quite as calculating a liar in general as the court case clearly showed her to be in the Johnny Depp affair.

I'd still go for the naivety theory, basis my slightly longer watch of that video, basically Amber having her fangirl moment and gushing over and saying some cringe-worthy things. For instance that utterly cringe-worthy moment where she interrupts Dawkins to announce how “we who are in public life” have all of this power, but with this great power comes great responsibility, and dropping this absurd cliché with the air of thinking her way through to some profound observation. And all of this in the space of a mere 20 minutes: who knows what further depths she plumbs going forward.

None of which is necessarily a bad thing, of course, in fact if you’re so inclined you might actually see emerging a picture of her that is merely unsophisticated and somewhat gauche, as opposed to the cold calculating vamp we saw in the courtroom. Except: It is clear, like I pointed out in my previous comment, that she's clearly an inveterate liar, compulsively lying about even entirely inconsequential things (two clear instances in a short span of 20 minutes). Which lying, too, I suppose is harmless enough in this specific context, the interview I mean to say; but I’m afraid it brought to mind her conduct in the Johnny Depp affair, how she'd been conclusively shown in court to have been lying; and how her compulsive lying almost ended up destroying an innocent man's life. (Innocent only in this specific instance; I'm not suggesting Depp is any kind of paragon, and no doubt he's exactly the opposite of "innocent" in every other way. But your typical one-way aggressive SOB wife-beater and wife-abuser clearly he was not, which is what Amber tried to lie her way into painting him as.)

So that, in context of the trial, her otherwise harmless enough casual disingenuity in that interview (that short portion of it that I watched), ended up striking me as distinctly ...I don't know, repulsive?

Last edited by Chanakya; 20th June 2022 at 09:45 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2022, 06:25 AM   #849
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 16,689
My post was a comment on: "she probably did herself no favors by identifying with atheism and with Dawkins so publicly like this."

It is possible that Dawkins came prepared for the interview unlike Heard. He may already have read the quotations (see post 846) and wondered about her anecdote from Catholic school before he met her. But I also don't know when the interview was made.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2022, 07:06 AM   #850
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,613
Originally Posted by dann View Post
My post was a comment on: "she probably did herself no favors by identifying with atheism and with Dawkins so publicly like this."

It is possible that Dawkins came prepared for the interview unlike Heard. He may already have read the quotations (see post 846) and wondered about her anecdote from Catholic school before he met her. But I also don't know when the interview was made.

In that case, while I'm no longer half as impressed by that as I originally had been, but still, it's a fact that AH did not do herself any favors with that interview in purely practical terms as far as her legal issues, despite the (very welcome) uptick in the numbers of atheists you pointed out, given that theists (unfortunately) continue to far outnumber atheists, at least in the US.

As for when the interview took place, I didn't go back to the video, but a quick Google check shows that it was in October 2019. For context, JD sued AH, and I looked that up just now, in February 2019.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2022, 07:41 AM   #851
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 16,689
Theists may outnumber atheists but the question is how theistic they actually are. To what extent are they merely going through the motions because that's what you're supposed to do. I don't think that religion dies by everybody deciding to become hard-core atheists. It's much more relaxed and down-to-earth. At least, that's how it happened in my country: The Death of Religion – not with a bang but with a whimper.
And I think that this is what scares the **** out of Evangelicals.
Like you, I can do without atheists like Amber Heard (and unlike you, I'm not too fond of atheists like Dawkins).
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2022, 07:48 AM   #852
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,255
I wonder if there is any cause or movement that would count itself favored by Heard's association, right now.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2022, 09:13 AM   #853
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,613
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Theists may outnumber atheists but the question is how theistic they actually are. To what extent are they merely going through the motions because that's what you're supposed to do. I don't think that religion dies by everybody deciding to become hard-core atheists. It's much more relaxed and down-to-earth. At least, that's how it happened in my country: The Death of Religion – not with a bang but with a whimper.
And I think that this is what scares the **** out of Evangelicals.
Like you, I can do without atheists like Amber Heard (and unlike you, I'm not too fond of atheists like Dawkins).

Oh really? Why not?

(I realize Amber's atheism is itself a tangent, and our views about Dawkins an out-and-out off-topic diversion. If you like you could start a separate thread; nor do I mind starting a separate thread myself around this discussion, even if that discussion spans no more than just a handful of posts. If I find that I have anything meaningful to add to or follow up on your response, then I'll just go ahead and do that, start a separate thread, rather than responding here.)

But I'm curious: What's not to like with Dawkins and his atheism? I find his views very reasonable, and remarkably well articulated.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2022, 11:50 AM   #854
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 55,961
That Dawkins has become a publicity whore, for one thing.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2022, 12:04 PM   #855
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 63,499
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I wonder if there is any cause or movement that would count itself favored by Heard's association, right now.
There's an ophthalmological product called "artificial tears" for those with dry eyes, perhaps her agent could get her a commercial.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2022, 01:40 PM   #856
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,938
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
There's an ophthalmological product called "artificial tears" for those with dry eyes, perhaps her agent could get her a commercial.
And maybe one of those cosmetic bruise kits.

The theatrical kind, for making fake bruises, not covering them up.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2022, 12:34 AM   #857
dann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 16,689
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Oh really? Why not?

(I realize Amber's atheism is itself a tangent, and our views about Dawkins an out-and-out off-topic diversion. If you like you could start a separate thread; nor do I mind starting a separate thread myself around this discussion, even if that discussion spans no more than just a handful of posts. If I find that I have anything meaningful to add to or follow up on your response, then I'll just go ahead and do that, start a separate thread, rather than responding here.)

But I'm curious: What's not to like with Dawkins and his atheism? I find his views very reasonable, and remarkably well articulated.

Quote:
Forget labels like “right wing” & “dark web”, read a book without preconceptions about the author & judge what it actually says. For what it’s worth, I always vote left & I think Douglas Murray’s The War on the West is utterly superb. Please read it with an open mind. Please.
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/s...281664?lang=en

Read a book without preconceptions. Yes, OK. But appeals like, "Please read it with an open mind. Please.", from a guy who's supposed to be some kind of skeptic?! Why does he encourage me to please read right-wing drivel with an 'open mind'?
Dawkins is not the only atheist nowadays who seems to focus almost exclusively on the bad kind of religion, the one that isn't our kind of religion. Besides, he always tended towards Social Darwinism. I'm with Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould on that one.
So Dawkins has discovered that there is no god. Of course, there isn't. It's common knowledge in the civilized world. That don't impress me. Neither does the atheism of Amber Heard.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2022, 03:53 AM   #858
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 12,456
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post

But I'm curious: What's not to like with Dawkins and his atheism? I find his views very reasonable, and remarkably well articulated.
Never trust anyone who tells you that they don't need evidence for their position, but you need evidence if you want to disagree with them.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2022, 06:36 AM   #859
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,613
dann, dudalb, lomiller, and anyone else who might like to weigh in on Dawkins, as far as his views on athiesm and how he articulates them in public:

Here's the link to a new thread I've started just now (where in the OP I've taken the liberty of quoting your posts): http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post13838881
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2022, 06:41 AM   #860
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,613
Whoops, should have gone in that other thread. That was the whole point of that thread after all. Deleted from here, and copied there instead.

Last edited by Chanakya; 22nd June 2022 at 06:43 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2022, 10:36 AM   #861
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 772
Richard Dawkins? Meh. Why do people find him so compelling? He's a 'biologist' and as far as I'm concerned that doesn't make him a 'scientist' or someone qualified to hold forth on what 'science', philosophically speaking, actually means.

What, exactly, has he contributed materially or in any other way?

For transparency, I believe (sic) that the oxymoronically-named "theoretical physics" and its sister "astrophysics" are horseh!t, mathematical mind-games played by philosophical pygmies riding on the shoulders of the engineering geniuses (the real physicists) who design and build the toys they play with (and from which they carve out lucrative careers).
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2022, 10:45 AM   #862
IsThisTheLife
Muse
 
IsThisTheLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 772
Why, apart from getting to bask in the admiration (or so he presumed) of a hot woman, do you think Dawkins agreed to sit down with Amber Heard?

I think I answered that question in posing it.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2022, 06:07 PM   #863
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,938
So Heard did an interview with NBC. One of her answers is kind of problematic, since it basically suggested a possible inadvertent admission that she wasn't an abuse victim. Not a big surprise, we know Heard's a liar regarding abuse. The real news about the interview, though, is that NBC edited the interview to change what she said and remove that part. And it's not just truncated or omitted, they edited out part of the middle of a sentence.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


It looks very much like NBC is trying to cover for Heard.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2022, 07:56 AM   #864
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,279
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
Why, apart from getting to bask in the admiration (or so he presumed) of a hot woman, do you think Dawkins agreed to sit down with Amber Heard?

I think I answered that question in posing it.
To publish a show.

Possibly there are contractual obligations to fill x hours of content in y period of time with z audience/subscriber levels.

In any case, to continue generating revenue from doing so. This often involves having on guests that the public are interested in hearing from.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2022, 09:13 PM   #865
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 27,252
More drama. It appears that someone who wasn't supposed to be on the jury may have snuck on:

Johnny Depp Verdict Thrown Into Chaos As Wrong Juror Seated In Virginia Trial, Amber Heard Says; Wants New Trial

Quote:
According to the redacted filing, the summons for jury duty was sent out to a Virginia resident in April for the much-delayed $15 million defamation action Depp had set off in March 2019 against Heard for a 2018 Washington Post op-ed she penned on being the “public face” of domestic abuse. However, also according to today’s filing, it seems that there are two individuals residing at the same address with, at the very least, “the same last name” — one a 77-year-old and another a 52-year-old.

The former was the one summoned, but it looks like the latter was the one who showed up. “Thus, the 52-year-old [redacted] sitting on the jury for six weeks was never summoned for jury duty on April 11 and did not ‘appear in the list,’ as required,” Friday’s damning filing asserts.

Not noticed by officers or clerks of the court, the younger individual made it all the way to the jury without apparently ever being asked to produce any ID, or with perhaps fake ID, the filing implies. Additionally, it looks like someone filled out the required online information form either intentionally or accidentally to say that they were born in 1945.
So I'm speculating here, but if it were a father and son who share the same name, which is not uncommon, surely the son must have known that the summons was addressed to his father, not himself. And if he filled out the form knowingly using his father's birthday instead of his own, or used his late father's ID instead of his own, that sounds like a no-no to me. Obviously not Depp's fault. Something he has no control over. But the juror ought to be punished if that's what happened.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2022, 09:41 PM   #866
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,632
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
.....
Obviously not Depp's fault. Something he has no control over. But the juror ought to be punished if that's what happened.
Not Depp's fault. But if the guy lied to get onto the jury, it raises doubts about his objectivity. Most people try hard to evade jury duty; scheming to get on is downright weird. I think a mistrial is in order.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2022, 09:56 PM   #867
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 27,252
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Not Depp's fault. But if the guy lied to get onto the jury, it raises doubts about his objectivity. Most people try hard to evade jury duty; scheming to get on is downright weird. I think a mistrial is in order.
Possibly. I think when celebrities are involved, the calculus changes for some people. It is no longer just an unpleasant duty to fulfil, but an opportunity to be involved in something notable. Anyway, I'm not totally shocked by this. I can understand that for at least some people, they would have loved to be selected to be on that jury.

And yeah, I agree that it raises a question about their objectivity. Whether it merits a mistrial or not is a separate question, which I don't know the answer to.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2022, 04:46 AM   #868
Shadowdweller
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,254
Unlikely to be significant. One of a seven-person panel (aka jury) who voted unanimously for the verdict; Heard's legal team had the opportunity to challenge the juror during voire dire and did not. Furthermore:

Originally Posted by Virginia Code 8.01-353
Upon request, the clerk or sheriff or other officer responsible for notifying jurors to appear in court for the trial of a case shall make available to all counsel of record in that case, a copy of the jury panel to be used for the trial of the case at least three full business days before the trial. Such copy of the jury panel shall show the name, age, address, occupation and employer of each person on the panel. Any error in the information shown on such copy of the jury panel shall not be grounds for a mistrial or assignable as error on appeal, and the parties in the case shall be responsible for verifying the accuracy of such information.
Meaning that it was Heard and her team's responsibility to verify that the given information was correct. Won't stop Heard from whining endlessly and/or lying shamelessly about how unfair the verdict was to any media outlet willing to give her air time or print space.

Joy
__________________
Might I posit that individuals who regularly endorse murderers or child rapists might not actually be interested in good faith discussions? Far be it for me to judge another's non-harmful past time; but I personally find more enjoyment and productivity in activities that do not involve feeding bridge-dwellers, flogging dead equines, or trying to debate stones.

Last edited by Shadowdweller; 9th July 2022 at 04:57 AM.
Shadowdweller is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2022, 06:36 AM   #869
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 27,252
Well, that seems pretty cut and dry then. "Any error in the information shown on such copy of the jury panel shall not be grounds for a mistrial or assignable as error on appeal." So the verdict stands.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2022, 08:14 AM   #870
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,632
Originally Posted by Shadowdweller View Post
.....
Meaning that it was Heard and her team's responsibility to verify that the given information was correct. Won't stop Heard from whining endlessly and/or lying shamelessly about how unfair the verdict was to any media outlet willing to give her air time or print space.
....

I don't think it's that clear. Both sides get to question jurors about their employment, education, potential prejudices, etc. But this person was never called to be a juror. I don't think either side is expected to say "Is your name really John Smith? Did you really receive a summons to jury duty?"

The next section of the code says this:
Quote:
At the time of assembly for the purpose of juror selection, the identity of each member of the jury venire shall be verified as provided in this section.
Getting the right person in the box -- and keeping out the wrong ones -- is the responsibility of the state.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2022, 07:15 PM   #871
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 27,252
Interesting. Here is the relevant section:

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/...ion8.01-353.1/

Quote:
§ 8.01-353.1. Jurors to provide identification.

At the time of assembly for the purpose of juror selection, the identity of each member of the jury venire shall be verified as provided in this section. Prior to being selected from the jury venire, a potential juror shall verify his identity by presenting to the person taking jury attendance any of the following forms of identification: his Commonwealth of Virginia voter registration card; his social security card; his valid Virginia driver's license or any other identification card issued by a government agency of the Commonwealth, one of its political subdivisions, or the United States; or any valid employee identification card containing a photograph of the juror and issued by an employer of the juror in the ordinary course of the employer's business. If the juror is unable to present one of these forms of identification, he shall sign a statement affirming, under penalty of perjury, that he is the named juror.
So either the juror presented one of those forms of identification (a social security card does not include a photograph) or he signed a statement affirming, under penalty of perjury, that he is the named juror. If the juror was not, in fact, the named juror but presented himself as such, either by presenting a fake ID, or a real ID that didn't belong to him, or by affirming that fact, he committed a crime. But whether this would be grounds for a mistrial, I don't know. I have no dog in this fight, and I don't care, but I do think that a person who knowingly pretends to be someone else to get onto a jury should be punished to deter such behavior. If they want to throw the whole thing out and start over, I don't care. Maybe they will reach a settlement instead.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2022, 06:19 PM   #872
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,403
There's also the possibility that this was a scrivener's error and that the juror was the person summoned but the details were copied wrong on the document.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2022, 01:08 PM   #873
Shadowdweller
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,254
As I was saying...

Originally Posted by Judge Penny Azcarate
Defendant has neither followed the proper procedure nor shown evidence of prejudice...This court is bound by the competent decision of the jury.
Originally Posted by https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2022/07/13/amber-heard-johnny-depp-judge-rules-against-verdict-new-trial/10049451002/
The judge said that under Virginia court rules, Heard's legal team should have raised the issue at the time the jury was picked, and she presented no evidence that Juror 15's inclusion on the panel "prejudiced" Heard in any way.

"Juror Fifteen was vetted by the Court on the record and met the statutory requirements for service. The parties also questioned the jury panel for a full day and informed the Court that the jury panel was acceptable. Therefore, Due Process was guaranteed and provided to all parties in this litigation," the judge's order said. "There is no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing"
Motions denied.
__________________
Might I posit that individuals who regularly endorse murderers or child rapists might not actually be interested in good faith discussions? Far be it for me to judge another's non-harmful past time; but I personally find more enjoyment and productivity in activities that do not involve feeding bridge-dwellers, flogging dead equines, or trying to debate stones.

Last edited by Shadowdweller; 13th July 2022 at 01:12 PM.
Shadowdweller is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2022, 03:10 PM   #874
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 18,157
Does the Heard side really think a re-trial would have a better outcome?
__________________
‘Trust in Allah but tie up your camel.’
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2022, 04:30 PM   #875
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 27,252
What do they have to lose?

They could try to not repeat all of the unforced errors they made in the first trial.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2022, 07:12 PM   #876
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,632
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Does the Heard side really think a re-trial would have a better outcome?
They made a terrible mistake when they allowed Heard to testify and focused on Depp's (alleged) misconduct. The defense should have been solely about whether the three sentences in one column were known to be false and published with malice. Some people think Depp didn't sue the Post because it would have mounted an effective free speech/freedom of the press defense.

At a do-over, I suspect different lawyers would adopt a different strategy.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2022, 10:09 PM   #877
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,845
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
At a do-over, I suspect different lawyers would adopt a different strategy.
It does not look like there is going to be a do-over in the near future...

https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/202...ejected-in-us/
"A US judge has denied Amber Heard's appeal for a new trial in her multimillion-dollar defamation case with Johnny Depp, which she had sought on the basis of "improper juror service".

Penney Azcarate, who presided over the high-profile case, dismissed claims that an individual juror had not been properly vetted and said the court remained bound by the jury's "competent decision"
.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2022, 01:14 AM   #878
Shadowdweller
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,254
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
They made a terrible mistake when they allowed Heard to testify and focused on Depp's (alleged) misconduct. The defense should have been solely about whether the three sentences in one column were known to be false and published with malice.
That was not and never would have been an option. Leaving aside the extremely questionable notion of letting Depp's team set the narrative regarding the allegations of abuse, Heard was countersuing over Andrew Waldeman's statements that Heard's allegations of abuse were a hoax. Since the burden of proof is on the litigant and a statement needs to be false to be defamatory, it was legally necessary to attempt to substantiate Depp's alleged misconduct.

Heard, of course, should definitely have been kept off the stand given her inability to keep from lying, come across as sincere, and/or avoid referencing personally damning information that would not otherwise have been admissible.
__________________
Might I posit that individuals who regularly endorse murderers or child rapists might not actually be interested in good faith discussions? Far be it for me to judge another's non-harmful past time; but I personally find more enjoyment and productivity in activities that do not involve feeding bridge-dwellers, flogging dead equines, or trying to debate stones.

Last edited by Shadowdweller; 14th July 2022 at 01:25 AM.
Shadowdweller is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2022, 05:26 AM   #879
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 18,157
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
What do they have to lose?

They could try to not repeat all of the unforced errors they made in the first trial.
While it's a moot point now, couldn't a new trial award Depp a larger settlement?
__________________
‘Trust in Allah but tie up your camel.’
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2022, 06:50 AM   #880
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 27,252
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
While it's a moot point now, couldn't a new trial award Depp a larger settlement?
Potentially I suppose, but I suspect that the current verdict is more than she has the ability to pay in any case. I could be wrong about that.

I expect that if she cannot reach a settlement with him for a smaller amount that she will declare bankruptcy.

Of course I'm speculating here, but for example, I think the amount she owes assuming the judgement stands is $8.35 million. If she only has, well anything less than $8.35 million, she will not be able to pay the full amount.

I tried Googling for information on her net worth, and I don't think anyone really knows, but one site estimated it at $2.5 million before this verdict. If that is true, then really, what would it even mean if he were to be awarded an even larger verdict in another trial? He can't take more than everything she has, and bankruptcy law will allow her to shield some of her assets from the judgement.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:37 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.