|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 01/18/2007 : 06:58:30 [Permalink]
|
Marf wrote:quote:
Never attribute to maliciousness what can be attributed to incompetence.
My corollary: "Unless you already know the source is more malicious than incompetent."
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 01/18/2007 07:03:32 |
 |
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 10:27:13 [Permalink]
|
My take on the article is that its mostly complaining that the athiests are being more vocal and that people are listening. I agree with marfknox in that much of what they say is true. Athiests are being more vocal: more lectures, more books, trying to change people's minds. Recent political and cultural changes have motivated more reality-based folk to get involved in public discourse. And it seems they are having some small success (although I wonder really how much). Most of the quotes simply attest to the fact that athiests are more motivated than ever before. These changes are a legitimate threat to most AiG readers.
However, they are misleading (I suspect deliberately) when they say:
1. atheists want to restrict their liberties
2. atheists are targeting their children. Rather, its anyone who can read and listen.
3. evolution is the root of atheism.
4. use extreme examples as examples of the "norm".
5. attribute quotes to atheists that they did not make, but were rather made about them. However, I'm not sure the atheists would disagree too much with the quotes.
Dawkins wants to change minds? You bet.
Religion causes more problems as a whole than rapists? Yup.
Teaching religion is akin to child abuse? Well, this is one of those extreme examples. It is not the position of most atheists (I think), but Dawkins does think exactly that.
The "gist", I think, is not too far off. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 17:36:01 [Permalink]
|
Half added: "Unless you already know the source is more malicious than incompetent."[/quote]
Not sure if you meant this seriously about AIG or more tongue in cheek, but I definitely think most creationists are more incompetent than malicious. In fact, I think their maliciousness stems from their vast incompetence. Most of them, just like most people in general, mean well. But maybe you take a darker view of humanity. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/18/2007 17:36:29 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 17:58:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
OK, I just read the whole article, and as much as I hate fundamentalist Christianity and homophobia, I don't see how this article puts words in Dawkin's mouth or even how it mischaracterizes the "New Atheists" (that term as far as I know originally comes from a recent issue of Wired Magazine, although I have also heard it on NPR commentary.) Atheism and proponents of evolution are more aggressive today than ever. Dawkins and Harris are most certainly attacking religious faith itself. Harris has described himself as evangelical. Dawkins has denounced religious schooling as "child abuse". You may not like the way they are presented in this article, and you may have a beef with certain phrasing, but it isn't exactly "nonesense".
I think that they are projecting. They come to our kids and try to evangelize them into being a this or that. If we speak at their multipurpose certers and support humanism and atheism, they cry foul. That is what I criticize in the article.
quote:
I would argue that saying atheists want to take away religious "liberties" might be taking things too far, since the "New Atheists" don't want to make religion illegal or subject to institutional discrimination. However, they do want it to be completely socially shunned, which in practice often leads to institutionalized discrimination, and even when it doesn't, it is often as painful and harmful as institutionalized discrimination. So it is sensible for religious people to be offended and frightened by Dawkins and Harris and to speak out against them.
Offended? So!! Frightened? They should be. There houses are of straw and anyone living in them should definitely fear the wind. I don't get in a tisy over Dawkins or Harris describing their work as evangelical. That is their mission. I don't complain about a church being in my neighborhood to the city council. They are free to teach whatever they want in that building and build fellowship and have fund raiser and... sex orgies actually. It don't bother me and likewise they should not be bothered if an atheist organization moved in, even if it was next door.
quote:
I sort of took issue with the word "God-hater", since atheists don't believe in God, but it is clear that Harris hates religion. The rape-religion analogy was true, here's a reference: http://www.thesunmagazine.org/369_Harris.pdf
I don't know about raping religion. The article (OP) can be summed as follows though: "The atheist are out to educate your children in evolution, science, and reasoning skills. They want you to base your beliefs in facts and data instead of blindly trusting the bible, and god (who is written about in the bible, so nyah)!"
All of that is true of the "New Atheist". The problem is that its a fire alarm with no fire. It is a blantent double standard and requires mountains of special pleading in order to even pass mustard as something other than a pot calling the kettle black. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 17:58:14 [Permalink]
|
Cune wrote: quote:
For instance, I did a New York Times search for Dawkins and things like "good news" and "evangelical" with no valid hits.
As far as I can tell, the AIG article did not quote something specifically from the Times which used those terms. Just because Dawkins and Harris didn't say it in a Times article doesn't mean they didn't say it. Did you do a search for "rape" with "Harris" in the Times also? He did make that statement of comparison, but not in a Times article.
Again, the AIG article is totally incompentent in that it puts tons of fragments in quotes but doesn't cite where they come from. That is misleading to stupid people, but I'm not convinced that the author is clever enough to have intended that. The article is clearly an opinion column; of course it is going to be slanted. Of course it is going to be written in a blatantly non-objective way for the purpose of bringing readers over to the author's way of thinking. If people reading it can't understand that much, they deserve to be snowed. Ham genuinely believes evolution is on the same level as Christianity. That's not deception, that's opinion.
While Christianity and atheism aren't on the same level if we judge them by which is most rational, they are on the same level when we are weighing them politically in a society which holds up freedom of religion.
quote:
Terms like "good news" and "evangelical" are associated with Christianity and religion.
I am almost sure I have heard either Dawkins and Harris use the term "evangelical" in an interview to refer to their type of atheism, but I can't find a reference. However, I don't see how the term is inaccurate when both guys are going to such great lengths to spread their particular worldview. If it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, and this quacks like proselytizing. I can also at least point out that I have heard the term "evangelical" applied to atheism on many occasions, said by liberals and atheists. It is not merely a conservative invention: http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/01/gorenfeld_inter.html |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/18/2007 18:00:15 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 18:05:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Half added: "Unless you already know the source is more malicious than incompetent."
Not sure if you meant this seriously about AIG or more tongue in cheek, but I definitely think most creationists are more incompetent than malicious. In fact, I think their maliciousness stems from their vast incompetence. Most of them, just like most people in general, mean well. But maybe you take a darker view of humanity.
No, its not cynicism, its a reality check. "People are mostly good most of the time." I quote it nearly daily, but let us not forget that most of the time we are not trapt with them on a mountain side with limited food. People will do what helps them survive. "The closer to death and hopelessness, the closer to cannabalism" (quoted be me less than once per day, but often enough still  ). Its true, as in all things, there are gradiations and people fall all along the gaussian curve, but at some point an animal just has to survive. Religion, for many, is a life blood and will bring out the same tenacity in maintaining it. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 01/18/2007 18:16:00 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 18:16:55 [Permalink]
|
Starman wrote: quote:
Read Dawkins! Not what others claim that he says or writes.
Excuse me? Dawkins was one of my biggest heroes in the freethought communities until I watched his film for television "The Root of all Evil?", which stars him and is based on his book "The God Delusion". So please do not assume and accuse me of basing my criticism on what others have said about him. In that film I watched Dawkins back-stab am extemely progressive Bishop who had been his political ally against Creationism in schools in the UK, and Dawkins wouldn't even let the Bishop say his peace. Instead the clergy's voice was cut off and Dawkins's voice was overdubbed, summarizing what the clergy said (I guess - who knows since I couldn't hear it!) in a highly belittling manner.
In that film Dawkins visited a religious school for Jewish children. Soon after he went on a tirade in the film about how merely labeling a child with the religion of their parents should become highly taboo and considered "child abuse".
quote:
Dawkins has denounced some aspects of religious schooling as "child abuse". He does write and say which aspects and why, you know.
I have not read his book so I do not know what specific aspects of religious schooling he considers to be "child abuse", nor do I know truly what he means by "child abuse". Does he mean that the authorities should intervene? Since you seem to have read his latest book, perhaps you could enlighten us?
quote:
marf:However, they do want it to be completely socially shunned, which in practice often leads to institutionalized discrimination, and even when it doesn't, it is often as painful and harmful as institutionalized discrimination. So it is sensible for religious people to be offended and frightened by Dawkins and Harris and to speak out against them.
StarmanIt is sensible for the insensible to fear sense.
Why don't you try reading what I wrote again. It isn't "sense" that they fear. It is discrimination. They don't want to be socially shunned or institutionally discriminated against just because they have mystical beliefs. I don't want that to happen to them either, and I would turn on my fellow atheists and fight tooth and nail for the right of religious people to believe as they want freely and without discrimination. In "The End of Faith", Harris writes that there may come a time when we have to kill people for their beliefs. Not their actions, but their beliefs! Reading that doesn't make believers afraid of sense, it makes them afraid of self-righteous atheism, just as we atheists and other religious minorities have often feared self-righteous Christians and Muslims. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 18:21:59 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis wrote: quote:
Religion, for many, is a life blood and will bring out the same tenacity in maintaining it.
How is religion in this sense different from any other ideal? I have known plenty of atheists who said they would die for their atheism. One person in my local community shocked most of the rest of us by saying that she was an atheist before she was a human being and that it was the single most important aspect of her being. She's a hell of a lot more devoted to her atheism than the average Christian is devoted to their Christianity. Certain types of people do get addicted to certain ideals, be they religious, political, aesthetic, whatever. It's called fanaticism, not religion. Plenty of religious believers are pretty damn ho-hum about their religion and could easily leave it under a little social pressure. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 18:28:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Again, the AIG article is totally incompentent in that it puts tons of fragments in quotes but doesn't cite where they come from. That is misleading to stupid people, but I'm not convinced that the author is clever enough to have intended that. The article is clearly an opinion column; of course it is going to be slanted. Of course it is going to be written in a blatantly non-objective way for the purpose of bringing readers over to the author's way of thinking. If people reading it can't understand that much, they deserve to be snowed. Ham genuinely believes evolution is on the same level as Christianity. That's not deception, that's opinion.
I am glad you are so optomistic about human intent, but I give people a little more less credit each time they are corrected and then continue to post the same misleading information. Ham is no spring chicken.
quote:
While Christianity and atheism aren't on the same level if we judge them by which is most rational, they are on the same level when we are weighing them politically in a society which holds up freedom of religion.
Even then they are not on the same level People should have religious freedom (as in freedom of worship) but certainly are not guaranteed free practice due to religion (cutting off chicken heads as part of the festival or setting fire to live animals etc.). Also, laws should not be based on the presence of a religion or its edicts. Religion should have no impact on the government, but should be guaranteed by the government. In that order, government on top religion on bottom.
quote:
quote:
Terms like "good news" and "evangelical" are associated with Christianity and religion.
I am almost sure I have heard either Dawkins and Harris use the term "evangelical" in an interview to refer to their type of atheism, but I can't find a reference. However, I don't see how the term is inaccurate when both guys are going to such great lengths to spread their particular worldview. If it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, and this quacks like proselytizing.
And its wrong because... Ducks should only be allowed to quack? It is a double standard. It is projection and compartmentalizing.
quote:
I can also at least point out that I have heard the term "evangelical" applied to atheism on many occasions, said by liberals and atheists. It is not merely a conservative invention: http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/01/gorenfeld_inter.html
Good.  All voices should be heard.
Edited for formatting and to change word more to less. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 01/19/2007 17:15:57 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 18:33:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Neurosis wrote: quote:
Religion, for many, is a life blood and will bring out the same tenacity in maintaining it.
How is religion in this sense different from any other ideal? I have known plenty of atheists who said they would die for their atheism. One person in my local community shocked most of the rest of us by saying that she was an atheist before she was a human being and that it was the single most important aspect of her being. She's a hell of a lot more devoted to her atheism than the average Christian is devoted to their Christianity. Certain types of people do get addicted to certain ideals, be they religious, political, aesthetic, whatever. It's called fanaticism, not religion. Plenty of religious believers are pretty damn ho-hum about their religion and could easily leave it under a little social pressure.
What's your point? Mine was that people will take drastic action for the things they need to preserve. Its not a Christian, Atheist, Jewish, Speghetti Monster worshiper, whatever thing. It is a matter of lying and contorting to preserve an ideal, or breaking character and being 'basically evil' instead of 'basically good' when it comes to furthering those ideals. The demarcation line between right and wrong sway with the motivation, god can command evil to perserve good, and so can people. In both cases, wobble begets exploitation. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 18:44:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I have not read his book so I do not know what specific aspects of religious schooling he considers to be "child abuse", nor do I know truly what he means by "child abuse". Does he mean that the authorities should intervene? Since you seem to have read his latest book, perhaps you could enlighten us?
Why not read what Dawkins himself has to say on that point:
quote:
My entire campaign against the labelling of children by the religion of their parents has been a campaign of CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING. I want to educate people so that they flinch when they hear a phrase like ‘Catholic child' or ‘Muslim child' – just as feminists have taught us to wince when we hear ‘one man one vote'. But that is consciousness-raising, not legislation. No feminist that I would wish to know ever suggested a legal ban on masculine pronouns. And of course I don't want to make it illegal to use religious labels for children. I want to raise consciousness, so that the phrase ‘Christian child' sounds like a fingernail scraping on a blackboard. But if I dislike the use of religious words to label children, I dislike even more the idea that governments should police the words that anybody uses about anything. I don't want a legal ban on the use of words like nigger and yid. I want people to feel ashamed of using them. Similarly, I want people to feel ashamed of using the phrase ‘Christian child', but I don't want to make it illegal to use it.
Taken from an email exchange posted at The Panda's Thumb.
So the rhetoric is meant to incite discussion, not involve the authorities.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/18/2007 18:45:51 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 18:52:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Half added: quote:
"Unless you already know the source is more malicious than incompetent."
Not sure if you meant this seriously about AIG or more tongue in cheek, but I definitely think most creationists are more incompetent than malicious. In fact, I think their maliciousness stems from their vast incompetence. Most of them, just like most people in general, mean well. But maybe you take a darker view of humanity.
I was writing very specifically about Ron Ham. My impression of him is that he's competent and energetic in pursuit of his goals. What you may see as incompetence, I see as dishonesty, "lying for God" (and for his own ego and aggrandizement). I would agree that most Creationists are less competent than Ham, thought often just as energetic. Whether this incompetence includes Ham or not, we may legitimately disagree.
I take a very dark view of Ham. But, as with the Washington Times (when you criticised my default attitude toward it, and I was proven right to have had that attitude), I have learned to expect dishonesty as the default position of a very limited number of well-known liars, espeially Ham and the WT. I do not appreciate your habitual unfounded generalizations, such as the suggestion that I take a dark view of the world in general. You really need to work on your tendency to jump to unevidenced conclusions, especially when these expressed conclusions are insulting.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2007 : 18:59:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Why don't you try reading what I wrote again. It isn't "sense" that they fear. It is discrimination. They don't want to be socially shunned or institutionally discriminated against just because they have mystical beliefs. I don't want that to happen to them either, and I would turn on my fellow atheists and fight tooth and nail for the right of religious people to believe as they want freely and without discrimination. In "The End of Faith", Harris writes that there may come a time when we have to kill people for their beliefs. Not their actions, but their beliefs! Reading that doesn't make believers afraid of sense, it makes them afraid of self-righteous atheism, just as we atheists and other religious minorities have often feared self-righteous Christians and Muslims.
I have not read End of Faith, but I do have it ordered. I know alot about Harris' views through documentary interviews, speeches, and articles, though. Harris, like everyone else, goes a bit past the median view on alot of things. The main points he presents are well founded though. It is a danger for people to hold unchallengable beliefs, some more than others. It is interesting that you criticize Harris for saying "there may come a time when we have to kill people for their beliefs." I don't know the context, but such things are already happening already within inter-religion violence. Adding atheist violence would be a terrible shame, but I doubt that it will ever occur so long as rationality is a forte of atheist. It is my personal conviction that a person should not believe what they cannot back up, interestingly the bible agrees with me in Philippians (reference I will provide later it escapes me).
Why is it that religion, and magickal thinking, deserves recognition as sound or ok to have? Why is it not any more open to ridicule than, belief in reiki or telepathy? Should we be forced to smile and nod at someone claiming magick powers, as simply incorrigible, quacky, or eccentric? If someone wants to present their views in book form (note I don't go around trying to ban David Icke's speil, but I will advocate putting it in the fiction section of B&N) why should they be persecuted for it? They make no claim that it is anything more than an opinion backed with the reason presented in the book. It is the religious that claim truth in what they say without such rationale.
Edited to add: After doing some reading (all of Philipians) I realized the verse I was trying to cite was not in there, it is fact in 1 Peter 3:15
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" KJV
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 01/19/2007 03:12:42 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2007 : 02:04:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Starman wrote: quote:
Read Dawkins! Not what others claim that he says or writes.
Excuse me? Dawkins was one of my biggest heroes in the freethought communities until I watched his film for television "The Root of all Evil?", which stars him and is based on his book "The God Delusion". So please do not assume and accuse me of basing my criticism on what others have said about him.
Well as you admitted to it later in the post, I wasn't wrong was I?
I didn't like "The Root of all Evil?" either, Dawkins is a bad journalist, but that does not make his arguments in the book "The God Delusion" bad or wrong.
Btw, "The Root of all Evil" preceded "The God Delusion".quote:
I have not read his book so I do not know what specific aspects of religious schooling he considers to be "child abuse", nor do I know truly what he means by "child abuse". Does he mean that the authorities should intervene? Since you seem to have read his latest book, perhaps you could enlighten us?
So you want yet another secondary reference? Why not go straight to the source? You don't have to buy the book to learn what he thinks, as there are plenty of articles, posts, audio clips and video clips by Dawkins explaining his views available. For instance see H. Humberts post!quote:
Why don't you try reading what I wrote again. It isn't "sense" that they fear. It is discrimination. They don't want to be socially shunned or institutionally discriminated against just because they have mystical beliefs. I don't want that to happen to them either, and I would turn on my fellow atheists and fight tooth and nail for the right of religious people to believe as they want freely and without discrimination.
Yea, and pretty soon you will be put in jail for saying "Merry Christmas".
Its called a "Slippery Slope fallacy". quote:
In "The End of Faith", Harris writes that there may come a time when we have to kill people for their beliefs. Not their actions, but their beliefs!
I have not read "The End of Faith", but unfortunately I can easily imagine having to use violence against believers. Before the believers acts according to their beliefs.
"The God Delusion" is in my opinion an average book. For an atheist there is not much new here. The intresting thing about it is how poor the quality of the critizism against it is. This critizism is almost always one of the following:
- Fundie objections
- Did not bother to read his actual views, objecting to his opponents versions of them.
- The "Dawkins don't know enough theology, I do" objection ("How many learned books of fairyology and hobgoblinology have you read?")
- The "Dawkins don't know enough philosophy, I do" objection
- Dawkins is making believers feel bad about science
I have yet to see a decent argument against any of the major points of the book.
( Yes I know there is a lot of subjectivity in that sentence.)
Edit: typo |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
| Edited by - Starman on 01/19/2007 04:07:09 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2007 : 14:14:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
I have not read "The End of Faith", but unfortunately I can easily imagine having to use violence against believers. Before the believers acts according to their beliefs.
I don't know about that. I mean I can see calling religious actions legal, despite, being religious. But I cannot see taking action against people who believe that a dangerous act is ok to perform just to prevent them from carrying it out, unless they have expressed a plan to take that action.
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 01/19/2007 14:16:21 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
