Archive for December, 2009

The Psychology of Plagiarism

theowarner
theowarner
Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:30 pm by theowarner

When I was at university, a friend of mine was taking a course which I had taken the semester before – the Bible as Literature or Ancient Judaism, I can’t exactly remember  – and, because he tended to be lazy, he one day told me that he hadn’t started writing a paper that was due the next day and, consequently, would almost certainly fail the class. He showed me the assignment, a page long description of some obscure theory of interpretation which he was supposed to apply to some obscure primary text and the technical requirements for the paper itself, and I realized that the assignment was unchanged from the previous semester and that, somewhere in my files, I had a paper that would meet his assignment’s exact demands. I cannot recall if initially it was his idea or mine – nor do I suppose that it matters since ultimately my decisions and their consequences are my own – but, before long, I had committed to rewriting the paper (and perhaps getting a better grade) and allowing my friend to submit it as his own – I had decided to cheat.

The episode remains among the few knowingly wrong actions I have taken, wrong in my eyes then and now, distinguishing itself from those actions I later realized to be wrong or those actions that are only wrong in the eyes of others. And so, I return, as F. Scott Fitzgerald put it, “boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past,” into that moment, in which, despite being able to recall with unreal vividness the scents in the dormitory air, the temperature of the room, the texture of my desk, and the sounds of my keyboard, I can only say that I do not know why. Our wrong and unequalizable commerce concluded karmically; the paper received an A and was submitted by the professor for a departmental award and won and my friend was appointed a student fellow and I was left to adjust to a life lived with a humble measure of unsoftenable contrition.

(more…)

…and do you have to call his name while we’re doing it?

rabbitpirate
rabbitpirate
Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:45 pm by rabbitpirate

I have to say that this one made me smile. A billboard with the aim of “challenging stereotypes” with regards to the Biblical story of Jesus’ divine conception was put up in Auckland, New Zealand and was promptly defaced with brown paint. Ok so that’s not exactly unexpected news. However the fun part of this story is that the billboard was put up by St Matthew-in-the-City church rather than a group of unwashed, hairy, furious, heathen atheists scum. And on top of that it is actually funny.

Mary and Joseph billboard from St Matthew-in-the-City church in Auckland

But, surprise surprise, it appears that the Catholic Church can’t see the funny side and have condemned the billboard as “inappropriate” and “disrespectful“. Ok, so I kinda get that but I have to say that the main complaint they are making really doesn’t make any sense to me. Lyndsay Freer, spokeswoman for the Catholic Diocese of Auckland, made this rather confusing comment:

“Our Christian tradition of 2,000 years is that Mary remains a virgin and that Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph,”

I…well I don’t really know what to say to that other than that Ms Freer obviously doesn’t get it. The billboard is clearly implying that Joseph is getting himself some immaculate ass after God had already been there and as such in no way suggests that Joseph was the father of Jesus and not the big guy. Also this idea that “Mary remains a virgin” confuses me. The Bible clearly states that Jesus had siblings and yet the Catholic Church seem to have this weird idea that Mary somehow remained a virgin for these pregnancies as well, or am I missing something here?

Either way this is yet another example of good Christians and their aversion to free speech. Nothing too shocking or original there, it just made me smile.

Balls To The Wall Against Faith Schools

Th1sWasATriumph
Th1sWasATriumph
Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:27 am by Th1sWasATriumph

Ed Balls, who just has a funny goddamn name, could be striking sparks of new hope from the tarnished steel of faith schools.

Balls.

BALLS.

His name is BALLS.

Anyway.

Take a minute to read this recent article. Essentially, the gist is this: A Jewish faith school in the London borough of Brent – which, for any potential murderers, is where I live – got owned in the Torahbox. It was ruled by the Supreme Court that JFS, which selects Orthodox Jews, broke the race relations act by refusing to admit a 12 year old boy – deeming him not properly Jewish, or at least not properly Orthodox Jewish, in the eyes of the Chief Rabbi.

(more…)

If Science Is A Conspiracy, Why Does This Computer Work? And Other Stories

Th1sWasATriumph
Th1sWasATriumph
Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:38 am by Th1sWasATriumph

Believers.

Why can’t I just leave them alone, eh? Why can’t I keep my mouth shut?

Ok . . . because some of them think I’m going to hell, think I have no morals, and think my life is meaningless until I open my heart/wallet to Jesus/Allah. I find that fundamentally impolite. It’s hard to say who casts the first stone in these cases, but since I tend not to take issue with the fuzzy sort of believers – y’know, the nice ones who believe in love and redemption rather than bigotry and scientific wank – I only ever attack someone as a result of something they’ve said.

Then the issue was raised of “who’s to say who is right? Creationists take things on faith, atheists take things on scientific proof. Who’s right?”

It’s generally about this point that my brains start to drop out of my ears. Science is right. It has even been suggested to me that, since I haven’t analysed the data myself, scientists are feeding everyone bullshit.

Two words. Peer review.

(more…)

The Equation of Creation. Really?

AndromedasWake
AndromedasWake
Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:42 pm by AndromedasWake

creation_equationDavid Cumming, CEO of Intelligent Earth and self-proclaimed “scientist” does not know what numerology is. Or perhaps he does, but is unable to identify it. To the lay person, it’s the occult-driven obsession with trying to find significance in numbers. To the sceptic, it’s a rash that comes and goes, at its peak when watching Deal or No Deal and best treated with a topical dose of statistics. To David Cumming, it’s a trap. A big hole in the ground with very steep walls, which he willingly threw himself into with the publication of his summary of the ‘God Equation’. This rather poorly written and overly drawn-out exegesis of unrelated numbers gets off to a bad start after the above equation is presented, followed by two paragraphs of Mr. Cumming referencing himself in the third person. TK knows this is silly, and despite being a brilliant, charming and terrifically sexy individual (whom in many ways is the central protagonist of the greatest story never told), will not succumb to employing such a conceited writing device. Beyond this, Cumming begins his derivation.

(more…)