Ashamed? No. I live on this planet. I don’t live in some future utopia.
On THIS planet, you have to get along with other people.
If you do NOT learn to get along with people and alienate them, you create enemies even if they don’t exist.
Shame? Not at all. But please, tell me why I should feel shame and I’ll consider it an option.
Except in matters of life and limb, I see no valid excuse for a dialogue that is uncivil. We are having a civil dialogue. I appreciate that.
a) I read it.
b) I will continue to use the tone argument if that is the issue.
I was aware of Krauss long before this singular article.
Again, I live in a real world with history and extra-article knowledge.
Should I limit myself solely to the article in question? Certainly, if this was middle school and you were my teacher.
If this was a Universe of Nothing and the only information I had available to me at all was this singular article and I had complete amnesia about life, perhaps you would have a valid point.
I’m not against the issues Krauss is bringing up for the MOST part.
But “What about the children?” and the divisive tone are an appeal to emotion and the kind of tactic that distracts and ruins his overall message.
You can ignore it if you like. I can’t. It comes across that he is a bitter man that is angry and has a point to prove to the world.
He’s not as bad as Dawkins, granted. I kinda like Krauss generally. I liked Dawkins too, until he started on his mission in the late 90s.
Now he comes out like a crackpot. I won’t get started on Maher either; his Islamaphobic and ahistorical comments over the last few years sounded like stuff coming out of a Evangelical Christian Evangelist… ’cause they complain about the same kind of stuff the same way.