Wednesday, April 26, 2006

It's for Science!

The Carnival of the Vanities is up, and I'm in it. IMAO's done some lively writing, which actually doesn't obscure the content of the post anywhere near as much as it looks on first skim. (Update: though he continues the tradition of hard-core conservative hosting, and is proprietor of the Carnival of Comedy, which I just gave up on)

Most interesting thing I've found so far is this critique of Christianity (which could well be applied to several other religions with which I'm familiar) which includes a link to this very thorough set of anti-Christian attacks. When I have more time I might go through it and see how many apply to myself as well....

There's a new carnival, combining the topics of two of my favorites -- Grand Rounds and Kid Comedy: Pediatric Grand Rounds! Everything from poop jokes to sugar alarmists to the home delivery rant that spawned a hundred+ comments (including yeoman's work by Dr. Amy Tuteur

And the 31st issue of the 2nd year of Grand Rounds is up, as well. Advice on meetings is good but pretty generic, as is the emergency department superstition list. However, the encounter between the deaf nurse and deaf patient is anything but, as is the post that includes the words "My personal feeling is that intercourse while wearing a monitor is best accomplished with a regular partner. It should never be a surprise that you will have red, brown, green, white, and blue wires running from your chest to a box at your waist...." It's for science!

7 comments:

Ralph Luker said...

One could argue exactly the reverse of every one of those attacks on Christianity and be at least as correct as they are. Probably more so.

Ahistoricality said...

Someone once said that the opposite of a profound truth is usually another profound truth....

There is a bit of conflation of historically contingent and theological issues there: "Christianity" is not necessarily the sum of its bad history.

Ralph Luker said...

I don't find that kind of hegelian move very helpful. I keep thinking something like what my reaction be if I found a list of anti-Muslim or anti-Judaism attacks on the net. Would I want to archive it? I think not. I've never had the slightest interest in accumulating lists of what is wrong with Judaism or what is wrong with Islam. And I certainly have no interest in somebody else's obviously hostile and partisan rants about them, much less grant such rants the status of profound truth, only to array against it other profound truth.

Ahistoricality said...

And yet you had no problem "celebrating" Passover by linking to dumb satirical animations.

Exactly what argument are you making here? That it's impolite of me to take note of what I find interesting? That I should ignore evidence which raises interesting questions about modern society, not to mention world history, because it's "partisan"?

If you actually have evidence and arguments to offer in refutation, feel free.

Ralph Luker said...

I have no interest in spending time on polemics that are inherently superficial and have no intention of collecting references to them, either. I cited the "dumb satirical animations" in good will and only those that had already been cited by faithful Jews. I do not cite polemics against Judaism, in large part, because I have no confidence whatsoever that their authors have ever taken the time to study the tradition with any seriousness. Satires are not fielded as serious; polemics are.

Ahistoricality said...

(You've never heard of humor which was more appropriate in-group than out-group?)

Good for you, Ralph.

Ralph Luker said...

"In-group humor", if that's what it is, probably has no place on the open web, especially if citation by a member of the "out-group" is likely to cause resentment. This is identity politics gone to seed and gotten pitiful. I would expect you to challenge me, if I cited an anti-Judaism polemic as worthy of serious attention.