|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 07/22/2008 : 20:05:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
It would be poisoning the well if I said something like "Myers" or "Dave always goes off half-cocked, so his argument must be half-cocked."
When I say how I see it, I have qualified it as my opinion, so it's not poisoning the well. |
Oh, holy crap! Not that thing again!
Beyond that, poisoning the well has nothing to do with whether you think a thing is fact or opinion. The clear implication in your statement was that those of us who are looking for a change of course have not thought it through, and that implication subverts anything might say before I even say it. Especially when I'm sure that you know that I've been giving this sort of thing quite a lot of thought of late, and you know that not so long ago I was pretty firmly in the "why can't we all just get along" camp.| Dave, we obviously don't agree on this one. That'll happen sometimes... |
Indeed, but leaving it at that won't solve the problem. I've laid out my case, and all I'm getting back is "maybe that'll make it worse." I understand that there are risks (there are always risks), I just don't see anyone showing that the risks are more dangerous than the status quo.
Take PZ's situation, for example: he's never been safe from whackos who would kill him for being blasphemous. The fact that he's receiving death threats now doesn't actually raise that risk at all if the more-cautious atheists are to be believed ("those people are just blowing off steam, they're not actually going to kill PZ"). An unmeasurable risk versus an unmeasurable risk is a wash, and so without significantly increasing the danger to himself or his family he's made his opposition disgrace themselves. And the more insane Bill Donohue's rants against PZ become, the more publicly he disgraces himself. It's already been a "win" without any significant increase in cost (unless you want to count PZ's email account, which he'll probably be turning off), because the idea that PZ's blog posts have driven anyone to Catholicism, or driven any "liberal" Catholics to suddenly think "wow, it really does turn into Jesus," is as laughable an idea that those same posts are going to immediately convert someone to rationality. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2008 : 20:47:38 [Permalink]
|
The one thing I've noticed is that in the thousands of messages exchanged back and forth over the Eucharist issue, the one thing Catholics are decidedly not doing is defending the idea that the essence of the host literally changes into Jesus. Oh, they assert that, then defend their right to believe it. But they don't actually spend much time defending the assertion itself, because deep down they know it is indefensible nonsense.
And all this bluster and anger is conspicuously orchestrated to keep themselves distracted, to keep from having to admit to themselves that their belief is patently silly. They don't want to think about that very much. It causes discomfort. It's easier to go on the offense and accuse PZ of being mean and intolerant. "You can't call my beliefs silly because that hurts my feelings!" But not one of them are stepping forward and saying "My beliefs are not silly." PZ wants to keep the focus the merit of religious ideas. The outraged Christians want to shift the focus to hurt feelings. It would be a trap to give in. When all they can offer in defense of their position is "whaaa!" then you know you are winning. Keep pressing them on the thing they don't want to face.
Because honestly, Christians don't seem to concern themselves about other people's feelings very much when they disparage abortion or premarital sex or homosexuality. Catholics are all about making harsh public pronouncements on any number of ideas and actions. It's like their M.O. I mean the Pope directly criticized atheism, saying it caused some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" ever known. But we can't take a shot at one of their sacred cows for fear of offending them? Please. The double-standard needs to end.
A good shake-up is exactly what's needed. We need to take them out of their comfort zone, drag their silly superstition into the harsh light of public scrutiny. Will it make them defensive? Hopefully! We can use that against them too. It's better then letting them keep on the offensive. Put them into damage control. That's how you minimize religion. That's how you lessen its grip. By beating it back with a stick.
|
"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 07/22/2008 21:49:37 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2008 : 21:04:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
The double-standard needs to end. |
Just to add to this: the double-standard was self-imposed by atheists and agnostics who assumed that the religious were rational people who would follow their own Bible's teachings and so wouldn't take advantage of the non-religous peoples' silence to execute false-flag operations against them. Of course the double-standard needs to end, because it's based upon the utterly falsified assumption that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. Radical theists aren't snakes or bees, they're Ebola. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2008 : 21:25:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Of course the double-standard needs to end, because it's based upon the utterly falsified assumption that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. |
Which is why I find the term "Neville Chamberlain atheist" to be pretty apt, even if Orac absolutely despises it (he finds the term inflammatory and unhistorical.) But the point is, tolerance is a compromise. It only works if both sides are in agreement.
And concerning the Catholics' premeditated histrionics, commentator Sastra has another brilliant post:Here's an analogy which has been occurring to me more and more frequently recently.
Puss 'n Boots. From the movie Shrek.
He's an arrogant, cocksure little braggart, strutting and preening and throwing his weight around. And then, what happens when he is really cornered?
The big, sad little kitty eyes. The sweet, fuzzy little kitty face. Those darling little kitty lips, trembling with emotion and sensitivity. Awwwwwww ... how cute. Leave the little guy alone.
That's the Catholics -- Christians -- theists in general. They're powerful, smug, and sneer at those foolish atheists who just don't get it, do they. And when you do anything to call their bluff, point out the obvious, mention that the emperor is naked ---- awwwww. It's the BIG KITTY EYES.
Oh noes!! These are my sacred, sacred beliefs. This is so very, very hurtful. You are taking away the most precious thing I have. Mommy, this man says my puppy who died doesn't still love me in heaven anymore. Mommy?
So it looks like mommy has to kick our butts, now, because of what we did to their sweet, gentle, fragile, CUTE little feelings. They were weak and defenseless, and we attacked their baby sensibilities.
This is the rage of parents, protecting a helpless child. Not the cracker. Themselves.
Puss 'n Boots Apologetics. |
Expanding on that idea, she later says:It's Shrek's Puss 'n Boots Apologetics again -- swagger around, smug and cocky, and then pull the big baby eyes and quivering underlip when your bluff is called.
The reason religious beliefs shouldn't be attacked or ridiculed isn't because the believers are tender, fragile, sensitive little kiddies who need to be protected from the harsh truths of reality. It's because the beliefs themselves are weak and childish, and can't stand up to serious rational analysis.
Despite the current fury flying our way, I suspect that the Believers are -- on the whole -- intelligent, thoughtful, and strong. They want us to pander and condescend to them, jolly them along, and give their beliefs an undeserved respect and deference. And I say we should treat them instead as fellow adults -- with real respect -- and mock their crackers.
It only drives them nuts because they secretly see our point, and can't refute it. Thus, the verbal equivalent of the Big Kitty Eyes. |
Bolding mine for emphasis.
|
"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 07/22/2008 21:29:07 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2008 : 21:38:38 [Permalink]
|
| Except I didn't get that impression of Puss at all. Puss could fight, it's just that pure manipulation works better in some cases, like when you're massively outnumbered. But, while I was watching those movies, I wasn't trying to deconstruct the cat. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2008 : 22:47:25 [Permalink]
|
Oh crap…
Dave:
The clear implication in your statement was that those of us who are looking for a change of course have not thought it through, and that implication subverts anything might say before I even say it. Especially when I'm sure that you know that I've been giving this sort of thing quite a lot of thought of late, and you know that not so long ago I was pretty firmly in the "why can't we all just get along" camp. |
I didn't mean to imply that you haven't given it any thought. Sorry. Perhaps I need another way to put it. How about ill conceived? Does that work for you? I do disagree with you on this no matter how much thought you have put into it. I did say this however:
Me:
And maybe I'm wrong. (It has happened.) |
As for Bill Donohue's rants against Myers, it works for me. I draw the line at actually stealing and breaking up the crackers to make a point. I doubt that will play well in the media. The thing is, you can probably count the support Myers has gotten from Christians on your hands, vs. all of the hate mail he has received. How many of the Christians noticed how unchristian they were being? Should he be intimidated? No. But he has already made his point to a few people (not many) thanks to Donohue and others. If he was making his point for us, to bad, because we already freaking knew it. It's possible to take something too far. And that is where this is headed, in my opinion. Again, I could be wrong. But I just don't see the media cuddling up to Myers or even making the point about the hypocrisy of the religious hate mongers. All they're going to see is that a semi famous atheist made a public display of intolerance toward Catholics. As I said, I think the real point will be lost in the static.
I can't make a benefit vs. risk analysis. I am not happy with the status quo any more than you are. But I'm thinking that a stunt like the one Myers has proposed will make things worse because of how I think it will be received by the media. You're thinking that it won't or that it might make things better. As far as I can see, that is all we have to work with.
Your turn…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 02:09:15 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
It's kind of like politics.
Why don't we just all try to get along together, the Republicans have most of the money and power (oxymoronic statement, as money is power), and it takes a lot of energy and time to oppose them, and what they want and what they do only tangentially affects me and mine in my personal, day to day life, and I can't really do a hell of a lot about the motherfuckers anyway, and what good is one voice and one vote; and besides that, I've only got a few years left so why spend them worrying about the Constitution, civil rights, decency, the future of the planet and the goddamned wrongness of the deceiving, lying, manipulating, greedy, power-crazed sons of bitches that have damn near destroyed this country? Live and let live, that's the way, just spread your legs or your arse and enjoy getting raped!
The Bible-thumpers, Paradise-seekers and Pope's cocksuckers are really, basically good people that are just wrong about a few things but their deceiving, and lying, and manipulation, and greed, and lust for power really won't destroy science, and reason, and ultimately this country - finally the world.....they'll just do a hell of a lot of damage to all of the above. So don't worry about it. We can't really do anything anyway, so why try? Somebody might get upset, and we really don't want that now, do we?
As Dave says, it's just a hell of a lot easier to be a doormat! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 03:39:02 [Permalink]
|
| It's like their M.O. I mean the Pope directly criticized atheism, saying it caused some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" ever known. |
Ya gotta love it 'cause it's true! Atheism is an heresy and as such is responsible for inspiring the Church to commit crimes against humanity that would make even Josef Mengele, himself a Catholic as were a great many Nazis including Hitler, nauseous. Over the past, few centuries, they have lost much of their clout, but, as we have seen, the desire for the "good ol' days" of smiting the heathen with impunity remains. And not just among the Catholics.
Me, I subscribe to the philosophy of: fuck that cracker & all of the evil that it represents. Whatever PZ decides do it is fine with me because they wouldn't hesitate to do the same to anything that I might hold sacred. Which is nothing, really, and they are more than a little miffed about that, as well.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 05:34:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Oh crap…Dave:
The clear implication in your statement was that those of us who are looking for a change of course have not thought it through, and that implication subverts anything might say before I even say it. Especially when I'm sure that you know that I've been giving this sort of thing quite a lot of thought of late, and you know that not so long ago I was pretty firmly in the "why can't we all just get along" camp. |
I didn't mean to imply that you haven't given it any thought. Sorry. Perhaps I need another way to put it. How about ill conceived? Does that work for you? I do disagree with you on this no matter how much thought you have put into it. I did say this however:Me:
And maybe I'm wrong. (It has happened.) |
|
I apologize. Perhaps I was being overly sensitive.| As for Bill Donohue's rants against Myers, it works for me. |
Well, what we really want is for Donohue to have such a huge fit of apoplexy that most of the people who once paid attention to him (or perhaps even the Pope) say, "that guy? Never seen him before."| I draw the line at actually stealing and breaking up the crackers to make a point. I doubt that will play well in the media. |
Not when put that way, of course not. But if you were to go to PZ's house and find a bag of wafers, you'd be mightily hard-pressed to say that any of them were actually stolen. And legally, their value is "de minimis" even in small-claims court. But more importantly, PZ's intent was not to "make a point," but was to engage in protest. (I doubt that anti-war protesters of the sixties went home at night thinking, "that showed 'em!")| The thing is, you can probably count the support Myers has gotten from Christians on your hands, vs. all of the hate mail he has received. How many of the Christians noticed how unchristian they were being? |
Well, see, this should be just the beginning. The goal is to get those unchristian Christians to go so far over-the-top that the silent majority has to actually do something or else face the PR nightmare of their tacit support for madmen (just like the moderate Muslims speaking out with "we're not all terrorists").
So you see, I don't think that even if PZ were to go ahead with his plans it would be taking this thing far enough. So long as the media misses the fact that what PZ will be doing is a display of intolerance towards intolerance, so long as there are only a handful of Christians publicly voicing their opposition to death threats and harrassment, things won't have gone far enough. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 09:24:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Kil.....
It's kind of like politics.
Why don't we just all try to get along together, the Republicans have most of the money and power (oxymoronic statement, as money is power), and it takes a lot of energy and time to oppose them, and what they want and what they do only tangentially affects me and mine in my personal, day to day life, and I can't really do a hell of a lot about the motherfuckers anyway, and what good is one voice and one vote; and besides that, I've only got a few years left so why spend them worrying about the Constitution, civil rights, decency, the future of the planet and the goddamned wrongness of the deceiving, lying, manipulating, greedy, power-crazed sons of bitches that have damn near destroyed this country? Live and let live, that's the way, just spread your legs or your arse and enjoy getting raped!
The Bible-thumpers, Paradise-seekers and Pope's cocksuckers are really, basically good people that are just wrong about a few things but their deceiving, and lying, and manipulation, and greed, and lust for power really won't destroy science, and reason, and ultimately this country - finally the world.....they'll just do a hell of a lot of damage to all of the above. So don't worry about it. We can't really do anything anyway, so why try? Somebody might get upset, and we really don't want that now, do we?
As Dave says, it's just a hell of a lot easier to be a doormat!
|
Well, thanks for that, Bill. I can't be sure of the exact intent of the above quote, but since it was addressed to me, I will respond.
I do not favor do nothing strategies to keep myself comfortable. It is my nature to question the kind of authority that would seek to mislead us in an attempt to consolidate or hold whatever power they think they have over us. That includes charlatans of every stripe including political, religious, and even small time operators with delusions of wealth and power. (I think that is one the main reasons this site exists.) I don't think we can wish the problem away, and I do think there are things that we can do. I am not worried about upsetting anyone. I do that regularly, which just comes with being an activist big-mouthed skeptic. I don't want to pacify the Donohue's the Browne's or Cheney's of the world in the hope that they will leave us alone. I think protest is legitimate and necessary and has in my lifetime (including my involvement in some fairly high profile protests) brought certain inequities to light and forced many people out of their complacency and made them think. I don't think Nixon ended the war, I think we did by turning the public against the war.
So don't even try to paint me with the Chamberlain brush. All I have argued is what I think will be the outcome of one particular protest. That's the sample size that earned me your silly version of how you think I think, and/or the impetus for you to use me as the poster boy for inaction and complacency.
That's the long version of my response. I deleted the short version because, after all, I am an administrator on this site and… well…
Go fuck yourself Bill.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 10:33:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I can't make a benefit vs. risk analysis. I am not happy with the status quo any more than you are. But I'm thinking that a stunt like the one Myers has proposed will make things worse because of how I think it will be received by the media. You're thinking that it won't or that it might make things better. As far as I can see, that is all we have to work with.
Your turn…
|
No one can know the final outcome. But one thing we do have a fairly good grasp on:
What we have been doing so far has had little overall impact.
Why not try a new approach? Could it backfire.....sure. But seriously, how much worse could it possibly be?
The trick is getting the silent majority to take note. To try and get them to finally have an opinion one way or the other. We want these irrational religious leaders to stand up at shout so loud and so ridiculously that these bystanders might actually take notice. "Hey you over there....mister Christian because I was raised that way, look what your so-called leaders are saying now......got any thoughts on that?"
|
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 11:32:08 [Permalink]
|
I really don't see the ‘cracker' issue anything more than a prank by a young person at UCF. Regardless of whether that prank was in protest or not, I am surprised to find that a local paper thought it warranted a short article. This incident now seems to exist as a temporary rant by a handful of web savvy catholic wacko's and a small band of online atheists and members of the skeptic community.
I agree that anything that draws attention to the human face of the average atheist, and reveals the inane nature of organized religion is a good thing. The problem that we have, as atheists, is that the human, rational face of atheism does not exist in government or in the mainstream media. MSNBC and FOX News won't even touch this issue in anything more than a ‘stupid' story that takes the religious point of view for granted.
Let's face it, the average Joe takes his or her faith as a matter fact. They don't even know why. It just is. They don't care why. To then, an occasional mad atheist is just an occasional mad atheist. Therefore, these pranks are just that—pranks. Until we have a real, rational voice that gets media face time, we're going to be nothing more than that irrational prankster, or the mean, hard-headed troll that just won't understand, at least in my lifetime.
Protest can be a good thing, but it must be balanced with calm reason. Maybe, these more militant tactics may lead to a more rational spokesman being invited to express our point of view in the conventional media. It worked for the civil rights and women's movements, and it's working for the gay rights movement.
Maybe we should begin a movement? Unfortunately, I can't find where skeptics and atheists are being gravely discriminated against.
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 11:44:31 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
That's the kind of emotionally intense affect that I wish I saw more of on this topic. Kudos to you for having enough fortitude to deliver the deleted language!
I would be delighted to try the anatomically difficult contortion you request if that's what it would take to elicit a little more intensity and outrage from anyone here directed at religious terrorists like Donohue and his cohorts; instead of the timidity and passiveness exemplified by fear that stealing a Catholic matzo cracker and "desecrating" it would cause some kind of uncontrollable religious outrage from legions of Papists. That's what's silly.
I have written Randi on this Myers caper, and hope to rouse his interest. Maybe a publicized chemical analysis of a consecrated cracker.
I really intended the sarcastic rant to be a general statement of how I feel about passivity and political correctness, and it should at very least have been directed to you and Chaloobi; or better, simply not addressed.
However, I'm a little surprised and very sorry about your reception and instant appropriation of my comment as personal insult. I had no idea of the degree of sensitivity that you obviously have on this subject. My apologies. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 11:56:56 [Permalink]
|
Hey, Tim, welcome back!Originally posted by Tim
Maybe we should begin a movement? Unfortunately, I can't find where skeptics and atheists are being gravely discriminated against. |
Call it the Movement to End Hypocrisy. That way, we need no discrimination. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 12:18:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Originally posted by Kil
I can't make a benefit vs. risk analysis. I am not happy with the status quo any more than you are. But I'm thinking that a stunt like the one Myers has proposed will make things worse because of how I think it will be received by the media. You're thinking that it won't or that it might make things better. As far as I can see, that is all we have to work with.
Your turn…
|
No one can know the final outcome. But one thing we do have a fairly good grasp on:
What we have been doing so far has had little overall impact.
Why not try a new approach? Could it backfire.....sure. But seriously, how much worse could it possibly be?
The trick is getting the silent majority to take note. To try and get them to finally have an opinion one way or the other. We want these irrational religious leaders to stand up at shout so loud and so ridiculously that these bystanders might actually take notice. "Hey you over there....mister Christian because I was raised that way, look what your so-called leaders are saying now......got any thoughts on that?"
|
Well look. I understand this argument. I am even somewhat sympathetic to it. I am just as frustrated as anyone here about the current state of things. The thing is, I don't think it will work. Or worse. And I have stated why I think that. I am also not blind to the fact that I am greatly outnumbered on this one. Oh well. I yam what I yam…
What I don't see going on is any consideration for a plan B. (No, not Bill's default plan, which goes something like this. Either accept plan A as it is or you are part of the problem.)
This whole thing came about by accident anyhow. But then, so did the Boston Tea Party.
What would be so terrible about some thoughtful refinement to plan A? (And no, again, I am not accusing anyone of not giving a lot of thought to plan A.)
The problem I am having is that every other kind of protest that I can think of that might be effective involves lots of money and heavy organizational skills to the tune of serious head counts at well placed highly visible protests, with news coverage, along with full page ads condemning religious abuses of power. I would call them terrorist organizations and list the acts of terror coming from both protestant and Catholic Church's. I would include the assault on public education and science as systematic bullying and therefore terrorist acts with the purpose of overthrowing the constitution of the United States to achieve their stated goal of making this country a theocracy.
So far, that isn't going to happen because we have neither the money nor the skills required to pull anything like that off. So far, all our victories have been isolated cases in the courts, or the removal of local school boards because they were an embarrassment to their local communities.
But see, we are not thinking big enough. If we could find a way to be attacked, in much the same way as Myers is being attacked, without giving them some perceived atrocity that we will be forced to defend, I would consider that the best scenario. We need to piss them off without attacking their faith directly. We need to attack the offensive results of where their faith can go, and does go, if we want to gain public sympathy both against what they do and for what we advocate.
You would think that with all of the big brains in our community, someone could come up with something that would make the Myers thing look like the sideshow that it really is.
Maybe it will spark something bigger. Maybe it already has. I dunno…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The wages of sin
