Crikey!
Saddening (but unsurprising)
posted by That which is called Darren at 5:58 PM
Monday, September 04, 2006
The Reality Check
Canada's weekly podcast that explores a wide range of controversies and curiosities using science and critical thinking.
Follow Me on Twitter
Tweets by @dbcmckeeFollow Me On Facebook
Help Me Reduce Suffering
Donate to the Against Malaria Foundation using this link, and I will match your contribution up to a total of $25,000 CAD by the end of 2013, effectively doubling your donation.
Watch!
Science/Thinkingstuff
Funny
News
Previous Posts
- Stick it where the sun don't shine?
- Sex Sells, But You Don't Have to Buy
- No Free Science Lunch.
- Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial?
- Some things get better with age.
- Why is there resistance to evolution?
- Some reasons for US-Iran tension
- The Onion - Weekender
- Earth Test Dummies
- The Devolution of the US
4 Comments:
But unsurprising? Pretty smug.
Help me understand. It's a probabilistic fact that greater exposure to dangerous animals = greater likelihood of death by dangerous animal. Granted he wasn't killed by crocs, but it is still true.
And how does 'smug' fit into this?
Smug: 1. contentedly confident of one's ability, superiority, or correctness; complacent.
I do not need to "help you understand", you are more than capable of understanding on your own and I feel that this is less a genuine invitation than it is an insult.
You used Mr. Irwin's catchphrase as a title linking to a story about his death that you label as saddening.
Is it unsurprising when a police officer gets killed on the job (you do not need to point out my seeming comparison of Mr. Irwin to a police officer, it was a comparison of experienced professionals encountering dangerous situations that they have encountered before but succumb to nonetheless)?
We all know about probabilities but when an experienced professional is killed in their line of work it is not necessarily "unsurprising".
Your opinion of yourself is evident in your writing, but knowledge of probabilities does not entitle someone to lack sensitivity.
Given your stance on other issues and the sensitivity you display, it seems incongruent but predicably or even unsurprisingly arrogant.
First, I almost cut and paste the definition of smug in my reply because your usage didn't make much sense. But I thought it would be too smug. You'll also notice I didn't ask what it means, I asked how does it fit.
And who might you be? (you're not the 'throw out food' person, are you?). Seriously, care to come out of the shadows?
My stance on other issues? Such as?
I'm currently trying to promote a rally in support of Darfur because I think it is a good cause, not because I think I am.
You obviously haven't read most of my blog or you've read it with your own perception of my emotional state whilst writing.
Norm MacDonald was on Jon Stewart making the exact same point. Not that he is an authority on anything, but a simple disagreement doesn't necessarily mean smug.
Finally, why even bother reading my blog if I displease you so much?
Post a Comment
<< Home