This woman seems to have forgotten she has a microphone and doesn’t need to talk quite so loud. I love it when Dawkins says, “I didn’t quite hear that, you’re shouting quite loudly in my ear.”
(via)
Update: Apologies for the misleading headline. She isn’t actually screaming at Richard Dawkins; she’s just talking very loudly at him. ;)
4,900 subscribers. 10,000 daily views.
GOD ALL DAY: God finds ways into peoples lives. Weather it through dreams or life experinces and your right everybodys... The double standards of God
Entropist: These idiots are wrong on so many different levels, its hard to... Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” Rally – Interviews With Participants
Just a Guy: Me an my wife have negotiated infidelity. Meaning she can be with other guys as long as she doesn’t hide... Negotiated Infidelity
Gwenny: Absolutely not! The world has plenty of people having kids. A child consumes HUGE amounts of resources, which from both a... QotD: Kids?
Siberia: Or maybe they know they have neither patience nor inclination to deal with the fruit of their loins and thus, rather than be... QotD: Kids? Siberia: Well, it wasn’t exactly my (or anyone’s) choice, was it? I didn’t exactly ask to be born. It was my... QotD: Kids?
DDM: Repubs and Dems. He’s saying they only take first impressions and... Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” Rally – Interviews With Participants
CM: Good point, most religions encourage having a lot of children. From an evolutionary standpoint you sort of owe it to your... QotD: Kids?
|
|
|
By 
41 Comments
She didn’t really scream. She was just a loud person all the way through.
Perhaps Dr. Dawkins’ ear monitor was loud, but by American standards she seemed rather tame. :)
I ordered two copies already, one for me, and one for a “friend.”
She was a bit strident but, not overly so. That is really neither here nor there. As typical with news segments like this, it was a rather trivial, uninteresting “interview”. One question I thought Dawkins flubbed however was, “Are biologists the new priests?” The answer it seems to me should be an obvious NO. Biologists don’t go around telling people how they should live their life. They don’t say that if you don’t believe them you will go to h-e-l-l. They don’t say that their “brand” of biology is better than any other. etc, etc, etc…
As a biologist I was with you up until hell since it’s obvious that molecular biology is by far superior to other branches (and anyone who don’t think so is an infidel that would have been going to hell if such place existed).
Are the molecular biologists looking to recruit rowdy mobs?
I’ve always wanted to get into mobbing.
It is an interesting image.
lol wouldn’t that be funny – disembowel someone cause they denied the big bang.
Although I’m hesitant to incriminate myself thusly, I am compelled to point out that it is indeed real Klingon in the comic.
Heghlu’meH QaQ jajvam
“Are biologists the new priests?” what an absurd question. Priests exist purely as emotional crutches and performers of rituals. They are modern day sorcerers. Their rituals provide security, safety and a welcome shelter from the fear of death. There is another realm where you’ll be safe and see your family – it’s called heaven. They help you get to this realm via a variety of rituals. (Catholics must attend ritual 1 (church on sunday) and ritual 2 confession). It is funny how people do the little rituals just because they always did as children. Putting that “holy” water on your forehead and shoulders = ancient pagan ritual. It’s done to this very day in every single catholic church.
Needless to say a priest will not find a cure for cancer.
“Are biologists the new priests?”
Of course we are. Now please start sending me 10% of your pre-tax income.
@Fentwin: I know you were kidding, but I don’t usually hear people yawping and shrieking like this woman, ever, even on the vapid US news shows. They may raise their voices to yell over each other, but she was screaming forcefully from the word go, and didn’t even seem to be particularly upset, she was just talking conversationally, REALLY LOUD. It was very jarring. And very few people would actually have the balls to point that out on camera.
Also, I think Richard Dawkins is the perfect guy to carry the atheist torch because he’s so laid back, it’s really almost impossible to get riled up by anything he says. When something he says pisses the opposition off, the contrast of them losing their shit next to him barely batting an eyelash makes them look really bad.
He pronounced the “h” in “herbivore.”
Blasphemy. I couldn’t listen anymore after that.
How dare he use British English? Everyone knows the Good Bible was written in American English!
If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.
British English … you mean English then?
English English; English^2 for extra Englishness?
Nope, just English …
England has lost its English privileges.
Was it ever really English until American English was born in all it’s glory? I have my doubts…
It was certainly never as awesome…
@Daniel F
“… it’s glory.” … is that American English, awesome :-)
I find that one of the most simultaneously annoying and hilarious American English-isms. Where did not pronouncing the H come from, anyway? It sounds so weird lol. ‘Erbs!
It wasn’t so much that she was loud, it was the pitch and tone. I don’t know what the correct word to describe sounds is, but she sounded like when the fire alarm is pulled, or a murder of crows, or New Year’s Eve horns. It’s possible to be as loud as she was and sound enthusiastic and clear and project her enthusiasm and clarity and not sound like an air raid siren, but that’s her voice.
“I don’t know what the correct word to describe sounds is”
Strident
I was just about to suggest the same word.
Wow, I thought strident meant something else. Good thing I never used it in a sentence. Still, in the description of sound – I don’t know if it was pitch or tone or timbre or something else, or all of them and several others. I don’t know what those words mean (mostly) either. Strident definitely covers it, but not the category of word I was aiming to choose.
I believe the word you’re looking for is ’shrill’, at least that is how I would describe her tone. The headline is somewhat misleading, though, she is not screaming at him, she’s just being a loud and forceful person in the conversation. I was getting all geared up to get annoyed at someone on CNN forgetting their journalistic integrity (ha) and letting their theistic bias shine through , but all we really have here is someone with an annoying tone of voice and Dawkins having some distortion in his earpiece because of it.
She certainly doesn’t seem to think much of him from the outset but at least she was capable of sticking to the questions and letting him answer them.
I don’t think she yelled at all. Are you kidding me? That’s a Chris Matthews whisper.
CNN always had poor sound compared with other channels.
Maybe she is a sportscaster who is accustomed to the need to make herself heard over a crowd.
Dawkins, my favorite public intellectual besides Hitchens…
@ Michael:
Hitchens ranks below Dawkins for me, because he allowed his interest in discrediting Islam to lead him to some faulty decisionmaking — basically to go along with and prop up the Bush administration’s atrocities. A noble intent that led to some really fucked up bedfellows.
He debated the pro-war argument very well, actually. It helped his cause that the debate I saw was him pro and on the against side George Galloway (who is a complete twat as well as a total moron).
He debated the pro-war argument very well, actually.
I remember debate class in high school, when we were forced to debate silly positions just for practice or insight or whatever. Some people were quite good at it… there was one openly gay kid who argued that homosexuality should be illegal, and made a whole ironically flamboyant show out of it.
The point is that debating something well doesn’t make it sensible or right. He advocated genocide, and used his position as a well-known journalist to shape public opinion of it. That’s a stain that all the good he does for atheism won’t ever get out, IMO.
Everyone has been very polite pointing out how inaccurate the title of this blog post is.
Let me add my two cents and be a little more blunt about it. This blog post’s headline is really misleading. It’s the kind of thing I would expect to see on Reddit, or more likely, Drudge Report. But UnreasonableFaith.com? No.
A headline like this draws in people (read: suckers) thinking there’s going to be some outrageous incident caught on video, when in fact it was a simple communication problem and there was no controversy. A classic crying wolf. Makes me want to visit this blog less often when this kind of thing happens.
Bottom line, cool it with the hyperbolic Drudge-style headlines.
Guilty as charged. I actually didn’t mean to publish it with that title — I pasted it from the via link — but then forgot to change it before it went live. And changing it now would be kinda lame. On the other hand, it’s a bit of a joke, as she obviously wasn’t yelling at him, but she was yelling.
I try to not overdo it with the drama headlines, and I’m aware this was overdone. I apologize.
well said. You have to keep the content coming. That must seem like a daunting job. Who will do it when you die hehe. It’s almost like you have to whip out an omelette every x number of hours just to keep the attention. Regarding Dawkins – his work is always appreciated. Personally my reading of The Selfish Gene changed my life.
http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0192860925
He explained in perfect, common sense language all the stuff I had questions about. He is not a mean, evil person as the Christians make him out to be. They simply haven’t read this book. If they had – they would see the foolishness of their claims.
Richard Dawkins is coming to present at the University where I work as a police officer. I was lucky enough to sign up for the overtime detail to provide security at the event. I am SOOO excited! Hopefully I’ll be able to be close enough to actually hear him and not stuck outside or something.
This woman wasn’t being hostile to Dawkins in any way. She simply spoke loudly for some reason. I’m going to guess it had something to do with her standing in a large studio and the acoustics, because when he said she was talking loudly she toned it down a notch. She was a bit obnoxious though. Okay a lot obnoxious.