Richard Dawkins: : I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI

Jonny7

Taken from the headline on the timesonline.co.uk

Apparently Dawkins along with fellow atheists and legal will try to arrest the pope on his visit to UK.

The atheist in me is thinking 'stick it to him', but, quite honestly, I believe not much good will come of this, its more of a disgruntled revenge attack. Its up to the Catholic church to resolve this issue themselves. I'm not sure if this deserves its own post or should be merged with the ongoing thread.

t4k30

Its nothing but a media stunt for dawkins. He wouldnt dare try and arrest any other religious leaders. He'd be a marked man. The church at the moment is a soft target, it'll all blow over.... That or someone will knock dawkins off the block !!

not quite the truth

See comment below it

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415

PDN

Peter Tatchell tried to do something similar with Robert Mugabe in Brussels in 2001. As I recall he had the crap kicked out of him by Mugabe's bodyguards.

Could be interesting.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

strobe

It's just a statement of intent, something clearly designed to garner as much attention as possible, like when smoking hot PETA protesters strip naked and walk down a main pedestrian street. The means are questionable but the end is just (in a lot of cases). For too many reasons to list there will obviously be no serious attempt to follow it through made. Far from least the fact that the Pope is a head of state and any attempt to approach and restrain him in a foreign nation would arguably quite rightly result in the people attempting it getting dropped where they stood.

*Edit* Having read the article and verifying the story after posting, as I am unfortunatly prone to doing on rare occasions, obviously it seems Dawkins is just making a point that the law should allow for Ratzinger being arrested and potentially charged, not that he planned to make or was approving an attempt to make some kind of citizens arrest. Nicely played Times headline editor....nicely played...

PDN

strobe wrote: »

It's just a statement of intent, something clearly designed to garner as much attention as possible, like when smoking hot PETA protesters strip naked and walk down a main pedestrian street. The means are questionable but the end is just (in a lot of cases). For too many reasons to list there will obviously be no serious attempt to follow it through made. Far from least the fact that the Pope is a head of state and any attempt to approach and restrain him in a foreign nation would arguably quite rightly result in the people attempting it getting dropped where they stood.

Could make for an interesting poll. Which would you rather see?

a) A smoking hot model walking down the street naked in a PETA protest.

b) Richard Dawkins getting beheaded by one of the Pope's Swiss Guards.

strobe

Lol. I can say with an unblemished record of heterosexuality, it would still only be about 50/50.

Dave!

Jonny7 wrote: »

Taken from the headline on the timesonline.co.uk

Apparently Dawkins along with fellow atheists and legal will try to arrest the pope on his visit to UK.

The atheist in me is thinking 'stick it to him', but, quite honestly, I believe not much good will come of this, its more of a disgruntled revenge attack. Its up to the Catholic church to resolve this issue themselves. I'm not sure if this deserves its own post or should be merged with the ongoing thread.

You think so? Are there no civil authorities to which they should answer? Are they a law unto themselves?

I think the Dawkins-backed suggestion is more about applying pressure than anything else, but it does keep the question alive of who do the Church have to answer to? If the Pope was caught red-handed and found to have broken a load of laws, is there any circumstances under which he would be arrested?

Surely it should be investigated at least

seanybiker

Im atheist myself but I honestly think that he is a fool. Anybody can do a citizens arrest. I would love to arrest him for being a hate monger. Can the tool just not leave people believe what they want. What business of his is it. Since "coming out" as an atheist and reading threads on here. I hate being an atheist. Same as I cant stand about 90% of the bikers I know. Why cant people just live and let live.

tdv123

seanybiker wrote: »

Im atheist myself but I honestly think that he is a fool. Anybody can do a citizens arrest. I would love to arrest him for being a hate monger. Can the tool just not leave people believe what they want. What business of his is it. Since "coming out" as an atheist and reading threads on here. I hate being an atheist. Same as I cant stand about 90% of the bikers I know. Why cant people just live and let live.

I think this is why.

Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, said: “This is a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence.” Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, said: “This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment.

Zombrex

Publicity stunt

It is like the people who claim they were going to "arrest" George Bush when he was in Ireland.

Dave!

Publicity student? wtf

prinz

Dave! wrote: »

Publicity student? wtf

Yes. He still has a lot to learn.

Manach

Afaick, the British courts have taken a fairly hard-line about the concept of Locus Standi (the inability of a party to bring a court-case unless directly involved in a legal matter). So unless Mr. Dawkins is willing to convert briefly to the one true faith, Catholicism, so as to claim to be an interested party ...

edanto

People seem to have missed bluewolf's link, here is an extract from it.

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Comment #478580 by Richard Dawkins on April 11, 2010 at 8:48 am
Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.

What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horme, other than to refer him to my 'Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope' article here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341

Interestingly, in German law there are situations whereby it is a crime to do nothing. For example, if you are in a position to attempt to stop someone raping someone else, and you don't, then you can be charged.

I see some similarities between how the church has behaved, and that German Law concept.

For example, by not responding to allegation promptly, or by allowing abusive priests to be moved around, or by concealing evidence from civil authorities, the church as an institution was in the wrong.

When it comes to Ratzinger himself, there was a recent story of his long delay in acting on a diocesan request to retire a dodgy priest.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/nation/90450459.html

Even in his seminary days in the early 1970s, there were questions about California priest Stephen Kiesle: Colleagues said he had trouble relating to adults, lacked spirituality and didn't seem committed to anything but youth ministry.

Those colleagues, who helped make the case to the Vatican in 1981 seeking to let him leave the priesthood, said they were concerned before Kiesle was ordained, and more so after revelations Kiesle had molested children in his parish.

"He was not grown up. He spent more time with kids than with people his own age. You get suspicious of that. There's something wrong there," said John Cummins, former bishop in the Diocese of Oakland, now retired.

Still, future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas from the diocese to act on the case, according to a 1985 letter in Latin obtained by The Associated Press that bore his signature as then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

It would take another two years before the Vatican doctrine watchdog office headed by Ratzinger would approve Kiesle's own request to leave the priesthood in 1987.

Zombrex

edanto wrote: »

People seem to have missed bluewolf's link, here is an extract from it.

meh, I don't have time to be reading stuff and finding out the truth, I'm a busy man :P

BURN HIM!

Xluna

PDN wrote: »

Could make for an interesting poll. Which would you rather see?

a) A smoking hot model walking down the street naked in a PETA protest.

b) Richard Dawkins getting beheaded by one of the Pope's Swiss Guards.

Why can't we compromise,and see a hot smoking Richard Dawkins walking down the street naked.:pac:

prinz

Xluna wrote: »

Why can't we compromise,and see a hot smoking Richard Dawkins walking down the street naked.:pac:

No eye would definitely be better than half an eye in that case.

Handsome Bob

I'm shocked that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are whoring themselves out in return for publicity. Really, I am.

PDN

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'm shocked that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are whoring themselves out in return for publicity. Really, I am.

I'm not shocked at all.

Fanny Cradock

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'm shocked that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are whoring themselves out in return for publicity. Really, I am.

Yeah, who would have thunk it!

ISAW

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'm shocked that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are whoring themselves out in return for publicity. Really, I am.

Why? People with fundamentalist beliefs like them do it all the time.

pljudge321

ISAW wrote: »

Why? People with fundamentalist beliefs like them do it all the time.

You are horribly abusing the word "fundamentalist" here. Fundamentalism refers to the belief in strict adherence to a set of basic principles/texts/etc. Dawkins and Hitchens do neither of those things.

ISAW

pljudge321 wrote: »

You are horribly abusing the word "fundamentalist" here. Fundamentalism refers to the belief in strict adherence to a set of basic principles/texts/etc. Dawkins and Hitchens do neither of those things.

Scientism is a form of fundamentalism.

Dawkings believes that religion is an evil in a Godless world.
Just as the atheistic communists did.

"I would like to see the Roman Catholic Church ruined, "...
"[clerics sexually abusing children] may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds."
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118

Luis Benitez-Bribiesca, a critic of memetics, calls it "a pseudoscientific dogma" and "a dangerous idea that poses a threat to the serious study of conciousness and cultural evolution" among other things. As factual criticism, he refers to the lack of a code script for memes, as the DNA is for genes, and to the fact that the meme mutation mechanism (i.e., an idea going from one brain to another) is too unstable (low replication accuracy and high mutation rate), which would render the evolutionary process chaotic
http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/339/33905206.pdf

Didnt stop dawkins believing in it though did it? He doesn't say much about memetics nowadays. Since the journal closed down he seems to have lost faith in this "science".

youcrazyjesus!

ISAW wrote: »

Why? People with fundamentalist beliefs like them do it all the time.

Name one belief of his you'd describe as "fundamentalist". You really should understand the meaning of a word before throwing it out there.

This is absolutely nothing to do with "publicity" or "whoring themselves out in public". Anybody who believes that is not very intelligent and has a very limited understanding of someone like Dawkins.

youcrazyjesus!

ISAW wrote: »

Scientism is a form of fundamentalism.

Scientism is a pejorative invented by people to equate belief or respect for science with religion so they can say "well it's merely another belief system, just like ours". Which is bollox. Luckily there are many people who have explained clearly why it's bollox.

Dawkings believes that religion is an evil in a Godless world.
Just as the atheistic communists did.

Stalinists wanted to destroy anything which didn't fit in with their doctrine. It wasn't a philosophical position, it was a political position. Religion had to be wiped
out because they were implementing their doctrine and enforcing their rule ruthlessly. Stalin attacked Ukrainians, military officers, Polish middle class because in
his mind they were a threat, in the same way Pol Pot killed anyone who wore glasses and anyone who gave the appearance of being educated. Religion was attacked
for the same reasons, none of it was caused by any deeply rooted atheistic belief.

Stalin, a former seminarian, actually revived the Orthodox Church during the Nazi invasion in order to rally support for the war. This proves it was
a question of power and doctrine and not absolute belief in atheism which caused Stalin to persecute the Church in the first place.

ISAW wrote: »

Luis Benitez-Bribiesca, a critic of memetics, calls it "a pseudoscientific dogma" and "a dangerous idea that poses a threat to the serious study of conciousness and cultural evolution" among other things. As factual criticism, he refers to the lack of a code script for memes, as the DNA is for genes, and to the fact that the meme mutation mechanism (i.e., an idea going from one brain to another) is too unstable (low replication accuracy and high mutation rate), which would render the evolutionary process chaotic
http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/339/33905206.pdf

Didnt stop dawkins believing in it though did it? He doesn't say much about memetics nowadays. Since the journal closed down he seems to have lost faith in this "science".

Somebody comes up with a theory. Somebody else comes up with a criticism. What does this prove exactly? Why should Dawkins start or stop believing in a theory or hypothesis
because another scientist believes something else? One does not disprove the other or vice versa. That's completely illogical. That's the beauty of academia, somebody will always
come along who disagrees with you. This results in progress.

What journal are you on about?

vodafoneproblem

ISAW wrote: »

Scientism is a form of fundamentalism.

Dawkings believes that religion is an evil in a Godless world.
Just as the atheistic communists did.

"I would like to see the Roman Catholic Church ruined, "...
"[clerics sexually abusing children] may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds."
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118

Luis Benitez-Bribiesca, a critic of memetics, calls it "a pseudoscientific dogma" and "a dangerous idea that poses a threat to the serious study of conciousness and cultural evolution" among other things. As factual criticism, he refers to the lack of a code script for memes, as the DNA is for genes, and to the fact that the meme mutation mechanism (i.e., an idea going from one brain to another) is too unstable (low replication accuracy and high mutation rate), which would render the evolutionary process chaotic
http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/339/33905206.pdf

Didnt stop dawkins believing in it though did it? He doesn't say much about memetics nowadays. Since the journal closed down he seems to have lost faith in this "science".

Thanks for that, ISAW. I knew I'd come across somewhere recently that his memetics theory had been discredited but couldn't remember where so I'm delighted to have that info now. Seems Dawkins mightn't be that much better at science than he is at religion!

Also, I don't know why he and his disciples are moaning so much about that headline. Even if he didn't utter those exact words, it seems pretty close to the truth. Judging by his own words on the matter, no less! It seems that now his science has been discredited, he has to find new ways of getting media attention so he can flog his childish arguments against religion.

From http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415

"Here is what really happened. Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson's subsequent 'Put the Pope in the Dock' article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5366
The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.

Even if the Pope doesn't end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn't cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit, let alone pay for it."


So he does think their challenge might land the pope in the dock. Hmm!

youcrazyjesus!

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

Thanks for that, ISAW. I knew I'd come across somewhere recently that his memetics theory had been discredited but couldn't remember where so I'm delighted to have that info now. Seems Dawkins mightn't be that much better at science than he is at religion!

You've read his books I take it?

What does this mean, "he's (not) better at science than he is at religion?". How does Dawkins "do" religion in the same way he does science? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Seems quite a stupid comment.

As for "memes" and "memetics"; there are ongoing arguments in the scientific community about all of these things, some biologists support Dawkins and some oppose him. It's all part of the rough and tumble of academic life. There is no argument to be won by finding somebody who disagrees with Dawkins on the subject. There are probably hundreds of published biologists who disagree, Dawkins actually writes about these disagreements in his books, if you'd ever bothered to read even one you'd know.

vodafoneproblem

^I got his pettily-argued tgd out of the library. (I refused to pay for it but couldn't resist seeing what the fuss was about.)

My comment above was, I thought, obvious, but just to simplify: it seems his scientific reasoning isn't much better than his religious reasoning. I don't think I'd even bother read any of his other books after seeing his really schoolground-like arguments in tgd. I'll stick to more rational science authors, I think!

youcrazyjesus!

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

it seems his scientific reasoning isn't much better than his religious reasoning.

Because somebody disagrees with him? That is the dumbest ****ing thing I've ever read on the internet. Ever.

I happen to disagree with Dawkins on some important points when it comes to memes. I'm not just cheerleading him for the sake of it but to say "he's sh!t at science" because somebody somewhere has published a rebuttal is so ignorant. It's probably pointless attempting to explain to you why that is.

vodafoneproblem

It's not just that his memetics have been discredited, it's also what I said in bold!

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

^I got his pettily-argued tgd out of the library. (I refused to pay for it but couldn't resist seeing what the fuss was about.)

My comment above was, I thought, obvious, but just to simplify: it seems his scientific reasoning isn't much better than his religious reasoning. I don't think I'd even bother read any of his other books after seeing his really schoolground-like arguments in tgd. I'll stick to more rational science authors, I think!

iUseVi

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

It's not just that his memetics have been discredited, it's also what I said in bold!

Well now that's not really fair. Biology is his specialty and he's definitely better at that (IMO).

Fanny Cradock

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

It's not just that his memetics have been discredited, it's also what I said in bold!

*Tangent*
Has it? I would have thought that it is still to early to consign it to the rubbish dump.

I've often been opposed to the idea of memes. Other than some serious misgivings about the hypothesis, I guess my reaction is probably explained in no small part to how I usually see it used around here - a reason to explain away God.
*Tangent*

youcrazyjesus!

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

It's not just that his memetics have been discredited, it's also what I said in bold!

As I've explained to you many biologists agree with him and many others disagree. Dawkins doesn't discredit biologists who oppose him by disagreeing with them, or vice versa. You aren't in a position to make a judgement on the subject. Even if he is wrong it doesn't alter every argument he's made. Arguments are independent of the person making them.

A lot of what's in the God Delusion is quite basic but it's a popular book. Parts of the book are aimed at people who need things explained to them simply so the ideas are sometimes very basic. There are some complex philosophical issues dealt with in the book too though and Dawkins kicked lumps out of theologians who challenged him on issues raised in the book, in my opinion.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

*Tangent*
Has it? I would have thought that it is still to early to consign it to the rubbish dump.

I've often been opposed to the idea of memes. Other than some serious misgivings about the hypothesis, I guess my reaction is probably explained in no small part to how I usually see it used around here - a reason to explain away God.
*Tangent*

The problem with it is that it's really hard to formulate experiments that prove or disprove it, which is kind of why it fails as a hypothesis (in my view). I think we need to understand the brain a bit better before that is possible (if ever). I mean look at how many theories of mind there are currently, and this is kind of meta to those even.

And if memes do exist "in the wild" as it were, their environment is so complex, and involves so many factors, that to generate a computer model would be impossible.

That's my take on it anyway.

Fanny Cradock

iUseVi wrote: »

The problem with it is that it's really hard to formulate experiments that prove or disprove it, which is kind of why it fails as a hypothesis (in my view). I think we need to understand the brain a bit better before that is possible (if ever). I mean look at how many theories of mind there are currently, and this is kind of meta to those even.

And if memes do exist "in the wild" as it were, their environment is so complex, and involves so many factors, that to generate a computer model would be impossible.

That's my take on it anyway.

An aside: I don't think it accurate to say that you can formulate experiments that prove or disprove anything. That's not what science is about.

Anyway, one of the problems I have with the hypothesis (and I assume this is the correct term) is that it explains nothing that can't already be explained either partially or totally by other things we have known about since we showed up on the scene. Also, I don't like the way it relies on an an established concept - the gene - to explain itself. Not that it consigns it to the dump I was talking about earlier, but that it uses an analogy to justify itself I think is a weakness. But hey, perhaps the world of memetics has moved on since I last dipped my toe.

youcrazyjesus!

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

An aside: I don't think it accurate to say that you can formulate experiments that prove or disprove anything. That's not what science is about.

Explain?

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

An aside: I don't think it accurate to say that you can formulate experiments that prove or disprove anything. That's not what science is about.

How do you mean? Experiments can definitely disprove things, although I'll except they can't prove 100%.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Anyway, one of the problems I have with the hypothesis (and I assume this is the correct term) is that it explains nothing that can't already be explained either partially or totally by other things we have known about since we showed up on the scene. Also, I don't like the way it relies on an an established concept - the gene - to explain itself. Not that it consigns it to the dump I was talking about earlier, but that it uses an analogy to justify itself I think is a weakness. But hey, perhaps the world of memetics has moved on since I last dipped my toe.

Well then we are agreed then that it's not shown to be sound. Although I don't see why it can't rely on "an established concept - the gene - to explain itself.", I would expect a hypothesis to rely on previous scientific work, else we would be reinventing the wheel the whole time.

youcrazyjesus!

iUseVi wrote: »

How do you mean? Experiments can definitely disprove things, although I'll except they can't prove 100%.

In a very real mathematical and literal sense of course it can. What do you mean?

iUseVi

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

In a very real mathematical and literal sense of course it can. What do you mean?

Experiments can only show something logically given current knowledge. If new data comes in anything can change. If data was collected (and verified) showing apples flying into space rather than falling to the ground then the theory of gravity is wrong (assuming no other new forces). Of course the confidence value that gravity is correct is extremely high. It's never been seen to go wrong and it "fits" with so much other stuff.

As Einstein sums up nicely: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.".

iUseVi

Oh dear! Tangent is taking off, blame Fanny!

/end tangent

youcrazyjesus!

iUseVi wrote: »

Experiments can only show something logically given current knowledge. If new data comes in anything can change. If data was collected (and verified) showing apples flying into space rather than falling to the ground then the theory of gravity is wrong (assuming no other new forces). Of course the confidence value that gravity is correct is extremely high. It's never been seen to go wrong and it "fits" with so much other stuff.

As Einstein sums up nicely: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.".

That's a truism really.

iUseVi

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

That's a truism really.

Then you do agree with me? Perhaps I am being to pedantic for your taste.

Fanny Cradock

iUseVi wrote: »

How do you mean? Experiments can definitely disprove things, although I'll except they can't prove 100%.

No, they aren't disproved. Functionally they may be considered bunk, but science can't ever correctly say that something is 100% incorrect. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If you want to move into proofs you have to go to mathematics.

Fanny Cradock

iUseVi wrote: »

Then you do agree with me? Perhaps I am being to pedantic for your taste.

Can I self-infract?

.
.
.
.
.

No

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, they aren't disproved. Functionally they may be considered bunk, but science can't ever correctly say that something is 100% incorrect. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If you want to move into proofs you have to go to mathematics.

Ok last tangential post. Yes they can be. If I have a hypothesis that gravity only acts on apples you only have to show it works on oranges to prove this wrong. Or to use the famous example if I say "All men are immortal" you must find just one dead man to disprove this. These things are 100% false (at time of disproving).

Fanny Cradock

Yes, but you assume that what you have is absolute proof and you then use this to disprove something. We can take this to the science forum if you like.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, but you assume that what you have is absolute proof and you then use this to disprove something. We can take this to the science forum if you like.

If you wish. Delete or move my posts if you want, clogged this thread a bit sorry. :P

vodafoneproblem

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You aren't in a position to make a judgement on the subject. Even if he is wrong it doesn't alter every argument he's made. Arguments are independent of the person making them.

A lot of what's in the God Delusion is quite basic but it's a popular book. Parts of the book are aimed at people who need things explained to them simply so the ideas are sometimes very basic. There are some complex philosophical issues dealt with in the book too though and Dawkins kicked lumps out of theologians who challenged him on issues raised in the book, in my opinion.

Funnily enough, I've had more than one occasion in the past to read about meme theory. Just not Dawkins' books on it, and, given his failure to argue properly in tgd, or to prove his case at all, imo, I've no wish to punish myself further by doing so. It's not exactly rocket science, anyway! It's all very airy-fairy stuff. It would remind me of those gurus who come up with crazy theories like thetans living in our bodies and such, to try to get us to part with our hard-earned cash. 'Pseudoscience' seems like a very valid description to me, as mentioned on the last page, and in the linked article. It seems to me Dawkins thrives on over-simplistic, and, more often than not, incorrect, ways of seeing everything. There may have been complex philosophical ideas mentioned in his books but his retorts were anything but complicated and often just amounted to childish ridicule. I'm not convinced he's capable of making complex arguments for or against anything. It's hard to disagree with Mr. Bribiesca when he says "Memetics seems more like a children's fable or a virtual game, where meme's are obnoxious, autonomous entities floating all over trying to control our minds".