Comments by Doctor Dee

1. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196719 by Doctor Dee on June 20, 2008 at 11:21 am

Comment #196469 by FightingFalcon

Explain to me how we've used military force to bend the will of oil-producing countries. I wait with baited breath, especially considering that we can barely get Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production rates.

Your error here is the assumption that your government wants Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production. Here are some talking points:

Price of oil under Clinton: $18 a barrel
Price of oil immediately after invasion of Iraq: $57 a barrel
Price of oil now: $137 a barrel

Who gets to skim the cream off these colossal rises? Big Oil.
Who's in bed with Big Oil right now? Bush Co.

Here's how they did it, from Greg Palast:

In 2005, after a two-year battle with the State and Defense Departments, they released to my team at BBC Newsnight the "Options for a Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry." Now, you might think our government shouldn't be writing a plan for another nation's oil. Well, our government didn't write it, despite the State Department seal on the cover. In fact, we discovered that the 323-page plan was drafted in Houston by oil industry executives and consultants.

The suspicion is that Bush went to war to get Iraq's oil. That's not true. The document, and secret recordings of those in on the scheme, made it clear that the Administration wanted to make certain America did not get the oil. In other words, keep the lid on Iraq's oil production -- and thereby keep the price of oil high.

You can read the full text here.
And more here and here

2. Rapture site sends unbelievers their last chance ... via email

Comment #194792 by Doctor Dee on June 17, 2008 at 9:26 am

... more than one member being taken out by, attack, natural disaster, or epidemic ...

This was the clause I homed in on. Does that make me a nasty person?

3. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192829 by Doctor Dee on June 14, 2008 at 2:47 am

The name "Tony Blair Faith Foundation" is a telling (as well as an ugly) one. Compare it with the "Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science". This isn't a foundation for faith which bears Blair's name: it's about Tony Blair's faith, not anyone else's. The idea that (for instance) Christianity and Islam are part of some harmonious whole is a characteristically Blairish trope. He believes it, nobody else does. Delusion piled on delusion.

4. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192822 by Doctor Dee on June 14, 2008 at 2:39 am

Blair is a perfect illustration of the delusional religious mindset. He's reported in today's Guardian as believing that the only reason the Labour government is unpopular is high food and fuel prices. Could you get a more perfect example of wilful blindness to evidence?

5. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #192524 by Doctor Dee on June 13, 2008 at 9:15 am

Speaking as an admirer of both Reggie Perrin and Frank Zappa, I'd like to chip in here with the Best Zappa Quote Ever:

Scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I think there's more stupidity than hydrogen, and that that is the basic building block of the universe.

That line should be nailed to the wall behind every creationist debate.

It could be accompanied by the immortal words of Reggie Perrin: "Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhh!!!!!!!"

6. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

Comment #191532 by Doctor Dee on June 11, 2008 at 6:33 am

Comment #191475 by The Third Man

I think we tend to look at the Animal Rights debate from the wrong angle. Perhaps it is better to think of it not so much a case of animals having rights, but human beings not having certain rights - for instance, we should not have the right to hunt elephants for their tusks.

You ask later in your post, what is really the difference? The difference is that the reverse angle you propose (which I've heard before from "soft" animal sympathisers) allows humans to pick and choose the ways in which they can or can't exploit/abuse/be cruel to animals. Piecemeal humanitarianism isn't really humanitarianism. Granting basic universal rights to animals (as we do to ourselves) would upset a lot of humans. For example, some of the species humans like to eat could become off-limits. No, it's much easier all round to ban certain things that aren't very popular with humans anyway, like killing elephants for their tusks.

Given that animals cannot understand the concept of rights, it seems strange to award animals with certain rights. Isn't this a purely human idea?

This is another argument I've heard before. It conflates "human" rights (often call "fundamental human rights") with civil rights. The former are held to be inalienable (the right not to be killed, tortured, enslaved), whereas civil rights are generally dependent on responsible behaviour (e.g. you commit a crime, you lose the right to freedom). Severely mentally handicapped humans aren't capable of understanding rights or responsibilities. Should they not be entitled to basic human rights? Of course they should, and they are. Then why not chimps? Why not pigs, horses or dogs?

7. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

Comment #191046 by Doctor Dee on June 10, 2008 at 6:41 am

Reclassifying other primates as human seems absurd to me, although I agree with the moral argument behind it. Taking it back to earlier - now largely resolved - issues of rights, it seems rather like ruling that women are men and black people are white. "Distinct but equal" seems to be a more sensible model. The distinction in humans between male and female is pretty absolute (give or take transexuals), that between different "races" less so, and the distinction between humans and other primates is also somewhat fuzzy, but the distinction is there, and has cognitive meaning. The question is whether it should have meaning in terms of rights. I think not.

Of course, we have to bear in mind that this is a news story, so the whole "chimps are humans" angle could just be news spin.

8. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190547 by Doctor Dee on June 9, 2008 at 8:46 am

Comment #190443 by joeyoap:

You may as well rely on prayer as companies like Monsanto to feed the worlds hungry.They have only one concern-bottom line profit.Because the farmers have to buy suicide seed every year they get further and further into debt and are forced to plant ever more cash crops for the western market and less of the food needed to feed themselves.
I wouldn't trust global corporations to solve hunger problems anymore than I would George Bush to bring about world peace.

Precisely. But it's not just the "suicide seed" that's at issue. In the same way as Xerox is really in the paper and toner business (their machines are just a way of getting you to buy their "consumables"), Monsanto is really in the agrochemical business. Once you've accepted their GM products, you're locked into a lifetime dependency on their expensive herbicides and pesticides, which you need to use in massive quantities (that's the point of the genetic modification - making the crops resistant to the chemicals).

As a huge corporation, Monsanto are interested in BIG DOLLARS. Unless starving people have got some of those, they ain't interested. The whole notion of "feeding the world" is a marketing ploy, which a saddeningly large number of people have bought into.

And by the way, Fighting Falcon, where do Americans get off with this "European liberals" schtick? If you think it's only liberals who don't want GM food, you can think again.

9. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188181 by Doctor Dee on June 3, 2008 at 10:09 am

I jumped into the fray without reading the thread because I just couldn't resist al-rawandi's mistyping. I've now been back and looked at Appleby's comments. Wow. Anyway, my take on the issue is this (pardon me if I'm repeating what other people have said)...

Anyone who is concerned about the sexual orientation (whatever it is) of potential adopters has some serious issues going on. As if it matters what the parents like to do to each other in bed.

Of course, the response to this is usually "I don't care what these people do to each other's bottoms, I care about providing a child with a proper set of role models etc."

In fact, a child brought up by two gay men* could well have as many if not more female role models (or surrogate mother figures or whatever) spending time at the house than one brought up by a straight couple. Gay men have a strong tendency to have a lot of close female friends.

*Let's face it - that's the issue here: gay men. Does anyone care if two lesbians bring up a child? I doubt it. What it all comes down to is the unsquashable belief that homosexuality=paedophilia. All the talk about families and role models is a blind.