Comments by MagratGarlick

Comment #233592 by MagratGarlick on August 20, 2008 at 4:40 am

Wikipedia page on the insane asylum experiment, with links to original articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

2. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188337 by MagratGarlick on June 4, 2008 at 1:03 am

Appleby

You do realise that all your 'rational' argumements for preferring virgin females are simply post-hoc rationalisations of your misogynistic view of women as 'goods', rather than fellow human beings who happen to have differently shaped genitals, don't you?

Of course you're a misogynist, as I think you are fully aware, from the number of times you have used the word in reference to yourself. However, this does explain both your justification of bestiality, and your disgust for male, but not female, homosexuality.

Since women are not actually, in your view, fellow human beings, but objects to be used, there is little difference between women and cats/sheep/goats in this regard. However, for a man to voluntarily take on the sub-human role of the woman in the one-sided exploitative exchange that is your view of sexual relations, understandably appears vile. Two sub-human creatures 'using' each other, however, presents no problems.

Incidentally, does your 'girlfriend' read these threads? Or do you prefer to keep her ignorant of your misogynistic views as well as your lack of prowess?

3. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187990 by MagratGarlick on June 3, 2008 at 5:50 am

"I'm sure your example of people with mental health problems being abused or excluded could eventually be seen by such misfits as justifiable ('Well, they're not much more than animals are they? And I already decided it's ok to abuse animals. right?')."

In fact, since he clearly views gay men as less than human, witness his frequent comparisons with orang-utans, he would probably consider raping a gay man to be perfectly acceptable, too. Of course, like many men in prison, he would not see such an act as evidence that he was 'gay' himself.

(And, to be completely fair, I'm not sure it would be. I think that rape, regardless of the gender or age of the victim, is almost entirely about dominance, and nothing to do with sexual attraction.)

4. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187735 by MagratGarlick on June 2, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Comment #187731 by Appleby

- Well, I'd love to continue this pointless discussion with you blockheads but I'd rather have (vaginal) sex with my girlfriend now. -

Do you want to borrow my footpump? :o)

5. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187729 by MagratGarlick on June 2, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Comment #187725

- I'm going to have to ignore you now, honey. Oops... am I now a misogynist???? -

I don't know about 'now', I thought it was pretty clear from your first comments that you're a misogynist.

6. Face to faith

Comment #181999 by MagratGarlick on May 19, 2008 at 5:02 am

Regarding the 'atheism is amoral' comment, to be fair, it is perfectly true.

Atheism IS a-moral. However, so is theism.

The belief in an all-powerful deity does not automatically entail anything that we would recognise as 'morality'. All it entails is a kind of 'might-is-right' rule, in which we 'ought' to do what the all powerful deity tells us to do simply BECAUSE he/she/it is all powerful.

7. Surviving an unholy school war

Comment #181978 by MagratGarlick on May 19, 2008 at 2:10 am

"Dansam, there is no shame in protecting one's family by whatever means necessary."

Beating up someone who has previously harmed your family, but is no longer in a position to do so is not 'protecting your family', it is vengeance. It achieves nothing but giving you the same kind of sadistic pleasure in another person's pain that we are condemning these Catholic teachers for.

8. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #178314 by MagratGarlick on May 11, 2008 at 7:13 am

DLed - "why does the embryo gets zeroed"

I think you are being rather unfair on this one. The woman asking this question was struggling with the English (she said 'a children', and then corrected it to 'a child'), which was clearly not her first language. I think the question she wanted to ask was probably a sensible one (and possibly the one that the moderator turned it into, about the suggestion that cloned creatures would be 'born old', and how it is that eggs/sperm get round that), but her English wasn't up to expressing it.

Could you express a complex scientific question in a foreign language? I can just about manage to ask whether my hotel room has air-conditioning.

9. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123393 by MagratGarlick on February 7, 2008 at 4:55 am

"Babies are not naturally repulsed by anything - they charted with age learned bevahiours with classics like fake dog-poo."

Actually, I think you would find that even babies would have been repulsed by REAL dog-poo. Disgust at certain things, particularly smells, is a instinctive response, just as fear can be an instinctive response. It is probably true that MOST of what we are disgusted by or afraid of is learnt, but not all.

10. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111245 by MagratGarlick on January 14, 2008 at 6:15 am

"To me the question is as daft as one like:
Choose between carying a 10lb backpack which is comfortable and carries enough to get you by or carrying a 50 ton house which can supply your every need in total luxury. Assume for the moment there is no gravity (!) Neither reflect real-world processes "

LOL!

I like this example a lot. I'll have to remember it next time this 'finding' comes up.

11. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111242 by MagratGarlick on January 14, 2008 at 6:03 am

"Choice A: year-1 = 50T, year-2 = 60T, year-3 = 70T so 3 years sum is 180T
Choice B: year-1 = 80T, year-2 = 70T, year-3 = 60T so 3 years sum is 210T
Most people choose 'A' because it 'feels better' to go up instead down, a true Homo economicus would of course take 'B' especially as inflation is additionally benefiting the high payments in year-1. "

This assumes that these three years are somehow isolated from the rest of your life, but of course in the 'real world', as opposed to the imaginary one that researchers base their hypothetical scenarios in, that isn't true. In the 'real wordl' the rational chioce is the one that leaves you with the highest salary at the end, since that is what your future earnings/pension will be based on. Also, it is difficult to adjust to a decrease in income unless you deliberately choose not to live up to your income, in which case you don't really get the benefit of it.

12. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111240 by MagratGarlick on January 14, 2008 at 5:55 am

"I don't think the instinctual part of the brain understands money as anything but a zero sum arrangement. If you have more I have less."

That's because, since money is merely a symbol for the real wealth, and the total real wealth is pretty much a fixed quantity, it IS a zero sum arrangement.

A better way of phrasing the question would be to hypothesise a relatively low salary in a wealthy country, like the UK, compared to a relatively high salary in a poor, third world country. Then the relatively low salary really WOULD give you a better lifestyle.

13. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111239 by MagratGarlick on January 14, 2008 at 5:42 am

"Would you rather earn $50,000 a year while other people make $25,000, or would you rather earn $100,000 a year while other people get $250,000? Assume for the moment that prices of goods and services will stay the same.

Surprisingly -- stunningly, in fact -- research shows that the majority of people select the first option; they would rather make twice as much as others even if that meant earning half as much as they could otherwise have. How irrational is that?"

I haven't read any of the comments yet, or even the rest of the article, but I had to comment on this, as I have come across this 'finding' before. I think the only 'suprising' thing about this research is that the reasearchers believed that people would accept the ridiculous premise of 'prices staying the same' in the question.

Basically, if you ask an obviously stupid question you will get unpredictable answers. The question itself is stupid, because we all understand enough 'folk economics' to know that if average incomes are higher, prices will be higher. The reason people choose the option in which they earn twice as much as everyone else, rather than the one where they earn half as much is because they ignore the bit about 'prices remaining the same' because it is so obvious that this would not be true. They KNOW that how much they can afford to buy depends far more on how much they earn compared to everyone else than on the actual numbers, and it is 'irrational' to expect them to believe someone who simply denies this obvious fact of life.

14. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90119 by MagratGarlick on November 23, 2007 at 4:33 am

"How could you rule out the experimenter effects?"

You'd have to read the original paper to find out how they ruled them out, but do you really think that they did nothing? Nature would hardly have published the paper if they had failed to apply adequate controls. It's one of the first things undergraduates learn, let alone the kind of researchers who do studies like this.

15. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72878 by MagratGarlick on September 23, 2007 at 10:06 am

d4m14n

In most high schools these days the assemblies have no religious content whatsoever, not even a token prayer. That is certainly the case at my sons school. This is usually mentioned as a 'failure to comply' by Ofsted, but nothing is ever done about it.

Of course, the legal requirement gives less enlightened school heads carte blanche to proseletyse, and needs to be done away with.

16. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72876 by MagratGarlick on September 23, 2007 at 9:57 am

Just to explain the GCSEs a little more, since they are the main school qualifications, each subject is assessed separately, but 16 year olds are generally considered to have 'passed' high school if they have a minimum of 5 passes, which must include maths and english. This is the standard by which a high school will be judged in the 'league tables'.

CofE run schools often have better test results than other schools, which is often cited as an argument in their favour. However, they are permitted to select children whose parents they consider to be 'committed' to their church, something which is often established by interview. Strangely enough, this appears to result in them having fewer children from deprived backgrounds than other schools, which might just possibly have something to do with the better test results.

17. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72870 by MagratGarlick on September 23, 2007 at 9:41 am

Summary of school system in England and Wales (Scottish system is slightly different and I don't know the details).

All ages refer to the age before Sep 1st.

Age 3 - Nursery school/class. Optional and not provided in all areas, often half day only, with two classes, morning and afternoon, taught by the same teacher.

Primary School
Age 4 - 'Reception' class.
Age 5, 6 - Years 1, 2 - Key Stage 1
Age 7 - 10 - Years 3 - 6 - Key Stage 2
Secondary/High School
Age 11 - 13 - Years 7 - 9 - Key Stage 3
Age 14 - 15 - Years 10 - 11 - Key Stage 4, GCSE qualifications
Children will be 16 by the end of GCSEs and may leave school or stay on for optional 'Sixth Form' (archaic term dating from when High School years were numbered from 1) and A levels, two further years ending at 18.

Tests at end of Key Stages 1, 2 and 3, with GCSE and A level grades counting as tests beyond that.

Tests cover Maths, English and Science. All children must study these plus RE. Parents, but not the children themselves, may withdraw their children from RE lessons.

Most subjects are coverered by National Curriculum, which lays down what children should learn in each stage. RE is the exception, with local educatin authorities having more discretion. Most schools, including most Catholic and CofE schools, actually teach RE as a multi-faith approach, with many even calling it 'religion and philosophy'.

The requirement for a 'daily act of Christian worship' is kept by most primary schools, but ignored by most high schools, who are never taken to task for it.

18. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72447 by MagratGarlick on September 21, 2007 at 6:07 am

Shorter Ricard Skinner :-

"If we actually define 'God' then it becomes obvious that 'God' does not exist. If we stick to insisting that we haven't got the foggiest idea what 'God' even is, then no one can tell us it doesn't exist."

19. Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity

Comment #72142 by MagratGarlick on September 20, 2007 at 12:31 pm

"That sergeant is wrong in his capacity as a sergeant of the US Army. But if the soldier knew this would happen he should have avoided the situation altogether, by playing along."

MuNky82, this line of argument is called 'blame the victim'. I agree that no one would blame the soldier if he DID keep quiet out of fear. However, what you are doing is blaming him for NOT giving in to intimidation and keeping quiet. In other words, you are criticising him for showing courage, something which is normally regarded as worthy of praise.

Do you condemn the Suffragettes for not giving in to intimidation? Or the early gay rights activists? If it wasn't for them this world would be an even sorrier place than it is.

One day, you might be able to openly state your atheism at work without fear of reprisals. What kind of behaviour do you think is more likely to hasten that day? Behaviour like yours? Or behaviour like that of this soldier?

I have every sympathy with your reluctance to 'stand up and be counted'. I don't know your circumstances, and I would not presume to judge your response to them. What makes you think you have the right to judge other peoples different responses?

20. Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity

Comment #72137 by MagratGarlick on September 20, 2007 at 12:19 pm

"Also, it just occurred to me that RD mentioned in TGD that Bush I said atheists cannot be patriots because the US is "one nation under god."

Hope somebody asks the shrub about this one in public!"

The quote was actually from Bush Senior, not the current president. However, if blokes will insist on trying to turn their sons out as 'mini-me' carbon copies of themselves by giving them the same name (and when said sons fail to rebel against such puppetry by picking their own name), they only have themselves to blame when people mistakenly take them for the same person. :o)

21. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72107 by MagratGarlick on September 20, 2007 at 10:54 am

Do we need to get up a collection and sent this woman some books by Dawkins? She clearly hasn't read any.

22. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #72101 by MagratGarlick on September 20, 2007 at 10:30 am

Teratornis - Comment #71869

I just wanted to compliment you on a brilliant post. I don't remember seeing your name in the comments here before, but if that is an example of your prose I hope to see it a lot in the future!

23. Oxford's Christian colleges 'are not suitable for school-leavers'

Comment #71666 by MagratGarlick on September 19, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Steven, a'school leaver' is simply someone who has (recently) left school. However, you will make better sense of it if you bear in mind that the British do not refer to University or College as 'school'. 'School' finishes at 18.

24. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70863 by MagratGarlick on September 17, 2007 at 5:24 am

Dr Benway said

- For two or three generations, avoid teaching children the words "atheist, agnostic, theist," until high school -

And exactly HOW do you propose to accomplish this? Bug all houses with children in them and haul the parents off to prison if they 'teach' their children any of these words? Deny children access to any books, including dictionaries, that contain these words? We'd have to deny them access to the internet as well, of course.

Have you any idea just how ridiculous your suggestion appears to anyone who gives it more than a nanosecond's thought?

25. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70860 by MagratGarlick on September 17, 2007 at 5:19 am

Dr Benway said

- Ordinary people are puzzled by anyone claiming "there is no God." How can a mere mortal make this assertion? -

Why? They don't seem to have a problem with anyone saying 'There are no fairies'. How can a mere mortal make THAT assertion?

26. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70851 by MagratGarlick on September 17, 2007 at 4:32 am

Dr Benway said

- Agnosticism is an easier sell in my world than atheism. -

Unfortunately, the agrgument that you have made against the word 'atheist', that it has a popular meaning which conflicts with the way we want to use it, applies even more strongly to 'agnostic'. The popular meaning of 'agnostic' is 'someone who considers that the probability that a god exists is not significantly different from the probability that no gods exist.'

If that is the meaning that you wish to convey, by all means, use the word 'agnostic', since the word 'atheist', whether in its popular definition or in its more accurate definition, clearly does not describe you anyway.

27. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70849 by MagratGarlick on September 17, 2007 at 4:19 am

Dr Benway:

- The environmental reality that isn't going to change is this: among native English speakers in the US and possibly further, "atheist" = "person who is sure there is no God." -

The 'environmental reality' is that the popular definition of 'atheist' is incorrect. When popular ideas about the meanings of the words 'Jew', 'Woman' and 'Gay' were incorrect, painting those who bore those names as sub-human, did those people feel they had to abandon those words and think up new ones? Or did they try to educate people about the correct meanings of the words?

You do realise that if we do as you would wish us to, and find a new word for ourselves that does not carry the popular negative 'baggage' that the word atheist currently carries, it would only be a matter of time before all that baggage would become attached to the new word, don't you? What do you suggest we do then? Find yet another word?

28. Richard Dawkins and the New Age fakers

Comment #63428 by MagratGarlick on August 14, 2007 at 5:45 am

Summer Seale "There is no difference between killing for the bible and killing for the koran - except the koran requires it far more than the bible ever has. Whatever the case, it's wrong and I won't stand for it."

You are quite right. Killing on the basis of ideology is abhorent to any rational person. What makes your ideology exempt from that?

Your rant implies that you only wish to kill those who are directly attempting to kill others, but that is clearly not true. You support the killing of anyone who merely happens to live in the same country.

Most of the victims in the Iraq war are people who have never killed anyone. Most of them, unlike yourself, have never even wished to kill anyone.

Explain to me again why they deserve to die, but you don't.

29. Does the Bible have a place in public schools?

Comment #61817 by MagratGarlick on August 7, 2007 at 2:15 am

"This is exactly why American atheists/secularists should be focusing our (very) limited resources on religious education issues and not be distracted by relatively innocuous matters like New Age beliefs, astrology, etc. As somebody in the other thread said, leave that to James Randi and the like."

Exactly. This is where AMERICANS should be focussing their attention. There is a certain cultural arrogance in assuming that New Age beliefs are NOT a problem in Britain and Europe just because you don't see them as a problem in the USA.

30. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61809 by MagratGarlick on August 7, 2007 at 1:43 am

"The author certainly hasn't read TGD very well, has she?"

I don't think she's read anything very well.

31. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58554 by MagratGarlick on July 25, 2007 at 7:15 am

"As for immigration being a raging success. I suggest you ask some of the people who had to move out of the areas that became muslim ghettos."

I was not aware of any programs of forced re-housing of non-muslims. Are you sure you are not thinking of racist whites who chose to move out of certain areas to get away from the people they despised? How does the fact that some white people are bigoted demonstrate that immigration is a failure?

32. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58227 by MagratGarlick on July 24, 2007 at 4:21 am

-The "dangerous ideas" are only dangerous in the sense that they go against the prevailing view.-

Actually, most of these 'ideas' ARE the prevailing view. Like the one about men and women being inherently different. That is actually something that most people accept without question. The REALLY dangerous idea is the theory that all the 'obvious' differences between male and female humans can be attributed to socialisation.

Until we have a sample of male and female humans who have not been subjected to any differences in their upbringing whatsoever, an experiment which is not only unethical but impossible, we will never know.

33. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58224 by MagratGarlick on July 24, 2007 at 4:13 am

"Last week we discussed whether evolution demanded that the disabled be euthanized, it was an stimulating and fun debate"

I think this sums up the whole problem with this 'dangerous ideas' business that people seem to be missing. The statement above employs the naturalistic fallacy. The question it asks can be immediately amswered, "No of course not, you idiot, evolution doesn't 'demand' anything because it is descriptive, not normative".

Most of these 'dangerous questions' contain normative, subjective, value-driven assumptions. Without those value driven assumptions, the sensible answer to most of them would be "What difference does it make one way or the other?"

34. A force for good?

Comment #55088 by MagratGarlick on July 10, 2007 at 1:55 am

"In his TV series about God Richard Dawkins sought out a Jew, Christian and Muslim who were, each one, wackos in anybody's book."

Let me get this straight, the moderate Bishop of Oxford is a 'wacko in anyone's book'??

If he's a wacko, doesn't that mean that at least 95% of British Christians are wackos? I mean, as an atheist, I'd probably agree with that, but it hardly advances this author's argument, does it?

35. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #55083 by MagratGarlick on July 10, 2007 at 1:29 am

"Promiscuity? yes, a bit. But not polygamy in the sense that the article means."

Well, of course not. There is no such thing as 'polygamy', outside of human culture. Biologically, animals are either 'monogamous', pair-bonding either for a season or for life, or promiscuous. There are no animals which naturally 'pair' with multiple partners. It's either one partner, or any member of the opposite sex who's available, and this applies equally to males and females.

'Harem' species are simply promiscuous ones in which the stronger males make sure that the weaker males are 'unavailable' to the, naturally promiscuous, females. Even then, in the more intelligent of these species, the females are often canny enough to get what they want when the stronger male isn't looking.

In many human societies, the 'stronger' males are able to enlist the cultural, patriarchal structure to drive off the 'weaker' males, rather than simply having to rely on their own brute strength. Females in such societies are indoctrinated from birth with the 'chastity' myth, so that they become their own jailers. It's no more 'natural' than any other aspect of human culture.

36. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #55080 by MagratGarlick on July 10, 2007 at 1:15 am

"Having a father who will provide food and protection (yes, Grandma can help, but I doubt you seriously dispute that men are better at these tasks than women,)"

Actually, I do dispute that, along with the anthropologists who have concluded that 50-80% of the food requirements in hunter-gatherer societies were supplied by the 'gatherers', i.e. the women.

I think you're a bit hung upon the outdated Desmond Morris 'Man - The Mighty Hunter' fantasy.

Strangely enough, all these 'biologically determined' arrangements of males providing for females don't seem to be found in any species other than humans, even though they apparently have nothing to do with our unique human culture, but only the same biological urges that all these other species share. Funny, that.

37. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #54908 by MagratGarlick on July 9, 2007 at 9:42 am

Mango ...and so you should not dismiss it with a fillip as "amateur speculation."

I think it was dismissed as 'amateur speculation' because it shows no evidence whatsoever of professional research, five minutes of which would be enough to demolish most of the 'claims'. It makes leaps from highly selective facts to 'conclusions' which bear no logical relationship to said facts, but which bear a close relationship to what the author would like to be true.

A lot like Intelligent Design Creationism, in fact. :o)

'Politically incorrect' is right. 'Incorrect', i.e. false, and politically motivated.

38. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #54900 by MagratGarlick on July 9, 2007 at 9:14 am

What a load of rubbish!

Especially the old chestnut about natural reproduction in humans involving 'all the females being monopolised by a few males', because human males are slightly larger than human females. So are chimpanzees, our nearest relatives. I believe that the sex size difference in chimpanzees is actually greater than that in humans, and yet both sexes of chimpanzee are indiscriminately promiscuous. Every female will copulate with every available male during her fertile phase.

In species where it is actually the case that 'all the females are monopolised by a few males', such as gorillas and elephant seals, males are not 10% bigger than females, but 100% or more. Even then, the monopolisation has nothing to do with the inclination of the females, who, just like chimpanzees, will cheerfully copulate with any 'available' male, but with the actions of the alpha male, who makes sure that he is the only one 'available' by driving the others off.

Humans ARE naturally, biologically polygamous, i.e. promiscuous, as the piece starts off saying. (Although, as Dawkins repeatedly points out, humans are quite capable of overcoming their biological urges when their reason concludes that there is much to be gained in non-biological ways, such as the emotional fulfilment of a monoganous relationships).

It then does a bait-and-switch, replacing 'polygamous' with 'polygynous' as if they meant the same thing. Doesn't this guy posses a dictionary? Do that in a high school essay and the teacher would throw it at you!

And as for 'Men harass women precisely because they are not discriminating between men and women.'

It's news to me that men who sexually harass women at work behave exactly the same way towards their MALE colleagues, groping them and making derogatory sexual remarks to them.

The only 'politically incorrect' thing about this piece is the blatant distortion of 'science' for the political purpose of maintaining the patriarchal status quo. It didn't work with 'The Bell Curve', and it ain't gonna work with 'But women are just NATURALLY inferior to, whoops, sorry, I meant different from, men, you know!'

39. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #54051 by MagratGarlick on July 5, 2007 at 5:52 am

"Bizzarro, the language here is so naughty you better insert your femidom lest ye get pregnant "

I really don't think there's any need to go the mysogynistic route of 'insulting' a man by calling him a woman, do you?

40. 'The Evolution of Homer' Intro

Comment #28992 by MagratGarlick on April 1, 2007 at 5:15 am

I think the 7 day week is probably a quarter of a lunar month. It would also be one of the moon's distinct phases. New moon to half-moon, half to full, full back to waning half and then back to new moon again.

41. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #28130 by MagratGarlick on March 28, 2007 at 5:27 am

"It is naïve to imagine that an atheist should be admitted onto a committee that decides policy for Religious Education. Unless atheism is a religion."

The school subject that these commitees regulate is 'Religious Studies and Philosophy'. Atheism is not a religion, but it is arguably a philosophy, and humanism defines itself as a philosophy right from the start.

All these people talking about 'RE' clearly haven't had much to do with UK schools recently. :o)

42. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #28127 by MagratGarlick on March 28, 2007 at 5:15 am

- I suggest R.E should be renamed something like Religion, Philosophy and Ethics. In which case you could teach relevant material that isn't necessarily "religion" -

It already is. It hasn't been 'RE' for years, it's 'Religious Studies and Philosophy'.

43. God and His Gays

Comment #28123 by MagratGarlick on March 28, 2007 at 4:54 am

The Wee Flea - we may want all races to be equal but what if there was empirical evidence - as these men thought- that one race was superior?

How can you have 'empirical evidence' that something is 'superior' to something else? 'Superior' is a subjective value judgment, not an objective, empirical one.

You can empirically determine that members of one race are different from those of another, e.g. taller, but which race is therefore 'superior' depends on the subjective value you place on the quality in which they differ. If you value tallness over shortness, then the taller race is 'superior', but if you value shortness over tallness, then the shorter race is 'superior'.

Empirical evidence only tells you which is tallest. It can't tell you which is 'superior'. That is a subjective judgment.

44. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25784 by MagratGarlick on March 15, 2007 at 5:47 am

Malik starts of by complaining that Sam Harris is only interested in whether Christianity is true or not and ignores its social and historical context, and then he goes on to describe how Sam Harris criticises, at great length, the negative effects of Christianity.

Aren't the effects of Christianity part of its 'social and historical context', then?

Methinks he could do with some lessons in joined-up thinking.

45. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25438 by MagratGarlick on March 13, 2007 at 5:57 am

"Having done so what should I say. I deem your beliefs to be irrational. I simply don't believe in this God of yours. Do you suppose I could come up with anything they had not contemplated"

You would find it quite easy to come up with something they had not contemplated. What you would find difficult is to come up with something they were prepared to contemplate. Something that would get past the 'Laa, laa, laa, I can't hear you!!'