451. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187924 by hungarianelephant on June 3, 2008 at 4:03 am

I'm late into this debate. A couple of observations on the last batch of posts:

580. Comment #187864 by Cartomancer on June 2, 2008 at 10:13 pm

Why is the status quo so important? Why is what we have now to be valued over the improvements we may well be able to implement? When slavery was the status quo people used similar arguments. When the oppression of women was the status quo people used similar arguments.

First, I think Appleby is right to point out that this presumes that what is being proposed is an "improvement". We have had 10 years of this nonsense in the UK and ought to be able to spot the logical fallacy by now. Some things are old and out of date. Other things are old because they worked - naturally selected institutions, if you will.

Blind deference to the status quo is ... er ... blind. And daft. But the status quo gives you a position to start from, to make incremental changes which can be adopted, built upon, modified or rejected, according to whether or not they seem to work. "Progress" does not have to work in one direction, and tearing up the rulebook is rarely a terrific plan. The law of unintended consequences tends to bite you in the arse.

Slavery was not abolished in one go. First it was restricted, then it was abolished in England, then the abolition extended to British colonies, and eventually the Royal Navy was deployed to try to break it up worldwide. The American experience was much more painful, but for reasons which we could argue about endlessly. It's entirely possible that but for the absurd Dred Scott decision, slavery would have fallen apart by itself without the need for war.

The oppression of women was not abolished in one go either. It's even possible to argue that we still have some vestiges. Even here, some of the rapid changes, in the name of a new dogma, haven't gone all that well. Nearly all of us would support the right of women to work and be paid the same as a man for doing the same job. But this has had some unpleasant consequences as well. It has become practically impossible for most families to manage on a single income, because the rapid proliferation of double income families has pushed housing out of reach. What of the women (and men) who see it as a valuable contribution to stay at home and bring up the children? What use is a "right" to do it if it can't practically be done? (Lest I be jumped on for this, I am emphatically not arguing for the abolition of equal rights at work. The point is that the change was rapid and the consequences not worked through. It should be possible to repair the damage without reversing the gains, but that's another discussion.)

Here, however, we are not talking about a sudden and radical change. Since we gave up persecuting homosexuals quite some time ago, plenty have brought up children. There's plenty of evidence, cited by other posters, that children are not worse off when brought up by a homosexual couple, compared to a heterosexual couple.

This debate has been going on for a while in the letters section of newspapers. It's obvious that some people will never accept the actual evidence. There "must be" some damage, because it's not "normal". And that alleged damage outweighs all other considerations.

Second observation - one way of spotting nonsense is when someone repeatedly makes comparisons or analogies that don't hold water. On this thread, Appleby has repeatedly bracketed homosexuality with bestiality. In the twisted heads of fundie evangelists, this makes perfect sense. What I can't understand is why someone with the obvious intelligence and somewhat rational approach of Appleby persists with this.

452. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186384 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 8:30 am

17. Comment #186381 by esuther on May 30, 2008 at 8:25 am

How about one or two of the treaties the US government made with native Americans and then broke

SSHHHH, for FSM's sake! You know that you're not allowed to talk about that. Or the one the British made, which guaranteed the land west of the 13 colonies to the native Americans in exchange for their help in beating the French during the Seven Years War. You know, the one they wanted to get out of in the early 1770s, but couldn't because the Brits were in charge ...

453. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186373 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 8:18 am

al-rawandi - I am not making this up. That is exactly what the Blair government did with the advice of Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General.

It was eventually published:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf?gusrc=ticker-103704

Buggered if I understand it.

Btw, I'm a strong believer in legal privilege. I don't see how else you can expect to guarantee honest and forthright advice. But a democratic government trying to hide behind it while simultaneously basing its whole defence on that advice ... well, that's just not cricket.

454. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186360 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 7:59 am

French court annuls marriage on the ground that woman is not a virgin.

Is it 1 April again?

455. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186358 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 7:58 am

142. Comment #186345 by kaiserkriss on May 30, 2008 at 7:41 am

Sorry to barge in on your conversation here, but what IS a legal war or invasion versus an ILLEGAL war or invasion?

Back in the "good old days" that distinction was never made. If we recognize the principal of sovereignty, then any invasion or war should be described as illegal.jcw

Excellent question. The answer is that if you don't like the war, you describe it as "illegal", even if you can't distinguish international law from a yellow rubber duck. Conversely, if you do like the war, your answer is that "our advice is that the war is legal". You then refuse to publish said advice on the ground of legal privilege.

And by the time we've figured out whether it is legal or not, everyone is dead, and the problem is moot.

This is not an entirely flippant answer. I've studied public international law, and I still don't have a clue how you answer questions like that. Fortunately, there are always some armchair pundits to help me out.

456. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186312 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 6:12 am

134. Comment #186305 by sjk on May 30, 2008 at 5:42 am

You clearly want to turn this into an argument about Iraq, which is the subject matter of exactly 100% of your previous posts.

Well, tough. This is about freedom of speech. Who has that right, and who champions it, has nothing whatever to do with the position they took on Iraq. Why is that so difficult to understand?

But let us not kid ourselves, while he champions *his* freedom of speech, in demanding war on the Arabs to destabilise their countries, he is clearly not a champion of freedom of speech.

Read that aloud and see if it still sounds like a convincing argument to you.

Oh, and

You wrote: "If you don't like what Steyn says, go and leave a comment on his blog: http://www.steynonline.com. I dare you". You dare me? What are you - 10 years old?

Yes. Does that make my argument more, or less valid? Presumably we should take your response as "no, I'd rather argue with a stranger on the internet with a silly moniker than actually address my arguments to the man I consider to be a nutter". Right?

457. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186293 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 4:42 am

131. Comment #186278 by sjk on May 30, 2008 at 3:48 am

Steyn didn't call for the death of arabs before sept 11?

Of course he did

Do you actually read the articles you cite before misrepresenting them? Steyn is certainly arguing for war. And why? Well how about this:

A War For Civilisation (title)

or this:

funnily enough UN sanctions don't seem to have so tightened Saddam's purse strings that he can't find 25,000 bucks to give to the family of each Palestinian suicide bomber. More than that, he's still here. And, simply by being still here, he's what passes for a success story in the Arab world

or this:

This is good news for any Palestinians interested in actual life.

Some people, apparently you included, are so blinkered by their opposition for the war that they cannot possibly conceive that one of its aims might perhaps have been to improve the lot of people in Iraq, and that some people supported it for that reason. You can call that misguided. You can call it naive. What you cannot do is to recharacterise it as an intention to "kill Arabs" (a phrase you still haven't backed up). That's downright dishonest.

hungarianelephant: juvenile taunts and strawmen - I think someone needs to get over himself.

A touch ironic, perhaps, given that the previous line of your post was

Of course, if you think Steyn was supporting a very special kind of war, you know, the kind where no one actually dies, then I grant you your point.

But that only makes Steyn an even bigger nutcase and even more undeserving of the support of any self-respecting rationalist.

Would you care to elaborate on what the juvenile taunts and strawmen were, or are you just trying to avoid discussion?

So Steyn's "Freedom of speech for me, but death for thee" is not a principle I recognise as part of our western culture.

Straw man.

I stand by my original claim that Steyn is a very poor choice indeed to be championing the sacred principle of freedom of speech.

Look, let me spell this out in short words. If you do believe in "freedom of speech", with or without meaningless loaded words like "sacred", then it has to apply to everyone, regardless of what they have to say. It wouldn't be needed if we all agreed on anything. You're on pretty safe ground with "I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing", but a free society means that we have to be able to have an open discussion on any subject.

As you may have noticed, the Iraq war and the rise of Islam are quite controversial subjects. Someone, somewhere, is going to have unpopular views. And some of them will defend them robustly.

Whether or not you like what Mark Steyn has to say, he is unpopular, controversial and robust. That makes him perfectly placed to defend free speech. Same as Larry Flynt. Remember him?

Even if he wasn't, you don't get to choose. You either get behind him and argue with the content later, or stop pretending to support free speech.

What's it to be?

458. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186283 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 4:07 am

174. Comment #186066 by qomak on May 29, 2008 at 12:59 pm

To expound on this, let us go bit back in history when anti-semitism and was common. While probably the best solution would be to educate everyone to not be racist, I don't think that could be practical. Imagine to counter that you establish anti-hatespeech laws. Now, since no case is black or white there would be instances where these anti-hatespeech laws would be misused.

BZZZZZZ. Sorry, that won't do.

Trying to regulate conduct in a vague and unspecified way is what tyrants do. That's precisely why the US Constitution has a Due Process clause in it. (Oh for the same in Britain.)

As soon as greyness is established, it has the effect of silencing those who worry that they might be in a grey area. On another thread we were discussing the Met's attempt to prosecute a 15 year old for calling scientology a "cult". For every one that refuses to take down the placard, there will be more who never put it up in the first place. And what effect do you think the BCHRC's actions have on people in Canada who want to criticise Islam?

459. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186276 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 3:44 am

63. Comment #186241 by mmurray on May 30, 2008 at 2:28 am

I don't see why this is a viable moral approach if what is being suggested is to not bother to find out what the problem is. What if it turns out we can modify the WiFi signal in some way that eliminates the problem without diminishing the usefulness of the technology? Shouldn't we do that ?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. The point is that the default response of deciding whether or not WiFi is ok based solely upon its organic effects is flawed. As pointed out above, even if it were shown that it does cause some organic problems in a tiny number of people, that may not be a good enough reason to ban it, though as you say it would certainly be a good reason to look for alternatives.

66. Comment #186250 by PJG on May 30, 2008 at 2:43 am

We all like to get our own way. It is the extent to which someone will go to get it that marks them as mentally ill!

Good post.

How would you go about measuring this and determining the appropriate threshold for mental illness?

460. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186229 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 1:38 am

15. Comment #186130 by Bonzai on May 29, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Hypersensitivity to em radiation may be psychosomatic, but as long as these people are not lying willfully, it is still "real" to them in terms of health impacts.

Yes.

This reminds me of a case from my days as a personal injury lawyer. Let's call her Mary. Mary had been involved in a rear-end collision, and appeared to have sustained a whiplash injury. Four years on, she was not working and was being pushed around in a wheelchair. She had to be carried near stairs. She spoke quietly, because speaking at a normal volume made her feel sick. She could not write because the act of holding the pen gave her shoulder pains.

It looked like a big compensation case. Except that four expert neurosurgeons who examined Mary couldn't find anything remotely the matter with her.

The insurance company made a Get Stuffed Offer. But it was rejected. The point was that although her suffering was all in her head, Mary had sustained a real psychiatric injury, and it had taken over her life. Eventually they had to pay her a much larger amount.

The question that's never been answered is whether she should be allowed compensation. In legal circles, it's heresy to raise it. A psychiatric injury is regarded as the same as a physical one. But I still wonder whether that is the right response. The litigation had become the most important thing in Mary's life - and this is an extremely common phenomenon. The constant obsessing over her problems, and the legal case, was undoubtedly making her condition worse. It might have been better, in the long run, if the law told her, as a matter of policy, "You're crazy, the problems are all in your head, you can't have any compensation so just get over it".

Having had periods of serious depression myself, I don't say this lightly. The most useful thing anyone did was not to sell me Prozac, but to tell me to pull myself together. Would compensation have helped? I doubt it. Hindered? Probably.

If I understand Bonzai's broader point, it is that whether the injury is organic or psychiatric, the appropriate response might be to press on anyway. That is a potentially viable moral approach - sometimes the public good does demand that a few individuals take their own countermeasures. But it would be very difficult to sell, let alone get through the courts, in our current society. So I'd support the double blind test, regardless of the problems mentioned.

461. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186005 by hungarianelephant on May 29, 2008 at 10:46 am

Actually, she's dead. Oriana Fallaci, unless I'm much mistaken.

EDIT - I understand she died still in opposition to Islam.

EDIT2 - and, by a curious coincidence, she was a friend of Mark Steyn.

462. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185998 by hungarianelephant on May 29, 2008 at 10:32 am

117. Comment #185990 by al-rawandi on May 29, 2008 at 10:13 am

Oh, I agree.

I just find it's not worth discussing Israel here or anywhere else. Before we can sensibly discuss what should happen in Gaza, Lebanon or the West Bank, we need general agreement on the question of whether Israel should exist at all. Otherwise it's like discussing what Yahweh likes for breakfast.

This is usually cue for a rant from someone about the injustices of 1948 blah blah blah. 1948 is in the past. There have been lots of illegitimate acquisitions of territory in the past, up to and including the annexation by the USSR of a large slab of Poland, and by Poland of a large slab of Germany, at around the same time. No one ever follows through the logic of booting the Israelis out because of an historic wrong.

The question is what we do now. If people want to say that Israel should be destroyed, I wish they would just fucking say so, and we can have a proper debate instead of sanctimonious moralising. Say what you like about Ahmadinnerjacket. At least he's clear.

463. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185993 by hungarianelephant on May 29, 2008 at 10:23 am

114. Comment #185985 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 29, 2008 at 10:00 am

Wait...not, HAIRSPRAY, PINK FLAMINGOS John Waters? I saw the "wacky views" and thought so. Just curious. Otherwise, I hadn't heard of him.

Er ... no, I don't think so.

He did write the lyrics for Ireland's Eurovision entry last year. Shite, it was. In fairness, the lyrics were the least awful part.

464. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185984 by hungarianelephant on May 29, 2008 at 9:56 am

al-rawandi - You might enjoy John Waters' The Politburo Has Decided That You Are Unwell. It's a collection of his columns from the Irish Times.

Waters is an ex-liberal who changed his mind, and found himself excommunicated and subjected to ad hom attacks by his former friends. The biggest change came when he fathered Sinead O'Connor's child, and suddenly found that he had basically no rights as an unmarried father. He thought that the feminists he used to hang out with would recognise a grave injustice perpetrated against one gender. They didn't.

He has a few wacky views - the whole Catholic thing is very hard to fathom, and his defence of that crook Haughey is laughable - but he always has something interesting and original to say.

465. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #185981 by hungarianelephant on May 29, 2008 at 9:43 am

15. Comment #185961 by irate_atheist on May 29, 2008 at 8:41 am

There's a lot of BS on this thread about how bad universal healthcare is. Try being uninsurable - through any provider, and requiring a replacement aorta due to an untreatable genetic disorder, before you start bullshitting on this subject. My sister's quite happy for things to be just as they are, thank you very much. And funnily enough, so am I.

irate - That's a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to support socialised payment for all, or just for the uninsurable, without going along with the lumbering apparatus of the NHS. Most European countries use a much less centralised model, and frankly I'd rather be ill in France than in England. The Singapore model is quite interesting too, and apparently one of the most efficient in the world.

As I see it, the biggest problem with socialised payment (even independent of the delivery mechanism) is deciding who gets what. In practice, it's virtually impossible to discuss these issues without someone calling someone else a Nazi.

What is "need"? What is "desperate need"?

Should we favour the young over the old?

Should we refuse treatment to those whose injuries are self-inflicted?

How do you evaluate the cost/benefit of a treatment? Is this even a legitimate enquiry?

Is anyone really happy that the most frequent operation carried out by the NHS, at public expense, is abortion?

It's easy to answer these questions when the subject is you, or someone close to you, and the money is someone else's. Health services don't have that luxury. The UK creates NICE to try to determine who gets what. NICE are trying really hard to do a proper job, and getting in the neck from both sides. Yet no one really wants to debate the criteria they are using. It's all about the immediate. In fact, we now get arguments about resource allocation dressed up spuriously as questions of medical ethics. This can't be good for anyone.

466. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185949 by hungarianelephant on May 29, 2008 at 7:52 am

92. Comment #185918 by Robert Maynard on May 29, 2008 at 4:52 am

Excellent post.

FWIW, Steyn has described himself as an old-fashioned, JS Mill liberal. The NY Times describes his last book as "A conservative commentator argues ...", which is code for "you don't need to bother with this".

94. Comment #185922 by sjk on May 29, 2008 at 5:19 am

There is a case for freedom of speech, but Mark Steyn is not the man to make it

Oh, get over yourself. The whole point of the right of free speech is that it is content-neutral. The people most likely to have to defend it are those with something unpopular to say. If you don't like what Steyn says, go and leave a comment on his blog: http://www.steynonline.com. I dare you.

EDIT - and show us where he supports killing Arabs, while you're about it.

467. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185899 by hungarianelephant on May 29, 2008 at 2:47 am

80. Comment #185863 by SteveO on May 28, 2008 at 9:47 pm

What an offensive bit of pandering to PC over-sensitivity. Truly shameful for us to allow so much power for the thought police. (emphasis added)

Yes, quite.

The problem is not with the BCHRC. They are doing exactly what you would expect them to do. That is what they are for.

The problem is with the legislation that put them there in the first place.

It's difficult to oppose anything called a "Human Rights Act", or something similar. Well, obviously it means that you must be opposed to human rights. It's as unthinkable as opposing world peace or pink fluffy bunnies.

In fact, the whole human rights apparatus is a device to impose by edict a particular view of the world, dressed up in flowery language. Outcomes like this, or what has been going on at the UN, are the inevitable result.

Abraham Lincoln had it right: "We all declare for liberty, but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing."

468. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185886 by hungarianelephant on May 29, 2008 at 12:37 am

72. Comment #185813 by Naturalist1 on May 28, 2008 at 4:34 pm

He takes aim at the various Canadian Human Rights tribunals specifically pointing out that these actions are FREE of charge (taxpayer funded)to the plantiff and ruinously expensive for the defendant.

So, much like tax litigation, then.

469. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185673 by hungarianelephant on May 28, 2008 at 9:40 am

13. Comment #185666 by Stew282 on May 28, 2008 at 9:31 am

Is it just me, or do other atheists rarely seem to find themselves being offended? Is it a trait of religions to over stimulate the 'offence gland', this trait being particularly strong in islam?

So you reckon the offence is genuine, and not contrived for the purpose of shouting down someone they disagree with, then?

470. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185656 by hungarianelephant on May 28, 2008 at 9:15 am

Sooner or later, people will figure out that "human rights" legislation is intended to be an instrument of oppression, not liberation. Talk about handing gifts to religion on a plate.

471. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185537 by hungarianelephant on May 28, 2008 at 3:28 am

227. Comment #185527 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 2:49 am

HunterZolomon the reason why there is so much outcry about 'racism' - that is, white supremacism - is because of this cult of moral narcissim. The criers have no concern about actual racism - when was the last time you heard them complaining about the Arab supremacism in Islam, or the murder of Zimbabwean and Nigerian immigrants to South Africa? No, they want to show off how 'courageous' and 'principled' they are. For this kind of mental masturbation, it's helpful to have position that not only involves no risk, but no controversy.

It's more than that.

Political correctness in all forms, and especially anti-racism, is quasi-religious in nature. Not only are you expected to believe in it, you are expected to proclaim your faith at every opportunity and shout loudly about the sinfulness of all heretics.

A denial of racism is conclusive proof of racism. An attempt to distinguish a racist sentiment from a distinction made on other grounds is conclusive proof of racism. Being a "hick" and having an opinion almost certainly makes you a racist.

I guarantee you that there are people reading this comment, thinking "hungarianelephant is a racist".

It's difficult to overstate the chilling effect that this has. Often, it hurts most the very people who are supposed to be the "oppressed". In London as in much of the US, a wildly disproportionate amount of the crime committed is nonwhite on nonwhite. We could discuss the broken, repressive "big man" culture which is endemic in areas of high crime. But instead, we have to send the Met on sensitivity awareness courses, and fret about whether too many black- or brown-skinned kids are being stopped and searched. And when 15 year old girls are packed off to Pakistan to be forced to marry their cousins, we don't charge their families with kidnap and accessory to rape and demand the extradition of the Islamabad end of the operation - no, we lecture the public on the equal value of all cultures.

472. What is science for?

Comment #185239 by hungarianelephant on May 27, 2008 at 8:43 am

wooter, stop changing threads. I've answered one of your questions, so now it's your turn to answer one in a similar vein.

If it takes a pirahna three days to walk to Bucharest, what colour is my granny's cat?

473. Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

Comment #185238 by hungarianelephant on May 27, 2008 at 8:38 am

60. Comment #185229 by emmet on May 27, 2008 at 8:26 am

As a non-American, non-Welsh, non-English person, American, Welsh, and English media seem bizarrely jingoistic. As an Irish person, Irish media never seemed quite so bad, but I'm sure they are if you're American, Welsh, or English.

Yup, since you asked ;) (n=1, of course)

And don't get me started on Neil Back...

474. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185187 by hungarianelephant on May 27, 2008 at 7:03 am

150. Comment #185178 by al-rawandi on May 27, 2008 at 6:38 am

I have long said that Islam doesn't cause violence. And it really doesn't, people are violent, however Islam facilitates violence because it creates dichotomies, and it reinforces these to the exclusion of almost all reconcilliation.

Something of a digression. I've just (finally) finished Carl Sagan's Cosmos. He points to studies showing that people are very unlikely to become violent in adulthood if two conditions are met:

• physical contact during childhood (i.e. weren't you hugged as a child)


• lack of strong repression of sexual expression during adolescence

He goes so far as to suggest that these should be considered fundamental human rights.

Islam doesn't do terribly well on the second test.

And I can think of one other place with high sexual repression and high rates of violence. Now where would that be?

475. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185140 by hungarianelephant on May 27, 2008 at 4:32 am

Well, this has moved on a little since last night.

78. Comment #185018 by Vinelectric on May 26, 2008 at 5:31 pm

hungarianelephant

Muslims do not fit in this town. We are Aussies, OK

Hypocrites, how about Aussies integrating with Aborigines.

I'm not sure why you want to engage in point scoring by attributing to me a quote from one of the protestors, and then playing the moral equivalence card. What's your point, anyway? That because of what happened to aboriginal people over the last two hundred years, Australians have no right to question immigration?

81. Comment #185023 by Vinelectric on May 26, 2008 at 5:50 pm

I don't think that will happen given the constant stream of fresh immigration from third world countries. Would it be sensible to offer a monitored and standardized religious syllabus as an option to parents be any good?

Or - here's a mad idea - we could stop fresh immigration from third world countries, at least where it's intended to preserve a stupid, backward, repressive culture.

476. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184887 by hungarianelephant on May 26, 2008 at 10:46 am

Granton

I'm not sure what your point is. I wasn't arguing against faith schools (though I'm certainly happy to agree with you). You asked what integration would take, and I made a suggestion. Arguing that another church school would also be divisive doesn't address the issue, even if a more familiar one might be treated differently.

As I said, it might very well be that some of the residents of Camden are racists. But I'm not prepared simply to push them into that category without better evidence than this.

It's become virtually impossible to say anything remotely connected with race without being denounced as racist, the greatest thoughtcrime of our age. And many of these people are relatively unsophisticated, and speak more plainly than is politically acceptable.

When someone says "I am not a racist but", what they might mean is, "I am not a racist, but have genuine concerns that some people are determined to characterise as racist". What others hear - and especially the BBC - is "I am a racist and am in denial". I see no reason to presume the second meaning every time.

And we should be particularly alert for it, because Muslims are now trying to play the anti-race card by portraying anti-Islamic sentiment as (a) racist, or (b) akin to racism. We should call them out on this, not play along.

477. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184876 by hungarianelephant on May 26, 2008 at 10:21 am

17. Comment #184873 by mordacious1 on May 26, 2008 at 10:20 am

No questions, but I know racism when I see it.

So does the BBC. I hope your radar is a little more accurate.

478. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184874 by hungarianelephant on May 26, 2008 at 10:20 am

Granton, same way as everyone else. Trying to set up a school to maintain continued separation doesn't count as integration, in my book.

What colour are Lebanese, by the way?

479. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184870 by hungarianelephant on May 26, 2008 at 10:13 am

mordacious1 - Yes. Next question.

480. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184867 by hungarianelephant on May 26, 2008 at 10:05 am

The BBC always seems to be looking for racism. Even so, this is about the best it could do here:

Muslims do not fit in this town. We are Aussies, OK

Thing is, that's not actually racist, is it? The person who said it might be a racist. There might be racist undertones. But the fact is that there are large numbers of Muslims in Australia who have no intention whatsoever of integrating with the rest of the populus. And nothing in this proposal would seem to indicate that it's about to start.

What seems to have happened here is a meeting of local people to try to discuss matters which will affect them locally. That's democracy in action. Some will see the proposal as a foot in the door to change the area radically. They may be right or wrong, but it's hardly unreasonable to raise the discussion.

481. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #184824 by hungarianelephant on May 26, 2008 at 9:06 am

Does anyone know who sits on these boards? Are they like non-execs in public companies - turn up for the lunch and vote the CEO another pay rise?

482. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #184774 by hungarianelephant on May 26, 2008 at 6:29 am

426. Comment #184766 by Diocletian on May 26, 2008 at 6:13 am

... and you don't see anything ironic about the fact that you posted basically the same comment on three different threads?

Who made you the RD.net comment police anyway?

483. Repulsive but right

Comment #184771 by hungarianelephant on May 26, 2008 at 6:24 am

44. Comment #184768 by phil rimmer on May 26, 2008 at 6:21 am

What I find often happens is that their views aren't substantially altered, but their reasons for holding those views become more rationally based.

Surely you don't mean that theists sometimes invent ex post facto rationalisations to explain their prejudices???

484. Repulsive but right

Comment #184769 by hungarianelephant on May 26, 2008 at 6:22 am

37. Comment #184742 by Corylus on May 26, 2008 at 5:12 am

"Repulsive but right" or "repulsive because he's right?"

I'd think that for some, it's a combination of the two. If Hitchens were wrong, then he's merely an outspoken, blunt, poor deluded fool. Whereas if he's right, then he's tearing apart the warm and fuzzy theist universe. If you're less than 100% convinced, that has to be an unsettling feeling.

There's a video somewhere on this site with an exerpt which goes something like this:

Hitchens (on video): Mother Theresa's lack of faith shows that I'm right.

Comedian (in studio): Hurray, I'm right! Life has no meaning! (laughter from audience)

Better to know that your beliefs are nonsense than to have to think about how to give your life some meaning?

485. Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

Comment #184728 by hungarianelephant on May 26, 2008 at 4:11 am

25. Comment #184723 by hyposcada on May 26, 2008 at 3:39 am

I'm sure Matt (Ascaphus) will clarify whether he was referring to you or Roy Davies. However, in your ire you seem to have missed the point.

In science publication is everything. It is irrelevant from the point of view of scientific priority that Joe Smith discovered natural selection four hundred years ago if he never got around to publishing his idea.

Davies is arguing precisely the opposite - that what is relevant is where the ideas came from, and specifically that Darwin stole them.

I'm pretty sure that most non-scientists would agree with the first part of that argument. You're welcome to argue against it, but if you want to come here and criticise other posters for not getting their facts straight, you might be well advised to choose your language more carefully when talking to reporters. "Everyone credits Origin of Species as being the place the idea was first published" is not accurate.

486. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #184717 by hungarianelephant on May 26, 2008 at 3:12 am

371. Comment #184627 by clearmind on May 25, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Ten what is the expression for?

5 x 2 =

Now a question for you. If it takes a pirahna three days to walk to Bucharest, what colour is my granny's cat?

487. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183951 by hungarianelephant on May 23, 2008 at 9:31 am

epeeist - Wasn't Peterloo a pro-democracy demonstration? I didn't think it had anything to do with the unions.

488. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183945 by hungarianelephant on May 23, 2008 at 8:56 am

575. Comment #183944 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 8:50 am

Again ... Bar Council ...

Sorry, it's Friday afternoon and I am looking forward to a pint.

EDIT - These points are well made. Margaret Thatcher was elected in 1979, primarily on a platform of sorting out the unions. The closed shop was abolished, secondary picketing was criminalised and strikes required a ballot of the members. It was not pretty.

There are some on the left who regard Thatcher as a sort of hate figure. I have recently - 17 years after her departure from office, mark you - heard it seriously suggested that this octogenarian should be hung as a traitor to the British people.

The thing is, many of these people have never had to try to work with the unions. In the three elections she fought, she managed to garner more votes from union members than the opposition. In other words, she was more popular with members of the very bodies she was "smashing" than with the general public.

It's all about vested interests.

489. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183943 by hungarianelephant on May 23, 2008 at 8:39 am

So is the Bar Council. What of it? ;)

490. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183939 by hungarianelephant on May 23, 2008 at 8:23 am

565. Comment #183930 by Bonzai on May 23, 2008 at 7:59 am

You are confusing value and price. You probably don't get pay a lot if you work with inner city children or look after seniors. Volunteers actually provide very valuable services as oppose to say, chemists working for tobacco companies to make cigarettes more addictive, scientists who make WMD or lawyers do corporate mergers. I know it is not always easy to weigh contributions based on "value", but clearly it is not satisfactory to equate value with the price one gets pay for. Usually, you get reward more handsomely if you cater to wealth and those who own it, which is not the same as contributing to "society" in some intuitive sense.

Let's agree on that, even if I have been a blood-sucking corporate lawyer.

Now what?

491. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183936 by hungarianelephant on May 23, 2008 at 8:14 am

563. Comment #183928 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 7:56 am

No way. Ownership of companies can be traded on an open exchange. The prices driven by performance of the underlying companies. Derivatives can also be traded, independent contracts for buying and selling of stocks in the future based on expected performance or under performance. The stock market is simply a place where ownership in companies is exchanged between buyers and sellers.

Yes. However, that makes a very big assumption. It assumes that the liability of the shareholders is limited to their investment in the company.

Why so? Because if the company is not interposed, then the shareholders are principals. That makes them liable for the trading debts of the company. In theory, that could be sorted out by having liability in proportion to ownership. But in practice, that stops working as soon as one of your co-shareholders fails to honour a debt.

The value of the shares in the company then becomes dependent on two more imponderables - your own creditworthiness (creditors look for the deepest pocket), and that of your co-shareholders.

Like it or not, the only way to eliminate this is with limited shareholder liability, and for obvious reasons that requires the company to be treated as a legal person.

Does it require all the rights of a "real" person? No. But at minimum it needs to have the rights necessary to conduct economic activity in the same way as a natural person.

I can see some valid arguments for preventing corporations from making political donations. However, applying the same logic, trade unions shouldn't make them either. And furthermore, someone is going to have to explain to me why corporations should not also be banned from making charitable donations.

492. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183927 by hungarianelephant on May 23, 2008 at 7:54 am

559. Comment #183923 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 7:48 am

I suppose one example might be that I wouldn't like to see the healthcare system becoming fully privatised. Reason being, obviously, that provision of healthcare to those that need it but cannot afford to pay for it would be restricted.

I'm not so sure about that. Even if you accept the principle of socialised payment for healthcare (now there's a minefield), it doesn't follow that the delivery needs to be by government.

Insert a substitution, and see how it reads:

I suppose one example might be that I wouldn't like to see the food industry becoming fully privatised. Reason being, obviously, that provision of food to those that need it but cannot afford to pay for it would be restricted.

493. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183922 by hungarianelephant on May 23, 2008 at 7:44 am

556. Comment #183919 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 7:39 am

Corporations should not be treated as entities, politically or otherwise ... They shouldn't be treated as a "person".

You realise that you just killed the stock market?

494. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183877 by hungarianelephant on May 23, 2008 at 4:42 am

OT: I have a friend who works for a US law firm in London, with the concomitant salary and absence of work-life balance. She was once charged £1000 by a plumber as a call out fee.

£1000? she said. I'm an associate in a US law firm and I can't charge that kind of rate.

No, said the plumber. When I was an associate in a US law firm, I couldn't either.

[EDIT - this was of course before a large number of Poles moved to London, and started charging a reasonable rate and turning up when they said they would. That's a free market for you.]

495. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183875 by hungarianelephant on May 23, 2008 at 4:37 am

Surely there must come a point where you have to say that a string of words bearing some resemblance to English is not, in fact, English. Where, philosophically speaking, do you draw that line?

What Would Wittgenstein Do?

[EDIT - excellent post by Incredulous, if sadly wasted on the likes of wooter.]

496. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183858 by hungarianelephant on May 23, 2008 at 3:35 am

538. Comment #183854 by phil rimmer on May 23, 2008 at 3:28 am

I have no fear of state intervention in many areas where the market is just too dumb or short sighted or unable to establish a (morally) fair value for things.

Earlier in the thread, Bonzai and I had an inconclusive discussion about investment in technology.

The market typically heavily discounts future returns, in favour of immediate dividends or speculative capital appreciation. The typical investment cycle is around 2 years, much shorter than development periods for, say, new drugs or fusion reactors. Practically speaking, this doesn't mean that you profit by taking the long view. It means that you go bust, as the major investors won't stick it out with you and the developer runs out of money before getting a product to market.

How, if at all, would you propose to address that?

497. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183855 by hungarianelephant on May 23, 2008 at 3:30 am

534. Comment #183845 by epeeist on May 23, 2008 at 2:35 am

Marx was right about the social conditions prevalent in Victorian society. They were vile, any reading of history will confirm this. Further, they were the fault of laissez-faire capitalism.

This is possibly a nit-pick, but I think this conclusion is capable of being misunderstood.

The mill owners were able to establish an economic, and more importantly a legal, framework which suited their interests. It involved indentured apprenticeships, signed up to by children between the ages of 5 and 9, for the whole of their childhood. They worked between 12 and 16 hours a day in dangerous conditions, and if they ran away they could be forced to return and work overtime to pay off their fines. By any reasonable standard, this was indistinguishable from limited-term slavery.

Subsequently the indentures were abolished, contracts declared not binding on minors, and decent working conditions imposed. The largest impetus to decent working conditions was not in fact legislation, but tort law, which gradually became accessible as the industrial and provident societies paid for test cases, and chipped away at the legal barricades.

Conditions were a consequence of laissez-faire capitalism, certainly, but only because of the context of undue respect to vested interests. As ever, it's the vested interests you have to look out for.

Btw, I was in Quarry Bank Mill a couple of weeks ago. A fascinating place.

498. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183852 by hungarianelephant on May 23, 2008 at 3:15 am

536. Comment #183849 by phil rimmer on May 23, 2008 at 2:50 am

Excellent post.

One of the many problems with all Marxist formulations is that once you look beyond the soundbites, the actually concepts are impossible to pin down.

What does "need" mean, as in "to each according to his needs"?

There's no answer to it. "Need" is a linguistic game. Subjectively, it means whatever you consider as a priority. It's also code for "give this to me and shut up about it", especially when used by special interest groups lobbying government. Watch a two year old promote his "I want" to "I need" for a working demonstration.

But that's never going to suffice in a socialist state, so you need an objective definition. And there isn't one, except whatever the state says it is.

Whether the state is appointed democratically or arbitrarily, is formal or informal (as in the sort of 1930s Spanish view of anarchism to which D'Arcy seems to subscribe), it takes a view, and short of brainwashing the population, will never be fully agreed upon.

499. In God's Name

Comment #183580 by hungarianelephant on May 22, 2008 at 9:54 am

171. Comment #183549 by irate_atheist on May 22, 2008 at 8:55 am

At my alma mater, one wasn't actually charged for the privelege. The bursar missed a trick on that one, I think.

Come to think of it, I don't remember that we were either.

They were very strong on the lunch, though. Possibly because it was a rare chance for the chef to show what he could do when his budget wasn't limited to £1.68 per head.

500. In God's Name

Comment #183493 by hungarianelephant on May 22, 2008 at 7:22 am

167. Comment #183488 by epeeist on May 22, 2008 at 7:15 am

There is an old and poor joke about an American visiting Christchurch college in Oxford

Heretic! It's Christ Church, a Tudor anglicisation of the Latin "Aedes Christi" (house of Christ), and hence no more a college than "St Edmund Hall".

It's also not true that you get an MA just by paying a fee some time later. You also have to turn up and eat lunch, and not have been in prison in the meantime. So there.