501. Fleabytes

Comment #139971 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 9:19 pm

That makes more sense. Not as popular over here in Blighty, but I know it...

D&D always smacked of being just a bit too brash and American for our tastes. Cthulu, WFRP, Five Rings and Vampire Masquerade were more our thing.

Aah, the memories...

502. Fleabytes

Comment #139964 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 8:29 pm

No no no, I'm the only Cartomancer round here! Gav most emphatically prefers the martial to the occult arts...

Still, you called me on the RPG thing. Pure geekery flows through my veins like nothing else. Guilty as charged m'lud...

503. Fleabytes

Comment #139959 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 8:07 pm

Yes MaxD, we're monozygous identical twins. The same genes down to the last allele, though rather different as far as personality and presentation is concerned it must be said. For one thing I never did get Gavin's strange obsession with hair dye and outlandish shoes...

504. Fleabytes

Comment #139844 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Si longius quam aliis videam... ("If I have seen further than other men...")

505. Fleabytes

Comment #139835 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 2:39 pm

And that tradition lives on as the Boy Scouts.

506. Fleabytes

Comment #139830 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Hmm... actually, I'm wondering if the traditional patriarchal scheme might be a bit backwards. Perhaps it wasn't the macho heterosexual males who went out to hunt food, maybe it was the gay ones. Then you can explain the fact they like having sex with and fall in love with one another in terms of how it improves the hunting team dynamic, gives them good reasons to look out for one another's welfare and makes the induction of new males into the hunt team easier (I am reminded of the classical Greek use of paederastia as a form of mentorship and military induction). It would also mean that they had an added incentive to be out with the other males on the hunt, rather than sneaking back to the camp for some hanky-panky with the females and reducing what the hunt team brings in. Then you would have the heterosexual males as camp attendants and breeders, and perhaps harem-masters too. Of course, if the tribe didn't bring in enough food (because its hunters weren't as good) then it would diminish, and that could select for greater numbers of homosexual men at least.

Perhaps with the advent of agriculture the mostly heterosexual human societies then gained the upper hand and incidence of homosexuality diminished in response. An agricultural society does not require groups of closely bonded men to go off on their own and look out for one another to nearly the same degree, and perhaps expands far more easily because it has the means of increasing its food production easily to hand (spread out, have more children, farm more land).

Male bonding activities among heterosexuals could thus be vesigial genetic remnants of a previous homosexual-dominated age! Take that Heterosexual Dextral Tyranny!

Just an idle speculation...

507. Fleabytes

Comment #139806 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Same here, and I'll throw in one of my brother's rare wallet moths too!

Though I would be careful. Start posting links in too many places and you might get accused of using this site to garner unwarranted publicity for your own nefarious purposes. Only someone deeply unscrupulous and desperate would stoop that low...

508. Fleabytes

Comment #139786 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Yes, but I was under the impression that genes didn't always produce a fixed effect all the time. Say the appropriate genes give you a 50% chance of homosexuality, that doesn't negate a genetic element (I seem to remember the word "penetrance" to describe this sort of thing, and I'm hoping it's more than a Freudian slip here!). Also, there could be developmental factors such as the hormonal conditions in the womb at critical phases of gestation to take into account...

(50% chance of Homosexuality? Why am I reminded of rolling up characters for Role-Playing games in my younger years here?)

509. Fleabytes

Comment #139783 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 1:45 pm

But our views on all those things actually are evidence-based to a great degree, even if the only evidence we have is personal preference.

Personal preference is evidence of a kind. "I prefer vanilla ice-cream to strawberry ice-cream" is evidence of the structure of your own brain.

But hardly anyone would say "I prefer vanilla ice-cream to strawberry ice-cream, therefore it is objectively better", or "I prefer marx to nietzche, therefore marx was right" or even "I prefer RichardDawkins.net to Pharyngula, therefore PZ Myers doesn't exist".

You do get that sort of thinking in religion though...

510. Fleabytes

Comment #139711 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Well, his girlfriend is old and ugly, so I get a fair amount of mileage out of "coffin snatcher" and the like. Then there's the fact he's the most miserly, tightfisted bastard I've ever met, so asking him whether he's discovered any new species of moths in his wallet since last time is always good for a laugh. The best wheeze, though, is to point out that his taste in clothes is far, far gayer than it has any right to be and intimate that it's a shame he is still closeted, but we understand and he can come out when the time is right.

Then he just wallops me unfortunately...

511. Fleabytes

Comment #139700 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Irritatingly our language is very poorly equipped with abusive terms for heterosexual or right-handed people. "breeders" is the only one I have come across to date.

This annoys me no end, because I hate having to recycle ammunition in these little confrontations...

512. Fleabytes

Comment #139694 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Oh, Cartomancer, you poor thing. Gay and left-handed! God certainly had it in for you, didn't he?! ;-)

513. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139691 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Actually, I reckon that instead of the House of Lords we should have an upper chamber consisting entirely of Richard Dawkins, Sir Patrick Moore, Stephen Fry and Terry Pratchett.

514. Fleabytes

Comment #139685 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 11:53 am

I keep telling the world about the malevolent Heterosexual Dextral Tyranny that's trying to oppress me wherever I go by putting the forks on the wrong side of the table and faiing to provide me with appropriate scissors for my chiral needs. I'm glad someone else is taking the threat seriously!

Wasn't there some kind of study done years ago that showed a positive correlation between homosexuality and sinistrality?

515. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139670 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 11:36 am

Wow, that Lord Elton is the biggest argument I can think of for the abolition of the House of Lords. Has he actually read McGrath's shudder-inducing Pessimum Opus or is he just irritated that Professor Dawkins is much, much more intelligent than he isn't?

Mind you, I've just checked up on him and I can't say I'm surprised. Not only is he one of the last hereditary peers still in the house, having inherited his place from his father and only remaining after the 1999 reforms thanks to the transition period, but he's also a member of the Conservative party (no surprises there then), held several middle-ranking government roles under Thatcher in the eighties (say not the name of the beast three times, for she shall appear!) and is a doddering 78 years old.

516. Fleabytes

Comment #139664 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 11:28 am

To be fair to the homophobes though, I find most gay people pretty intolerable too...

517. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139220 by Cartomancer on March 5, 2008 at 10:24 am

""Current theories on the creation of the Universe state that, if it was created at all and didn't just start, as it were, unofficially, it came into being between ten and twenty thousand million years ago. By the same token the earth itself is generally supposed to be about four and a half thousand million years old.
These dates are incorrect.
Medieval Jewish scholars put the date of the Creation at 3760 B.C. Greek Orthodox theologians put Creation as far back as 5508 B.C.
These suggestions are also incorrect.
Archbishop James Usher (1580-1656) published Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti in 1654, which suggested that the Heaven and the Earth were created in 4004 B.C. One of his aides took the calculation further, and was able to announce triumphantly that the Earth was created on Sunday the 21th of October, 4004 B.C., at exactly 9:00 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh.
This too was incorrect. By almost a quarter of an hour."

- Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, Good Omens.

518. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139182 by Cartomancer on March 5, 2008 at 9:05 am

I doubt the fundamentalists are ever going to change their minds. I just wish they would change the record occasionally...

519. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #139176 by Cartomancer on March 5, 2008 at 8:56 am

Wax masks are actually an extremely old Roman funerary custom, though in Republican times it was traditional for them to be retained by the family, displayed in the atrium of the house and worn by relatives the next time one of the family croaks.

Wax also had strong associations with malleability, perviousness and lack of firm form during the middle ages, so paradoxically an intact wax image was itself a powerful symbol of preservation in the popular mind. Besides which, as far as miracles are concerned, people generally see what they want to see in them...

520. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138382 by Cartomancer on March 4, 2008 at 8:54 am

Why would tampering with the dead cause catholics any grief at all? Don't these people know a thing about their medieval predecessors and their relic cults? It seems that nary a day went by in the fourteenth century without someone digging up holy bones, holy blood, pieces of the true cross or another head of St. John the Baptist (several churches even claimed to have two of them!).

In fact the entire priesthood must have spent a good portion of their time mucking about elbow-deep in coffins like a bunch of morbid cackling necromancers. The variety and sophistication of reliquaries, transi tombs, charnel houses, phylacteries and ossuaries is simply staggering to a modern culture where the only thing we generally do with dead people is bury them and forget they ever happened. In the later middle ages they even had reliquaries shaped like the body part that was inside, made of gold or crystal to signify impassibility, sometimes even with little glass viewing windows. In eastern europe they even used charnel bones for interior decorating well into the 19th century (Wikipedia the Sedlec Ossuary if you don't believe me!)

They're mad this catholic crew. Stark staring bonkers the lot of them!

521. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #138363 by Cartomancer on March 4, 2008 at 8:33 am

Now a gay man with a gun would be a different story.

522. Fleabytes

Comment #138278 by Cartomancer on March 4, 2008 at 6:18 am

Throw down his triton?

What has a Greek sea-nymph got to do with anything, and why is Artful Dodger keeping one? Surely that would be blasphemous for one of his ilk? Unless he's really got this whole son-of-god thing mixed up with that Icthys business...

523. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #137984 by Cartomancer on March 3, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Blimey, not since the heady twelfth-century days of Petrus Alfonsi's Dialogue between a Christian a Jew and a Philosopher and Robert of Ketton's Latin Koran for the purpose of refuting the Muslims have we had so many frightened religious people desperate to pretend there is a credible case for their beliefs.

Funny how we only need one or two books to refute religiosity but they need to keep churning the fleas out ad nauseam. I guess that's because, while things like The God Delusion, God is not Great, and even the works of Bertrand Russell make the case in an explicitly confrontational way, pretty much every good book ever published on science, philosophy, history, morality and any other credible academic subject makes the case eloquently too in its own way. Likewise, all works of fiction weigh in as refutations of religion by showing up how much it has in common with them. Even religious books, and even the flea books, have something to contribute - by explicitly showing us how pathetic the case for the defence is and what lengths these mind viruses will make people go to to defend their pathology.

So read a book, ANY book, and you've got a part of the case against religion in your hands already! The only way you can avoid it is to cease reading any more books at all!

524. Fleabytes

Comment #137599 by Cartomancer on March 3, 2008 at 8:38 am

Well people like Lennox and Lane Craig singularly failed to say anything intelligent last time Richard talked to them, so I can't see why they should be allowed back to have another go.

Why should there be any kind of onus on us to give credit to the frothing crackpots who disagree with us? Do historians of the second world war have to invite a holocaust denier to debate with them whenever they give a lecture? Does David Attenborough have to invite a creationist every time he talks about evolution? Do I have to search out someone who believes the twelfth century never happened every time I give a paper on my thesis?

Some topics do admit of reasonable debate from both sides, some do not. Until the claims of religious people have any evidence whatsoever to back them up there is no reason in the world why Dawkins or anyone else need take them seriously.

525. Fleabytes

Comment #137586 by Cartomancer on March 3, 2008 at 8:19 am

Artful Dodger -

What on earth could a religious person contribute to a useful discussion of religion that Richard Dawkins couldn't? Why would anyone want to hear less Dawkins for their money, and adulterate the learning experience with the mind-rotting silliness of theistic drivel? Why not invite a well qualified chef or a gardener to talk instead? At least then we might get some good food and tips on looking after our petunias afterwards.

526. A natural phenomenon

Comment #137444 by Cartomancer on March 2, 2008 at 10:03 pm

All praise be to the one true master of the living world! Praise be to he who is there in the fathomless depths of all creation, who has seen all the teeming multitudes of life, who has girt the earth in his wanderings. He is there at the opening of every flower, the birth and death of every bird, the piling excrement of every bat. He is everywhere and knows all, yet stints not in passing on his matchless wisdom to his followers. He who once walked among us, but now has ascended to the starry firmament and shall be heard only by his voice through the long ages of time. Praise be to he who taught us how to laugh, how to feel joy, how to live alongside our fellow man and fellow beast!

527. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #137438 by Cartomancer on March 2, 2008 at 9:31 pm

I like this game!

So... Sodom and Gomorrah can be explained by a massive build-up of super-powerful queer-pattern immoralitons in the earth's mantle (naturally downward-moving - they go for the bottom), causing seizmic instability and the eventual breakdown of crust integrity. The resulting outpouring of trapped immorality as a pyroclastic flow would have vapourised the bodily fluids of those close by, leading to instant calcification in Lot's wife when she turned to look back. Residual airborne immoralitons spread across a wide area would then have contaminated the thoughts of Lot's daughters (lower body mass, so more susceptible) convincing them to drug-rape their own father.

A similar, though less pronounced Pentapolis Event, in San Francisco in 1989, can probably be explained in the same way. And maybe I should own up for the tremors in the eastern and central counties of England a few days back too...

528. Fleabytes

Comment #137115 by Cartomancer on March 2, 2008 at 11:19 am

If by the calibre of his foes a man is known, however, then Richard really isn't trying hard enough...

529. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137051 by Cartomancer on March 2, 2008 at 8:30 am

AtheistJon,

The point about politeness and civility is crucial. I can see why your statement "I think homosexuality is disgusting" was met with such disapproval - if you phrased it like that then what did you expect? I am assuming that what you meant to say was "I have a visceral response to homosexual acts, I wouldn't want to engage in them, but I am fine with other people doing them." That's getting across the socially conditioned dislike in a measured way without admitting that you are a great big homophobe who has an irrational hatred of gay people.

Civilised conversation is so much easier if people actually think about the way they phrase their points beforehand, and try to modify those statements which are not only offensive but those which are easily misconstrued as offensive.

Similarly, this site is not entirely about forging an atheist political lobby with unified goals. It is, in the spirit of Richard Dawkins, about debate, intellectual engagement and the pursuit of the truth. If people have political disagreements and wish to express disdain for the political theories of others here then why should they not, as long as they do it within the accepted bounds of civility?

530. A God blog

Comment #136871 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Well well, maybe I spoke too soon over on the Fleabytes thread about Telegraph opinion pieces...

531. Fleabytes

Comment #136758 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Bravo Corylus. I felt exactly the same but thought it really wasn't worth the effort - complaining about patriarchal backwardness in telegraph opinion pieces is like complaining about catholicism in the Vatican. I'm glad someone has put things to rights though.

532. Fleabytes

Comment #136746 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 4:19 pm

I really don't know what Leftow's answer to that would be. I only listen to his modern theology lectures for some light relief (and because he sounds far too much like Kermit the Frog for me to keep a straight face). His Aquinas lectures are the only ones I really pay serious attention to.

533. Fleabytes

Comment #136730 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Oh, Leftow is perfectly willing to entertain the notion that God is not "above" the universe but more an intrinsic part of said universe (which just happens to be the part responsible for creating it). Notions of being "above" everything are suspiciously neoplatonic to most modern theologians.

534. Fleabytes

Comment #136720 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Brian Leftow, the famous (well, in theological circles anyway) Oxford Theologian does work on ideas of omnipotence. Last time I heard him speak on the subject he seemed to use the term "omnipotent" to mean "as powerful as it is possible to be given the constraints of the universe" rather than "able to do anything at all". Redefined like that it is possible to have a meaningful, highly technical, and rather pointless discussion on the precise powers that "omnipotence" would grant you.

535. Berlin gallery in Islam art row

Comment #136660 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 2:26 pm

The concensus among medieval theologians, following Peter Lombard's discussion in Sentences (Dist. XLIV, Cap. 251 (1) - De aetate et statura resurgentium) was that everyone would be resurrected at the age of 32 - precisely half the allotted standard human lifespan and the age at which Jesus was crucified.

536. Fleabytes

Comment #136651 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Happy sex life? I'd settle for any sort of sex life...

537. Fleabytes

Comment #136608 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Riley did it for me in the trouser department I'm afraid. All the others, no stirrings at all..

538. Fleabytes

Comment #136603 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Can Robertson really blame us for veering off topic? His book really isn't interesting or important enough to sustain even three or four posts - beyond the necessary and delightful task of congratulating Paula for her thorough evisceration of his trite little scribblings that is.

And no evidence that he has taken my cartomantic prognostications seriously either. So disappointing. I mean what do you have to do to get noticed by the church these days?

539. Fleabytes

Comment #136573 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Holy Spirit eh? Is there a carbonated non-alcoholic version that I might be able to try?

540. Fleabytes

Comment #136545 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 11:41 am

Right. I've had a little think about this. It seems that people like our beloved Reverend Robertson are quite categorically unwilling to take heed of rational arguments that don't involve some kind of supernatural fairy nonsense. To this end I have decided that I shall bridge the gap and engage him on his own terms, and what better method for doing so than a good old tarot reading. I've got my deck in front of me now... give it a quick shuffle... Latin incantation to protect me against malicious spirits and we're away.

I have dealt you five cards Robertson, in the standard five-card horseshoe spread I generally use. The purpose of this inquiry shall be to determine whether religion is a good thing or not. I like to use a significator card in all my readings, and for you I have selected the Magician, though I have inversed him to indicate lies, trickery, deceit and dishonesty rather than his usual connotations of guile, wit, cleverness and dexterity. I hope you're sitting comfortably...

The first card, representing the past and its influence on the problem at hand, is the Hierophant or High Priest, and it is inversed. Fittingly enough it is also known as the Pope to many christian cartomancers. It represents rational inquiry, reasoned thinking, rational knowledge and teaching - it is the card of educators, thinkers and mentors and has a particularly masculine aspect. The inversed position indicates some kind of problem or hurdle to the rational inquiry, perhaps unknown problems or unrevealed information that might skew conclusions. Maybe some kind of unrecognised bias or lack of teaching ability? Intriguing...

The second card, representing the present, is the Ten of Coins - a card signifying wealth, material abundance and a life of ease. How fitting given your choice of monetary miracles to illustrate your feeble point. I don't think it takes phenomenal interpretative skill to work out what that one could mean in this context, though I might have a chat with some US megachurch pastor at his private palace some time to clarify things.

The third card, the apex card, signifies the most important factor governing the inquiry. I have drawn Mundus, the World card, for you. This card is the final and some say the most important of all the Major Arcana cards in the deck, and indicates the completion of one cycle or age of the world and the beginning of another. At the apex it is particularly powerful, and indicates a massive paradigm shift or change in opinion and circumstance. It, like Sol, the sun card, cannot truly be inversed, since its meaning does not easily admit to simple positive or negative interpretation.

The fourth card is the advice card, and indicates what the querent should do in this particular situation. The card I have for you is the Ace of Wands - a card that signifies the beginning of a new work, endeavour or enterprise. Go on Robertson, try something new, you might like it!

The final card is the outcome card, which shows some aspect of the overall answer to the query. It has come up as Fatuus, the Fool, the unnumbered card. This usually signifies some degree of freedom from normal social strictures, invulnerability, dynamism and a carefree nature - which is what you could have if you abandoned your frankly silly beliefs in god and came over to our side of the fence. I prefer to see it as a very good indication of what you are at present and what you will remain should you persist with your godbothering inanities.

That cleared it up for you in a language you can cope with? I won't even ask you to cross my palm with silver this time - I don't want any money that has been near your odious little house of prejudice and I'd probably end up with twenty-nine more pieces than I'm used to at any rate...

541. Fleabytes

Comment #136523 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 11:01 am

Sorry mate! Atheism in mentioned in the Old Testament....

542. Fleabytes

Comment #136518 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 10:56 am

I have not "met" Richard in real life in the sense that I have actually spoken to him. I live in hope though. I have, however, often seen him around Oxford on his bicycle and in that capacity he seems just as debonair and charming as he does in media interviews. I was tempted to wave and grin like a besotted idiot but he'd probably think I was insane and tip off the authorities.

I still haven't forgiven him for stealing all my ideas in The God Delusion though. I invented atheism! honest...

543. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136504 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 10:47 am

It's that pact with Satan himself that does it Frankus. My powers of verbal expression increase markedly in direct proportion to how much I procrastinate and how little work I get done on my doctoral thesis.

544. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136486 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 10:06 am

Scooter,

There is a difference between analysing our own actions from our own perspective and simply claiming, by fiat, that our opinions are right and everyone else is stupid. We may well think that everybody else is wrong, and we have recourse to reasoned debate to point that out, but politeness is not about refusing to put our opinions to others, it is about putting them in a non-confrontational way that facilitates further debate. Arrogant assertions of one's own greatness do not do this.

Humility may well have been picked up on by religious types for their own ends, like all great human universals are, but it has its roots in the kind of face-saving behaviour we see all around us in the animal kingdom. It is a helpful and necessary part of human discourse.

My conclusion that everyone has dangerous tendencies that need regulating is not a projection of my own personal self-examination but based on historical and scientific evidence. Political theory has always been about limiting man's more dangerous excesses, and evolutionary biology and psychology demonstrate that we exhibit behaviours such as anger, lust and self interest which are very difficult to control through personal willpower alone. You might think that society would be better off if everyone learned to control themselves, but I don't think that is either likely or indeed biologically possible. As such I see state control in the worst circumstances as the best remedy. This is a political disagreement we have.

And you return to the insults when you say I am incapable of self-examination. I would hazard a guess that I examine my own situation rather more than most, and my conclusion that there are aspects of my behaviour which I cannot regulate easily stems from this. I understand the concepts of responsibility and accountability fine well - I just do not have such a simplistic and abstract notion of them as you do. My picture of the world is more subtle and nuanced, because I know that these two things alone are not the be all and end all of human behaviour. Trying to reduce the world to this scheme seems to me to be ignoring vast numbers of other factors.

My comment about the Charlton Heston awards in post 203 was in response to your tasteless comments in post 202 about being glad that more liberals would die in the nasty red-in-tooth-and-claw world that you clearly want to live in. That is a very unpleasant thing to say, bordering on the downright nasty. If you come on here swaggering about like that then it is not at all surprising if you are gently rebuked with mild humour like mine. In fact your post 205 indicates that you took it in the spirit in which it was intended. That you proceed to spout this level of bile and vitriol at me and others afterwards is very telling. Again I repeat - mild insults and chiding are a perfectly fine part of robust civil debate, but there is a line which can be crossed into rudeness, personal vendetta, ad hominem and worse. Since your posts have consistently thrown nothing but insults at me, and not even mild-mannered ones, I think you have crossed that line.

I apologise for my failure to predict that you would respond to me thus. Previously I have considered you a somewhat wayward member of this site - rather confrontational and obsessed by your own philosophy of freedom and responsibility, but nevertheless an atheist, a decent human being, and one of the good guys. I have thus been willing to overlook our disagreements and let you be. I might still write this off as just a bad day. Nevertheless, I am beginning to find it very difficult to hold a civil conversation with you, and whatever the reasons behind this I have decided that it is not going to be very helpful to either of us if I keep trying.

545. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136477 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 9:42 am

Actually, Scooter, yes, I do have a tremendous lack of self esteem. If that was intended as an insult then it didn't work - it was merely a statement of fact. Whether or not I have anything intelligent to say I leave for others to judge, for to assume that I naturally have all the right answers and anyone who disagrees with me is therefore ill or stupid would be an overweening arrogance of biblical proportions.

And this has no bearing on your crashing incivility and lack of personal humility. I note yet again that your response has no content to it but personal insults and conceited smugness. If you want to get on with people and talk to them on a sensible, polite, grown-up level then I suggest you drop the childish pretensions to your own greatness and start being civil for a change.

546. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136473 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 9:32 am

Well, cringe away. The opinions of anyone who has to crassly talk up their own intelligence with phrases like "I always have good points to make" are not worth my time. It is up to others to judge the quality of our contributions, never ourselves, and I find such posturing the very height of arrogance. Were I given to such speculations I might well wonder whether there is some deep-seated insecurity lurking behind your comments that provokes you to act with this sort of confrontational bombast.

And you misunderstand me if you think my concern for the wellbeing of mankind is some kind of patronising disdain for "the great unwashed". I consider myself, and everyone else, an intrinsic part of that great unwashed, and I have come to the conclusion that we all have destructive tendencies that would be better off regulated by societal authority. Your wittering and whining about accountability and personal responsibility are just so much hot air to most people - an abstract, dogmatic certainty that the human mind is a purely rational decision maker and never affected by the instinctive, irrational and unproductive behaviours it evolved with.

I am willing to entertain your pet philosophy with civility if some civility is offered back in return, but given your quick resort to insults and unpleasantness I am forced to conclude that you are simply out to pick fights and beat your own chest. In such circumstances I fail to see how constructive dialogue is possible.

547. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136468 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 9:13 am

As I have said before, I do not drive, drink, smoke or carry weaponry around with me in public - even my beloved fork-firing antique crossbow Cecil.

Anything apart from the ill-concieved personal insults to contribute yet?

Next...

548. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136462 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 9:06 am

Actually, Scooter, I think you existed for quite a while before I did. And I'm trying to see something more than a crudely-fashioned insult in there somewhere, but I guess my powers of observation aren't what they used to be...

549. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136461 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 9:04 am

Oh, come on Steve, that's not quite fair. Scooter might have some crazy ideas about society but he's certainly no wooter.

Unless there's some kind of Jekyll and Hyde thing going on there. Come to think of it I can't recall a thread where I've seen both of them at work at once...

550. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136456 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 8:59 am

Eww, I feel dirty, Scooter wants me for his side...

I take that as a compliment from you Scooter. Liberalism and Socialism are compliments over here. I aspire to both wholeheartedly.