501. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238819 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 4:01 pm

This deportation to Australia thing makes me want to recommend a fascinating book I read yon many year ago called "The Fatal Shore" by Robert Hughes.

http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Shore-Epic-Australias-Founding/dp/0394753666

If Australia is an example of how deportation can turn out after a couple hundred years or less, it seems like an argument for the idea!

502. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238814 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Hi Decius :)

Did you meet a certain Norwegian with a gorilla mask in person?? That's wonderful!

edit - Still, a Norwegian in a gorilla mask, even one who knows how to drill, is no substitute for one our sex dolls with a nag button. :)

edit - Goldy, if I didn't get you were so devoted to Mrs. Goldy, I'd be a little annoyed by the fact that you only have scids in your left ear. But that's really funny. :)

kkelly - reread my post where I address you because I edited it to add an addition comment to you.

503. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #238799 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 3:35 pm

SilentMike - Well, Singer is a full blown animal liberationist. He wrote the book, literally. Although I suspect most people think animal liberationist are people who break into animal labs and stuff.

In fact my objection was to what I called "group rights ex-nihilo". i.e. group rights that are intrinsic and independent from the rights of group member (the rights of an ape species to "exist in the wild" being one of them, the right of a given human culture to be preserved being another).

Again, why do you think there should be no group rights. What if it is the case the individual's rights always supersede the group rights?

I actually like that speech by Adams a lot. I agree that "they just don't" isn't much in the way of argumentation, but neither is "they just do". When you inject a new type of rights into the conversation you're saying that "they just do" apply.

Do you think I have posited 'just do"? I have suggested they have rights because they are individuals and because they have sufficient self-consciousness to suffer psychologically and they experience pain and because the unjust, callous, cruel way many of them are treated when they are in contact with humans.

Here are some links to scientific evidence to support my assertions. They are abstracts and I don't have access to the full reports.

re: self-consciousness and suffering
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11190233

re: animal consciousness

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14658059?ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSumhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14658059?ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4080280?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

edit ~ Just for clarity, I have not deeply considered "group rights", but I am curious to know what is wrong with the idea and why you object to "rights" to traditional culture. What about Aboriginal people's rights to have reservations and cultural teaching. I know you objected to the Star Trek ideas, but a lot of horrendous problems came out of trying to force people from indigenous cultures into the conquering cultures.

On the other side of the coin, I agree that putting "rights" to cultural practice over the individual rights is plainly wrong, and I cite the case of British Muslims sending their daughters up to Bradford to have their genitals mutilated by an uncle.

504. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238783 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 3:12 pm

TWP -- What Quetz suggested that (this is just so funny!) the man would be saying things to his sex doll, like, "Don't look at me that way!" and "I'm always the one putting in the effort!!" When I saw the documentary on sex dolls, I totally suspected some of those guys of coming home and raging at their dolls in that fashion.

edit- okay well, nevermind, yeah I had to edit his name in, sorry.

505. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238779 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Goldy

re marriage "So's the removal of decision making :-) Naggin is also not so bad - deafness follows soon after the initial phase."

Yes, being married does cause SCIDS (sudden convenient instant deafness syndrome, also seen in domesticated dogs.) Another upside is that anytime you don't want to do anything, you can always use the Spouse Excuse. Handy that! :)

506. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238776 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Quetz -- Now I'm LMAO! This is totally what I suspected when I saw the doc!

507. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238768 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 2:52 pm

I'm thinking of our customer's need here, okay? A man needs to have a reason to get upset or he'll feel a fool for picking a fight with a doll.

508. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238764 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 2:45 pm

edited

785, Al. Could be. I can think of a marketing angle already. Something about nag buttons and make-up sex. :)

789, ** throws.. something!**

TWP, no didn't read that conversation. Do I want to?

KKelly - inanimate how? You may be saying volumes I don't want to hear. Quick make another quip.

edit for smile to KKelly -- like some of your posts lately btw.

509. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238746 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 2:30 pm

TWP

AND how he was giving her a foot massage during the interview.

But it's sort of natural, right? Men producing the emotional bonding chemical oxytocin when they ej*c*l*te, so the more times, the more he bonds with the doll. It's like how my bunny grooms a teddy bear. Sad & sweet and, in the man's case, disturbing as you said, 'cause he has options my bunny doesn't have.

510. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238729 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 2:08 pm

TWP -- ahhh, Tera's a sci-fi fan, I see... "The pleasure model" as portrayed by Jude Law, etc. The idea of sexbots certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility, I think. Just look at those life-like sex dolls (I think we saw the same doc). I think cosmetic surgery poses some problems for the breeding theory. The alcohol consumption idea might be plausible, but "forcing themselves to have sex"? Did he say that? Or was it hoping to loosen up some inhibitions?

Nairb - This is a nice analysis. I'm still reading it.

Any thoughts on the nature/motivations of the people behind Dhimmitude and Jihadwatch? Are they paranoids or is there some political gain to be made from the promotion this material? I checked out these websites on Fanusi's recommendation. I've actually had nightmares from it. No joke. I wonder if Fanusi's had second thoughts about those sites after you have provided him with the mathematically accurate figures.I haven't read through this whole thread. Anyone know?

edit -- evenin', Quetz, your royal deity-ship. :)

511. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238697 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 1:34 pm

TWP --eh???

512. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238686 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Well, everybody is off, but I must post my thanks to Al for all the info. Even though reading them rigid with horror as I sit in my chair with my little son on my lap. Where are the mama bears!?


This little boy thing reminds me that in Judaism there have been debates as to where the cut off point for little boys should be 9 or 3! I read that on an essay that is on a website linked to this site. I forget the name at the moment.


To lighten up a little I will relay a joke I made with my mother-in-law the other day when she mentioned the 72 virgins in paradise.


I just read on the internet that men don't like women who make jokes so you'll just have to think of me as a wise-cracking meerkat.


We've made many fine jokes about this over the years. My first one, when I heard about it, was that when the 9-11 hijackers got to paradise they were told, "Here are your virgins" ** angel gestures to pasture, bleating sounds**


A couple of days ago my mom-in-law asked, "I wonder if the women get 72 virgins when they get to Paradise, too." And I said, "No, that would be 'hell.'"

(No offense to any male virgins out there. It's just a joke. The key idea is "72" in both jokes.)


Yeah, Tera's not so bad. What is this sexbot stuff you keep referring to?

edited for sensitivity

edit -- Gregg 756. **chokes** :p

513. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #238665 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 1:00 pm

SilentMike,

So your answer to my question is "no" you don't think we have a moral obligation to prevent species extinction when we are the direct cause. In fact, you suggest that we can't prevent "any" extinction. Surely you don't mean that. You say we shouldn't prioritize species protection over other things. Like what? Business interests? Human population expansion?



The thing is if certain individuals don't care about the welfare of animals or species protection, it doesn't really matter as long as other enough other individuals do. There are plenty of practical reasons to avoid causing species to become extinct. It represents a loss in practical terms outside of moral questions.



My point about corporate personhood was that there was already a precedent in law for a non-human entity to be a person with limited rights and responsibilities. (It is not an extension of the rights of the individuals operating within the corporation, but to protect those individuals personal assets from liability lawsuits. We definitely could use a lawyer in the discussion. Maybe I'll PM Titania and see if she wants to check this out.)



My point about Islam had nothing to do with confusing doctrine and rights. It was to provide support for my argument that group rights are tied up with individual rights. In the case of Muslims, their individuality is usually inextricable from their group identity, as is the case, I'd argue for most individuals.

No group, human or otherwise, has an intrinsic right "not to become extinct" or "to have its way of life preserved". They just don't.

Why not? See Douglas Adams comments on why you just don't criticize religion as regards the the validity of "..Just don't" arguments. :)

I haven't read Singer's works, although I've been meaning to. I've read some Q&A with him regarding the moral reasoning for why he would save a human from a fire rather than a mouse if he had to pick just one. What about his ideas is bizarre or worrisome to you?

514. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238608 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 12:09 pm

736. Al, LOL! Surely Skylark should list his skillz though. :D

**sighs** I should have known I'd be sorry for asking about slavery. How are the men treated?

What about virtue? I thought there was a lot of emphasis on sexual piety.

515. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238586 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 11:46 am

Diancanu --

fevered mitts has a nice ring to it, too.

516. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238583 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 11:43 am

Al-Rawandi, 726.

ug, ug, ug. Thanks for the info though. Any knowledge of actual current practices of slavery? I remember Fanusi saying something about current African slavery in Islam. Well, maybe it wasn't Fanusi--wouldn't like to attribute to him if inaccurate.



TWP

My guess is he is thankful for my alcoholism.

Business is business.

As for you, just don't mess up your liver. You'll be needing it.



Bonzai:

probably too busy with palace intrigues in Sudanese politics and machinations in Dafur.

What is he machinating in Darfur?



Severalspeciesof -
I can't see why Skylark wouldn't be welcome as court kitty. He has that royal-haughty look. :)

517. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238565 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 11:17 am

How does Islamic slavery really work? Or slavery in Islam. I know nothing about that. Does it help to oppress the women if they have slaves to oppress themselves? Or am I way out there?

518. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238564 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 11:15 am

722, it's the law of attraction in action.

519. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238561 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 11:11 am

Bonzai

something like the headscarf is not mandatory by Islam and that men should not hit their wives

Well, jeez, it's a start. Welcome to the 1950s.

edit, never mind, I just saw the other post about Islamic slavery.

edit- attribution

520. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238559 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 11:08 am

Al, funny.

TWP - well, if that's true, maybe he ought to remove that beam from his own eye. ha ha. I mean, bartender or enabler or facilitator? ;)

521. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238545 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 10:52 am

Hi TWP

**waves back**

I was just teasing you. :)

The move: stressful, but successful.

Are you still wasting your vacation on RDnet? **teases**

522. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238539 by hawt4dawk on August 28, 2008 at 10:41 am

TWP

Lauire, I wouldn't hire her for looks or intelligence.

So catty.

;) **chuckles**

I can't stand that cult hogwash. I have a male musician friend who is way into this, but it didn't help him attract a recording contract unfortunately.

523. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #237615 by hawt4dawk on August 26, 2008 at 8:27 pm

One last thing before I go for awhile.

Speaking of language, here's the word "person" instead of human and contrast it to the fact that by definition under law a corporation is considered a person.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/singer38

Spanish parliament's Commission for the Environment, Agriculture, and Fisheries declared its support for The Great Ape Project, a proposal to grant rights to life, liberty, and protection from torture to our closest nonhuman relatives: chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. Other countries, such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom, have taken steps to protect great apes from harmful experimentation, but no national parliament has declared that any animal could be a person with rights.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corporation

CORPORATION. An aggregate corporation is an ideal body, created by law, composed of individuals united under a common name... and which for certain purposes is considered as a natural person.

Browne's Civ. Law, 99; Civ. Code of Lo. art. 418; 2 Kent's Com. 215. Mr. Kyd, (Corpor. vol. 1, p. 13,) defines a corporation as follows: "A corporation... is a collection of many; individuals united in one body,.. with a capacity of acting... as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued; of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights,

(Emphasis added.)

524. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #237605 by hawt4dawk on August 26, 2008 at 8:03 pm

SilentMike -

Your comment to Jmac: "It's seems to me that you can't help confusing individual rights with group rights. "

What's really wrong with this in terms of this argument? I don't know how Jmac views the relationship between group rights and individual rights, but I say they're deeply related as regards the moral actions of humans. Look at the arguments going on in the Islam-related threads. There is great care taken to separate the ideas of Islam versus the ideas of Muslims as individuals, who are Muslim and a part of a large group, self-defined as such, because they believe the Koran, which suggests hate and mistrust toward non-Muslims as a group. There is heated argument about the individual rights of people in a group. If we give up seeing them as individuals and treating them accordingly, we will be more inclined to oppress them and deny rights to them as a group.
People object to oppression of groups, because they know that individuals will suffer. It is to the suffering of individuals that we relate most. I think we discuss animals and apes so generally and interchangeably here, because we don't know any individual apes.

edit, uh, you know, except for humans. :)

525. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #237589 by hawt4dawk on August 26, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Hi, I am trying to distract myself from my troubles. Thanks, SilentMike, for your kind wish.

104. Comment #237246 by SilentMike

Extinction of species is a great shame, but is has nothing to do with individual animal rights.

In the following, my questions are in an emotionally neutral tone. Sometimes questions seem accusatory, so just want to be clear.

SilentMike, do you think we have moral obligation to prevent extinction specifically in cases when humans are the direct cause of it?

Panurge, do you think that the supposition that humans are superior to animals justifies callousness toward them? Do you believe in animal welfare ideas?

Panurge, since you have posited that humans are superior by virtue of our capacity and uses of language -- and Bonzai, because you suggest that the language human rights muddies the water -- I'd like to make some points about the language of the debate.

The phrase "human rights for animals" has morphed out of the article. The author responds to arguments in an op-ed piece.

" Why They're Human Rights."

La Valle argued that the Spanish Parliament should not award human rights to apes, as it is considering.

So opponents of the GAP proposal have framed the debate for us. Let's be clear on that. Many opponents of the proposal and funding for opposition would primarily come from people who profit from the exploitation of animals, because they see this as a step closer to legislation which may affect how they make money. I suggest we be wary of letting only the people who profit from animal exploitation define the terms under which the great ape proposal will be discussed. That particular language means much as is clear from some of the posts here. I suggest the debate has been framed this way to confuse and stir up emotions about our specialness as a species.

The proponents have not put it that way. The language of the proposal comes out of moral philosophy, bioethics and animal rights. And I would suggest that the idea of moral community doesn't have so much to do with the morality of the animals themselves, but with our morality. The idea that, when we degrade animals and create or allow their exploitation and suffering, we degrade ourselves and toughen our sensibilities toward each other has been discussed in that discourse for 2-3 hundred years. Animal rights or animal liberation has grown out of those ideas and other ideas about human rights, civil rights and women's rights.

I want to briefly re-language it. Humans, chimps, orangutans, gorillas, bonobos are all great apes. These great apes are equal amongst themselves in terms of human moral responsibilities. You can't just capture and keep one, you can't kill one, unless for strictly defined reasons, such as self-defense. You can't torture them. You can stick them in prison if they are a danger to their community. These things are to be decided judicially and handled in most cases by an advocate.

It isn't even hinted at how animals living in the wild will be treated or regulated on the basis of them having individual rights. I'm not suggesting that we don't discuss that, but I wouldn't like to see the proposal dismissed on that speculation.

edited for mistakes

526. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #237537 by hawt4dawk on August 26, 2008 at 5:18 pm

This isn't really important. Just wanted to note a person's % of posts may not reflect anything -- although maybe you were using that to point out they signed up the same day.

Here is my own, um, stat:

Joined:
Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:34 am
Last visited:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:14 pm
Total posts:
0 | Search user's posts
(0.00% of all posts / 0.00 posts per day)

I've posted a lot in the news-related threads, but it doesn't show up.

527. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #236150 by hawt4dawk on August 24, 2008 at 9:58 am

SilentMike - sorry, I don't mean to denigrate you personally. I am not trying to call people names, but I am labeling some attitudes on here as bigoted, because I think they qualify as uneducated, knee-jerk political reactions to "animal rights activists," especially given that I've shown that the people behind this particular rights issue are scientists and academics, who have devoted their careers to studying these animals. I don't see how it is legitimate to keep portraying them as irrational "bleeding hearts" with have given no thought to the ethical and practical ramifications of their proposals.

It seems some people either don't really read my posts or aren't capable of understanding the points made in the article or the points I've made. I have no interest in debating with those people.

I appreciate that you want to explore this issue and debate it, but I am not clear on your points and I am wary of the unexplained bias in your scenarios.

If an ape chips a bone in the wild and dies a slow agonizing death, well that's just nature, but if some twit at the zoo throws an object at him and doesn't harm him at all then that's a violation of that ape's "rights". I don't think that's how exclusive club rights work, and people who do think that are challenging my rights as a member of that club.

I don't see imaginary scenarios of possible ludicrous overreactions as debatable points. If you want to explore this, maybe it would be helpful if you outlined what you think your rights are in this "club" and posit some arguments for why they shouldn't apply to apes. Then somebody could debate you.

Anyway, I got a call last night that my grandmother is in intensive care and chances of her recovery are slim. I'm waiting to hear further news. Since I couldn't sleep last night, I distracted myself with this thread, but I think if I get bad news here, I am not going to be able to focus on this discussion. I do hope someone else will take it up, because I agree with you that it is an interesting and worthy subject for serious discussion.

528. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #236123 by hawt4dawk on August 24, 2008 at 9:21 am

For Panurge

for starters:

http://biology.about.com/library/organs/brain/bllimbic.htm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/56381.php

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2008/07/24/2313871.htm

http://www.psycheducation.org/emotion/triune brain.htm

edited - replaced a link

529. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #236030 by hawt4dawk on August 24, 2008 at 4:02 am

Some of you bring up good points about how this would all really play out and the primatologists, evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, psychologists and other scientists and academics, as well as the ethicists and lawmakers, involved in the debate would have a much more clear picture than us laypersons. Clearly, much of ape life is already in human hands for good or evil. I'm not a member of Great Ape Project, I am simply a person who has grown up in a family of veterinarians with a lot of first hand experience with animals and a particular interest in chimpanzees and anthropology. What I can offer you, beyond what I've already tried, are some references for those truly interested in posing some of these interesting questions to the scientists who are behind the proposal:

Great Ape Project
806A NW 51st Street
Seattle, WA 98107
ph 206.579.5975
email:info@greatapeproject.org

An additional resource page with links can be found here:

http://www.greatapeproject.org/links.php

There are at least 12 chimpanzee refuges in North America alone.

If I find some time, I'll try to find more information to post to illuminate what's behind it. There is a personal crisis developing in my family right now, so I may not get to it.

Maybe I just have too much faith in the integrity, intelligence and understanding of all the scientists who have studies apes all over the world for the past several decades and this is really just a foolish idea of theirs, but I haven't come across anything so far to suggest that. I think what is happening here on this thread is an understandable shake-up in worldview and it's maybe revealing a little anthropocentrism and I'd even go so far as to suggest unconscious bigotry. But, certainly, it would help to have some clearer picture of the kind of changes such a proposal really purports before people could accept it. Bye for now.

530. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #235966 by hawt4dawk on August 24, 2008 at 1:17 am

kraut - You post with anger, hate, bias and lack of knowledge about the issues. One minute you're talking:

Has it occured to you, ... the "liberal" midstream animal rights activists proclaiming the nonsense of "human rights" for animals are nothing but helpmates to the animal right terrorists?

This "animal rights" romanticism is for me on the same level as the spiritual nonsense spouted by the new agers of all kinds, dowsers, homeopaths, pyramid power, etc.

And I thought this was a sceptical website. I was mistaken, having to take in such utter bullshit.

Then you say:

I have absolutely no problems with creating laws and a mechnism to enforce them to protect primates

Well, which is it and why?

If you can't understand that animals are capable of suffering and deserve protection for the same reasons we deserve protection, it is probably because you know so little about the evolution of the brain that you don't know we share the amygdala -- the seat of emotions -- with most, if not all, other mammals (not just primates)?? Did you miss the 90s, the decade of brain research, out of which much thought was given to the ethics of the way people treat animals based on scientific evidence? There seems to be a whole reasoned discourse you are missing.You're the one who's back in a previous century believing in the outdated notions that animals are merely biological clockwork with no feelings.

I have no respect for your nasty, ugly words and attitude, your ridiculous accusations and ill-presented, nearly incoherent "arguments." You just come on here occasionally to attack people. I just wanted to make that clear before I go about my business of ignoring you for the rest of all time.

531. US school district sued over homophobic 'witch hunt'

Comment #235827 by hawt4dawk on August 23, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Roger, indeed.

532. US school district sued over homophobic 'witch hunt'

Comment #235819 by hawt4dawk on August 23, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Decius -- Thank you for the link. I will peruse it with interest. How do you get your emoticon to show up like a picture? You make me look so old-fashioned. (oh, yeah, web design... hmtl.. ) **slaps head** Still, please tell me so I don't have to look it up. :D

e~

and it is not till they have been led into a thousand mistakes in matters the most essential to their lives and liberties, and are weary of suffering, that they can be induced to apply a remedy to the evils with which they are oppressed.

.. already, so true. **sigh**

not surprised to hear you like A'dam, for some reason. ;)

533. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #235818 by hawt4dawk on August 23, 2008 at 4:00 pm

24. Comment #235817 by J Mac

well, except for Starbucks calendars. :)

Border Collie -- no wonder my husband says I will be upset by "TChildren of Men", but should still see it. I didn't realize their were no children in the world. Don't tell me anymore! :)

534. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #235816 by hawt4dawk on August 23, 2008 at 3:55 pm

I imagine, SilentMike, that this will open up a new branch of judiciary specialty and rehabilitation. Many apes already live "in jail" and they haven't done anything. Your "tone" as I read it sounded a bit scornful. Extending them human rights and constructing laws to protect them from that vantage point may considerably reduce their suffering and improve the lives of captive apes. In some situations, if a captive ape commits a crime, presumably there will be rehabilitation rather than "jail" and we may learn something from those processes that help us understand ourselves better.

The main thing right now is that these creatures are endangered in the wild and getting governmental support to create and enforce protective laws is critical to their species survival -- typical animal rights laws are quite inadequate or they wouldn't still be endangered.

535. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #235809 by hawt4dawk on August 23, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Don't worry, folks, they're not going to move in next door and start taking up your parking spaces. :) edit: I have to add, I'm with the ethicists on this, since plenty of scientific research can continue, which will be beneficial to humans. Chimpanzees differ genetically from us by 1.23%. I've read that some chimps' cognitive level is like toddlers or pre-schoolers. Maybe JMac or someone else will know. They're not going to be subject to the same laws as adult humans.

Here is a link and a copy of the declaration as it was proposed to the Spanish parliament. I don't know for sure if it was modified or not.

http://www.greatapeproject.org/declaration.php

We demand the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans.

The community of equals is the moral community within which we accept certain basic moral principles or rights as governing our relations with each other and enforceable at law. Among these principles or rights are the following:

1. The Right to Life
The lives of members of the community of equals are to be protected. Members of the community of equals may not be killed except in very strictly defined circumstances, for example, self-defense.

2. The Protection of Individual Liberty
Members of the community of equals are not to be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; if they should be imprisoned without due legal process, they have the right to immediate release. The detention of those who havenot been convicted of any crime, or of those who are not criminally liable, should be allowed only where it can be shown to be for their own good, or necessary to protect the public from a member of the community who wouldclearly be a danger to others if at liberty. In such cases, members of the community of equals must have the right to appeal, either directly or, if they lack the relevant capacity, through an advocate, to a judicial tribunal.

3. The Prohibition of Torture
The deliberate infliction of severe pain on a member of the community of equals, either wantonly or for an alleged benefit to others, is regarded as torture, and is wrong.

536. A flea we missed?

Comment #235791 by hawt4dawk on August 23, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Que fantastico! (except, mocking soldiers -- never good :D)

Sorry, folks, for being off-topic -- although the British & Europeans are probably having a nice before-bed read right about now. :) I've been following this David Robertson showdown with interest.

537. A flea we missed?

Comment #235781 by hawt4dawk on August 23, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Welcome back, Al. :) Nice photos. I've been to Cabo San Lucas before for an eclipse, so I perked right up when you wrote Baja. What kind of fish is that? They're huge!

Mordy - you witty devil! Thanks for the stock tip. Good point! ^-^

538. US school district sued over homophobic 'witch hunt'

Comment #235639 by hawt4dawk on August 23, 2008 at 10:21 am

Hi Decius :)

Good point about the skin insulation. I thought there would be severe burns, but that part hadn't occurred to me. It is usually spoken of so lightly as if the feathering were the main part. It was portrayed quite vividly in the episode I saw. This reminds me of a torture museum I saw in Amsterdam -- unbelievable, the things people think up.

539. US school district sued over homophobic 'witch hunt'

Comment #235531 by hawt4dawk on August 23, 2008 at 7:22 am

Speaking of tarring and feathering, did anyone else see the tar & feather scene in the John Adams series? It was truly appalling.

540. Supernatural science: Why we want to believe

Comment #235008 by hawt4dawk on August 22, 2008 at 11:04 am

Severalspeciesof-

But this article never brings up the real fact that Christianity IS belief in the paranormal.

And that bums me out.

That's the big blind spot. It bums me out, too, when I hear "God was looking out for me" stuff when it was really the doctor's training and the years of scientific research behind a procedure and/or medicine. I actually just heard such a thing from a relative regarding a friend's childbirth experience and having the doctor discover she had a blood disorder. Supposedly, God intervened and had the doctor decide it was best to do a C-section in case the infant had it, too, which it did.

It strikes me as odd is that people generally seemed more appreciative of science and medicine when I was a kid than they are now, generally. Regressive paradigm shift. :(

541. Supernatural science: Why we want to believe

Comment #234920 by hawt4dawk on August 22, 2008 at 8:25 am

Welcome back, Sev. :) I find most of the religious people I know are equally or more susceptible to belief in the paranormal AND consult psychics and are into angels and alternative medicine cures.

542. US school district sued over homophobic 'witch hunt'

Comment #234918 by hawt4dawk on August 22, 2008 at 8:20 am

Notice how the judge backtracks in his later opinion. I wonder if he is up for re-election. I see this as a sex abuse situation, pure and simple. The revolting Davis and his defenders, now including the judge, are hiding his perverted, abusive antics behind "righteous" religious beliefs. There are plenty of hardcore Christians in my life who are ostensibly homophobic (although not in practice, as witnessed by their "zany" friends), who would be horrified by a principal looking up high school girls' shirts to see if they were hiding their open protest!

Also as far as people being employed in prisons there, it reminds me that some counties and states try to build as many prisons as they can because they get more money either from the state or maybe the feds because the prison increases their population, but doesn't affect their voting pattern. Sneaky, huh?

543. A flea we missed?

Comment #234693 by hawt4dawk on August 21, 2008 at 11:26 pm

Brian, puir thing... I know, their suggestive, lurid beer comments... LEAVE 'IM ALONE OR GIVE 'IM WHAT HE CRAVES!

544. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #230010 by hawt4dawk on August 14, 2008 at 6:35 am

428. Comment #229694 by irate_atheist

My parents are adult enough to know that I am not them and never have been

In this way, you're lucky, Irate. "Adult enough" is key. Your parents are sensible and sensitive and secure enough to take you in stride. As I'm sure you know from your "outlaws", as you amusingly put it, plenty of people's parents' ego and belief systems are so fragile and childish that their child (adult or not) risks their emotional connection to their parents in expressing dissent, difference or disapproval. (edit)

545. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229592 by hawt4dawk on August 13, 2008 at 8:16 pm

122. Comment #224551 by clatz From the Guardian review:

"Pigeons and dogs have trustingly thrown in their lot with man and can be bred into bizarre shapes at his whim. Cats can't. They are always unmistakably cats. Why is that, professor? "

Quick comment: This quote caught my eye, too. That's what passes for a clever remark? [edit for more snideness and emotional release: I refrained from writing about it before, but after seeing scenes she described, I really can't let it slide. I picture her as being like the aunt that gets blown up by Harry Potter. I rather wish she'd floated out the window before she got a chance to write her drivel -- where's her editor, by the way?

Here, darling, dogs are always unmistakably dogs as well, aren't they? When was the last time anyone mistook a dog for a pig or a post box? They've been bred for different kinds of work, it's true, and cats haven't. Here are some different-looking cats. Go on, have a look. -- end edit]

http://www.cfainc.org/breeds/profiles/sphynx.html


Second more important comment:

I haven't read through more than two pages of posts so far, so maybe someone has already mentioned this, but these kids are on TV and they knew eventually their theist parents would see the program if only to watch their minute of glory. That may say more about why they are proudly spouting and touting theism. I know when I was fifteen I harbored a lot of secret doubts about things my mom believed and said repeatedly, which luckily weren't religious, but I kept my mouth shut. If I'd been on TV with someone she would have hated, I'd have said nothing or tried to appear to be taking her side if forced to comment.

edit -- Brian, Irate, Steve, Dr. Doctor, Bonzai, Decius, phasmagigas, Tyler, Vaal, Cartomancer, Elgaroy (sorry if I've left someone out), I've enjoyed reading your exchange. It's nice to listen in on thoughtful, civilized exchanges like this.

546. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226781 by hawt4dawk on August 8, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Unfortunately, I don't have time for a deep involvement in this debate and it's too bad. I'll just have to catch up on it later. I have promised my husband to stay away from this addictive RD.net until after we move.

Before I go I wanted to say a few things.

Decius -- thanks for the clarification about Chomsky being an anarcho-syndicalist. Your comments were edifying and interesting.

About this argument, Noam Chomsky is an established, widely-respected author of political dissent against the uses and abuses of power by an historically-unprecedented military superpower. Dissent is an important, healthy part of democracy, particularly when the state is also a military power. To refuse to look critically at Chomsky OR, conversely, to refuse to look critically at those who would try to completely discredit him as a TOTAL LIAR is to be very naive.

Al, I took a long look at your link and even tried to verify some of the citations. This was extremely tedious and would take some time, perhaps weeks, to really examine. How you can expect people to readily believe a total character assassination just on the face of it and become quite angry and insulting about it is beyond me.

Thanks for Comment #226618 by ThoughtsonCommonToad (thanks!) of Christopher Hitchens's rebuttal to some of the very same critics listed on the PB website. That was really helpful.

I also looked for a little insight into Paul Bogdanor and I found this link:

http://www.zeek.net/704debate/index.php?page=3

The author says:

I came away from reading Paul Bogdanor's response to my essay somewhat baffled. The fact that he never once addressed the central question in my essay, "Why must a Jew today support the State of Israel in order to be a legitimate part of contemporary Jewish discourse?" made me wonder. It seems to me we are simply talking past one another. Below are some brief reflections as to why we seem to be living on different planets.

The point of my essay was not to defend any of those mentioned in Alvin Rosenfeld's essay (some I agree with, some I do not). And my point was not to make a case for or against a two-state solution, a bi-national state, or the continuation of the occupation. My point was, rather, to explore the boundaries of legitimate dissent in what has become a histrionic and poisonous debate among Jews on the question of Israel/Palestine.

...My sense from reading Rosenfeld and Bogdanor is that their position.. as explicated in their essays, "Jewishness" seems utterly severed from any notion of Judaism. In at least some, but not all cases, the "dissenters" that Bognador suggests may be "haters" of Jews represent the second group. In my essay I suggested Rosenfeld conflated Jews with Zionism. A more accurate locution would be that Rosenfeld has conflated Jews and the Jewish nation-state (Zionism and the Jewish nation-state are, of course, not identical).

...Bogdanor argues that vehement opposition to the Jewish nation-state is, by definition or at least by implication, to "hate" the "Jews." While it is certainly true that anti-Semites oppose Israel, it is not true that all who oppose Israel "hate" the Jews. In fact, for a radically disparate group of Jews (including Daniel Boyarin, Marc Ellis, ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionists, and Reform anti-Zionists among many others), opposition to Israel is built on their particular understanding of Judaism as a culture and religion!

At quick glance of Bogdanor's document, Bonzai was able to spot one unreliable source and, at quick glance, I was able to spot a falsehood in one of Bogdanor's "truths" about the Bush administration and intelligence agencies lying about the weapons of mass destruction (as this has been all over the news and the subject of congressional hearings).

Paul Bogdanor hasn't, as far as we know, published this "200 Lies" piece in any respectable publication, but merely on his own website. He is vehemently, possibly fanatically, pro-Zionist/pro-Israel and may very well have an axe to grind regarding Chomsky's criticisms of Israel and U.S. support for Israel to the tune of $8 million a year or so, last I heard. To discredit Chomsky is to prevent a possible sea change in public opinion about that support.

It is not only possible it is a smear campaign, it is highly likely. So, it takes more than just looking at a document on a website of someone (who's been described as "mad as a bag of rabbits" by Hungarian Elephant who was at college with the guy) to believe the allegations. It needs verifying. It needs back up. Taking snippets of quotes, too, as Decius has shown can be highly distorting as well.

As far as Oliver Kamm goes, he's a neoconservative and he also quote-mines to prove that Chomsky's just a thoughtless America-hater who makes crazy comparisons to Nazis. That is a hard source for me to take seriously as it is so clearly politically motivated.

TWP, I'm not attacking you, but I am going to criticize something you've said here. I think you've got considerable chutzpah for throwing off your religious training and, because of that, I know you can do your own thinking, so don't undermine yourself here by saying you've heard enough to never want to read or was it buy Chomsky's books just based on Al's assertions and his link to some maybe-legitimate, maybe-propagandistic website. It's comments like that that draw fire and get you labeled a cheerleader for Al.

As for Steve Zara's assertion that supporters of Noam Chomsky are uncritical of him, I can only assume he either wasn't referring to us in this discussion or he didn't read our posts. Noam Chomsky is not a rock star or a religious leader. Most of his lectures occur in front of college or university crowds, so I am quite sure that MANY people debate what he has to say.

I am curious to know to what extent the criticisms of Noam Chomsky are true, and which are false, because the truth is important. But I am not going to listen to people who freak out every time somebody strongly disagrees with them. The truth, and getting at it through rational debate, is far more important than "picking a side" and sometimes that's what these arguments degenerate into and then it becomes a waste of time.

547. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226554 by hawt4dawk on August 8, 2008 at 9:20 am

I've learned a lot from Noam Chomsky and I believe he should be valued as a serious thinker and critic of U.S. foreign policy, especially when we have such a compromised mainstream media. That doesn't mean all of his criticisms are valid. I can't agree that our bombing of the pharmaceutical facility in the middle of the night is comparable to the horrors of 911 at all. Also, discredit of him has been generated in particular by Alan Dershowitz and should be viewed with skepticism in light of the conflict between them, which Chomsky has written about. Also, I believe Chomsky is an anarchist, which is a position that I believe is completely unrealistic. Nonetheless, he has had some very insightful things to say, which have helped me understand why America is regarded the way it is by many different countries for many different reasons. As a lay person, I have been able to speak intelligently and responsibly to people from South America, Central America and Europe (and not look like an ignorant fool, which I would have if I just relied on my knowledge from mainstream media) about the effects of American foreign policy because of that understanding. I'm not familiar with Ward Churchill at all, so I'll have to look him up.

Maybe the neocons are not evil, but the way their policies have played into the hands of the oil industries has generated considerable "evil" and intolerable irresponsibility.

but I don't think it serves the ultimate American interest. I think cooperation is a better way to achieve a viable power structure in the world.

Totally agree.

edit -- Listen, I've got to get packing, literally. I'll be back on later. :)

548. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226530 by hawt4dawk on August 8, 2008 at 8:26 am

You know as well as I do that most liberals weren't interested in anything to do with Saddam Hussein. We didn't go into Rwanda, did we? I think the concept of liberal and conservative in America is pretty useless now --edit, especially as the conservatives are being polluted on both sides by neocon ideology and born-again Christianity. end edit -- We need to talk more specifically. You yourself support plenty of "liberal" ideas and you complain about "liberals". I am "liberal", but I have some non-liberal views. I realize that you went to a certain university with some supremely irritating "liberals", but that doesn't mean we're all ideological idiots. I was treated with contempt by a guy from UC Santa Cruz (not your school, I know, but similar, no?), because I dared to suggest that some feminists wear Chanel! I didn't say Marxist Feminists, did I? **laughs** (I had been reading Naomi Wolf at the time.) I think one has to carefully look at reality, which neither mainstream conservatives nor liberals really do. They just spout preconfabulated nonsense half the time and are equally as guilty of it.

549. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226517 by hawt4dawk on August 8, 2008 at 7:49 am

Well, thanks, Al. Curious to know what you mean by "And Iran will soon benefit, at our expense" though.

550. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226510 by hawt4dawk on August 8, 2008 at 7:36 am

If Iraq's an entirely artificial entity, what do you call a state split between gay drugged-up red-light whatever's-your-bag Dutchmen and anti-gay anti-whoring anti-everything-you-dig Muslims?

The people who planned the invasion of Iraq ignored every sensible thing they were told and they went in, against all advice even from the highest levels of the military and intelligence -- people more right wing, hawkish and knowledgeable than either Fanusi or Al -- without sufficient troops or understanding of the country. As they are wont, they just decided it didn't matter. They'd just wave their little magic fairy wand and say "freedom", "democracy"
and one nation under (a Christian, eventually) God. Plenty of the doom-and-gloom naysayers are the Iraqis themselves and also plenty of people on the right.

Iraq simply is artificially-created by outside foreign military powers. People who historically hadn't gotten along were forced to be a nation at gun point and under tyranny, because it was convenient for Britain and other Western powers. Saddam, the tyrant, whom the CIA helped get into power, tortured, murdered, raped and gassed to death the factions he didn't like. Those are the cold facts. And now they're expect to all just get along? Of course, there's civil war -- easily predicted by anyone with half a brain, which was more brain than the people who planned to "liberate" Iraq.

So what's the point of comparing that with The Netherlands except, obviously, to criticize "liberals" and "tolerance"?

The Netherlands is a country, which has existed "naturally" for centuries, which evolved its own laws and forms of governance and cultural attitudes of tolerance after years of sectarian violence within the state and warfare with other states. Since it "became what it is", it has also accepted foreign people who requested sanctuary there, presumably knowing those societal mores, and some of those immigrants have chosen to disrespect and despise its values in the face of hospitality, acceptance and benefits given to them.

If one moves to a foreign country, if one even visits it, one is expected to conform to the mores of the society. Only people of supreme arrogance or ignorance refuse.

The implication of the quote is that the Dutch are "drugged up" and "whoring" is completely offensive and has nothing to do with the reality of Dutch everyday lifestyle or societal norms.
No matter whether you persecute or "tolerate" gays, they always exist as a tiny and easily victimized percentage of the population in every society. The same for the other societal issues. They aren't stamped out by criminalization and persecution, just driven into intolerable, inhumane and disease-ridden corners of human misery.