Comments by Steve Zara

Comment #241963 by Steve Zara on September 3, 2008 at 8:58 am

Comment #241955 by al-rawandi

Doesn't matter if McCain and Obama were identical. The fact is that if something happened to McCain, we would be left with Palin. If something happened to Obama we would be left with Biden. Enough said.

652. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241959 by Steve Zara on September 3, 2008 at 8:55 am

Comment #241940 by Fanusi Khiyal

You have jogged my memory, and google helped:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Some researchers dug up the pre 1999 editions of newsletters that Ron Paul put his name to.

They have included some deeply troubling views. Racist, anti-gay and so on.

653. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241951 by Steve Zara on September 3, 2008 at 8:50 am

Al-

If I were in the US, I would have to vote for Obama. I would rather have someone inexperienced but who has experienced advisors, and a very experienced VP, than someone who has a significant chance of not surviving a term (McCain), and that would leave the country to someone who is going to personally ask God what to do.

I would rather not vote at all than vote for a creationist.

654. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241932 by Steve Zara on September 3, 2008 at 8:25 am

Comment #241925 by al-rawandi

I think a useful rule is given a people who are varying degrees of wing-nuttiness, vote for the less wing-nutty. There is irrationality and there is irrationality.

Creationism in an educated person is way out there in terms of wingnut-quality. I would not trust that kind of mind even if proposed quite sensible policies in other areas. After all, all it takes is God whispering in his ear....

Comment #241930 by squinky

I think whether or nut a candidate is nutty is at the very least an issue of primary concern.

655. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241918 by Steve Zara on September 3, 2008 at 8:00 am

Comment #241909 by al-rawandi

Al-

That he is a creationist means he is not a rationalist. He relies on faith and revelation in a major area of understanding reality, rejecting clear evidence. That is deeply scary, and it isn't dogmatic to point that out.

656. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241904 by Steve Zara on September 3, 2008 at 7:37 am

Comment #241892 by al-rawandi

If Ron Paul does not accept the evidence for evolution, which is overwhelming, why should we trust him to base any other of his opinions on evidence?

657. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241886 by Steve Zara on September 3, 2008 at 7:22 am

Comment #241883 by al-rawandi

Ron Paul is a creationist.

658. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241880 by Steve Zara on September 3, 2008 at 7:17 am

According to the latest polling Obama has hit 50% support, 8 points clear of McCain. Let's hope it stays that way.

659. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241564 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Comment #241558 by amalthea

So the politicians are silent. And of course, they want to win votes.

You clearly have not to have read much of this thread. The politicians are far from silent, indeed they have have been complaining about, and working against, past silences. There are new laws coming into effect to protect the rights of women within religious cultures. We need to campaign to ensure that these laws are enforced.

Forgot to mention, RE; Thatcher. When she dies, I'm having a party, everyone is invited, it'll probably last a week or so.

Although her death will be symbolic, it is clear from recent reports from her daughter that Thatcher is already mostly gone - she suffers from stroke-induced dementia, something I would not wish on anyone.

660. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241550 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Comment #241546 by SharonMcT

You have just shown how wrong I was! Simon Pegg is a real star who can fill the screen.

661. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241547 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Comment #241544 by decius

I have just remembered a recent comedy favourite - Galaxy Quest. Has Sigourney Weaver and Alan Rickman, so could not fail.

662. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241537 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Comment #241531 by decius

I don't find British film humour that funny. It doesn't seem to suit the medium - it seems to work better on the small screen. Actors like Steve Martin can project themselves in a way British comic actors failed to do. For this reason, I prefer American comedies. Another favorite of mine is the Blues Brothers.

663. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241527 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Comment #241517 by keith

Funniest films ever?

Planes, Trains and Automobiles. Steve Martin and John Candy.

664. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241521 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Comment #241490 by John Locke

I enjoy Stephen Colbert, but I do think he has a problem in that it is all just one joke - he is a moderate and intelligent guy satirizing new anchors and supposedly "fair and balanced" commentators like Bill O'Reilly.

Compare with Jon Stewart, who acts as himself, and can have some pretty hard-hitting and intelligent interviews under the guise of comedy. He has several "reporters" around him who act characters purely for comedy (I love Rob Riggle and Samantha Bea), but Stewart isn't as limited, I think, as Colbert.

665. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241502 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Comment #241490 by John Locke

I agree. Never much liked Cleese myself. Palin, Chapman and Idle were great though - they could really act, and so, I thought, were funnier.

666. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241454 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 9:17 am

Comment #241450 by Paula Kirby

It's possible to see how people might be equally swept along by the same kind of desire in other contexts - and might therefore declare something "hilarious" even though they weren't ACTUALLY that entertained by it.

I wonder how much self-delusion is involved - people may be genuinely laughing, and only realise it partly, or mostly, due to the context if it is pointed out to them afterwards: there is sort of an illusion of humour.

There may be something similar going on as when people hear their favorite bands live. The sound quality and production may be awful, and the singer often out of tune, but the fans still walk out thinking "great concert", and honestly believe that.

667. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241433 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 8:32 am

Comment #241415 by zokss

trying to convince a person who is laughing at a joke that the joke really isn't funny is like trying to convince a guy that the girl who turns him on is not really pretty:)

That is an interesting comparison, but I think it's wrong. In addition to what keith says, laughter can come from a sense of relief as well as humour. You can see this when people laugh at jokes from people in authority. If the Queen were to crack a joke, and it was at all funny, many people would laugh out of relief that they did not have to feel embarrassed at a poor joke.

Laughter is complicated. That is why using terms like "that is hilarious" or "that is funny" is very simplistic. Perhaps we should be more careful about using them, and instead say "that was witty" or "that was an amusing observation" - be more specific.

668. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241392 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 7:14 am

Comment #241390 by epeeist

Not only is Ann Cryer left-wing, but she was given support from the liberal democrats, as you pointed out.

All generalisations are wrong (including this one)

669. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241362 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 6:38 am

Comment #241360 by Laurie Fraser

Neat idea!

I am slipping to a post only every other day. I need more ideas.

670. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241353 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 6:32 am

Comment #241312 by Laurie Fraser

There is quite a bit to say about Penrose - sounds like a good topic for a blog entry!

I came across Atkins a very long time ago. He is a chemist, and wrote physical chemistry textbooks that were an absolute delight to read and were almost universally used.

Here he is at Beyond Belief 2:
http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/watch/atkins.php

671. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241348 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 6:18 am

Comment #241343 by Brian English

I agree with you. Science doesn't come from philosophy like chemistry comes from alchemy. It is a branch of philosophy.

Here is my understanding of things. I am sure I will be corrected if it is wrong:

The problem used to be an attitude that truth about the physical world could be arrived at just through use of the intellect. But, using more philosophy, that attitude was shown to be flawed.

Philosophy is as relevant today as ever. A while back I watched a debate between Peter Atkins and William Lane Craig. Atkins was simply talking past Craig. There were clear philosophical arguments for why Craig's theology is flawed, but you can't get to those with a purely scientific approach. Philosophy gives you important tools to defend science, and not just do science.

Philosphical arguments are currently going on in physics, as some String theorists are arguing that we may been to change the criteria for considering something a scientific fact, given that they want to keep researching but haven't delivered the goods in terms of evidence. That is a philosophical debate.

Then there is ethics, and politics, and multiculturalism (see how I link to the topic?). Those debates are basically philosophical.

672. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241308 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 5:15 am

Comment #241306 by Laurie Fraser

I remember that comment well, Steve - and thinking at the time "Who is that lunatic?"

I had been corrupted by the ideas of that great scientist Peter Atkins. However, as the case of Roger Penrose and consciousness shows, even the best can have some whacky ideas.

673. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241303 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 5:08 am

Comment #241299 by Brian English

honestly feel bad about the off the cuff remarks I made about Kant to Mike.

That can come nowhere near my statement many, many months ago that "philosophy is useless and will be replaced by science". Trust me, whatever you do someone will have done much worse.

674. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241289 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 4:45 am

Comment #241284 by Brian English

Sorry Brian, what I meant is that journalists will tend to look for a shocking angle (or rather spin a shocking angle) from a story. The most popular papers do this very effectively (I have to unfortunately mention the Daily Mail). What they do is make things seem more shocking than they usually are. It isn't that the shocking stuff isn't news, but that it isn't the only news, or perhaps it isn't even the most novel part of the story.

675. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241286 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 4:40 am

Comment #241282 by John Locke

but the misleading title has got us all reading it, so its got its message accross more effectively thanks to its title i would argue.

That is an interesting perspective.

676. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241283 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 4:39 am

Comment #241280 by Quetzalcoatl

I'd like to add to this.

677. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241276 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 4:33 am

Comment #241273 by epeeist

Yeah, I know I am being naive.

However:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4260000/newsid_4266600/4266611.stm

Comes close.

I liked:
"The quake was quite a small one compared to others around the world, but was quite a big one for the UK.".... we aren't very good at quakes, but we do our best.

678. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241271 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 4:22 am

Comment #241268 by Brian English

Nice to see you posting again!

Simply, the news report the most novel (which can mean brutal) thing going on

Sure, but the problem is that many journalists seem to define brutal or shocking as the most novel thing.

Which means they will keep producing shocking and depressing headlines when there may be some pretty positive stuff to report.

On the other hand, I think I recall someone trying to produce a cheery newspaper at some point, but no-one brought it.

679. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241264 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 4:12 am

Comment #241257 by Ian

The headline writer and you both mislead me into assuming this was bad news when it is good.

This is a general problem in the media - it isn't restricted to any particular political stance. Journalists tend to be after the most exciting angle they can find in a story, and "we are making progress" doesn't shock you into reading the story. This usually isn't too bad, if the more complex situation is presented in the article, but the headline can be the thing that sticks in the mind, and influences people's thoughts.

I believe even some reputable publications are guilty of this. Even New Scientist tends to publish quite complex stories with misleading headlines like "Black Holes don't exist!" or "The end of Relativity?"

680. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241255 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 3:55 am

Comment #241248 by Diacanu

PM for you.

681. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241254 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 3:54 am

Comment #241251 by Quetzalcoatl

Comment #241234
Comment #241240
Comment #241244

682. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241249 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 3:46 am

Comment #241248 by Diacanu

Don't worry, I will provoke no more, so things may quieten down. I think I have made my points clearly and often enough!

683. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241244 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 3:20 am

Comment #241243 by Fanusi Khiyal

I fail to see how agreeing with someone who has the facts is a bad thing.

You are a bright guy, careful with words.

What you did was to cherry-pick from the story, to clearly imply that "the system" was failing to confront forced marriages, whereas the story shows a major victory - "the system" has produced this important bill. I would expect that of a journalist with an agenda, but not someone who posts at a site for rationalist and clear thinking, and wishes to support those values.

Things aren't black and white. They aren't all gloom and doom. If you make the hill we have to climb look too steep, many will give up. We have to celebrate victories, and not try and spin everything in the worst way.

684. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241240 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 3:08 am

Comment #241237 by Fanusi Khiyal

What is difficult about the statement that if a politician describes the attitudes of her fellow politicians she probably has a better handle on that then you or I?

I am sure she has, and she has had a long fight, and I congratulate her.

Buy my congratulations is in stark contrast to your smearing of politicians in general and the "system". There is a long fight ahead in many areas, and this article shows that we can make progress. But people like you aren't helping if you don't recognise the victories.

Why don't you join me in recognising that the current goverment is actually doing something important and praiseworthy, instead of trying to spread nothing but gloom and doom?

685. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241236 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 2:58 am

Fanusi-

The politician in question having written the following:

And now has succeeded in passing a major bill on the issue with the support of the Prime Minister. What part of that simple concept eludes you?

686. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241234 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 2:54 am

Comment #241231 by John Locke

I was referring to was this statement:

Our politicians in action. What a wonderful system.

This "wonderful" system is currently working on introducing legal measures to protect women against forced marriages, so to imply that the system is failing, and that politicians in general are not taking action is clearly wrong.

Fanusi is a bright guy. He clearly realises the implications of such a generalisation, and that it isn't justified by the article.

It is a constant drip-feed of spin to imply that the liberal left are helpless, and doing nothing, so as to encourage people to support his right-wing agenda.

687. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241229 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 2:47 am

Comment #241227 by Fanusi Khiyal

What you seem to not understand, for whatever reason, is that the title of the article is "spin", as was your response. You manage to spin an article about the introduction of a Forced Marriages bill as political inaction, and "politicians" (note the generalisation) being too scared to do anything. That is quite an amazing feat. I hope politicians show an equal "lack of courage" in other areas.... they might actually get something done.

Go Fanusi! You should have a great career in advertising or politics!

(Oh, and next time you talk about the left wing not doing anything about the problem, we can say you are "Cryer"ing wolf!)

688. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241218 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 2:33 am

Comment #241217 by Fanusi Khiyal

she herself says that the problem of forced marriages is being ignored by politicians.

Oh, for goodness sake Fanusi! She has put a flipping bill through to help deal with the problems of forced marriages! Perhaps you could explain how, in your reality, that can be called "ignoring the problem"?

Or does it so shatter your worldview that a liberal left-winger actually gives a damn and has done something significant at the highest levels, that this has hit some kind of mental blind spot?

689. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241213 by Steve Zara on September 2, 2008 at 2:22 am

Comment #241210 by Laurie Fraser

Indeed. The title seems a bit ironic, considering the article is an interview with the politician Ann Cryer, who is speaking out against arranged marriages, and has the support of the Prime Minister. Her Forced Marriage Act will come into effect this month. Some politicians are afraid, she suggests, but she isn't and she is criticising them quite clearly.

So, instead of "politicians" being too afraid, it shows that some senior politicians are not afraid, and are prepared to take significant and important action.

I don't see how passing a bill against Forced Marriages can be condered "inaction" or a "poor system", but then I guess I have forgotten to put on my Right Wing Blinkers today.

690. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241068 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Comment #241064 by debacles

Colbert is not just a Catholic, but teaches at Sunday School. I would think it is very likely indeed he believes in a personal god.

691. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241060 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Comment #241059 by mordacious1

See what happens when you spend time doing blockquotes?

Indeed I do!

692. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241058 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Comment #241056 by debacles

Anyone who thinks for a second that Colbert isn't one of us is wrong.

The "real" Stephen Colbert is a practising Catholic.

693. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241027 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Comment #241025 by Diacanu

In warm fuzzy feelings land.

If only it stayed there. Funny how often the warm fuzzies lead to "gays are sinful" and "condoms are bad".

694. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241024 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 2:55 pm

David Robertson-

But for people who anticipate the day when there will be no debate (after the children have all been brain washed into the atheist truth) I guess that does not matter too much.

Have you actually read the thread - the arguments about foreground and background? The comparison of atheism with bare theism? Do you really have any idea what we are talking about here?

There is no brain-washing. Simply telling children than they can't get away with saying "I know what God thinks - trust me". Because, that is all theistic religions are based on - that is why there is nonsense written about "different kinds of evidence" (such as the type you don't have to justify).

695. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241021 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Robertson-

Because we will all just know the one truth - there will be no need for debate.

There will be plenty of debate, but hopefully people won't be able to get away with saying that they are right because of faith or a revelatory experience. That would be major progress - for people to have to justify views with rational argument and evidence.

696. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240996 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 11:53 am

Comment #240991 by Bonzai

I agree.

697. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240989 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 11:32 am

What Robertson desperately wants is to convince people that atheism is a competing framework of belief that can be put alongside religion. If someone implies "atheism is as open to criticism as religion" that is basically agreeing with Robertson. It is not that we don't want to agree with Robertson, it is that his proposition is wrong. Atheism is not a framework.

What he should be attempting to critique is not atheism, but rationalism and materialism - the frameworks that do compete with religion.

698. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240982 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 11:20 am

Comment #240979 by Bonzai

Did jmac say it does? Maybe I am missing something.

Not explicitly, no. But implicitly, and I suspect unintentionally, in his use of language. I was trying to point out why that implicit statement was a problem, and so language should be changed.

699. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240981 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 11:18 am

Comment #240977 by J Mac

I really do think you are missing the point which I had hoped I had explained clearly in Comment #240966.

This isn't about trying to avoid critcism, it is about basic definitions and use of language. Language can be a minefield. If you say "atheists will do something" then someone will justifiably assume that you are talking specifically about atheists, who are doing that thing because they are atheists. I really do think it is that simple.

700. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240978 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 11:14 am

Comment #240976 by Bonzai

People fight wars in the name of religion because the religion supposedly provides them with certain rules.

Atheism (like bare theism), provides no such rules.